In “it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy” news

Yesterday I said that I hope the people of Orlando realize that they are better than Alan Grayson. Well, it seems that they have:

Justice: Webster up 7 over Grayson

Actually, justice would be too strong of a word. Justice, in this case, would be Alan Grayson falling 27 points behind Dan Webster after the smears that the Democrat from Florida has conducted in his desperate bid to cling to power. But take heart; the latest Sunshine State Poll was conducted mainly before the smear in the “Taliban Dan” ad was exposed and widely condemned, which means Grayson may still be hurtling downward:

In one of the most closely watched U.S. House races in the nation, Republican Daniel Webster now holds a 7-point lead over Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson in Central Florida’s 8th Congressional District, according to a new Sunshine State News Poll.

Webster, a former state senator, leads the freshman congressman 43-36 in the survey of 559 likely voters conducted Sept. 25-27. TEA (“Taxed Enough Already”) Party candidate Peg Dunmire drew 6 percent and NPA hopeful George Metcalfe garnered 3 percent, while 9 percent remained undecided (2 percent cited “other” and 1 percent refused to state).

Digging deeper, the numbers look even worse for Grayson as 51 percent of respondents said they had an unfavorable view of the Orlando-area congressman.

Yeah, but how is Grayson doing with women voters? Uh, oh! Turns out that they despise him. I mean they really, really do not like him a LOT. Too bad.

But while we’re on the subject of nice guys, how’s our boy Charlie doing these days? Let’s look:

Florida Dems aim death blow at Charlie Crist

Oh no! How could this happen? Don’t they realize that he is one of them now? Guess not:

The Florida Democratic Party is throwing money behind a crushing new ad that reminds Democrats and independents of Crist’s past as a partisan Republican, cutting together clips of the governor praising George W. Bush and Sarah Palin, talking up offshore drilling and calling himself “a Jeb Bush Republican.”

The clips of Crist come one by devastating one: “I’m about as conservative as you can get,” he says in the opening video. In another: “President Bush – he is a leader of courage and conviction.” In a third: “I was impressed at Gov. Palin being picked. I watched her speech today. I was very impressed.”

It must be tough to be a man without a party. But then again, Charlie does have that highly coveted Teamsters endorsement. Heh.

What NOW lacks in a sense of irony they more than make up for with over the top hypocrisy

More and more I am coming to believe that hypocrisy would not be so rampant on the Left if the poor dears simply possessed an irony gene. My friend, this is as fine an example as you will ever see:

NOW to deliver 1,500 baby bottle nipples to former Sen. Simpson

One assumes that the high priestesses of abortion will not be stocking this little stunt from their own cupboards.

The group is dubbing its effort a delivery of 1,500 "Tits for an Ass."

Several liberal lawmakers and activist groups, including NOW, last month called on Obama to remove Simpson from his post after he wrote an e-mail to a leader of a women's group calling Social Security "a milk cow with 300 million tits."

I’ve been assured that the women of NOW are very, very intelligent so I am sure that if properly informed even they can grasp the irony of their position. Social Security is funded through payroll taxes. However, workers do not pay for their own benefits-they pay the benefits of current retirees. During times like these when older people are retiring earlier and living longer while younger people are entering the job market later and in fewer numbers and unemployment and underemployment are high, less and less goes in to “the fund” while more and more gets paid out.

Back to NOW’s beef with Simpson:

“The Fiscal Commission should be led by someone who will actually try to address the federal budget deficit, instead of using it as an excuse to undermine Social Security by cutting benefits or raising the retirement age,” O'Neill added. “Alan Simpson is not that person.”

By “address the federal budget deficit” NOW means “raise taxes”. If cutting benefits and raising the retirement age are off the table the amount that the fund takes in must be increased. That can be achieved by increasing payroll taxes or increasing the number of people who pay in to the system. Thanks to the efforts of NOW, the birthrate in this country has fallen. We simply are not producing additional workers.

Bottom line: NOW helped create the Social Security shortfall. I believe that is called irony.

I've joined the "I'm with them" club

Alan Grayson in all his smug glory

By which I mean that I fully agree with Doug, who like Bob, agrees with Stacy that Alan Grayson is not scum:

Alan Grayson is the disease-causing bacteria which infect the parasitical worms found in putrid diarrhetic feces oozing from the rectums of scavengers that prey upon maggots which grow in the decaying carcasses of poisonous vipers that die after eating insects which consume tainted scum.

(This has been a public service announcement from Floridians Against the Defamation of Scum)

I'm not sure that I would have been quite so kind.
 
It goes without saying that Grayson has never been a top shelf guy but his latest foray into sleaziness far surpasses all his previous efforts.  Simply put, Grayson will do whatever it takes to keep his fat Marxist ass waddling down the halls of Congress. 
 
 I hope the voters in Orlando realize that they are better than this.  When Grayson does this kind of lowlife nonsense he does it as their representative and he tarnishes their reputation as well as his own. This November they have the opportunity to send the message that Grayson's garbage will not stand.

The Obama Demographic

Barack Obama promised us change and say what you will, he has delivered.  Unfortunately, Obama's change has been of the unpleasant variety.  Perhaps a quibble in the greater scheme of things but "presidential" will never be defined the same post-Obama.

From Obama’s Rolling Stone interview:

What music have you been listening to lately? What have you discovered, what speaks to you these days?

…Thanks to Reggie [Love, the president's personal aide], my rap palate has greatly improved. Jay-Z used to be sort of what predominated, but now I've got a little Nas and a little Lil Wayne and some other stuff, but I would not claim to be an expert. Malia and Sasha are now getting old enough to where they start hipping me to things. Music is still a great source of joy and occasional solace in the midst of what can be some difficult days.

So, does daddy Barack share his appreciation for Lil Wayne with Malia and Sasha? What’s their favorite Lil Wayne ditty? Maybe it is “Lollipop”-that sounds like a kid friendly tune. Let’s look:

I said he's so sweet
Make her wanna lick the rapper
So I let her lick the rapper

Shawty said l-l-lick like a lollipop
She said l-l-lick like a lollipop
Shawty said l-l-like a lollipop
She said like a lollipop

Lick the rapper (insert a Beavis and Butthead moment here).  Seriously, that is what the president of the United States listens to for enjoyment? Really? Of course, the song also includes this verse:

I get her on top she drop it like it's hot
And when I'm at the bottom she Hillary Rodham
The middle of the bed givin' gettin' head
Givin' gettin' head, givin' gettin' head

Hillary must be proud.

I don’t know but I think our president just out-cooled himself. Let’s face it, songs of this genre are aimed at immature, sexually stunted, morally vacant, sexist little boys. I don’t believe for one minute that Obama allows his daughters to listen to this crap. But he desperately wants the Rolling Stone demographic to think that he is one of them. Why? Beats the Hell out of me- I just know it is embarrassing. Perhaps Obama should consider sharing a little less and governing a little more. And if he must project an image, he might try faking a little leadership.

Obama is trying to get away with a hit and run

Our esteemed President talks a lot about how the Republicans drove the car in to the ditch.  Yessiree, that's what the Republicans did alright.  Now don't you worry though, cause he's not giving the keys back.  Nosiree, he's holdin' on to those keys cause if the Republicans get ahold of 'em they're gonna drive that car right back in to that great big ol' ditch.  Of course there's just one teensy weensy problem with the President's story-the Republicans weren't behind the wheel when that car went in the ditch.  It was the Democrats who were driving.  And it wasn't a ditch, it was a cliff.  And we haven't hit bottom yet.  Steve Capelli, commenting on  Guess what the New York Times didn’t like:

The day the democrats took over was not January 22nd 2009 it was actually January 3rd 2007 the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, the start of the 110th Congress. The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.

For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:

January 3rd, 2007 was the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:

At the time:

1. The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77

2. The GDP for the previous quarter was 3.5%

3. The Unemployment rate was 4.6%

4. George Bush’s Economic policies SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!

Remember the day…

1. January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.

2. The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?

BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!

3. Thank Congress for taking us from 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP and 4.6% Unemployment to this CRISIS by dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac fiasco’s!

(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001, because it was financially risky for the U.S. economy, but no one was listening).

And who took the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac?

OBAMA.

And who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie??

OBAMA and the Democratic Congress.

So when someone tries to blame Bush…

REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!” Bush may have been in the car, but the Democrats were in charge of the gas pedal and steering wheel they were driving. Set the record straight on Bush!

So, as you listen to all the commercials and media from the Democrats who are now distancing themselves from their voting record and their party, remember how they didn’t listen to you when you said you didn’t want all the bailouts, you didn’t want the health care bill, you didn’t want cap and trade, you didn’t want them to continue spending money we don’t have.

“It’s not that liberals aren’t smart, it’s just that so much of what they know isn’t so” -Ronald Reagan

The Democrats are trying to bluff their way out of taking responsibility for their own failures.  They are hoping that you and I won't remember the role they played in creating the housing crisis and then thwarting any efforts to prevent the crisis from blowing up in our faces.  In case there is anyone suffering from selective memory loss there is this:



These people need more than just their driver's licenses revoked.  Throughout the video the Democrats insist that Freddie and Fannie are in fine shape and they berate the regulator who is desperately trying to tell them otherwise,  At one point Rep. Maxine Waters crows about the easy underwriting and the availability of 100% financing.  These people blame Bush because they can't put the blame where it really belongs-directly in their laps.

These are the people who took the car and left it a mangled wreck and now they want to continue driving our economy.  I say not a chance in Hell.

Liberaltosis

Liberalism is a mental illness. A bit harsh? How else would you explain this:

MALLOY: Her father and her father's puppet George at the very least allowed, at the very worst engineered the worst attack on this country since the War of 1812, and she has the audacity to make this kind of a statement. "Americans expect our President to do everything possible to defend the nation from attack." Where was your father after he deliberately authorized a stand-down, on a day and a time when he knew there was going to be an effort made to attack this country? I don't know why I give this psychopathic misdirected woman, you ought to be there planning your father's funeral, Liz, because I'm sure all the nation's bigwigs, especially the Republicans are going to fall all over themselves to worship in front of his coffin. That's what you ought to be doing instead of making your filthy, insane, gratuitous statements about what the American people expects their president or an administration to do to protect us from terrorist attack. Shame on you, Liz Cheney. Go plan your father's funeral. Just do that. Do at least one thing in your useless life that will have some meaning. Go plan his funeral.

At first I planned to place part of that quote in “bold” but the whole damn thing is so incredibly nutso that I didn’t know which part to emphasize most. I’m not saying that everyone on the Left is completely batsh*t crazy, some just aren’t very clear thinkers, but there does seem to be a pattern among the more prominent sufferers of Liberaltosis:

• A misplaced sense of self-superiority
• A stunted sense of humor
• A penchant for thuggery and racism
• A marked inability to be truthful and an affection for skeeviness
• The use of inappropriate terms for co-workers
• An unnatural attraction to Botox
• An all around nasty disposition

The above symptoms are obviously not all inclusive. Those who suffer from Liberaltosis may exhibit the symptoms one at a time or several in unison. In any case, keep your distance. They aren't contagious but they tend to reek of staleness.

Allen West: Welcome to the Jungle

Florida politics turned ugly (or should I say uglier than usual?) when the Florida Democratic Party sent out a mailer to sixty thousand homes that contained the full social security number of Lt. Col. Allen West, Republican candidate for Congress in the 22nd District.  We all know that the Democratic party's motto is "win by any means"  but this is a new low.

Smitty calls the following video 1:48 of pure righteousness.  I call that a bit of an understatement.  After bravely serving his country in Iraq West is not going to back down to worms like Obama and Pelosi.  Compliments of The Shark Tank, enjoy:

Don't bother, they're here

I said earlier that perhaps the perfect venue for the “Colbert Hearings” in front of the House Judiciary subcommittee on immigration might be the boy’s locker room at the local junior high school. I’ve never been more right:

“Corn packer is a derogatory term for Gay Iowans.”

Charming. You know that you have arrived as a society when the testimony before Congress is indistinguishable from an episode of “Family Guy”.

We could have been spared considerable embarrassment had Mr. Colbert simply complied with Rep. Conyers’ request that he leave the chamber but unfortunately that was more class than the comedian could muster:

The subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Zoe Lofgren, but Rep. John Conyers is chairmen of the larger Judiciary Committee. In that role, he has a seat on the subcommittee, and he spoke up early in the hearing. To the surprise of many observers, Conyers used his time to ask Colbert to leave.

"I'm so happy that you've helped us fill the room," Conyers said to Colbert. "I haven't seen this many cameras since -- when?"

"Maybe since impeachment," said Lofgren, to pained laughter among the lawmakers.
At that point, Conyers thanked Colbert for showing up and asked him to leave the room. Colbert seemed confused. Was Conyers asking him not to speak? No, Conyers said, he was asking him to leave altogether.

"You run your show," Conyers said. "We run the committee."

Colbert said he was there at the invitation of Lofgren and would do whatever she asked. Seeking a moment to think, Lofgren asked Republican Rep. Dan Lungren to speak for a few moments while she decided what to do.

Colbert stayed in place as the other witnesses made opening statements. When Colbert's turn came, Conyers briefly interrupted to say that he was withdrawing his request for Colbert to leave.

Note to Conyers-always go with your first instinct.

You're kidding, right?

Subtitle:  We're been ruled by complete dumb asses

Exhibit A:

Sure, why not: Stephen Colbert to testify about immigration before House committee — in character

I thought the Daily Caller must have been suckered, but no, apparently, this is really and truly happening. Could be a fun way for Pelosi to spend her last days as speaker, though, yes? Have Colby in this week on immigration, Jon Stewart and Jerry Seinfeld next week on health care, Sarah Silverman the week after that on abortion (a barnburner!), and so forth. Maybe have Franken come down the hall from the Senate to do some improv with them. Cancel the recess; held over by popular demand!

One Republican source said Colbert will be testifying “in character,” the Bill O’Reilly-like muse Colbert uses for his show.

A Judiciary Committee spokeswoman, confirming Colbert would testify, said the hearing matter was a “serious issue . . . this is not a TV stunt.”

Some Republicans have already expressed unhappiness with Colbert witnessing at the hearing, thinking it would make light of a serious issue.

Gee, why would they possibly object to Colbert mugging it up in front of a House committee?  After all, it isn't as if immigration, or more specifically illegal immigration, is an important topic. 
 
If I'm not mistaken, isn't Colbert's claim to fame making fun of Republicans?  How appropriate.  Perhaps they can hold the hearing in a junior high boy's locker room.  Sounds like the perfect venue to me.

Looking for the best woman for the job

If you need further proof of how incredibly unserious this Administration is, here it is:

Woman CEO sought for Summers job

The pick doesn’t have to fit that bill precisely, but it’s highly likely Obama’s pick will be either a woman or a business leader – and preferably both, said several people familiar with the situation.

Um, doesn’t fit the female(?) bill precisely? What does that mean? Is a male candidate acceptable so long as he always dresses in drag and appears female? Oy.

News flash: The country couldn’t care less about the gender of Larry Summer’s replacement. We are looking for competency and for someone who can “git ‘er done”. Personally, I don’t even care if Summer’s replacement is mammal. But as always, Obama is concerned more with making some special interest group happy than with taking care of the country’s business.

I have no doubt that there are many qualified women out there. However, finding the right person for the job goes a little bit deeper than a mere resume and a lot deeper than the area between a person’s legs. During this time of high unemployment and economic uncertainty the president should concentrate on finding the best person for the job and leave the gynocology to the out of it.

They say obstruction, I say conviction

Major Garrett brings new of interesting poll results:

Nearly half of America -- including nearly two-thirds of Republicans and 53 percent of independents -- admires political leaders who refuse to compromise. This is further evidence that the current political atmosphere is not merely contentious, but hostile to any hope of negotiated settlements to the many political and policy differences that define the current landscape.

Count me among the two-thirds.  I vote for candidates who represent my values.  Once elected I expect officials to continue to represent my values.  I don't send people to DC to buckle.  Why should I?  Further, why would anyone willingly compromise their principals? 

According to the poll only 39% of Democrats admire politicians who stick to their guns.  I assume the other 61 percent don't believe that anything is worth taking a stand for.  Doesn't speak well of our friends on the Left but it certainly does explain a lot, doesn't it?

Gen. Powell comes out in support of cheap labor

So Gen. Powell: Illegal Immigrants Fix My House

How nice for him. Illegal immigrants raped my neighbors. Oh, I’m sorry, was it bigoted of me to mention that?

Gen. Powell:

Powell, a moderate Republican, urged his party Sunday to support immigration generally because it is "what's keeping this country's lifeblood moving forward."

In an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press," he said a path to legal status should be offered to illegal immigrants because they "are doing things we need done in this country."

He added: "They're all over my house, doing things whenever I call for repairs, and I'm sure you've seen them at your house. We've got to find a way to bring these people out of the darkness and give them some kind of status."

Powell did not say whether he's hired illegal immigrants directly or they showed up with contractors.

At the risk of being picky, or bigoted, aren’t our citizens the lifeblood that keeps this country moving forward? Just a thought. The general doesn’t mention how he feels about hiring illegals while his fellow citizens are losing everything they own due to unemployment but from his tone he doesn’t appear to be overly concerned.

I thank Gen. Powell for his service. Now he could be of further service if he would recognize the plight of his fellow Americans who are suffering because of this administration’s refusal to protect its taxpaying citizens from what are essentially foreign invaders.

Note: On May 18, 2010, Jose Walle was sentenced to fifteen life sentences without possibility of parole for his part in the above mentioned kidnapping and rape of two women from my area. Walle earlier received a twenty-seven year sentence for a different rape of a third woman assualted while he and two cohorts were on their crime spree. Also in May of 2010 the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that teenagers cannot be sentenced to life without parole for crimes that do not include homicide. Walle is a teenager and will be resentenced next month. The women he brutally and repeatedly raped are not so lucky. They will serve a life sentence that no court can commute. There is no justice for the victims.

There is a new rule in play

Have you heard the latest? Christine O'Donnell "dabbled" in witchcraft in her youth! Unimpressed? Yeah, me too. Heck, from ages eighteen to twenty I was a Democrat. Really. We all did stupid things in our youth and then we grew up. I mean, I assume that Obama no longer does cocaine or hangs out with Marxist professors (unless they've been invited to a beer summit, of course).

In any case I fail to see the big deal. Being a witch (sic) certainly hasn't hurt certainly hasn't Madams Pelosi and Boxer.

Dems, and apparently some establishment Republicans, are desperate to talk about anything other than O'Donnell's stands on the issues. Those of us in the hoi polloi class care about things like taxes and Cap & Trade. Our betters, who are now leading the Leftist charge against O'Donnell, care more about who would fit in at the Cotillion than nonsense like voting records. Oh, they say that they would vote for O'Donnell if they could but something doesn't quite ring true. Maybe it is their willingness to play waterboy for the other side.

If, like me, you are sick to death of hearing about the Buckley Rule, Prof. Jacobson suggests something a bit more appropriate to the times-The Lombardi Rule:

And we call the Democrats elitist snobs? Stop being so damn selfish. November is not about who was right or wrong in the primaries. If Castle had won, O'Donnell supporters would have rallied around him, or at least kept their mouths shut.

Quin Hillyer and Mary Katherine Ham have advised that there not be a conservative blog war, because we have more important things to do right now. Fine, the perps have been called out already and it is time to rally around the effort.

Now that the general election primary is over, so too is the Buckley Rule. Please take notice that the Lombardi Rule is in effect:

“The object is to win fairly, by the rules – but to win.”

So [names of conservative blogs and pundits still dumping on O'Donnell deleted], get over it and get to work defeating Democratic rubber-stamp hack Chris Coons.

Because, as Hillyer says, "[w]e are fighting for our country here."

And winning that fight in November is all that matters.

Sounds about right to me. I love a good fight and while I'd rather save my focus for those on the Left I can broaden my view. But if winning is what we are about then let's join together and win.

The truth about trees and filthy, dirty, hippie tree huggers

Commenting on The madness of non-King Charles by Don Surber, Mick (a regular) linked a video that led me to the video below.  The clip is absolute proof that it is possible to be funny while making a point.  Enjoy!

The Left is finally emerging from their coma

Barack Obama took his stand-up routine on the road and knocked ‘em dead in Greenwich at a $30,000 a plate fundraiser:

Democrats, just congenitally, tend to get -- to see the glass as half empty. (Laughter.) If we get an historic health care bill passed -- oh, well, the public option wasn't there. If you get the financial reform bill passed -- then, well, I don't know about this particular derivatives rule, I'm not sure that I'm satisfied with that. And gosh, we haven't yet brought about world peace and -- (laughter.) I thought that was going to happen quicker. (Laughter.) You know who you are. (Laughter.) We have had the most productive, progressive legislative session in at least a generation.

A good time was had by all. There is nothing that Barry loves more than mocking those who fail to recognize his greatness and if the Jane Hamshers and Glenn Greenwalds of the world thought that they could disagree with the famously thin skinned Won without suffering a smack down just because they put his egotistical backside in office, they now know better. Jane Hamsher:

Yeah, we know who we are. We’re the people who supported Bill Halter’s primary challenge of Blanche Lincoln, the woman Obama campaigned for. Who only included that derivatives rule in the financial reform bill because she was afraid of losing to Halter.

We’re the people who fought for a year and a half to pass Audit the Fed, which Obama, the Fed, the Treasury and the banks all lobbied against and worked hard to weaken. It passed the Senate 94-0, and Chris Hayes called it “the single greatest act of bipartisanship since Obama took office” on MSNBC. It was part of the financial reg bill, which is the “only popular Democratic act” since the 2008 election, per Gallup.

Obama himself used to be one of us,…

Glenn Greenwald:

So, just as Robert Gibbs before him explained (albeit more harshly), if you're one of those people dissatisfied with large parts of the Obama presidency, that's only because you have something wrong with the way you think (you need drug testing/you "congenitally see the glass as half empty"), and because you are saddled with extremely unrealistic, child-like expectations (you're angry that the Pentagon hasn't closed yet/bitter that Obama "hasn't yet brought about world peace: 'I thought that was going to happen quicker' (Laughter.)"). In other words, you're just a petulant, unreasonable, unrealistic, fringe child who doesn't appreciate the greatness and generosity he's given you….

It wouldn’t be difficult to have a good giggle at the Left’s expense. Had the Left simply taken a step back from the rainbow they might have seen this coming before they elected the single most unqualified man to have ever parked his tushy in the Oval Office. But unfortunately, this really isn’t funny.

The Left laments that their Savior has turned out to be nothing more or less than a cheap snake oil salesman. Nay worse, Barack Obama is a politician. Who knew? Well, everyone who paid a single speck of attention. But the bottom line is that come 2012 if Obama runs again the Left, rallied by Hamsher, Greenwald, et al, will be right back by his side. They can moan and groan but they will never learn. They walk around with “use me” tattooed on their foreheads and “kick me” taped to their backs. Opportunists like Obama are always happy to do both.

Now THAT is racist!

Actually, I'm not sure if Bill Maher is a racist or if he is just a loud-mouthed juvenile jerk.  He may be a racist loud mouthed juvenile jerk.  In any case, he is an obnoxious jerk.

Also, why is the Left so obsessed with race?

H/T  Newsbusters

Contradiction Alert!

"The National Guard is not designed to be a substitute for civilian law enforcement,” Napolitano said. “Civilian law enforcement is being ‘plussed-up’ at record rates. And it’s being ‘plussed up’ all along the border. It’s being backed up by state of the art technology and it’s being backed up by infrastructure and that’s the way you have a secure border area.”
Janet Napolitano on September 17, 2010

“The Arizona immigration law will likely hinder federal law enforcement from carrying out its priorities of detaining and removing dangerous criminal aliens..."
From Janet Napolitano's statement after the passage of SB 1070

Napolitano believes that immigration control should be left to civilian forces unless like Arizona the state wants its civilian force to handle the problem in which case it is the federal government's responsibility although the federal government won't take reponsibility.  Are we all clear on that?

Snowe notices a chill

Olympia Snowe is crying the blues:

"I've always been on the outside looking in, in the world I live in. When you're a minority, moderate, New England, woman, Republican woman, you don't get more outside than that. Do you? I'm a minority within a minority," Snowe said laughing, "I've been fighting my whole life."

What’s a poor moderate to do? The electorate has just gotten so mean lately. Well, let’s take a look at that “moderate” record of Ms. Snowe:

• Voted NO on restricting UN funding for population control policies. (Mar 2009)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Voted NO on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted NO on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Voted NO on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)

• Voted YES on $192B additional anti-recession stimulus spending. (Jul 2009)
• Voted YES on modifying bankruptcy rules to avoid mortgage foreclosures. (May 2009)
• Voted YES on additional $825 billion for economic recovery package. (Feb 2009)
• Voted YES on $60B stimulus package for jobs, infrastructure, & energy. (Sep 2008)
• Voted NO on paying down federal debt by rating programs' effectiveness. (Mar 2007)
• Voted NO on $40B in reduced federal overall spending. (Dec 2005)

• Voted YES on addressing CO2 emissions without considering India & China. (May 2008)
• Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
• Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
• Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
• Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
• Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
• Voted NO on preserving budget for ANWR oil drilling. (Apr 2000)
• Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
• Sign on to UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. (Jan 2007)

• Voted YES on $2 billion more for Cash for Clunkers program. (Aug 2009)
• Voted YES on confirming Gale Norton as Secretary of Interior. (Jan 2001)
• Voted YES on more funding for forest roads and fish habitat. (Sep 1999)
• Voted YES on transportation demo projects. (Mar 1998)
• Make EPA into a Cabinet department. (May 2002) (Thanks-that turned out to be soooooo helpful!)

• Voted YES on Congressional pay raise. (Jul 2009)
• Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
• Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
• Voted YES on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006) (Because bureaucracy makes everything better)
• Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
• Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
• Voted YES on funding for National Endowment for the Arts. (Aug 1999) (Because taxpayers should pay for insightful works of art like “Piss Christ”)
• Voted YES on favoring 1997 McCain-Feingold overhaul of campaign finance. (Oct 1997)

• Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared "sanctuary cities". (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on comprehensive immigration reform. (Jun 2007)
• Voted YES on establishing a Guest Worker program. (May 2006)
• Voted NO on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on giving Guest Workers a path to citizenship. (May 2006)
• Voted YES on allowing more foreign workers into the US for farm work. (Jul 1998)
• Voted YES on visas for skilled workers. (May 1998)
• Voted NO on limit welfare for immigrants. (Jun 1997)
• Rated 25% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

It appears that Ms. Snowe and I hold differing opinions on the definition of “moderate”. However, we may have more common ground than you would think. Consider this from Ms. Snowe:

"What works in South Carolina and Delaware may not work in Maine. We all have different views. We're independent," Snowe responded, "I can't go back to the people of my state and say, excuse me, I have to be one hundred percent ideologically pure because someone has dictated that from another state. It just wouldn't wash," she said.

She may be right about her state and I absolutely agree with her that it is up to the people of Maine whether or not she is suitable as their representative. However, like Mike Castle, she may be wrong about what the voters of her state our currently looking for. It may be that after decades of tax and spend coupled with unaccountability on the part of DC that voters in even the bluest states are fed up and ready for a change. If that is the case, Snowe, like Castle, could find herself out in the cold.

Who is up for a rousing game of doublespeak?

George Orwell is alive and well and working in the Obama Administration where he is simply as "John". Nice Deb:

Granted, people were already using “climate change” to describe changes in the earth’s climate, (otherwise known as weather). But that wasn’t scary-sounding enough, I guess. “Change” is generally thought of in neutral to positive terms. Sometimes the climate changes, and we say, “Good, it’s been too cold lately, I’m glad it’s warming up.” “Disruption”, however, sounds rude and undesirable. Who wants a weather disruption – like a hurricane, or hail storm? Nobody.

Seems to be a whole lot of doublespeak going on the last couple of years. You know, "man made disasters" and the like. Since it is all about perception rather than reality I would like to propose that we quit using the term "illegal aliens" which implies that our friends have done something wrong by invading our country and instead we should refer to them as "unexpected company". Isn't that much nicer? I'm sure if we all try we can find a better way to say almost anything. Anyone want to take a stab at Crap & Tax Cap & Trade?

That darn Charlie

From today's Tampa Bay Online:

Gov. Charlie Crist and Jim Greer, the disgraced former chairman of the Florida Republican Party, took family vacations on party money, an audit released today shows.

The two men and their families vacationed at Disney World in June 2009 and put the $13,435.99 bill on the party's American Express credit card, the audit found. Greer also took three personal vacations to fashionable Fisher Island near Miami Beach, one including Crist, at a cost of $10,992.17, auditors reported.

Greer also charged $5,616.79 for his son's baptism in May 2009 to the party, the report showed.

In another instance, the men's wives arrived in New York City two days before a party fundraiser in September 2009 and charged nearly $1,600 to the party credit card on hotel and related expenses

That darn Charlie is quite the scamp, isn't he?  Good thing he'll never see the inside of the Senate chamber.  If he treated the taxpayer's money the way he treated the party's money we would all be in trouble.

Krauthammer wants to win unless it means backing O'Donnell

Writing in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer repeats his words from his appearance on the O’Reilly Factor last night:

If DeMint and Palin want to show that helping O'Donnell over the top -- she won late and by six points -- wasn't a capricious spreading of fairy dust, perhaps they should go to Delaware now and get her elected to the Senate.

You made it possible. Now make it happen. I would be happy to be proved wrong about O'Donnell's electability -- I want Republicans to win that 51st seat. Stay in Delaware and show us you were right. The beaches are said to be lovely in the fall.

Absolutely right-DeMint and Palin should help O’Donnell out in Delaware. So should Krauthammer. If I am understanding his position, he is saying that we Republicans have a duty to the party to ignore our conscience and vote for the most conservative candidate who is electable. In fact, I believe that I have been reminded of “Buckley’s Rule” at least fifty times in the last week. Unfortunately, Mr. Buckley is not here to ask if his rule still applies when the most conservative candidate electable is, say, about as conservative as Alan Grayson. But beyond that, who gets to decide who is electable? I thought it was the voters but suddenly I am not so sure.

In any case, Krauthammer claims that he wants to see a Republican takeover of the Senate. If this really is the case, shouldn’t he now be supporting O’Donnell with every fiber of his being? Remember, it is all about “The Party”, conscientious objections do not apply.

Granted, I do not have Krauthammer’s vast experience but I have been able to pick up on some hints that Christine O’Donnell is most certainly electable. The Dems, rather than talking about Stimulus, are prattling on about stimulation. If reaching back to the 90’s to find O’Donnell talking about masturbation doesn’t smack of desperation I don’t know what does.

Deeming O’Donnell unelectable assumes that people in Delaware prefer to pay high taxes, prefer government intervention to self-determination and prefer the collective to the individual. That may turn out to be the case but it is not a foregone conclusion. Dr. Krauthammer is a man of considerable oratory talents. He should put those talents to good use and help us get O’Donnell elected. Surely he would rather O’Donnell win the seat than Coons. Wouldn’t he?

Side note:

No one likes to lose but losing is much, much worse when your own side throws the game. I want to win on immigration but I’ve already got to worry about Graham, Snowe, Collins and McCain (yeah, I know, McCain has changed his position. I’ll believe it when it is put to the vote). I’d much rather take my chances trying to get someone like O’Donnell elected who I know will vote responsibly than back someone like Castle who I know will screw me over the first chance he gets.

Who needs elections?

There is a lesson to be learned from the O'Donnell primary win in Delaware-the voters are idiots and can not be trusted to chose their own representatives.  Obviously fifty-three percent of the Republicans in Delaware have no idea what they have done but fear not, Karl Rove, Charles Krauthhamer and the gentlemen of the Old Boys Club NRSC will set them straight even if it means they hand the Senate seat to the Marxist Coons on a silver platter.  Who in their right mind would listen to "the people", ignorant rabble rousers one and all, when they could so benefit from the guidance of John Cornyn & Co.  After all, it was the NRSC who backed Charlie "Me, Me, Me" Crist in the the Florida republican race for Senate.   Oh, bad example.  Anyway it is clear that we can't have the electorate running about willy nilly making important decisions concerning their own lives.  Let's just do away with elections and allow our betters to what they do best-ignore us.  Ruling by fiat, baby!  That's where its at.

Best Political Line Evah!

“This election simply is not about a republican, a democrat, and an opportunist.”
Marco Rubio speaking at the 2010 Florida Victory Dinner

Enjoy the video:


H/T Jennifer at Cubachi

No Justice from Justice Breyer

Scary, scary words from Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer:

Last week we saw a Florida Pastor – with 30 members in his church – threaten to burn Korans which lead to riots and killings in Afghanistan. We also saw Democrats and Republicans alike assume that Pastor Jones had a Constitutional right to burn those Korans. But Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer told me on "GMA" that he's not prepared to conclude that -- in the internet age -- the First Amendment condones Koran burning.

“Holmes said it doesn’t mean you can shout 'fire' in a crowded theater,” Breyer told me. “Well, what is it? Why? Because people will be trampled to death. And what is the crowded theater today? What is the being trampled to death?”

Does this mean that under the guise of public safety Breyer would curtail free speech that might be considered offensive to Islam? Would he also extend that protection to other religions though the average Presbyterian, Buddhist and Hindu are not so easily incited? Perhaps Breyer envisions a special designation for Muslims that exempts them from all criticism in any form while allowing the rest of us to be pissed off without regard to our "feelings" and "sensitivities".

What complete hogwash! I may insult gays, women, blacks, Inuits and yes, Muslims, as I see fit. My Founding Fathers gave me that right. If I exercise my right in an antisocial or irresponsible manner there will be consequences. People may choose not to associate with me or they may, egads, insult me back. But in any case, that is between me and my peers and no business of the justice system.

Breyer is not proposing justice. He is suggesting that he cost of peace is capitulation and a willingness to forgo our most basic rights. Scary talk coming from a Supreme Court justice.

Momma Michelle Knows Best

Jennifer Ruben, writing in Commentary:

I don’t much care if the president smokes or pigs out on fast food. In fact, I think it’s a poor idea to take away emotionally comforting habits from the man with his finger on the button. I don’t care, because these are personal choices, and he is an adult, a well-educated one with superb medical advice. What does grate on the nerves is the incessant nagging — don’t eat those fries, inflate your tires – that suggests that Americans are too dim to figure these things out for themselves. Moreover, it assumes it is the government’s job to screech at us.

And yes, it is a matter of perspective. Laura Bush was concerned with the women of Burma who are raped and murdered by a fascistic state. Michelle is growing — actually having the hired help grow — an organic garden. It’s the sort of thing that bored housewives from the Upper West Side or Beverly Hills would obsess about. It lack gravitas and perspective. But then that’s pretty much what the Obamas are all about.

Is there anything that symbolizes more clearly how inane our government has become than Michelle Antoinette telling us what we are and are not allowed to eat? The government argues that when the government foots the bill that it gets to call the shots but government doesn't really foot the bill for anything. It is the taxpayers who shell out the bucks and it is government who sits on the dole.

I was raised in the "my house, my rules" era. It worked out pretty good though I sometimes resented that my dependency limited my ability to make choices. As an adult I have no desire to be dependent on the government and I certainly don't need a daddy (other than the one I have). Yet Washington elites are determined to pull a "my house, my rules" on the entire country. Friends, we don't have that type of relationship. They work for us and when last I checked, the employee does not dictate to the employer.

We did not reach this point overnight and we will not undo the damage done by government encroachment any time soon. We can start by re-igniting the "can do" attitude that served us so well for decades and by remembering that government is not our daddy, our nanny or our charity provider. For my part, I promise not to tell Michelle Antoinette what she can plant in her garden if she will promise to return the favor.

Shhh! Don’t tell anyone what I voted for

Here’s an eye-catching headline if there ever was one:

In Ad Wars, Democrats Shy From Ties to Own Party
 My how the worm turns. Remember how proud the Dems were when they mired our children and grandchildren (and probably great-grandchildren) in what until then was unheard of debt and deficits? They were going to save us with the Stimulus and heal us ObamaCare and they were going to do it whether we liked it or not. Well, we didn’t like it. Now the Dems are on the run from their own record but it just doesn’t work that way.

Here in Florida’s 11th district we have Kathy (the ninth most liberal member of the House) Castor vying against Mike Prendergast for the House. If you go to Castor’s campaign website you will notice that certain little facts have been omitted. There is no mention of Castor’s votes in favor of the Stimulus or ObamaCare. There is no mention of the fact that she was one of only seventy-five members of the House who voted against defunding ACORN. Heck, there is no mention that she is a Democrat on her home page. Embarrassed much?

She does mention that she is for “seniors and veterans” (there’s a rumor that she favors baseball and apple pie, too). Was Castor standing up for seniors when she voted for ObamaCare? While we are all being hurt by the government’s takeover of our healthcare, seniors are being decimated by it. If this is Castor’s idea of helping seniors we can only pray that she leaves veterans alone.

I guess I just don’t understand why Democrats won’t stand by their own voting records. Lord knows we will suffer from the results of their votes for years to come. If they are feeling a wee bit uncomfortable, I say good. There is no reason why our representatives should fare any better than their constituents.

Mike Prendergast for Congress

Never Forget, Never Forgive, Never Give In

Video via Carol at No Sheeples Here



I'm watching the news and they just replayed the portion of Obama's recent speech in which he said "We are not at war with Islam."  Well, they sure are at war with us.  Our freedoms and the lifestyles that we enjoy because of those freedoms are not consistent with Islam.  The practitioners of Sharia don't want our tolerance, they want our subservience.  Our president may not take the challenge that faces us seriously but thankfully, the majority of Americans do.  We will never forget, never forgive and never, ever give in.  God Bless the USA.

Do what I say, not what I do

Then Sen. Joe Biden:

Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.), for instance, seems concerned about adequate patriotism on the part of people in households making over $250,000. They need to pay more taxes, he said this week: "It's time to be patriotic...time to jump in, time to be part of the deal, time to help get America out of the rut."

Biden failed to mention that his words only applied to the poor schleps in the private sector:

White House aides owe IRS over $800,000

So what exactly did “draining the swamp” mean, anyway? Apparently, it meant taking power and promoting such examples of ethics as Timothy Geithner to high office. The Washington Post notes that the IRS has a locus of tax evaders to pursue, and not coincidentally that locus happens to be in their neighborhood:

Capitol Hill employees owed $9.3 million in overdue taxes at the end of last year, a sliver of the $1 billion owed by federal workers nationwide but one with potential political ramifications for members of Congress.

The debt among Hill employees has risen at a faster rate than the overall tax debt on the government’s books, according to Internal Revenue Service data. It comes at a time when some Republican members are pushing for the firings of government workers who owe the IRS and President Obama has urged a crackdown on delinquent government contractors.

The IRS information does not identify delinquent taxpayers by name, party affiliation or job title and does not indicate whether members of Congress are among the scofflaws. It shows that 638 employees, or about 4 percent, of the 18,000 Hill workers owe money.

The average unpaid tax bill is $12,787 among the Senate’s delinquent taxpayers and $15,498 among those working in the House.

Well, isn't that special?

Quote of the Day

From Michelle Malkin:

When everything from sneakers to stuffed animals to comics to frescos to beauty queens to fast-food packaging to undies serves as dry tinder for Allah’s avengers, it’s a grand farce to feign concern about the recruitment effect of a few burnt Korans in the hands of a two-bit attention-seeker in Florida. The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago.

Worrying about Muslims raging for any particular reason, or no particular reason, is like worrying whether or not the sun will come up tomorrow.  The sun will come up and Muslims will riot. 

When exercising your rights are indistinguishable from making an ass at of yourself

For a moment Rev. Terry Jones knocked Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf off of the headlines.  Frankly, they strike me as two peas in a pod.  Neither seems to be able to distinguish between right and wrong and neither seems to realize that while exercising their rights they are making complete asses out of themselves. 

First to Rev. Jones.  Burning books, any books, is for want of a better term, lame.  It gives the impression that the burner is not smart enough to counter the message of the book and therefore in their feebleness believe that they can simply destroy the message by fire.  Well alrighty.

But the good Rev. Jones has cancelled the big event on the assurances that the Ground Zero Mosque will be moved to another location.  Before I had the chance to contact Jones with a wonderful deal on my swamp waterfront property, the Imam Rauf responded.  In short he said, "Pound sand, Sucka!"

 And speaking of the good Imam Rauf, it seems he has gone back to calling the mosque "Cordoba House", hmm, and making somewhat less than veiled threats against we infidels if the mosque doesn't go up at the Ground Zero location.  So, that location does have some special significance for peace loving Muslims everywhere?

There has been no shortage of people willing to make asses of themselves lately.  Why the media even weighed in on the doings of a podunk church in the swamps of Florida is beyond me unless they simply wanted to stoke some flames and maybe talk about something other than the spanking that the Dems are going to get come November.  In either case, the media has the right to push any story they wish but they might wish to check their ulterior motives at the door.

I note that our president, Sec. Gates and Gen. Petraus have all weighed in on the book burning.  Again, well within their rights.  However, the conversations have seemed mighty one sided.  I think it is perfectly wise to point out that no one was killed over "Piss Christ" or our blessed Virgin Mary being smeared with dung.  I doubt a riot would break out should a mosque decide to burn our Bible.  We are expected to behave in a civil manner and we do.  Yet, if Muslims act savagely it is our fault.  They bear no responsibility for their actions whatsoever.  Great gig if you can get it.

 I'm glad the Quran won't be burned on 9/11.  I found it both distasteful and embarrassing.  However, the burning of Qurans or any other slight, real or imagined, doesn't absolve Muslims from civilized behavior.  The "Blame American First" crowd, which includes our president, has the right to demonize our great country if they wish.  That doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

Just about sums it up

If there were any such thing as truth in advertising this is ad Charlie Crist would be running:



H/T  Allah @ Hot Air

Are you against "card check"? You are a human rights abuser!

Yesterday I was watching Fox News The Cost of Freedom being hosted by Stuart Varney.  Varney had a testy exchange with Bruce Raynor of Workers United over the Obama Administration's UN filing equating union organizing issues in the US with the human rights abuses of such as China, N. Korea and Cuba. 

Raynor tried to insist that as a country we routinely commit human rights abuses by not allowing workers to organize.  By example he named domestic workers and farm workers.  Apparently Raynor is unaware of the SEIU and the United Farm Workers or he was lying being disingenuous.

Unfortunately, the video I could find of the exchange was posted at News Hounds, whose motto is "We watch FOX so you don't have to."   In the post introducing the clip they write (emphasis added):

In honor of Labor Day, a special Cost of Freedom “business block” on Fox News made a special effort to attack unions. Actually, substitute host Stuart Varney didn’t just attack unions, he accused Bruce Raynor, of Workers United, of siding with “our enemies.” Why? Because Raynor supported the Obama administration’s report to the United Nations “equating the difficulty of organizing a union here in America to a human rights offense.” That must mean that Varney thinks President Obama and his administration side with our enemies, too, though he did not say so.

I'll say it.  President Obama and the people of his administration do not believe in American exceptionalism.  They hold to a "one world" view that does not recognize individual countries.  In their rosy view, N. Korea, Iran, Syria, etc., are not our enemies but rather our kin in the great Brotherhood of Man.  Yes, we are family and the UN (which Varney correctly calls "a den of thieves") is our Daddy.  If that doesn't scare the Hell out of you I don't know what will.

One further point before we get to the video:  contrary to the claims above, I do not hear Varney attack unions.  Perhaps the people at News Hounds have never been taught the difference between disagreeing and attacking. 

BWAAHAHAHAHA!

H/T Don Surber

Lindsey Graham's "Outreach"

Check out this headline:

Sen. Graham reaches out to Tea Party

Really? No, really? Is this the same Sen. Graham who said:

“The problem with the Tea Party, I think it’s just unsustainable because they can never come up with a coherent vision for governing the country. It will die out.”

and:

“Everything I'm doing now in terms of talking about climate, talking about immigration, talking about Gitmo is completely opposite of where the Tea Party movement's at ”

Why is Graham “reaching out” to a group that he believes will die out and who, by his own admission, he shares none of the values of? I answered that question in my previous post:

How long are we going to stomach the Snowes, Collins and Grahams in our midst simply because the stick an (R) at the end of the names? These people are politicians for pity sake. They aren't going to change unless the one thing they actually care about, their re-election, is threatened.

Graham is looking around and suddenly he has noticed the demise of long term RINOs like himself who failed to take the electorate seriously. What do you think Graham cares more about (a)being re-elected or (b)amnesty for illegals?; (a) being re-elected or (b) Cap and Trade?; (a) being re-elected or (b) Gitmo? If you picked (a) all three times give yourself a gold star.

Graham doesn’t face re-election until 2014. We will see, by his voting record, between now and then whether he takes the Tea Party seriously or whether he is just shining them on. My guess is that he will put his re-election chances ahead of any ideology he might have. No way he wants to be the next Murkowski.

Should you vote Republican at any cost? Updated

There has been a debate raging amongst Republicans sparked by the O'Donnell/Castle matchup in Delaware.  For some excellent insight on the debate check out Smitty's post and Stacy's reply at The Other McCain.  What it all boils down to is this-in a primary battle between a true Conservative with little chance of winning in the general election and a RINO with a very good chance of winning in the general, do you stick to your principals even if it means that a Democrat will end up with the seat or do you hold your nose and back the RINO?  The best reason to go ahead and hold your nose:

Why do we want a Republican Senate? Aside from totally crushing the Democrats' spirit, control of the Senate means that our guys will be the chairmen for each committee and subcommittee. This means that they will have control of the calendar. It means that if Obama wants something, he'll have to negotiate with Republicans, rather than his own sycophantic party members.

A concrete example: Do you imagine that Elena Kagan would be a Supreme Court Justice right now if Senator Sessions had been Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee? Hell no, she wouldn't.

I totally understand that.  I want a Republican congress but even more, I want a Conservative congress.  Consider this:

HH: And that’s very ominous for what happens next year. Let me ask you, Mark, I had John Boehner on Monday, and the transcript for the audience is posted at Hughhewitt.com, and I asked the Leader whether the Republicans were prepared to move quickly, if they understood the need for speed. Do you get a sense that the GOP, Beltway division, is in touch with, aligned with, and is committed as the country’s populist, conservative revolt wants them to be? To cut spending, extend the tax cuts, and rebuild the DOD and repeal Obamacare?

MS: No, I don’t think so. I think there are some people, obviously, there are people like Jim DeMint who are committed to that, and there are some of these newly-nominated candidates who are committed to that. But I listened to Trent Lott, who cashed in his rolodex for a big time lobbyist job, and Trent Lott is saying oh, we don’t want 60 Jim DeMints in the Senate. We are going to need to do some serious hacking away at the size of the federal government. Otherwise, I think this is do or die for the Republican Party. If people vote in the Republicans on a tide of revulsion at what the Democrats have done, and the Republicans just settle back and we’re back to 2004 all over again, I think the Republican Party will have blown their last chance, and we will, I have to be cautious here, because I believe it’s a condition of my Green Card that I’m not allowed to foment armed insurrection against the government of the United States.

HH: (laughing)

MS: But with that stipulation, I think we will be pushing the temperament of the people in a revolutionary direction, and that is something that the Republicans ought to understand.

How long are we going to stomach the Snowes, Collins and Grahams in our midst simply because the stick an (R) at the end of the names?  These people are politicians for pity sake.  They aren't going to change unless the one thing they actually care about, their re-election, is threatened.  They need to know that Conservatives have gotten serious and we are in no mood to go back to the days of "play along to get along."  If we don't stand up for our principals now I'm not sure we deserve to win.

Update:

The debate rages on.  Dan Riehl makes my point much better than I do:

As for Republicans controlling the Senate, I'm unconvinced that would be a good thing. Control of the House and 47 - 48 Republicans in the Senate is enough to mostly block Obama. A Republican Senate comprised of Castle, McCain, Ghraham, Snowe, Collins, perhaps Kirk, and some others, will not produce what conservatives want and could lead to compromises producing even more anger at Republicans across the base.

If we continue fighting, pushing the Senate even more Right in 2012 - and possibly electing a solid Right-side President, then conservatives and Republicans may even be able to mend fences and go about building a longer-term GOP majority. Too much of a good thing too soon rarely turns out to be a good thing in the end.

Allah disagrees.  Jim Geraghty does too.  Me?  I've got a stomach ache.