Squiggler

20 Most Annoying Liberals of 2006

Right Wing News has just released the 5th annual, "The Twenty Most Annoying Liberals In The United States: The 2006 Edition."

Can't say I disagree with any of RWN's choices, although I might have ranked a few of them in a different order. Go see what you think.

The Anti-Bush Republicans

This is a companion piece to yesterday's Bush Conservative article by A.J. Strata.  It is an even more important read, so go read it all. Like AJ, I'm old enough to remember each of the election events he talks about and clearly remember the fallout and how that fallout affected me and my family through a long period of our lives. I, too, have been seeing the same warning signs and find them every bit as worrisome. Unfortunately, those who would fall into the Buchananite designation as AJ outlines it are probably too young to really have a good memory of those days. They were probably in grade school, maybe even high school, but politically active or astute? I seriously doubt it. They are bright Type As who will be the next generation of leaders, but their inexperience and even their natural immaturity are getting them into a whole lot of trouble and dragging the rest of us down with them. Here is a snippet from AJ:

Anti-Bush Republicans

from The Strata-Sphere by AJStrata

To emphasize my point about Reps losing the independent middle, I must bring some history back into focus, and how much Republicans despised Reagan and Bush I. I use this example to show that the Far Right actually has a history of dumping popular Presidents and leaders due to their insatiable impatience. When they returned to form on the current George Bush the result was the same - Democrat wins. Last time they gave us Clinton, this time Pelosi and Reid. So let’s explore how the Republican party, driven by their unelected Gliterati (media talking/writing heads) has successfully snatched defeat from the jaws of victory once again. Because I think it is important for those who look down at us Bush Conservatives to face some facts: Bush is the Conservative defensive line right now. What we salvage will be up to him to defend. And if anyone thinks blaming Bush for Congress’ mistakes and self inflicted losses will gain them a voice at the new table, then they should think again. Who wants an angry loser around when the nation’s needs are at stake?

So what happened the last time the Republicans started their circular firing squad? Reagan had had a tough second term which included the Iran-Contra battles with the Democrat Congress, and the subsequent scandal. On top of that Reagan had to live with the prolific spending in Congress (sound familiar) that were in opposition to his policies of lowered taxes and smaller government. He did expand military spending in order to force the Soviet Union to capitulate the Cold War, but the fruits of his strategy would blossom after his term (sound familiar). He had suffered the 6th year election setbacks as well.

The low tax successes of his earlier term had turned into nothing special in the minds of the far right - who wanted more than was politically feasible. Of course we know the long term result was Clinton’s higher taxes. Which the current George Bush had to fight to turn back again. Every time the Republicans have a fit and lose ground it must be regained. Momentum is not a concept republicans seem to be able ..........

READ IT ALL HERE

A Bush Conservative? or why the neo-right needs to sit down and shut up!

Here are the opening paragraphs of a brilliant post by A.J. Strata. As far as I'm concerned, this is a MUST READ! I am in total agreement with everything AJ says and I hope against hope that some of the more vocal neo-right read it and see themselves and immediately straighten out their acts. They are destroying years of hard work. So here is a taste, but please please read it all:

The Bush Conservatives

By AJStrata on All General Discussions

It seems I and many other conservatives need to just step back and re-assess the political landscape. As I mentioned in the post below on immigration, I do not see the Republican Party offering a very palatable form of conservatism any more. So let me describe what I think is an attractive conservative vision. It begins with supporting and respecting our President and all his accomplishments. And since I and many others still have unflinching support and admiration for the man, I decided to steal some from the commenters here and dub this conservative view “Bush Conservatives”.

Bush Conservatives not only believe in Reagan’s 11th commandment to not speak ill of fellow conservatives - we live it. From the Gang of 14, to Harriet Miers, to Dubai Ports World and to the immigration issue - there has been a brand of Republican which eschewed the 11th commandment. So let the Republicans be defined by that group - Bush Conservatives will be defined by their antithesis. Bush conservatives are not afraid of the word ‘compromise’. They despise the word ‘failure’. If there is a good idea, we do not care what party gets credit - we care that the good ideas get enacted. It is not Party uber America anymore.

Bush Conservatives, like Bush himself, are for lower taxes and focused government (someplace between liberals and libertarians is the proper role of government). They are not for destroying the public education system, they are for making it work. And they understand private school access is one option. They understand that a prescription drug benefit for Medicare/Medicaid will reduce overall costs and provide a respectable end of life for our seniors who came before us. Yes, it costs a lot to care for our elderly. But it doesn’t represent big government. It represents a big heart. I am not for throwing money away. The prescription drug benefit was a nice optimizing solution to a broken system. It was consumer driven (which is why the liberals should not be allowed to go in and insert bureacratic price controls) and it will save money that was being wasted in emergency room treatments for normal problems.

Bush Conservatives respect the immigrant worker in the sense we understand people need to make a life (not just a living). ............

READ IT ALL HERE

PREVIOUS:

All I can say is "thank Gawd there are still 25 sensible Senators left"

Why I think the border fence idea is so stupid

A breeding ground for terrorists

Republicans eating their own

Post election -- more "What does it mean?"

How do you indicate a loud groan and rolling eyes on a blog?

What it all means...

 

Republicans eating their own

I've addressed this problem a couple of times recently and I'm becoming more and more concerned. The shrill voices and the childish foot stomping and breath holding is nothing but children having temper tantrums because they aren't getting their own way.

AJ Strata writes:

Republicans Losing It

Update: Tony Blankley takes a stab at how to proceed as well. Let me say this about conservatism as I see it. It stands for the sanctity of life and the sanctity of this country. Everything else flows from there. Small government? Freedom to live your life. It is not enough to have life, we must be able to express our lives to our individual talents. That is why we strive for minimal government. Enough government to protect and help those in dire straights, but not one that dictates to us what to do. That means Embryonic Stem Cell Research is not something acceptable under broad conservative principles. It is why a guest worker program is acceptable (pay for past digressions, but make a living here as a guest). It is why we cannot fall back from Iraq - we risk bringing the terrorist storm back to our shores. It is why we honor the those who defend this country and do not smear them. All we need to agree on is the broad principles and apply them with compromise among the conservative coalition to win majorities and make progress.

But to make this happen means the hard liners need to climb down off their diases and join the coalition as equals - not superiors. Everyone who is a conservative speaks from the passion of the heart about the sanctity of life and this country. That alone does not make their proposed solutions correct or right. It simply means their heart is in the right place. If we want to organize against rampant liberalism then it can be done as equals in a common cause. Otherwise it is a bunch of useless factions.

Let me repeat:

But to make this happen means the hard liners need to climb down off their diases and join the coalition as equals - not superiors.

They need to learn the art of compromise or we all end up with nothing. And they better learn to take a hard look at themselves because the damage being done is irreparable if they don't get themselves under control soon. Their ideas suck and frankly, holding their breath and stomping their feet and going out and trashing their own just makes them look small-minded and bigoted and turns off everyone but their own elitist sycophants.

How do you indicate a loud groan and rolling eyes on a blog?

Honestly, do the neophyte right Republicans ever engage their brains before engaging their mouths and their fingers? It is starting to become very annoying. They have already cost us the election and handed Congress over to the loons, but not happy with that, they are doing it again today and over the same damn issue.

I don't know if Mel Martinez is a good or a bad pick. Wearing two hats seems dumb. Both the job as Senator and the job as RNC Chair are too big to be multi-tasked. So for that reason I'm not jumping for joy. But, the trashing of Martinez I've seen today on rightside blogs has been brutal, clueless and classless. It pisses me off.

Yes, I want Michael Steele to have a position that honors his accomplishments and the excellent campaign he ran. I want to see him rewarded. But those so out there vocalizing their disgust that Steele was not chosen for RNC Chair and Martinez was do not know if there is something better in store for Michael Steele.

I wasn't sure that he is cut throat enough for the RNC. But in a cabinet role he might have a job  that is the perfect fit.

Personally I would have tapped Delay for the job or even Newt Gingrich.

The big objection to Martinez seems to be that he agrees with the President's multi-faceted and comprehensive immigration policy rather than the short-sighted and useless hardline stance of fence, fence, fence. Well, I think that is a positive for him.

But, even more important is the fact that Repubs were only getting slightly over 40% of the Hispanic vote to start with and in this last election that 40% took a nose dive and was cut in half. That is very bad news. Who better to reach out to the Hispanic communities and deal with the immigration issue and bring new voters and new candidates into the mix than a Spanish speaking immigrant who has risen to the U.S. Senate. He is the poster boy. So, if anyone would stop and think this through, perhaps you would shut up and not do to him what you constantly do to the President. Do not undermine him as a person, do not undermine his intelligence, and don't undermine his abilities before he even gets out of the box.

Grow up and stop trying to eat your own. You hand the other side their talking points every damn day. Shut up. Sit back, you don't always know it all or even know best. Most of you are young, still gaining experience and believe me, you are making tons of mistakes.  We need common sense experienced street fighters right now, not over-educated prima donas that always think they are more right than anyone else or be damned.

That's all. I'm off to think about starting a brand new party. The SUCCESS party or SCCS,  Seasoned Citizens for Common Sense.

Moonbats vs. Wingnuts - an analysis

Interesting analysis of the Moonbat vs. Wingnut blogs. Check it out.

My one and only election "prediction"

Okay, I'll go out on that proverbial limb. I am going to make my one and only election prediction and predict that Michael Steele will win in Maryland.

I have watched this race and here is why I predict he will win. You need to go back a few years to the late 1980s when another African American Republican, Alan Keyes, ran for the Senate in Maryland. A campaign that I worked hard on as I was "loaned out" by my own boss to the Keyes campaign. Mr. Keyes had not held statewide office at the time as Michael Steele does, he had come out of the U.N. as a colleague of Amb. Fitzpatrick. Mr. Keyes was not the attractive and friendly candidate that Michael Steele is, ruffling a whole lot of feathers of those working to get him elected. And most importantly, Mr. Keyes won in nearly every precinct in Maryland except in the predominately African American districts which barely noticed he was on the ballot. That's right, the black leaders and the communities shunned Keyes and yet he still came within a hair's breath of winning.

Now let's look at Michael Steele. He has proven he can win statewide as Lt. Governor of the State of Maryland. He is extremely popular throughout the state. He is not running against a sitting Dem. senator, Maryland is an open seat.
AND ... he has  endorsements of the most key black leaders in the state, especially those in Prince Georges county and Baltimore City.

I don't care what the generic polls say, I think Steele will win, and he may just win big. We'll see tomorrow, but I really think I'm right on this one.

There is a whole lot more about Michael Steele at Steele for Maryland

And another reason I really like Michael Steele.

It's not to be missed:

 

Steven Spruell is blogging as he follows Michael Steele on a non-stop 24 hour campaign blitz. Go read it all:

Senator Steele?

The non-stop campaign Bill Clinton might not even be able to derail.

By Stephen Spruiell

Hagerstown, Md. — Maryland Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele is working around the clock. His campaign to fill the seat of retiring U.S. Senator Paul Sarbanes gained a lot of momentum last Monday when he received the endorsements of several prominent black Democrats from Prince George’s County, Maryland. Now he’s campaigning 24 hours a day in order to take that momentum into Election Day.

...

Elsewhere in the county last night, Steele kicked off his two days of non-stop campaigning by visiting a call center where about 100 mostly black volunteers have been working 12 hours a day to get out the vote for Steele. Steele thanked them for their hard work and then summed up his campaign in one question:

“How many of you have gotten into an argument because of this race?”

The crowd murmured in assent, acknowledging the difficulties of explaining their support for Steele to friends and, in some cases, family members. For many African-Americans in PG County, voting Republican is uncharted terrain. This isn’t discouraging them. When Steele said, “I need you to keep having those arguments,” someone replied, “I will,” and the crowd responded with laughter and applause.

Party Symbols -- where do they come from?

A hat tip to the lovely Larwyn on this one. My only reaction -- what has changed in over one hundred and thirty-two years? Not much, huh? The Democratic Party, the "Party of Hate," the "Party of Cut and Run," the "Party of Fear" is a "Party of Jackasses."

The origin of the Party Symbols

The elephant is the symbol of the Republican Party. During midterm election in 1874, Democrats attempted to frighten voters into believing that President Grant would attempt to unfairly seize power by running for an unprecedented third tirm. The first political cartoonist -- Thomas Nast of Harper's Weekly -- depicted a Democratic jackass unsuccessfully trying to frighten a Republican elephant. Both symbols stuck.

Change the word 'chaos' -- at the bottom of the drawing -- to 'quagmire' and we could syndicate the same cartoon today.

It's the Hamlet syndrome

I just finished reading the James Lewis essay on American Thinker. I encourage you to go and read it all.

Sad to say, our Democrat Party isn’t ready to govern. The only thing more terrifying than nuked-up mullahs is the Democrats’ eagerness to give them whatever their tiny hearts desire. It was Bill Clinton who gave two nuclear reactors to Kim Jong Il in exchange for a promise to be good— but with no actual inspections for five years. It was Jimmah Carter who allowed Ayatollah Khomeini to seize power in Tehran, because a religious person like Khomeini just had to be a lot sweeter than the Shah. The sadomasochistic nature of the Khomeini regime is incomprehensible to ole Jimmah, who naturally still thinks he was right all along.  The dictionary doesn’t have a word for that kind of folly. It is beyond words.
...

Moral intuition is the key. Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once said that FDR had a third-rate mind but first-rate political instincts.  What Lippmann didn’t say was that most of our lives are governed by finely honed instincts: only intellectuals try to define every word they say, and it constantly gets them snarled up when they try to act: It’s the Hamlet syndrome. In contrast, moral intuition is cherished in Anglo-American conservatism because our intuitions capture truths that cannot be fully articulated. Karl Marx was a creature of German and French philosophy, which is precisely why his ideas have been so immensely destructive of human lives and happiness. Marx represents the triumph of ungrounded intellect over reality-based intuition.

Our chattering classes think that ordinary Americans are stupid, because they don’t know the difference between Slovakia and Slovenia. But they know the difference between right and wrong: which is a lot more important, and an insight in painfully short supply among those who fashion themselves of superior mental capacity.

Did someone say Dems were better looking?

Did someone actually say last week that Democrats are better looking than Republicans? I ask you to decide:

Hat tip: Moonbattery