February 09, 2012

And guess who she wants to replace? Gabby Giffords.

When I first got the email saying she was running for Congress, I did a quick check of the archives and found that we had, in fact, reported on her before:

Retired Col. Martha McSally, whose grievance about being forced to wear the Muslim abaya while stationed in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s resulted in 2002 legislation outlawing the practice of making female soldiers wear Muslim religious garb in Saudi Arabia, told The Daily Caller that the sanctity of the uniform should not be sullied with outside accessories like the hijab.

“Another thing that makes this inappropriate is that they are wearing it with their uniform,” she said. “All the services have several-hundred-page regulations about what is appropriate and is not appropriate to wear with the uniform, and we have very strict guidelines … You are representing the United States government. You are wearing the U.S. military uniform, and it confuses what you are representing when you add this to the uniform.”

The woman has ... how you say? .... huevos.

I don't live in Tuscon, but if I did, I'd support her. Here's her website where you can donate to her campaign.

Thanks to Robert.

February 07, 2012

This easy.

February 03, 2012

Roseanne "We Can't Let Children See The Guilty Get Away With Murder So We Should Behead All Rich People Who Fail In Re-Education Camps" Barr has announced she is seeking the Green Party nomination to run for President of the United States:

Barr has submitted paperwork to the Green Party for her candidacy. The party’s presidential nominee will be selected at a convention in Baltimore in July.

Roseanne, Ron Paul, Barack Obama... America is just one big joke to them. It's a big playground where they can bullying those who disagree and manipulate those too stupid or too ignorant to know any better, all for the selfish end to their liberal agenda. But you can't really blame them. The real joke is on the voters who keep voting for these incompetent and hate-filled fascists.

Roseanne showing her patriotism:

February 02, 2012

My post from last week on the myth that moderates can't win and on the electability question caught the eye of a few people so I just wanted to follow up with a couple of thoughts.

First, let me point out that years of political science research indicate that the strongest indicator of who will win an election boils down to economic indicators. In other words, if the economy is steaming along the candidate representing the party in power nearly always wins and if the economy isn't doing so well then it's usually the candidate from the party out of power.

So, as I pointed out, since the economy isn't likely to recover quick enough by November then whoever the Republicans nominate is likely to win.

Obama beat McCain because of the economy. Reagan beat Carter because of the economy. Etc, etc.

That's 90% of the story. But there are exceptions to the rule and there are things parties and candidates can do to shoot themselves in the foot and lose a gimme election.

However, that 10% "other" is not what we party activists and ideologues think it is. What motivates those who switch votes from one party to another on any given election is usually confined to things other than the candidate's stance on policy issues.

Reams of survey data show that independents are the least likely to know anything about a candidate's policy stances. Instead, these independents vote on things like "leadership", "integrity", and "strength".

In other words, they have no idea why they are voting for who they vote for. Mostly they just vote for the guy in power if they think the economy and country are doing ok, vice versa, and if they are indifferent on that point they look to other cues -- very few of which have an actual relationship with what the politician has done or is promising to do beyond vague notions that every one agrees on such as "creating jobs", "making America strong", of "building a brighter future".

Maetenloch, over at Ace of Spades HQ follows, follows up on my point:

The 'independent' voters who decide national elections are not at all like us.

Because the truth is that we're the freaks and oddballs and abby normals for caring so much about politics and hanging out daily at a politically-oriented blog like this one - much less actually commenting at one (you know - the 1%ers of the political geeks).

The 'independents' - God bless their blissfully politically ignorant souls - could care less about the issues and all the details we obsess on.

But things like the perception of a candidate's temperament will matter to the independent voters. Which is why I have a big problem with Gingrich. I'm just not sure he's electable. Because, frankly, he's a hothead. My initial support of Gingrich was based partly on the fact that I wanted a hothead.

But, I'm not everybody.

Neo-neocon makes the same point:

I think a big part of Gingrich’s problem is temperament, and the problem is real. As far as Newt’s supporters are concerned, his anger is one of his strengths and not a problem at all. When it’s directed at the media it seems to work for him, although that may be getting a bit old. When it’s directed at Mitt Romney it has been working less effectively, especially when it features attacks that are from the left and/or hyperbole.

Gingrich is already a “hot” candidate rather than a cool one, and he runs the risk of seeming intemperate and out-of-control when he goes off like that. I submit that his decision to go angry in Florida was not just a tactical one; it was dictated by his personality itself. Voters in Florida decided that was not the sort of man they wanted facing Obama, or in the Oval Office.

I think more evidence of Gingrich's temperament problem is revealed in the aftermath of his defeat in Florida. No, I'm not talking about his refusal to call Romney and congratulate him. That's no big deal to me and will soon be forgotten.

But what was Gingrich's first instinct after losing fair and square to Romney? Sue.

Okay, so it's not technically suing, but resorting to procedural tricks is, well, kind of petty, don't you think?

And I kind of think that is an indication of the kind of guy Gingrich is. He thinks he's so important to history that he'll do anything to win. He's a true believer in his own awesomeness. So much so that his personal actions are excused because, you know, history. He's an egomaniac.

Romney? He's just willing to do anything to win because he wants to win. You know, the normal kind of inflated ego that all politicians have.

And just to clarify one point: I don't think that issues are the only thing that matters, as Neo-neocon took my point, only that it's the most important thing to me. And I wish it would mean more to independents and non-ideologues.

As you can tell, Presidential character does matter to to me. It's why I've reluctantly given up on Gingrich.

But you know what matters to most of them? American Idol and The Bachelor.

I was at the hospital the other day visiting a friend. And one of her older relatives was in the room. The older lady must have been in her 70s or 80s.

They were watching The Bachelor. I was a little embarrassed to be in the same room with these two ladies when the bachelor and the girl stripped naked and went skinny dipping.

So I said something along the lines of, "You know, 30 years ago we would have been shocked to see something like this on TV and now it's on in prime time and is highly rated."

I thought I'd have a sympathetic ear from the older lady. But you know what she said?

"That's true, but it's so much better than watching the politicians. They're always fighting over things and raising a fuss over things. I can't stand it!"

Yeah, that's your typical independent voter. They don't want someone who will fight against Obama. They just want someone to replace him. Someone they can trust. Someone who won't raise too much of a fuss. Someone who looks like a President. Someone like Romney.

Yes, that Chuck Woolery.

(Hat Tip: IQ al Rassooli)

View more of Chuck's videos HERE. They are really funny and surprisingly accurate. Visit his website HERE.

January 28, 2012

A lot of people are concerned about the next election and whether Obama can be defeated. I'm concerned too. But then, I'm an eternal pessimist. I hope for the best, yet there's always a nagging doubt.

Just think about this: How many people do you know who voted for McCain and now say, "You know what? Obama turned out to be a good President. I think I'll change my vote next time and vote for him."?

I don't know any. Not even one.

Now, how many people do you know who voted for Obama and, realizing the mistake he was for America, plan to vote against him in the next election?

I know quite a few.

Sure, there are always the die-hard supporters who are going to support Obama no matter what. But there are not very many who have changed their mind in favor of Obama.

The pessimist I am, I still have difficulty seeing Obama win again.

In this video, a few Obama-generation college students give their opinion. It's worth a watch.

January 26, 2012

Remember I told you that the interview with one of Newt's ex-wives on ABC had pushed me out of the Gingrich camp? That I thought that the truth might not be that Newt had asked for an "open marriage", but that it was plausible for an egotistic and ambitious politician to ask his wife not to divorce him because it would hurt his political career. And that how asking to stay married, to keep up appearances, but yet saying that no, he will not stop sleeping with his mistress, could reasonably be interpreted by a hurt spouse as something akin to asking for an "open marriage".

Ummm, I'm thinking that I was pretty close with that:

“Tonight, after persistent questioning by our staff, the Gingrich campaign concedes now Speaker Gingrich was wrong — both in his debate answer, and in our interview yesterday,” King said on tonight’s edition of John King USA. “Gingrich spokesman R.C. Hammond says the only people the Gingrich campaign offered to ABC were his two daughters from his first marriage.”

And Gingrich's answer, that he had witnesses who could vouch that he didn't want an "open marriage", um, how exactly does that work?

If I understand the accusation, there were two people involved in the conversation. How can a witness back up either side of the story? At best this is a he said/she said kind of deal. There's no way of proving either version of it.

And, yes, it was a stupid question to ask at the debates. And I love Gingrich's response to John King's stupid question.

But let's face it: this is the treatment Republicans are going to get.

There's no way to change that. No amount of complaining about the media will make them more even handed in their treatment of candidates.

Which is why Gingrich's personal life is such a disaster. Did you know the guy's first wife was his .... get this ... high school math teacher?

Sure, Mr. E. Blogger, Vinnie, Ronin, Howie, and me are much more likely to vote for a guy who we know was porking one of his teachers. We don't get tens of thousands of hits each month for people searching for "hot teachers student sex scandal" because we don't get it.

But we're not you're typical independent voter. For most people, bangin' your high school math teacher and then leaving her for a younger and more attractive spouse, only to leave her for yet another younger and more attractive spouse isn't considered a bonus on your resume.

I know Gingrich doesn't want to talk about this. I don't want to talk about it.

But you know what? It's going to be talked about.

In fact, as un-newsworthy as this is it's still more newsworthy than the near hour by hour polling updates that we are constantly bombarded with.

People, the personal lives of the candidates do tell us something about their character. I know in the post-Clinton era we have been led to believe that it doesn't, but consider this: the "popular" and "likable" Bill Clinton never managed to muster enough support to get a majority of the vote.

I'm not saying that personal attributes are the most important variable in determining the outcome of an election. But they are a variable which could, in a very close race, mean the difference between winning and losing.

Personally I'm not all excited about another four years of Barrack Obama, crusader for "fairness".

If Newt is our nominee, of course I'll support him. But at this point, I'd really like voters in the next few primaries to reconsider the "winnibility" factor and to remember that on most major issues all three of the real candidates (sorry Paultards, the guy isn't really running for President) basically agree.

I know you're wondering why all the sudden angst over Newt, Rusty? It's because I fear that America as we know it cannot stand another four years and another 7 trillion dollars in debt that the first four years of Obama gave us.

Remember when the national debt was a measly $9.3 trillion, way back three years ago at the end of the George W. Bush administration rather than the $15.3 trillion in debt we are now in three quarters of the way through one term of Obama?

Yeah, good times. Good times.

January 25, 2012

Here's Newt on President Bush's adoption of Gen. Patraeus's surge strategy in Iraq:

Bush was opposed by many of the top generals, by some Republican leaders who feared the surge would hurt in the 2008 elections, and of course by a slew of Democrats and media commentators. Here again Gingrich provided no support for his party’s embattled president, testifying as a private citizen in 2007 that the strategy was “inadequate,” contained “breathtaking” gaps, lacked “synergism” (whatever that means), and was “very disappointing.” What did Gingrich propose? Among other things, a 50 percent increase in the budget of the State Department.

Abrams point in this article -- in which he also points out that Newt opposed many of Reagan's Cold War policies -- is that Newt is not the visionary that he seems to think himself.

To give Newt his due, I also had serious reservations about the surge. The strategy was brilliant and should be remembered as one of the bravest political acts in US history. I, like Newt, was wrong.

The difference between the two of us? I'm not running for President.

I don't think being wrong disqualifies him from being President, but his misremembering of history -- in which in his own mind he seems to think he was not only front and center in all of the major battles of the last quarter of a century but also on the right side of those battles -- causes me more than a bit of trepidation over his candidacy.

January 24, 2012

Liberalism defined.

~Headline courtesy of some anonymous moron.

January 21, 2012

(Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit)

January 11, 2012

Running against his only challenger, "write-in." 82% is well below the 99.9% Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won in 2009. Apparently, Obama needs to obtain some of Mahmoud's campaign advisers.

Read more.

December 16, 2011

I'm still a Gingrich guy, but I agree with Ace wholeheartedly:

We are basically threatening to hang ourselves over the question over whether the next government will be quite rightwing or very rightwing.

Worse case scenario? Let's say it's merely "quite rightwing." The government would be more conservative, overall, than it ever, ever was under Reagan.

November 10, 2011

I've been out of politics for some time, but for what it's worth I've decided to support Newt Gingrich for President. In the coming weeks, I'll try to explain that decision. For now,we'll let the endorsement and support stand on its own.

Back in 2004 I was involved with Matt Margolis' Blogs for Bush back in the heady blogs will change the world days. Does anyone know if a similar organization or blog hive exists for Newt? If you do, let me know.

September 14, 2011

I guess AttackWatch forgot about the standing ovation Netanyahu received at the joint session of Congress

Via The Blaze

.....The Obama-Biden campaign has launched a new website — www.AttackWatch.com — to monitor “inaccuracies… falsehoods… gossip…“ and ”smears” against President Obama. The BarackObama.com campaign website reads:

If you’re worried about the increasing negativity of the attacks on President Obama and his record, now’s your chance to fight back with the facts. Visit AttackWatch.com to learn the truth about frequent smears, track new attacks as they happen, and report false allegations you’ve seen or heard.

We’ve heard it all since 2008, from lies about the Affordable Care Act to false rumors that the Obama administration hasn’t been an ally to Israel. These aren’t just unfounded allegations about the President—they’re attempts to derail the momentum of this movement and undermine everything we’ve accomplished together in the last three years.

At press time, the top feature on Obama’s AttackWatch.com was titled “Glenn Beck twists the facts on Israel.”

The Obama camp‘s source on Beck’s so-called “lies” is the ever-reliable George Soros-funded Media Matters

Conservative pundit Glenn Beck added his voice to a growing collection of false allegations about the President’s record on Israel. “We’re talking a lot about Israel,” said Beck. “The President of the United States, I believe, has betrayed our last strong ally.”

......The site includes no mention of how Benjamin Netanyahu feels about the Obama administration’s Middle East policy, even though the prime minister has personally met with Obama and delivered remarks before a joint session of Congress.

The AttackWatch site also includes input from ThinkProgress.org — clearly fair & balanced analysis of these “facts”:

New Yorkers put Washington Democrats on notice that voters are losing confidence in a President whose policies assault job-creators and affront Israel,” said National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas) in a statement after Turner’s win.

Related:
Big Brother Obama Is Watching You! UPDATE: Bestest tweet evah!!

UPDATE: "Guest" in comments links to a website supposedly anti AttackWatch. Please do not click linkvirus warning...

Xariif, Greyrooster has some splainin to do

Turn me in, I dare you!!!

September 13, 2011

I've moved away from the more overtly political blog posts over the last few years. The reason? Mostly I'm just bored with it.

But election season is coming up and I did watch the debate last night. I had nothing better to do, sue me.

I don't have a favorite as of this moment. In fact, of those on the stage every single one had some good ideas. Some better than others, but given that an election is a political event and not a religious event then I'm not looking for purity.

As a matter of fact I could see just about each and every one of the candidates as President of the United States.

Except for Ron Paul and Michelle Bachmann.

I like Ron Paul's ideas. Most of them. But, let's face it, he's a bumbling idiot.

The job of the President of the United States is to explain American motives to our enemies. It is not to explain our enemies' motives to America.

If Ron Paul wants to become the spokesman for al Qaeda or for the Taliban I know a few people and can make some calls. Yeah, I think I could make that happen.

Ron Paul's rhetoric on American foreign policy represents the worst aspects of President Obama's innate hostility to American exceptionalism. Only less articulate.

I'm surprised he didn't describe 9/11 as the chickens coming home to roost.

It's not that he's wrong about al Qaeda's motives. Al Qaeda didn't attack us for who we are, they attacked us for what we do. It's just that Ron Paul fundamentally agrees with al Qaeda that what we do is bad.

On this, he's wrong.

And if this isn't what he actually believes, then he is so inarticulate that he's in no position to be our nation's voice to the world.

The other candidate who I can't support is Michelle Bachmann. I know Ron Paul is a smart man. I just think he's wrong on a number of issues. And that he has trouble articulating many of those ideas. So poorly sometimes that he'd make a terrible President.

But Michelle Bachmann? I'm now convinced she's just stupid.

Yeah, I said it: Michelle Bachmann is stupid.

I don't expect the President of the United States to be a genius. I don't think intellectual prowess is the most important character trait for leadership. If that was the case, then our nation's only nuclear engineer would have been our greatest president.

Jimmy Carter, nuclear engineer.

So, in the coming primaries I won't necessarily vote for the smartest candidate.

But is average intelligence too much to ask?

No, I don't think Bachmann has even average intelligence. She's dim witted.

At least, she comes off that way. I don't know that for sure, but I have no other way of gauging that other than what she says.

And, let's face it, she says some stupid sh*t.

I don't mean slip ups. We all have our moments.

I mean it seems that she believes some stupid sh*t.

And I'm saying this as a religious person who believes in some stuff that I can see outsiders judging as pretty stupid. If I didn't actually believe what I do ... well, then I wouldn't believe it myself.

So, for me to say that? Well, I think that says something.

She and Ron Paul don't deserve a place in the next debate. They're unqualified to be the next President. They're jokes.

If the libertarian wing of the party wants to be taken seriously then they need to come up with someone other than Ron Paul. Maybe Rand? He seems more sane.

And I'm in the libertarian wing of the party. You are my people. Why can't we come up with someone better than Ron Paul?

And if the Tea Partiers want someone more pure than Rick Perry then they need to get to work fast on finding a Bachmann replacement. Whenever she opens her mouth she just reinforces the unfair MSM stereotype about the Tea Party. If you want independents to believe that Tea Partiers are stupid, support Bachmann.

And Tea Partiers: I love you guys. You're certainly closer to my small government liberty oriented ideal than the last guy the Republicans nominated.

Other than those two, I'd be happy to vote for any of the other candidates in the general election. Say what you will about them, they're better than the alternative -- Barack Obama.

September 01, 2011

Via Weekly Standard:

President Obama has united Democrats and Republicans on a single issue: Israel. That's the premise of a new Emergency Committee for Israel ad targeting the special election in New York's 9th Congressional District

A few recent related posts:
White House Busted Again: Scrubbed Bush Era Reference of Jerusalem in Israel
White House, in Escalation of Jerusalem Controversy, Scrubs Its Web Site of References to the City Being in Israel

Video: The White House Cleanses Israel From Its Website
White House to Israel: Apologize to Turkey over flotilla raid or we'll abandon you at UN
Department of Homeland Insecurity Removes Israel From Terror List

August 16, 2011

Obama media, card carrying members of the race card:

h/t BreitbartTV

UPDATE: Here comes Joan Walsh to defend.

UPDATE: Schultz apologized, not for calling Perry a racist but for not showing the full video.

Practice makes perfect[Emphasis mine]:

.....I mean, we know that there are Predator drones being flown for practice every day because we're seeing them, we're preparing these young people to fly missions in these war zones that we have. But some of those, they have all the equipment, they're obviously unarmed, they've got the downward-looking radar, they've got the ability to do night work and through clouds. Why not be flying those missions and using (that) real-time information to help our law-enforcement? Becuase [sp] if we will commit to that, I will suggest to you that we will be able to drive the drug cartels away from our border."

Headlines such as During practice, Predator drone such and such nabs high profile drug lord would be a heck of a lot better than " Border Agent Brian Terry killed by gun from botched Operation Fast and Furious gunrunner program".

August 10, 2011

Wisconsin residents validate Scott Walker's agenda by holding GOP control of the State Senate. Weekly Standard's wrap up.

The recalls did yield two seats to the democrats but not enough to regain control.

Next week there are two more recalls for seats of democrats who fled the state took their ball and went home in February to obstruct a vote on a controversial fiscally responsible Budget Repair Bill. Kim Simac has a great chance to knock of one of the democrats if you want to throw a couple dollars at bashing back the Big Union influx of cash into these races.

The message to the whining unions and those residents that are easily whipped into a foaming frenzy after a 30 second scolding from your union neighbor: Walker corrected your man's last 8 year budget mess without raising taxes. It was simple and responsible. That is why Walker was elected, Justice Prosser was elected, and the GOP was re-elected yesterday by the majority. The majority of Wisconsin residents don't knee-jerk react to 30 million dollars of outsider cash influence. The majority can not be bullied. The purpose of recalls are not intended to overturn the majority. Please sit down and wait your turn for the next Governor election cycle....that's how it's supposed to work.

August 08, 2011

AllahP: Report: Perry to announce, sort of, on Saturday

Rick Perry intends to use a speech in South Carolina Saturday to make clear that he’s running for president, POLITICO has learned.

According to two sources familiar with the plan, the Texas governor will remove any doubt about his White House intentions during his appearance at a RedState conference in Charleston.

It’s uncertain whether Saturday will mark a formal declaration, but Perry’s decision to disclose his intentions the same day as the Ames straw poll..[More..]

Allah also updated with video by Students 4 Perry:

Impressive video!

Related:
Bryan Preston: Maybe the Best Political Ad of the Season

July 21, 2011

h/t @ladyravensdc

June 30, 2011

(Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit)

June 04, 2011

Liberal NY Mag Attacks WZ Commenters For Daring To Oppose Romney’s Pro-Global Warming Statement

Good job ZIP & commenters!

May 25, 2011

Contrary to the spin put out by the Texas Republicans, the tea partiers in Texas are generally not their biggest fans. During the last year, the tea partiers' chief nemesis has been Republican House Speaker Joe Straus, whose leadership team spiked more than a few popular pieces of legislation in committee during the last two legislative sessions.

More information on this fight HERE and HERE.

May 24, 2011

Or as Fasternu426 commented: "Obama's new Reichminister of Propaganda, Goebbels approved".

TheBlaze

Just so you know, your tax dollars are now paying for a “director of progressive media & online response” within the White House. Translation: a dedicated enforcer and story squasher that loves the liberal media.

“This week, Jesse Lee will move from the new media department into a role in the communications department as Director of Progressive Media & Online Response,” Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer said in an internal memo provided to The Huffington Post[More]

Jesse appears to see no reason why he has to tell the truth, it's the progressive way...

UPDATE: Well, well... Jesse is married to a Campaign Director at MoveOn.org.

Oh, and "Dear Jesse":

Our Terminators are badder than yours...

April 20, 2011

Wisconsin Supreme Court race, which was supposed to be a referendum on Governor Scott Walker, is going to a recount. Recall the official Jawa Report position here.

Remember that number, kids. 7316. Anybody want to put something on that number going higher, in Prosser's favor? Especially after they look into the typically hook-dicked voting that happens in Milwaukee and Racine Counties....you know, next to Obama's 'ol stompin ground.

April 19, 2011

I know Jawa has covered this race a little. The Sandcrawler left me at a gas station in Omaha...man I hate Omaha...anyway, Rusty said it was on accident, so I wanted to comment now. This story in the Journal Sentinel mentions that Prosser is ahead by 7316 votes which is still in the range for a taxpayer funded recount. As we all know, this came after Kloppenburg claimed victory prematurely, which is a great characteristic for a judge. I say, have fun JoAnne, count away. Then please remove yourself to obscurity.

And to the unions and lefties who ideas and policies are not enough to persuade voters, but must rely on voice volume, physical mistreatment, and big soap signs on your vehicles to sell your side...Ha Ha!

December 17, 2010

Spin it Billy.

Video below fold:

Assmaggot douchebag

December 06, 2010

Nastiness

SeattlePI

FORT SMITH, Ark. -- A 40-year-old Arkansas man has been arrested in Seattle in connection with an attempted bombing of a polling place at a northwest Arkansas church in June, according to federal authorities[...]

Court documents indicate Krause was arrested on complaints of attempted use of force against those engaged in federally protected activities and possession of an unregistered firearm.

Authorities found an improvised explosive device inside a 12-ounce soda can at Osage Baptist Church in Osage, Ark., on June 8 and say that the bomb could have killed anyone within 10 to 15 feet of it had it exploded[...

In an affidavit filed in federal court, Little Rock-based FBI Special Agent Keith Frutiger said a poll worker noticed the bomb in front of the door of the polling place that morning and picked it up and moved it out of the way before later setting the can on the church secretary's desk. Authorities say 35 people voted at the polling place that day[Read the rest]

h/t NTA

November 05, 2010

Bwahahahahahaha

Image credit SodaHead

November 04, 2010

Part II here

November 03, 2010

WSJ[Emphasis mine]

By JIM DEMINT

Congratulations to all the tea party-backed candidates who overcame a determined, partisan opposition to win their elections. The next campaign begins today. Because you must now overcome determined party insiders if this nation is going to be spared from fiscal disaster.

Many of the people who will be welcoming the new class of Senate conservatives to Washington never wanted you here in the first place. The establishment is much more likely to try to buy off your votes than to buy into your limited-government philosophy. Consider what former GOP senator-turned-lobbyist Trent Lott told the Washington Post earlier this year: "As soon as they get here, we need to co-opt them."

Don't let them. Co-option is coercion. Washington operates on a favor-based economy and for every earmark, committee assignment or fancy title that's given, payback is expected in return. The chits come due when the roll call votes begin. This is how big-spending bills that everyone always decries in public always manage to pass with just enough votes.

But someone can't be bribed if they aren't for sale. Here is some humble advice on how to recognize and refuse such offers.[More...]

Thanks to Ace

Someone at Ace's linked to Cat Stevens (aka Yusuf Isam) video in response to California voters. I feel this should go to all. Californians weren't the only ones who attended the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear.

Sadly, Comedy Central caved to Zach Chesser's much published threat but yet Stewart & Colbert welcomed on stage Yusuf Islam. One who, although he said he didn't mean it/ and or apologized, agreed with the death fatwa against Salman Rushdie. He even stated he would turn Rushdie in to the Mad Mullahs...but he didn't mean it or something.

Scott says 'We have won' but Sink refuses to concede governor's race

Please, no hanging chads again

Thanks to Kenny.

Sharon Angle just conceded....you Nevadans who voted for "the war is lost" Reid are idiots. Yes, I said idiots!

He is sounding very strange in his acceptance speech.

Wow, just wow, I hope someone TIVOd this.

November 02, 2010

Get off your ass. Go vote. Vote Republican. Take a friend with you. That is all.

UPDATE: Insert visual here.

Crazy Grayson lost. Bwahahahahahahaa

Yet another video on the largest gathering of morons to the National Mall since the KKK's infamous 1925 march.

Via RedState.

November 01, 2010

Via NRO.

For Matthews: