Pages

Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts

The Myth of an Impure GOP



http://www.nationalreview.com
It’s hard for a lot of people, particularly on the right, to recognize that the conservative movement’s problems are mostly problems of success. But the Republican party’s problems are much more recognizable as the problems of failure, including the failure to recognize the limits of that movement’s success.
American conservatism began as a kind of intellectual hobbyists’ group with little hope of changing the broader society. Albert Jay Nock, the cape-wearing libertarian intellectual — he called himself a “philosophical anarchist” — who inspired a very young William F. Buckley Jr., argued that political change was impossible because the masses were rubes, goons, fools, or sheep, victims of the eternal tendency of the powerful to exploit the powerless.
Buckley, who rightly admired Nock for many things, rightly disagreed on this point. Buckley trusted the people more than the intellectuals. Moreover, as Buckley’s friend Richard Weaver said, “ideas have consequences,” and, consequently, it is possible to rally the public to your cause.
It took time. In an age when conservative books make millions, it’s hard to imagine how difficult it once was to get a right-of-center book published. Henry L. Regnery, the founder of the publishing house that bears his name, started his venture to break the wall of groupthink censorship surrounding the publishing industry. With a few exceptions, Regnery was the only game in town for decades.
That’s hardly the case anymore. While there’s a higher bar for conservative authors at mainstream publishers (which remain overwhelmingly liberal), profit tends to trump ideology.
And publishing is a lagging indicator. In cable news, think tanks, talk radio, and, of course, the Internet, conservatives have at least rough parity with, and often superiority to, liberals. It’s only in the legacy institutions — newspapers, the broadcast networks, and most especially academia and Hollywood — that conservatism is still largely frozen out. Nonetheless, conservatism is a mass-market enterprise these days, for good and for ill.
The good is obvious. The ill is less understood. For starters, the movement has an unhealthy share of hucksters eager to make money from stirring rage, paranoia, and an ill-defined sense of betrayal with little concern for the real political success that can come only with persuading the unconverted.
A conservative journalist or activist can now make a decent living while never once bothering to persuade a liberal. Telling people only what they want to hear has become a vocation. Worse, it’s possible to be a rank-and-file conservative without once being exposed to a good liberal argument. Many liberals lived in such an ideological cocoon for decades, which is one reason conservatives won so many arguments early on. Having the right emulate that echo chamber helps no one.
Ironically, the institution in which conservatives had their greatest success is the one most besieged by conservatives today: the Republican party. To listen to many grassroots conservatives, the GOP establishment is a cabal of weak-kneed sellouts who regularly light votive candles to a poster of liberal Republican icon Nelson Rockefeller.
This is not only not true, it’s a destructive myth. The Rockefeller Republicans were purged from the GOP decades ago. Their high-water mark was in 1960, when the Goldwater insurgency was temporarily crushed. Richard Nixon agreed to run on a platform all but dictated by Rockefeller and to tap Rockefeller’s minion Henry Cabot Lodge as his running mate. When the forebears of today’s tea partiers threatened to stay home or bolt the party in 1960, Senator Barry Goldwater proclaimed, “Let’s grow up, conservatives!”
It’s still good advice. It’s not that the GOP isn’t conservative enough, it’s that it isn’t tactically smart or persuasive enough to move the rest of the nation in a more conservative direction. Moreover, thanks in part to the myth that all that stands between conservatives and total victory is a philosophically pure GOP, party leaders suffer from a debilitating lack of trust — some of it well earned — from the rank and file.
But politics is about persuasion, and a party consumed by the need to prove its purity to its base is going to have a very hard time proving anything else to the rest of the country.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO. © 2013 Tribune Media Services, Inc.

Top Dems urging Obama to raise debt ceiling all voted against increase in ’06


Photo - President Barack Obama gestures as he answers a question during a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
President Barack Obama gestures as he answers a question during a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Friday, Jan. 11, 2013. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)
On Friday the Democratic leadership of the Senate — Majority Leader Harry Reid, Assistant Majority Leader Richard Durbin, Conference Chair Charles Schumer, and Conference Secretary Patty Murray — wrote to President Obama urging him to unilaterally raise the debt ceiling in the event that Republicans either block such an increase or attempt to pass one “as part of unbalanced or unreasonable legislation.”
“We believe that you must make clear that you will never allow our nation’s economy and reputation to be held hostage,” the Democrats wrote.  “We believe you must be willing to take any lawful steps to ensure that America does not break its promises and trigger a global economic crisis — without congressional approval, if necessary.”
Put aside the picture of leading lawmakers, usually so jealous of their constitutional prerogatives, asking the president to ignore Congress.  What is striking about the letter is that every one of its signers — Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray — voted againstraising the nation’s debt ceiling just seven years ago.
On March 16, 2006, the Senate held a vote on a measure to raise the debt ceiling by $781 billion — the fourth such vote of George W. Bush’s presidency.  Republicans controlled the Senate, and Democrats spent much of the debate railing against Bush’s spending.  “When it comes to deficits, this president owns all the records,” said Reid.  “The three largest deficits in our nation’s history have all occurred under this administration’s watch.”
Declaring themselves outraged by such spending, Reid, Durbin, Schumer, and Murray all voted against raising the debt limit.  So did every other Democrat — including Sen. Barack Obama.  But on Friday, the four lawmakers urged now-President Obama not only to raise the ceiling but to do it in a constitutionally risky fashion by going over the head of Congress.
In the summer of 2011, during the last debt ceiling fight, Reid conceded his ’06 vote was all about politics.  “I shouldn’t have done that,” he told ABC’s Jonathan Karl.  “I’m kind of embarrassed I did. It was a political maneuver by we Democrats.”  But now, Reid and his colleagues have come up with yet another political maneuver — a possibly unconstitutional one — in urging the president to ignore Congress in a matter in which Congress has a critical role to play.

Republicans deserved to lose



http://www.nationalreview.com
The beginning of a new year is often a time to look forward and look back. The way the future looks, I prefer to look back — and depend on my advanced age to spare me from having to deal with too much of the future.
If there are any awards to be given to anyone for what they did in 2012, one of those rewards should be for prophecy, if only because prophecies that turn out to be right are so rare.
With that in mind, my choice for the prediction of the year award goes to Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal for his column of January 24, 2012, titled: “The GOP Deserves to Lose.”
Despite reciting a litany of reasons why President Obama deserved to be booted out of the White House, Stephens said, “Let’s just say right now what voters will be saying in November, once Barack Obama has been re-elected: Republicans deserve to lose.”
To me, the Republican establishment is the eighth wonder of the world. How they can keep repeating the same mistakes for decades on end is beyond my ability to explain.
Bret Stephens said, back at the beginning of 2012, that Mitt Romney was one of the “hollow men,” and that voters “usually prefer the man who stands for something.”
Yet this is not just about Mitt Romney. He is only the latest in a long series of presidential candidates backed by a Republican establishment that seems convinced that ad hoc “moderation” is where it’s at — no matter how many of their ad hoc moderates get beaten by even vulnerable, unknown, or discredited Democrats.
Back in 1948, when the Democratic party splintered into three parties, each one with its own competing presidential candidate, Republican candidate Thomas E. Dewey was considered a shoo-in.
Best-selling author David Halberstam described what happened: “Dewey’s chief campaign tactic was to make no mistakes, to offend no one. His major speeches, wrote the Louisville Courier Journal, could be boiled down ‘to these historic four sentences: Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. The future lies ahead . . . ’”
Does this sound like a more recent Republican presidential candidate?
Meanwhile, President Harry Truman was on the attack in 1948, with speeches that had many people saying, “Give ’em hell, Harry.” He won, even with the Democratic vote split three ways.
But, to this day, the Republican establishment still goes for pragmatic moderates who feed pablum to the public, instead of treating them like adults.
It is not just Republican presidential candidates who cannot be bothered to articulate a coherent argument, instead of ad hoc talking points. Have you yet heard House Speaker John Boehner take the time to spell out why Barack Obama’s argument for taxing “millionaires and billionaires” is wrong?
It is not a complicated argument. Moreover, it is an argument that has been articulated many times in plain English by conservative talk-show hosts and by others in print. It has nothing to do with being worried about the fate of millionaires or billionaires, who can undoubtedly take care of themselves.
What we all should be worried about are high tax rates driving American investments overseas, when there are millions of Americans who could use the jobs that those investments would create at home.
Yet Obama has been allowed to get away with the emotional argument that the rich can easily afford to pay more, as if that is the issue. But it will be the issue if no one says otherwise.
One of the recent sad reminders of the Republicans’ tendency to leave even lies and smears unanswered was a television replay of an old interview with the late Judge Robert Bork, whose nomination to the Supreme Court was destroyed by character assassination.
Judge Bork said that he was advised not to answer Ted Kennedy’s wild accusations because those false accusations would discredit themselves. That supposedly sophisticated advice cost the country one of the great legal minds of our time — and left us with a wavering Anthony Kennedy in his place on the Supreme Court.
Some people may take solace from the fact that there are some articulate Republicans like Marco Rubio who may come forward in 2016. But with Iran going nuclear and North Korea developing missiles that can hit California, it may be too late by then.
— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2012 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

The Long Game

By Andrew Klavan
City Journal
http://www.city-journal.org


7 November 2012

Life is short, said Hippocrates, but art is long. There is a practical corollary to that great truth: elections are won and lost in the politics of the moment, but it’s the culture that makes the nation.
In the aftermath of President Obama’s victory, conservative political thinkers will have to ask themselves some hard questions. How much of our defeat was due to strategy and how much to structure? How can we reach out to struggling workers without sacrificing our commitment to free enterprise and individual liberty? How can we speak to single women without losing voters committed to family values and the lives of the unborn? How can we welcome the children of illegal immigrants without compromising our belief in the rule of law?
The smartest political writers in the country, all of whom are conservative, will now be addressing those questions. I’m an artist; I play the long game.
To win that game, to create an electorate more deeply committed to true liberty and resistant to the sort of cultural scare tactics the president’s campaign team used so effectively, there are three areas to which conservatives need to commit intellectual and financial resources—three areas that our intelligentsia and funders, in their impractical practicality, too often ignore.
The mainstream news media. Major news outlets, like ABC, NBC, CBS, and the still influential New York Times have now become so ideologically corrupt that they are engaging in the sort of Nixonian cover-ups they once prided themselves on exposing. Their studied creation of non-scandal scandals and non-gaffe gaffes on the right and their active suppression of such true scandals as Fast and Furious and Benghazi on the left amount to journalistic malpractice on behalf of the state. The late Andrew Breitbart understood the depth and extent of the problem better than the cooler establishment heads who wrinkled their noses at him. He declared a guerrilla war on the media in the name of truth.
While Breitbart disciples like John Nolte, Ben Shapiro, and Joel Pollak continue that underground fight, it is long past time for conservative minds and money to take the battle to the mainstream. How is it possible that the mind-boggling success of Fox News has failed to spawn half a dozen imitators at least—especially venues for the libertarian young with their antic sense of political incorrectness? Rupert Murdoch, God love him, can’t live forever. It’s time for others to step up.
The entertainment industry. Conservatives think when they have won an argument in the newspapers, the fight is over. Leftists know their Hippocrates. They know they can rewrite history in novels, on TV, and in the movies, and a generation later, their false versions will be accepted as truth. As former ambassador Joseph Wilson said, when his questionable actions were rendered heroic in the dishonest movie Fair Game: “For people who have short memories or don’t read, this is the only way they will remember the period.” It’s not that conservative ideas don’t make their way into popular entertainment; it’s that they always come in disguise. Even leftists love deeply conservative films like theLord of the Rings and Dark Knight trilogies, because they recognize good values when they’re not forced to apply them to real life. But conservatives themselves quail when conservatives speak their values plainly in the arts. Too preachy, they cry, too much propaganda, too much . . . too much . . . conservatism! We don’t need more conservative artists. We need an infrastructure to support them: more funding, more distribution, sympathetic review venues, grants and awards for arts that speak the truth out loud.
Religion for intellectuals. Normally, I would have said number three was “reforming the academy,” but I believe this is where the fight for the academy is centered. Recently, a number of books by secular intellectuals have noted the disaster that is postmodern relativism—the nihilist philosophy that has corrupted and gutted Western liberal education. Education’s End, by Anthony T. Kronman, Why We Should Call Ourselves Christians, by Marcello Pera, and What Ever Happened to Modernism?, by Gabriel Josipovici, come to mind. All lament the abandonment of our commitment to the Great Conversation—the intellectual’s belief that the creative tension of the uniquely brilliant Western literary and philosophical canon can lead us in the direction of moral truth.
But the authors cannot fully grasp the nettle of the solution. Many assume that the Great Conversation depended on the sort of open mind only secularism can provide. As Kronman puts it: “Every religion insists, at the end of the day, that there is only one right answer to the question of life’s meaning,” thus rendering the pluralism of the Great Conversation impossible. I would contend the opposite: only the existence of a God in whose image we are created can support the notion of moral truth at all. It was always Judeo-Christianity, and that alone, that made the Great Conversation possible. Pera understands this intellectually, but cannot really plunk for faith. And therein lies the problem. The triumph of science, the comfort of Western life, and a sophisticated elite virulently hostile to religion have all contributed to an intellectual atmosphere of unbelief—a sense that atheism should be the default mode of reasonable, thinking people. That is a mere prejudice and needs to be answered in the culture, not with Bible-thumping literalism and small-minded judgmentalism—nor with banal happy-talk optimism—but by sound argument made publicly, unabashedly, and without fear. John Adams and the other Founders were right about this: an irreligious people cannot be free. Liberty lives in the palace of moral truth, and you can’t build that palace on the empty air.
In the aftermath of a crushing electoral defeat, all this may seem a distant business, an airy conversation for another day. It isn’t. The demography of the country is changing, but demography is not destiny. Ideas are. We must retake the culture and begin speaking truth to a new America.

Danny DeVito's Union Thugs and Tuesday's Vote

By J. Christian Adams
PJ Media
November 3, 2012


We can learn a lot from Democrats by what they oppose. While Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings tells us there is no vote fraud, fellow Maryland congressional candidate Wendy Rosen is committing federal felonies by voting both in Maryland and Florida. While the NAACP is leading the charge against photo voter identification, Lessadolla Sowers from the NAACP heads off to prison for voting for dead voters. While Brian Moran, Virginia’s Democrat chair, rails againstvoter integrity, his nephew Pat is caught on camera plotting the use of forged documents at the polls to help President Obama.
Indeed, we learn much by what they oppose. It certainly explains their existential opposition to True the Vote’straining of the poll-watching army on Tuesday.
But this year, their hypocrisy has reached a diabolical crescendo. The Obama campaign has sought to unleash law enforcement officials across the United States against law-abiding citizens who exercised state and federal laws to clean up the voter rolls and monitor the polls.
It is bad enough when Eric Holder refuses to enforce laws to maintain the voter rolls. It is even worse when his political buddies like Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer try to intimidate people who clean up Holder’s mess by badgering state election officials.
As Michael Barone aptly identified this crowd years ago – Obama runs a thugocracy. For that reason alone, in a land that loves liberty, they must be removed from power on Tuesday.
The Obama thugs have infiltrated every corner of the nation – from Sowers at civil rights groups like the NAACP, to the spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler at the Justice Department who smoothed over the bloody Fast and Furious mayhem; from Malik Zulu Shabazz getting a pass on voter intimidation, to the petty, small, impersonal lifelong bureaucrat Steve Rosenbaum at the DOJ who made it happen. Each person plays a small part in making the thugocracy function.
Rosenbaum, Sowers, Schmaler and Shabazz
Because America is a land with chords of memory which find thuggery anathema, Obama will lose on Tuesday.
I first experienced the rising thugocracy watching a famous Hollywood celebrity lead a rally where Republican voters were intimidated from entering the polls to vote. I was in West Palm Beach, Florida, in 2004 at the early voting site on Military Trail. There, a giant purple SEIU rally stood in front of the single entrance. Danny DeVito led the mob.
I watched Bush voter after Bush voter (known by bumperstickers) at DeVito’s rally suffer identification by a SEIU member posted in the parking lot. As each voter exited their car, the SEIU thug pointed and followed the person, announcing to the mob that they were a voter for Bush.  The mob made passage difficult to impossible.
I was not alone in watching DeVito’s SEIU mob block the polls. National Review had this to say at the time:
We’re already witnessing the organized bullying of voters in the hotly contested swing state of Florida. According to a disturbing report in the South Florida Sun-Sentinel: “With early voting taking place in busy public places like City Halls and libraries, voters are voicing complaints of being blocked by political mobs, or being singled out for their political views. Others say they have been grabbed, screamed at and cursed by political partisans of all stripes.”
“Special-interest groups are trying to whip everybody into a frenzy and get everybody upset,” LePore said. “Campaigns and their observers are confronting the workers and the voters. Things have gotten nasty and ugly.”   “LePore said campaign workers followed voters into polling places and handed out literature next to the voting machines. Other voters standing in line were told the machines don’t work and that they should vote absentee.”
Actors Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman led a rally at the entrance to another polling location, prompting poll watcher Lawrence Gottfried to intervene. “I said, ‘Look Mr. DeVito, I’m a big fan of yours and Rhea’s, but you are blocking the entrance.
I was there. The account in National Review is accurate. Danny DeVito egged on union thugs who were preventing Republicans from entering the polls.
Did the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights care about “election protection” then? Did the NAACP issue statements condemning the use of purple-shirt muscle from blocking the polls? Did Demos, Common Cause, or the League of Women Voters issue a report in 2004 about “Bullies at the Ballot Box”?
Of course not. Because every last one of these rotted groups exist to help Democrats, period. They have lost the moral high ground they held a generation ago and are now partisan tools and officers in Obama’s thugocracy.
The SEIU folks, the foot soldiers in the thugocracy who were blocking voters in Florida, are not only silent in 2012, they are now sending threatening letters to True the Vote. The SEIU is suddenly concerned about people feeling intimidated at the polls by elderly poll watchers with clipboards trained by True the Vote.
That’s what thugs do: engage in thuggery, and then claim your opponent is doing it.
America take note. These are the hard cold facts. A vast Machine exists to push the election outcome in one direction. The Machine includes partisan organizations masquerading as civil rights groups. It champions an attorney general and president schooled in the hard arts of racial community organizing. It benefits from election bureaucrats who turn a blind eye toward lawbreakers and polluted voter rolls. Hollywood stars like Danny DeVito and Cher lead the attack on law-abiding Americans who stand up for the Rule of Law. And stooges in the media gobble up the narrative of the law breakers.
The only thing left to oppose this Machine, this corrosion of law and liberty, is you. Tuesday is the day you get to decide whether America is a land where a thugocracy can flourish, or whether freedom’s holy light will thrive. The founders of this great land foresaw a day like November 6, 2012. Every patriot who came before you acted. Now it is your turn.

BFD: Biden's Failed Debate

By William L. Gensert
http://www.americanthinker.com
October 12, 2012


This administration does not lend itself well to the split screen and the VP might very well need psychiatric care. 
His smile was frightening.  For most of the night Joe Biden looked like the Joker -- Nicholson not Ledger.
After 3 ½ years of Biden's playing the fool, it is hard to remember he was once considered a serious man, a serious politician.  But...Barack wasn't looking for a serious politician -- he wanted a court jester -- and that's what he got. 
Now, after playing the fool for so long he has become the fool.  Yet, in the debate he wanted to again be a serious man -- or at least play one on TV.  He clearly showed why Clint Eastwood called him the "intellect" of the Democrat Party.
Yet this debate wasn't like the one last week, where the loss was thorough and complete.  On substance, it was Joseph Biden's most coherent moment in many years.  If not for his behavior, which bordered on bizarre, he probably could have claimed at least a tie. 
But, people don't like hyper-aggressive, rude leaders.  Voters want to like their politicians and it's hard to like the nasty guy in the room.
And another thing, blaming the administration's disastrous response to the killing of our Libyan Ambassador on the intelligence community was singularly unwise.  After all, who knows better how to clandestinely leak information damaging to the administration than a spy?
Biden leaned heavily on:
"Middle class, middle class, middle class..."
"47%, 47%, 47%..."
"My friend says, my friend will, my friend believes..."
...It wasn't long before it was obvious he was not using "friend" affectionately.
When Ryan mentioned Romney's generosity, Biden aired out his inner Soptic and talked about his late wife and child, both killed in a car accident years ago.  I thought it was inappropriate, but from his face and demeanor, it seemed to be his one truly sincere moment.
The gaffes rolled on:
"I always say what I mean."
"4% green jobs didn't go under."
"Every senior, 55 and below."
Ryan smiled and Joe smirked.
Ryan explained and Joe seethed.
Ryan spoke and Biden looked manic.
Biden had a problem waiting his turn.  Reince Priebus, head of the RNC said the Vice President interrupted Ryan "82 times."  When he wasn't interrupting, he was visibly snarling at a composed Ryan. 
He seemed to want America to see the contempt he had for "his friend."  Rude and cranky, he laughed and made funny faces.  He was constantly rolling his eyes, his face wild with derision, while waving his pen like a light saber from Star Wars. 
During the last debate the President acted like a corpse.  In this debate Biden played a zombie from 28 Days Later.  I half expected him to lean over and take a bite out of Ryan's arm with those scarily white teeth.
...And why did he have such trouble with the numbers?
"800 million, billion dollars"
"2 billion, 2 trillion."
There is nothing like being precise.
And why is everyone from this administration so angry all the time?  Aren't they the incumbents?
A one point, raising his voice to just below scream level, Biden lectured and seemed to almost threaten the moderator with that pen.  Has anyone wielded a pen with such malice since Bob Dole?  At least he used the pen as a prop to cover up for a war injury; Biden seemed to think it was a weapon.
When Ryan spoke and the split screen disappeared, banging and snorting could be heard.  I don't think it was the moderator.  Was this Biden's sleep apnea or perhaps latent Tourette Syndrome?
Of course, Biden is no Barack Obama and I would say until the closing portion, on the merits of their arguments at least, it was a tie.
But, once Biden whined about only getting 15 seconds to Ryan's 40 seconds, it was over.  If you yell at a moderator during a debate, you better make sure you are in the right, which Martha Raddatz pointed out firmly he wasn't.
Incidentally, Raddatz did a decent job, as did Jim Lehrer last week.  She interrupted Ryan more than once to keep him from making his point, or scoring points, but she asked pointed questions and at least challenged Biden on occasion.  That's the problem with Barack and Joe; they can't even play nice with people who are clearly their allies. 
In the battle of the closing statements, Ryan clearly won. 
In the end, Ryan was measured, concise and serious, while Biden was manic, rude and Joker-like...again, Nicholson not Ledger.
Watching both Biden's and Obama's performances at the 2 debates, an undecided voter would still be clueless as to what the administration is proposing for a second term, except perhaps to move "forward" headlong into the same policies of the last 3 ½ years.
Many voters will find that scarier than big, bad Biden's manic grin.

If last night's GOP convention seemed to have a stunning lack of diversity...


**Written by Doug Powers
http://www.michellemalkin.com



...you were probably watching MSNBC:





When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.

MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.

Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.

And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.

Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC.





Hey, if it doesn't fit the talking points, just don't show it. VoilĂ !

If you happened to have been stuck in a place that only had MSNBC on, The Right Scoop has the speeches of Davis, Cruz, Love, etc. posted here.



While we ponder how MSNBC will manage to avoid showing tonight's speeches by Condoleezza Rice and Governor Luis Fortuño in order for Chris Matthews to have more time to discuss the GOP's dog whistle racism, enjoy this headline at the Washington Post.



Update: Via Instapundit, have a look at NBC's section featuring Tuesday night's RNC speeches. The people mentioned above have been erased from history.



**Written by Doug Powers

Twitter @ThePowersThatBe

The Left's Version of 'Legitimate Rape'

By Daniel Greenfield
http://frontpagemag.com
August 27, 2012


The progressives have picked a spectacularly bad time to attack Republicans over insensitivity to rape. While the left continues its obsession with Todd Akin, its own hero, Julian Assange, is doing his best to avoid being extradited to Sweden to face rape charges.

The leading lights of the left have contributed to Assange’s defense fund and paid for his bail; which enabled him to flee prosecution and seek asylum in Ecuador’s embassy in London. Assange’s escape was made possible by bail money from leftist director Ken Loach, leftist socialite Jemima Khan and Maxim publisher Felix Dennis.

With the Assange case, the left has shown that it has its own version of legitimate rape. Prominent progressives have ridiculed Assange’s victims and claimed that the assaults on them did not constitute legitimate rape. Or as Whoopi Goldberg once put it, “rape-rape.”

Michael Moore, discussing the case where Assange raped a sleeping woman, told the BBC that the assault was only a “so-called crime” and suggested that it “wouldn’t actually be a crime if it was committed in Britain.” Moore has shown his faith in Assange’s legitimate rape by donating $20,000 to Assange’s defense fund.

Recently Michael Moore teamed up with Oliver “Hitler was misunderstood” Stone to write a New York Times editorial that claimed Ecuador’s refusal to hand over a rape suspect was “in accordance with important principles of international human rights” and ladled on conspiracy theories to avoid dealing with the fact that the left had chosen to back a progressive rapist over his victims.

Keith Olbermann went even further than Moore, retweeting a link from Bianca Jagger to an article written by a neo-Nazi Holocaust denier that named Assange’s victims and accused them of working for the CIA. UK Left-wing activist Craig Murray named one of the victims, prefacing his statement by saying, “Let us look at the conduct of these women.”

Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, branded the rape charges false and slanderous. Naomi Wolf suggested that Assange’s accusers don’t deserve to have their anonymity protected by rape shield laws and accused them of “using feminist-inspired rhetoric and law to assuage what appears to be personal injured feelings.”

George Galloway, who became a hero to the American left for his defense of Saddam Hussein, said that even if the two women were telling the truth, the only thing that Assange was really guilty of was “bad sexual etiquette.” Galloway is currently a part-time Muslim and it is hard to say whether his notion that rape is just “bad sexual etiquette” is rooted in him being a bad human being or in the pages of the Koran.

Ecuador’s leftist leader Rafael Correa echoed Galloway, saying that “the case would not in his view constitute criminal behavior in Latin America.” That might explain why over half of Ecuador’s schoolgirls have reported experiencing sexual abuse in schools. It might also explain why Daniel Camargo Barbosa, one of the worst rapists and serial killers in history, chose, like Assange, to escape to Ecuador and was able to kill 71 girls there in two years.

Domestic abuse and sexual assault are commonplace in Ecuador and most rapes go unreported. That, along with its left-wing government, makes Ecuador a natural destination of choice for Julian Assange. And the horrors in Ecuador have not stopped the left from holding a vigil outside Ecuador’s embassy in support of Assange and Ecuador’s leftist regime.

The Occupy Wall Street movement sent out a message urging an occupation of the British consulate in solidarity with Assange. The Occupy movements had become notorious for their sexual assaults, including the abuse of a 14-year-old girl. Occupy Baltimore had put out a pamphlet urging members not to report sexual assaults to the police. When a19-year-old girl was raped at Occupy Cleveland, Occupiers accused her, like Assange’s victims, of being a plant, giving us another glimpse of progressive rape culture.

Assange’s case is not unique. The Democratic Party is deeply tainted by activists who support rapists.
Recently, Jesse Jackson led a rally in Oklahoma for convicted rapist Darrell Williams. Williams had dragged one woman through a backyard and sexually assaulted her and had also assaulted another woman at that same party. Williams was convicted of two counts of rape by instrumentation and one count of sexual battery. In his defense, Jesse Jackson said, “Jesus was innocent, but convicted.”
Al Sharpton, like Jesse Jackson, also has a history of defending rapists. One of Sharpton’s most infamous moments, in a career full of them, was his involvement in the Dunbar Village case.

The full details of the Dunbar Village case are too horrific to go into at any length, but the crimes perpetrated there included the gang rape of a mother and the torture of her 12-year-old son. Both the victims and perpetrators in the Dunbar Village case were black. But Al Sharpton and the NAACP still chose speak out on behalf of the rapists while standing with their family members.

Todd Akin has never spoken at a Republican National Convention. But Al Sharpton spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. Jesse Jackson spoke at the Democratic National Convention in 1984, 1988 and 2000. The Democratic Party has yet to disavow either man.

Michael Moore was a high-profile guest at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. The Democratic Party has yet to disavow him. Two Democratic presidents have been accused of sexual assault, as have two Democratic senators who ran for president: Edward Kennedy and Chris Dodd.

Democratic Congressman David Wu was forced to resign just last year for forcing himself on a teenage girl. That same year Democratic Congressman Dale Kildee was accused of sexual abuse by a family member and Democratic Congressman Alcee Hastings was sued for sexual harassment.

The Democratic Party has never addressed its rape culture. Instead its politicians constantly harp on the importance of keeping abortion in the case of rape legal. With their track record, it is not hard to figure out why. The alternative, as Mary Jo Kopechne found out, involves killing both the mother and her child.

The question that intelligent people should ask themselves is whether what Todd Akin said was worse than what Ted Kennedy did? Is what Todd Akin said worse than aiding actual rapists as Michael Moore, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson have done? Is what Todd Akin said worse than trying to cover up actual rapes the way that Occupy Wall Street has done?

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Here Come the Closet Black Conservatives


By Pat Austin
http://www.americanthinker.com/
July 21, 2012


Rev. C.L. Bryant is making waves with his new documentary, Runaway Slave. I had the opportunity to preview the film in Bossier City, Louisiana, and I found the documentary thoroughly compelling.
Runaway Slave was conceived by Rev. Bryant and supported by private donations and FreedomWorks. It has been well-received in private screenings so far, often receiving standing ovations, and is poised to open in select theaters across the country next week. While at Regal Cinema 9 in Bossier City, it was the highest grossing film there.

Herman Cain caught a great deal of flak for his comment on the campaign trail that he "had left the Democratic plantation," but he's not the only one saying it. Indeed, C.L. Bryant has now joined the ranks of a number of black closet conservatives who are speaking out against big government, which is what they perceive to be the new plantation. And the list of black conservatives finding the courage to speak out is growing.

Joining Bryant in this documentary are famous faces like Herman Cain, Allen West, Thomas Sowell, AlfonZo Rachel, and Alveda King. Sirius radio host David Webb speaks out, and we meet a host of other black conservatives who share their stories such as Mason Weaver, Marvin D. Rogers, and K. Carl Smith, who is the founder of Frederick Douglass Republicans and subscribes to the "four life-affirming values of Douglass: respect for life, respect for the Constitution, belief in limited government and individual responsibility."

The film itself has a gritty, urban, edgy feel to it, at times contrasted with scenes of rolling hills and pastoral images of a beautiful America. The scene at the Jefferson Memorial will certainly bring a tear of pride to your eye.

Bryant travels across America, marching with the NAACP, asking questions, and stands thoughtfully at Tea Party rallies. He takes it all in and asks, "Why?" Why are we so racially divided when we all want the same thing? Bryant asks black Americans, "What are you being prevented from doing because of your skin color?"

The documentary also tells C.L.'s personal story. He grew up in Grand Cane and is a licensed and ordained minister. He lost his church when he began to speak at local Tea Party rallies and about his conservatism. Bryant was also NAACP chapter president in Garland, TX, a position he lost when he declined to speak at a pro-choice rally. Staunchly pro-life, Bryant has twice sacrificed his position to his values.

The main theme of the documentary is not new: the enslavement of black society by big government. People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are described in interviews as "race-hustlers" or "poverty pimps" because while they claim to represent the best interests of black America, they are profiting from the continued degraded status of blacks.

Technically, the film is a masterpiece in editing and symbolism. The theme of the underground railroad is ever-prevalent, and at one point, AlfonZo Rachel even says, "We've got a new underground railroad 2.0; we're kind of like the Harriet Tubmans of our day!" We often see Bryant walking down railroad tracks, standing in thought, or running down the tracks. He picks up a rusty railroad spike which, at the end, he throws forcefully off a railroad trestle into the river: freedom!

On his journey across America, one of the people Bryant talks to is author and pundit Star Parker. Parker is the author of Uncle Sam's Plantation: How Big Government Enslaves America's Poor and What We Can Do About It. She shares her compelling personal story from welfare to entrepreneurship in her book. In the documentary, she explains that "what broke down in black America is just a picture of what's breaking down in the rest of society. ... Not only has big government enslaved America's poor, but now we're looking at the extension of government into all communities."

In Uncle Sam's Plantation, Parker wrote, "A burgeoning lower class of people dependent on the government will likely continue voting for the party that keeps the handouts coming[.]" Thus, we have the stunning statistic that 95% of black Americans voted for Barack Obama in 2008. Statistically, black Americans have strongly voted for the Democratic party since 1936. That year, black voters came out 71% for FDR. Republicans have not been able to garner over 20% of the black vote since Nixon in 1960.

In one segment community leader Marvin D. Rogers gives Bryant a history lesson in which Rogers points out that Harriet Tubman, Sojourner Truth, Frederick Douglass, and Booker T. Washington were all Republicans. Republicans were in control of both houses of Congress when the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments were passed, which granted freedom, citizenship, voting rights, and due process to blacks. Rogers also explains that President Eisenhower, a Republican, signed into law the 1957 civil rights act, which set in motion the civil rights commission and created the civil rights division of the Justice Department. It was a Republican senator, Everett Dirksen who blocked a Democratic filibuster against the 1964 civil rights legislation. Dirksen said, "The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied."

Given all this, why such a monolithic turnout from the black community for the Democratic Party? This is one of the questions Runaway Slave attempts to answer. How has black America been improved by all these handouts? Part of the problem seems to be the controlled decimation of the black family perpetuated by the requirement that to receive that entitlement check, there must not be a father in the home. You get married, you lose your welfare check.

Planned Parenthood and the high rate of abortions in the black community are also cited. Most Planned Parenthood centers are in black communities; in New York in 2008, for example, more African-Americans had abortions than gave birth.

In her new book, Blacklash, Deneen Borelli asks, "Why aren't black kids improving and growing at the same rate as their peers? My opinion: It's all in the message from the career black politicians who promote big government solutions that result in stagnation and government dependence." The better way, Borelli suggests, is to quit blaming everyone else and take responsibility for your life. The Constitution does not guarantee you success, but it does guarantee you the opportunity for success.

Black conservatives are accustomed to the standard name-calling ("Sellout!" "Uncle Tom!"), and the personalities featured in this film simply brush it off. AlfonZo Rachel says, "I must be on the right track!" as he notes that Uncle Tom actually stood up to his master in the famous novel by Harriet Beecher Stowe and refused to whip another slave.

There will be many who won't have the courage to see this film, which opens in select theaters July 27. There will be many who scoff at C.L. Bryant and accuse him of being a sellout to the white man. But if we are ever to have a true discussion of race in this country, this documentary might be the place to start.




Nixon v. Johnson

A Watergate footnote you won't read about in Woodward and Bernstein.

By
The American Spectator
http://spectator.org/
June 14, 2012


WASHINGTON -- One of my favorite controversialists is back, Bob Woodward with his sidekick Carl Bernstein. Sunday in theWashington Post they wrote that Richard Nixon was more hideous than we have heretofore known. The 37th President conducted five wars while in office, according to the boys, and those do not even include his minor fracases, the Cold War against the Soviet Union and the Vietnam War.

I say Woodward is a controversialist. You might recall his controversial "interview" with CIA Director Bill Casey conducted on Bill's deathbed when no one was watching. It made it into Woodward's book Veil, saving its author from the embarrassment of admitting that Bill had kept Woodward utterly in the dark about Iran-Contra and so much else during their more conventional interviews earlier. This time Woodward somehow circumvented Bill's CIA guards, his doctors and nurses, his wife and daughter -- one of whom was in the hospital room at all times -- to get his incomparable interview. Moreover, Bill had completely lost the power of speech, his face being a mask of terrible deformity, as his friend Bert Jolis reported within days of the so-called interview. Woodward overcame every hurdle to extract from the dying man a confession of involvement in Iran-Contra about which Woodward knew nothing while writing the book. Possibly, he had disguised himself in Bill's hospital room as a cockroach.

So Woodward has returned and on the very same weekend when I was huffing and puffing my way past page 353 of Robert A. Caro's new 714-page treatment of Lyndon Baines Johnson, The Passage of Power. Despite the pious tosh that you hear from the enthusiasts of dying Liberalism, the book is a shabbily written monstrosity, but not without its usefulness.

To begin with, Caro's sentences judder along as though they were translated -- badly translated -- from the original German. His endnotes are so chaotic as to be useless to casual readers or even to scholars. Many of them are from secondary sources. For instance, Caro speaks of Camelot as though John F. Kennedy's White House was always called Camelot. Actually the administration did not receive the appellation until after the President's assassination. Then a distraught Jacqueline Kennedy arranged an interview with the journalist Theodore White and therein conjured up Camelot for future generations. If readers are unaware of this they can be excused, for Caro includes no citation. What exactly he thinks is unknown. Later he cites "détente" so vaguely that he might be referring to a policy of the New Frontier, though it was a policy of Henry Kissinger and Richard Nixon -- again he gives us no endnote. I really do not know what Caro knows either about Camelot or détente.

Richard Nixon, that name again. The reminder of him provokes a fugitive thought: how would Woodward, or for that matter Caro, compare Nixon and Johnson. Nixon labored to end the war that John Kennedy created and Lyndon Johnson bungled at massive expense in lives and treasure. Nixon was on track to save South Vietnam before he was driven from office. Nixon did save the state of Israel even as he was fighting off impeachment. He and Kissinger played the Soviet Union and China like a Stradivarius, ending the performance with China as a virtual ally. All and all, it was not a bad record.

Then there is Johnson. Among Caro's many infelicities, lazy research is not one of them. He faithfully records how President Johnson turned the purchase of a $17,500 radio station into a vast media fortune through the manipulation of such federal agencies as the FCC. By middle age he, a lifelong government employee, was a millionaire. He stole his first election -- in high school! -- his Senate seat in 1948, and the state of Texas for his running mate in 1960. That last race being against Nixon, who would not contest the contest. Then there is his psychological makeup. He was insecure, unstable, often a wreck. As vice president he was an emotional ruin from run-ins with the Kennedys until that sad day in Dallas when, in a car ahead of him, John Kennedy was shot.

Almost eerily within minutes of the President's death Johnson underwent a kind of emotional epiphany, rising to his former bluff, albeit phony, self. Very rudely within a half hour of Bob Kennedy's discovery of his brother's death President Johnson called to conduct business. The insensitivity is shocking.

Yet ever since Nixon was driven from office we have been led to believe Nixon was squirrely and a threat to our democratic ways, and Johnson was… well, what was Johnson? We are on the road to national bankruptcy because of his poorly funded policies today. I say, wherever he is, bring back Nixon. Nixon's the one.

THE RECALL HEARD AROUND THE WORLD

By Ann Coulter
http://www.anncoulter.com/
June 6, 2012


Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker addresses supporters Tuesday night after winning the Wisconsin recall election, defeating Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

I watched the Wisconsin returns on MSNBC Tuesday night, and it came right down to the wire between "the Democrats were outspent 7-to-1" and "Republicans are stripping union rights!" As we go to press it's still too close to call.

President Obama wanted to go to Wisconsin, but he just didn't have time. He's been doing so many campaign fundraisers lately he barely has time to play golf.

The left's "outspent" argument is ridiculous. Unions take money by force from members, hire hundreds of political operatives and give them salaries to work on campaigns, then call them "volunteers" so their work isn't reported as a campaign contribution.

Luckily for them, government employees' non-punishing work schedules leave them plenty of time to be in a constant state of grievance, demanding recalls after any election they lose, and mobilizing voters.

This election had nothing to do with people being paid a fair wage for the work they do. The question is: Do you want a society where the people whose salaries you pay make more than those who pay them?

The Democrats will do anything the government unions ask, because (1) It's not their money they're spending, it's the taxpayers'; and (2) Government unions reciprocate by making sure the Democrats keep getting re-elected.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo is about to turn New York into Pottersville from "It's a Wonderful Life" by legalizing gambling so he can keep paying the unions.

All manufacturing has been driven out of the state by high taxes -- and by well-compensated government employees who make it impossible to do business in New York. The state's principal cash cow, New York City, is now entirely composed of a tiny slice of Wall Streeters and the people who serve them –- personal trainers, doormen, maids, doctors, lawyers, restaurateurs and Keith Olbermann's cat groomer.

Outside of New York City, everyone works for the government. But there's no actual industry in the state. People are fleeing New York faster than Democrat legislators fled Wisconsin before a vote they were going to lose.

Soon it will be just another mid-range, dying state. If the financial sector ever leaves, New York City will be Detroit, which itself was once the nation's crown jewel metropolis.

So Cuomo's going to bring in casinos to save public sector salaries, perks and pensions. Democrats don't care that gambling destroys neighborhoods and ruins lives. They will do anything to keep government employees happy. They'll legalize drugs or sell body parts to keep paying off public sector workers.

There's a reason both FDR and labor leader George Meany said it would be insane to ever allow government employees to unionize. People who work for the government don't have a hard-driving capitalist boss on the other side of the bargaining table demanding more work for less pay.

No one is worried about the profit margin because there is no profit -- it's government! Rather, the only people on the other side of the table are the unions' co-conspirators: Democratic politicians willing to spend the public treasury on union members, who will repay the politicians by mobilizing voters.

This is why Walker's victory Tuesday night was an amazing, miraculous, transformative event in the history of the nation.

Even the Terminator couldn't beat the government unions. In the dumbest move ever made by a politician, in 2005, two years into Arnold Schwarzenegger's first term, he called an off-year special election to enact a few minuscule reductions in public-sector union perks, such as making it humanly possible to fire bad teachers.

Even in a normal election year, initiatives curbing government employees' boondoggles are nearly impossible to get past the powerful unions.

But worse -- as in Wisconsin -- this was an off-year election. Unlike Wisconsin, however, it was Schwarzenegger's idea to hold a special election on the advice of his political consultant, Mike Murphy, the Bob Shrum of the Republicans.

Let's see, who would be likely to vote in an off-year election? We're going to cut your exorbitant benefits, require you to work, and make it easier to fire you, public employees. Do you have any interest in voting on that?

Anyone with half a brain could see disaster coming from a mile away. Even with the language barrier, Arnold should have seen it coming.

Within weeks, Tony Quinn, a California Republican consultant, stated categorically: "The governor needs to cancel this special election, regardless of the political cost, because he's headed for a huge political defeat."

But Schwarzenegger's adviser, Murphy, was brimming with confidence, dazzled by the governor's celebrity status. He gloated, "He's still Arnold Schwarzenegger." (Murphy never saw "Twins.")

Public sector unions spent a jaw-dropping $80 million to defeat Schwarzenegger's initiatives, portraying the governor as the enemy of cops, teachers, firefighters and "people like us."

Mike Murphy: "I am confident we will win."

In the end, union members turned out in droves on Election Day, defeating every single initiative. Everyone else in California woke up the next day and said, "Hey, did you know there was an election yesterday?"

The failure of Schwarzenegger's propositions ended his governorship. From that day on, he became the Democrats' plaything.

The 2010 census marks the first time California has lost population since it became a state.

The decision to call an off-year special election to roll back public employees' perks will long be remembered as the all-time stupidest idea in political history. One hundred years from now it will still be studied at the Kennedy School of Government.

Wisconsin made history in a different way Tuesday night. As Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch said, the recall election will go down in the record books as the night "the campaign to save America" began.

COPYRIGHT 2012 ANN COULTER