Here, you are urged and encouraged to run your mouths about something important.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010


Sarah Palin has lost me. Up to this point, she was the only potential candidate in the current field of likely Republican nominees for president in 2012 that had my support. She's now off the short list. It has been announced that she will stump for moderate John McCain not in his race against whoever his Democrat opponent will ultimately be but during the primary.

That's not ok. Former Republican congressman J.D. Hayworth has been seriously mulling a run for McCain's seat. Unlike progressive John McCain, Hayworth is a staunch conservative and having Palin stump for McCain doesn't help Hayworth's chances but it may eventually hurt Palin with conservatives - it has with this one.

CNN reports:
Sarah Palin, McCain's former running mate and perhaps the most powerful brand in Republican politics, will stump for McCain in Arizona on March 26 and 27, a Palin adviser told CNN. The presence of Palin - and the considerable crowds and media attention she will draw - might give pause to J.D. Hayworth, the former Republican congressman and radio host who opposes McCain's position on illegal immigration and is mulling a Senate run of his own.
In light of the extremely strong rise of conservatism, using the word unfortunate to describe Palin's pledged campaign support for McCain is an understatement. Yes, this is obviously her returning the favor for being chosen as McCain's running mate but she risks losing significant capital with the conservative movement. Palin is revealing her allegiance to conservatism by choosing this option to repay the unspoken debt to McCain.

If Palin is concerned about re-paying that debt, she should hold back any support or endorsement until AFTER the primary, if McCain wins. She doesn't have to support Hayworth but based on her having successfully ingratiated herself with the conservative movement, she absolutely should NOT put her support behind a progressive Republican, no matter what is owed to him or what his chances of winning without her.

When Palin resigned from the governorship, many questioned her resolve to stick to the job she signed on to. It hurt her chances with some Republicans. Her commitment to stump for John McCain against a true conservative like J.D. Hayworth, it will not only hurt her chances with conservatives, especially if the primary is close, it will cause people to wonder if she has the resolve not to let conservatism get trumped by political favors.

Support J.D. Hayworth

h/t to Free Republic


David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs provide the latest example of leftwing delusion, with the former saying that people are making too much of the results from the Massachusetts senate race. The political earthquake of that election is so blatantly obvious that the entire Obama administration and the Democrat leadership in congress makes Baghdad Bob look like Honest Abe.

Watch for their combined response when Axelrod is asked how the results can be interpreted any other way than that voters don't want the health care monstrosity because Brown said he would be the filibuster-busting vote. Axelrod looks to Gibbs to answer and is met with Gibbs' signature, "uhhhh" before Axelrod decides to deliver his own brand of a rambling non-answer.

These two really should have worn clown suits for this interview.

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

That display is EXACTLY what John Boehner is talking about here.

h/t to Hot Air Pundit for both videos


Notice the stark contrast painted by Tingles. In this corner, we have voters who will vote for Coakley and get the health care reform that they want. In this corner we have "pre-meditated" murderers of health care. At some point, this guy has got to issue a standard disclaimer with each broadcast saying he's an Alinsky-ite shill for socialism, marxism, and liberalism while attempting to portray an air of objectivity and should not be taken seriously unless you agree with him.

Everybody with a brain knows it but there are still some out there who think this is objective journalism.

Yes, people who voted for Scott Brown are guilty of "pre-meditated murder" according to Matthews.

h/t to Hot Air


Erroll Southers likely would have been to the TSA what Eric Holder is to the Justice Department - an absolute nightmare for the United States of America. Once again, a good man in senator Jim DeMint stands up when it seems like martyrdom to do so. No way someone like Lindsey Graham or Susan Collins would have the same kind of courage. They'd likely see it as a loser and hope for a victory later on when it's more practical, hoping to use their caving in on that loser as capital.

Note to such people - standing on principle matters and DeMint gets it. He also got a victory when Southers pulled out. It may be time to add DeMint to the list of Davids out there like Roberto Micheletti, Vaclav Klaus, and Sheriff Joe Arpaio who actually know what standing up for what's right means.

Courtesy of the Washington Post:
In a statement, Erroll Southers said he was pulling out because his nomination had become a lightning rod for those with a political agenda. President Barack Obama tapped Southers, a former FBI agent, to lead the TSA in September but his confirmation has been blocked by Republican Sen. Jim DeMint, who says he was worried Southers would allow TSA employees to engage in collective bargaining with the government.

Questions have also been raised about a reprimand that Southers received for running background checks on his then-estranged wife's boyfriend two decades ago. Southers wrote a letter to lawmakers earlier this month acknowledging that he had given inconsistent answers to Congress on that issue.
For a small taste of why Erroll Southers would have been so dangerous, check out these short videos of him talking about our enemies.

Living With Terrorism

h/t to Hot Air for the Wapo link


Pride has such a funny way of making people look beyond absurd to those on the outside looking in. What's really funny is the fact that they have GOT to know it but simply can't help themselves. The latest instance comes courtesy of House majority leader, Steny Hoyer, who actually attempts to make the case that the reason the heavily Democratic state of Massachusetts was going Republican was not because of the Democrats' agenda but because of the Republicans' obstructing it.


The Hill Reported on the day of the election, when Steny saw the Stenyography on the wall:
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday said that angst voters have expressed early this election year is the result of GOP obstructionism, not the Democrats agenda.

Hoyer's remarks come as Republican state Sen. Scott Brown has surged in the Massachusetts special Senate election in part due to his pledge to be the GOP's 41st vote to filibuster healthcare reform legislation.

"I think what the public is angry about is they see, first of all, an opposition for opposition's sake," Hoyer told reporters.
Uh, Steny, maybe it was the fact that people like this registered Democrat saw through your lies. This man called you a liar to your face and you still ignored the majority of Americans who see your agenda for what it is - wicked.

More analysis at Hot Air


The far left looney Democrats are simply too emotionally invested in this health care monstrosity to stop now. The doubling down continues. When it comes to the Super Majority in the senate necessary to overcome a filibuster, Barney wants to do away with it at a time when it's inconvenient for passage of the health care monstrosity.

Barney provides further audacity by invoking the Constitution to support his claim. Uh, Barney, do you really want to go there at this point?

Now for those wondering what Barney's opinion was back in 2005 when Bush's judicial nominees were getting filibustered constantly, I found this excerpt from the Boston Herald on Free Republic although the link to the actual article is dead.
WASHINGTON - U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, who publicly crusaded against Senate filibusters 12 years ago, now says he opposes banning filibusters against judicial nominees - the so-called "nuclear option" fueling a bruising Capitol Hill showdown.

"I would vote against changing the filibuster rule right now,'' Frank (D-Newton) told the Herald in a telephone interview Thursday. Frank explained he still supports an "across-the-board'' ban against all filibusters, but he opposes the Republican "nuclear option'' because it only outlaws filibusters against judicial nominees.

"I object to (a filibuster ban) being used in a very specific instance,'' Frank said. "If they make an improvement going forward, I would maybe look at it differently.''

Frank's comments come as the Senate braces for a showdown vote over President Bush's filibustered judicial picks, a battle that could affect federal justices from the district level all the way to the next Supreme Court nominee.

In 1993, Frank led a public fight to end Senate filibusters, asserting in a Washington Post op-ed piece: "I believe legislative bodies should scrupulously abide by two principles: complete openness and majority rule. The filibuster is a godsend to potential gridlockers.''

Republicans at the time were using filibusters to block President Clinton's agenda in the Democratic-controlled Senate. Today, it is frustrated Democrats in the GOP-run Senate who are using filibuster tactics to block Bush's judicial nominees, whom they consider to be too conservative.

The time-honored Senate practice of the filibuster, whereby lawmakers can block a nominee or a bill by refusing to stop debating, has sparked acrimony on Capitol Hill expected to reach a climax this week. Sixty of 100 Senate votes are required to kill a filibuster.

Republicans, who accuse Democrats of blocking Bush's judge picks for sheer partisan advantage, want a straight up-or-down majority vote on the president's court picks. Their bill would outlaw filibusters against judicial nominees.

Frank scoffed at Republican claims Bush is being unfairly shortchanged on nominees.

The Newton Democrat recalled the nomination of former Bay State Gov. William F. Weld to be ambassador to Mexico. GOP senators blocked a vote on Weld because they questioned his conservative credentials. "Why didn't the Republicans apply the same standard to Bill Weld?'' Frank asked.
Quite obvious that Barney is AGAINST the filibuster when Democrats have a majority but not a super-majority and he's FOR it when Republicans have the majority but not a super-majority. In 2005, the Republicans had a majority of 55 senators. At that time, Barney re-calibrated his position by saying the filibuster should NOT be banned in the case of judicial nominees. So, Barney was for the filibuster after he was against it and before he was against it again. Beautiful.

Let's also not forget that while the Social Security reform initiative Bush attempted was also met with Democrat resistance in the form of a threat to filibuster. Wouldn't you love to know what Barney's view were on that one too?

Video via Breitbart


We all knew it was coming but there's just something about watching it unfold that is still jaw-dropping. Nancy Pelosi couldn't wait 24 minutes let alone 24 hours - after it became apparent that Scott Brown had won - to open her yap about still being determined to ram the health care monstrosity down the throats of Americans.

The Politico reports that as she was leaving her office at 11:30pm, she dug in her heels:
And already Tuesday night, Democrats were being forced to come to terms with the prospect that their decades-long goal of health reform might once again fall short, despite getting closer to becoming law than ever before.

Pelosi insisted Democrats could still make it happen. "We will get the job done. I am confident of that. I have always been confident of that," she told reporters as she left the Capitol at 11:30 p.m.

"Massachusetts has health care and so the rest of the country would like to have that too," Pelosi said, referring to the state’s health care program. "So we don't [think] a state that already has health care should determine whether the rest of the country should."
I don't know what's going on inside that delusional mind of hers but she obviously has no clue how utterly ludicrous she appears to an increasingly overwhelming majority in this country. Arrogance, pride, and indifference all wrapped up inside a botox shell.

As if more irony was necessary in the Massachusetts senate saga. Perhaps Nancy should re-read the cover of her own book, which flopped monumentally, despite her appearing on every forum possible. Remember THIS? Be sure to read the reviews of that awful, awful book.

Spock would think twice before performing a mind meld on this woman.


There are SO many ironic elements to Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts. Whether it's the fact that the Tea Party movement levied its strongest blow in a state where the original tea party took place or the fact that a special election certainly unforeseen by the Obama administration has sunk the health care monstrosity. Let's not forget WHY there was a special election - Teddy Kennedy. The man who made passing a health care monstrosity his life's work also remained in the senate well after diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Enter Erick Erickson of Red State, who was on a panel at CNN talking about what Scott Brown winning in Massachusetts means for the health care monstrosity.

His argument? If Teddy Kennedy would have resigned when he was diagnosed, the Democrats wouldn't have been in this position. Paul Begala calls it a "low blow".

The truth hurts, doesn't it Paul?

h/t to HotAirPundit
Accuracy in Media
American Spectator
American Thinker
Big Government
Big Journalism
Doug Ross
Flopping Aces
Fox Nation
Fox News
Free Republic
The Hill
Hope for America
Hot Air
Hot Air Pundit
Jawa Report
Jihad Watch
Michelle Malkin
Naked Emperor News
National Review
New Zeal Blog
News Real
Pajamas Media
Red State
Right Wing News
Say Anything
Stop Islamization of America
Verum Serum
Wall Street Journal
Washington Times
Watts Up With That
Web Today
Weekly Standard
World Net Daily

Blog Archive