Believe it or not I still have interviews from CPAC to post. One of them is a brief interview with Tea Party Favorite Chris Cassone
You can find his book on amazon here
Believe it or not I still have interviews from CPAC to post. One of them is a brief interview with Tea Party Favorite Chris Cassone
You can find his book on amazon here
John Sexton at Verum Serum has the story:
Therefore, Anonymous has decided to openly declare war on the United States government. This is a call to arms. We call upon the Citizens of the United States to stand beside us in overthrowing this corrupted body and call upon a new era. Our allegiance is to the American people, because they are us, and we are them.
John isn’t surprised but figures these guys are clueless
I really find it hard to believe Anonymous could be this dumb. Really. Do they really think the internet and whatever proxy servers and anonymizers they have at hand can shield them from the NSA? Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so. I think that once you cross this line you’ve really made yourself an issue for the full attention of people who can probably eat your lunch without breaking a cyber-sweat. Not smart. But I’ll give you this: I respect your honesty.
It is actually stupid on a 2nd level, once you call for the violent overthrow of the government and violence then you give a reason for all those draconian measures you oppose, right Mr. Lincoln?
What do I think? Assuming this is real, it clarifies things. This is not a game of “Call of Duty”, these people are calling for armed rebellion against the elected US government. No matter how “principled” their positions or beliefs might be I think this is a bad idea as Winston Wood Bolt and his comrades would tell them if they were still around.
And if real I think the US Government, Military and Secret Service, should take these people at their word and like Mr. Bolt be treated accordingly.
James Delingpole made this point in his latest piece.
…It’s not people on my side of the debate who want to ravage the countryside with wind farms (with no provision for decommissioning them), rein in economic growth, introduce wartime-style rationing, raise taxes, destroy farmland and rainforests to create biofuels, and base heinously expensive public policy on hysteria and junk science. It’s not people on my side of the debate who are condemning those “future generations” to a lower standard of living and an uglier environment in order to deal with a problem that doesn’t exist. So how dare they have the gall to try to take the moral high ground?
This was during an exchange with a leftist in a cab, but the real gem is when Mr. D, not known for his civility, finishes thus:
“Why can’t I swear, you’re not my Dad. Anyway, you’re changing the subject. All I’m asking is that you do what any half-way decent journalist would do and defend your position using facts. If you’re incapable of that then, I’m sorry, but boll***s is what you were talking. So, can you advance any facts or arguments to defend your position?”
“I’m not going to because you’re so rude.”
“You’re not going to because you HAVE no arguments, that’s your real problem mate.”
Read the whole thing and note the warning here. The Global Warming nonsense is just another tool toward the same goals the left and elites have always had.
In addition to several local, state and congressional candidates who mixed with the crowd there were top primary speakers. Brad Marston of Four Tier Strategies on the use of social media in campaigns:
It was quite an education and every candidate in the room soaked it up, but the biggest education of the night came from Bonnie Johnson:
She talked about election law in Massachusetts and it’s enforcement or non-enforcement of election laws, many times due to simple ignorance. But the big bomb she dropped was referenced in my latest for the Examiner:
Every January Massachusetts Cities and town send out a city/town census to every residence. It lists the registered voters in the dwelling and how they are registered. I’ve filled it out every year without a thought, not noticing the warnings on the form if it is not done.
There is a warning on the bottom of the form saying: Failure to return this form may affect your voting status. I never paid much mind to it but Bonnie really dropped a bombshell on what that actually means:
If the form is not returned the people on them are marked as an “inactive” voter. By law an “inactive” voter who attempts to vote must fill out and sign a form and provide proof of both residence and identity to be able to vote.
Read the whole thing.
The problem seems to be a lot of people are not aware of the law, and if you want it enforced you need people at the polls volunteering and working to ensure it IS enforced.
OK if you are in Massachusetts and care about honest elections, are you willing to give a day working at a polling place to do something about it?
Update: Welcome Insty readers, if you’re up for some provocative reading I have a challenge for American Muslims, an Answer to Anonymous declaration of War on the US and of course there is my weekly under the fedora column here or here.
A week ago there was a story that didn’t raise a lot of eyebrows in Maine:
Andrew Ian Dodge says he’s giving up his Republican primary challenge against Sen. Olympia Snowe. Dodge, a former tea party activist, told the Lewiston Sun Journal that he’s dropping out of the Republican Party and will run for the Senate seat as an independent.
Dodge, 43, told the paper he decided to leave the party because he wasn’t happy with the way the GOP caucuses were handled. He accused state GOP Party chair Charlie Webster of having a “patronizing attitude” toward those who complained.
Andrew is a Tea Party Guy, his withdrawal meant that Snowe was facing a single primary opponent, Scott D’Amboise of Lisbon Falls.
Well it’s amazing a difference a week makes when you are a left leaning Republican with one primary opponent:
Republican Senator Olympia Snowe, R-Maine will not stand for re-election this fall. Snowe, one of the handful of moderates left in the Senate, is reportedly tired of the gridlock that has paralyzed Congress.
Sorry that doesn’t wash, the GOP is gonna take the Senate and Snowe as a moderate republican would be at a point of power if the margin of advantage for the GOP was small and of even greater advantage if was near 60-40 since the party would have to appease her to get things passed.
Of course it’s just speculation that Snowe would retire a week after discovering the primary vote would not be split.
Sure it was
Update: Allahpundit’s analysis doesn’t wash Snowe would have had much more leverage if re-elected. If she was really concerned with promoting moderation her re-election would have put her in a great spot to force the GOP to sing to her tune…if she thought she would win the primary.
All business and politics and no fun makes DaTechGuy a dull boy so Joe and I made a stop at O’Connor’s restaurant in Worcester Mass. on rte 12
As the name suggests it’s a very Irish place with a very Irish menu, but there are plenty of choices outside of the blarney stone:
So if you are looking for a good meal with an Irish Twist, give O’Connor’s a shot
“Those two have known each other since Jack (Kennedy) was three years old. The president lived next door to Austy (Austin O’Connor). He likes him. Not only that, but I brought Austy in three times during the campaign. The first time he gave twenty-five thousand dollars. The second time he gave twenty-five thousand dollars. The third time he gave fifteen thousand dollars. That’s sixty-five thousand dollars he contributed.” (1960 dollars btw)
“Sure” said (Kenny) O’Donnell, but he wasn’t with us until after West Virginia.”
Tip O’Neill Man of the House 1987 pp 80
One of the things I’ve noticed about the Romney campaign is that other than the good folks at Kacio cleaners (who absolutely LOVE him) it’s very hard to find people who like Romney because they…like Romney.
Last night at the Twin City Tea Party people during a segment Romney was mentioned, and support for him was expressed based on him having “the best chance to win”.
Romney has also used the inevitability argument. I suspect it has helped him get many an endorsement from people who might otherwise have been expected to support different candidates (Nikki Haley for example). Fat cats don’t want to risk being on the outside like Austy O’Connor during a Romney Administration because they were on the wrong side during the primaries, and as Stacy McCain notes, after Florida many thought it was a done deal:
Show of hands: Who thought Mitt would have had the nomination practically locked up by now? Who expected Romney would have to fight like hell just to win his home state? After Mitt won Florida and Nevada, I thought he might be on the verge of running the table
Even worse consider the point he makes in his American Spectator column:
If the more moderate Romney is really a stronger candidate, why has he struggled to close the deal with voters of his own party here in his native Michigan? It hardly adds to Romney’s “electability” argument that — even with the backing of Michigan’s top Republican officials — he would consider himself fortunate to escape Tuesday with 40 percent of the vote and a narrow win over Santorum’s low-budget campaign. Even if Romney wins Michigan, one of Santorum’s top advisers told CNN Monday, “We have already won. No matter what the results are, we’ve won. This is Romney’s home state.… The Romney campaign is spending a fortune they never expected to spend in Michigan, and every dollar they spend in Michigan is a dollar they don’t have on Super Tuesday.”
What has really struck me has been the use of surrogates to do his dirty work. I remember Romney all the Palin sniping from the Rove school before the field had come out. Every day I see people I follow on twitter relentlessly attacking Rick Santorum while never making a positive case for Mitt Romney and the “dirty tricks” lines coming from the Mitt Camp is…interesting Stacy again:
How much has Mitt Romney’s campaign used dirty tricks in the 2012 campaign? A lot, I’d say. While I always suspected that the sexual allegations against Herman Cain were pushed to the media by the Rick Perry campaign, others whose knowledge I trust have since assured me that Team Mitt was behind it.
Take that with a grain of salt, if you wish, but it’s something I’ve kept in mind the past three weeks as I’ve watched Rick Santorum being hounded by the media over “controversies” that looked for all the world as if they were ginned up by a certain rival campaign with a notable aptitude for “the devastating oppo hit.”
Mitt has a lot of money and hasn’t been shy about spending it, I would be very surprised if the incredible volume of Anti-Santorum stuff getting out there and the incredible amount of time some folks are giving to it didn’t come with some kind of remuneration. Or to put it another way, I would think people who were supporting Romney because they support Romney would be able to mix a positive reason or two to vote for their man.
Now I have not received a penny from the Santorum Campaign (although blog/radio ads and Tip Jar hits Will be happily accepted as this is what I do for a living these days) but I endorsed him at a time when such an endorsement elicited laughter and derision. As for Robert Stacy McCain, I directly asked him today if he was on the payroll of the Santorum Campaign. He answered decisively:
Who would say such a thing?…The future ambassador to Vanuatu can not be bought or sold!
That might explain the bums rush he got at the Romney HQ in Michigan.
All the empirical evidence I’ve seen suggests Romney’s support is solely based on three factors: his inevitable victory, the match-up vs Obama and who he can buy, except for Maria at Kacio’s. Mitt whatever she sees in you. I suggest your team needs to isolate and bottle it; STAT!
Now given Obama vast appeal, I submit even this reality would not stop Mitt Romney from winning the general election (barring something REALLY stupid) but given Romney’s inability to motivate the base while running for president for 5 years, to the point where winning his home state would be a major victory, do you want to risk it?
And much more seriously while it’s been suggested that Romney at the top of a ticket might help Scott Brown is he really going to be a help down the ticket in swing districts where the big issue for many races is the repeal of Obamacare?
Update: Well this explains a lot:
The Political Wire asks, Did Santorum Regain Momentum in Michigan?
I guess we will see if Romney’s guarantee is as good as Broadway Joe’s almost feel sorry for the guy.
If you do EVERYTHING You’ll win
Lyndon Baines Johnson only lost one election, that was a special election for Senate in 1941. Johnson campaigned hard and furious, spent an incredible amount of money, used some brilliant strategy and stole a fair amount of votes in corrupt counties that his allies controlled, but as told by Robert Caro in the first volume of his LBJ magnum opus Lyndon Johnson the Path to Power, Johnson made a rookie mistake. He found himself so confident on election day that he gave permission for some of the counties he controlled to report results early. This telegraphed to the liqueur interests desperate to get Pappy O’Daniel (a prohibitionist) out of the Governor’s mansion, the number of votes they would need to steal in corrupt areas not controlled by Johnson to win.
Johnson would never let anyone out hustle or out steal him again. He ran his future elections by his rule and would know only victory from that point on until the presidential primaries of 1960. W
Which takes us to 2012…
I have stated for quite a while that Obama is going to lose spectacularly and that conservatives should be confident not worried (ride right through them they’re demoralized as hell and all that). In that spirit I was pleased to see Kevin Jackson’s latest post (buy his book) suggesting Obama is panicking.
There are reasons why he should be panicked but looking at his list I have to disagree with Kevin on an important point.
Supporting Super Pacs, launching Spanish Web Sites, the Truth Teams and shifting right are all prudent things. Obama needs the money to win, the Spanish vote is very important (particularly after his dis of the Catholic church), the “Truth Teams” no matter how much they backfire are a logical tactic and shifting right will hurt him very little since the left assumes that any such pronouncements (such as opposition to gay marriage) are lies for public consumption.
Assuming he has the recourse he claims the investment in all these groups is wise, to quote a coach accused of running up a football score
“It’s not my job to stop me from scoring. It’s his,”
So none of those items in my mind constitute panic, they are instead a wise application of LBJ’s election rule.
There is one item on his list that doesn’t just suggest panic, it screams it.
One might argue that Black Americans might not be as motivated as they were in 2008. After all Obama’s re-election would not be nearly as historic as his initial election but even so the launching of African American’s for Obama sends a very interesting signal.
If the black vote was historically more evenly divided then forming such a group might seem prudent, but Democrats routinely take nearly 90% or more of the black vote. If This president feels the need to form an “African Americans for Obama” it is pretty telling.
Let’s do the math, Blacks make up 11% of the population. In 2004 Kerry took 88% of the black vote that accounted for 11% of the total vote. That 9.7% of the popular vote for the democratic candidate vs 1.3% for the GOP. A net 8.4% for the democratic candidate.
In 2008 President Obama took 96% of the black vote that consisted of 13% of the electorate, that adds up to in terms of the popular vote.12.5 vs .5% for the GOP a net of 12% for the Democrats.
The difference between the two is a net 3.6% of the vote. Now in terms of The popular vote 3.6% would still give Obama the edge if all things remain equal to 2008, but all things aren’t equal.
One can rationally assume that even if this president is less popular among the black community than he once was he would still easily outdraw John Kerry among Black voters. So lets say that the president gets 92% of the black vote this time 4 points better than Kerry but three points worse than last time and crunch the numbers.
If the black turnout is 11% the split is 10% Obama vs 1% RomneySantorumGingrichPaul +9% for the dems
If the black turnout is 12% the split is 11% Obama vs 1% RomneySantorumGingrichPaul +10% D
If the black turnout is 13% the split is 12% Obama vs 1% RomneySantorumGingrichPaul +11% D
So Obama would naturally get a +9 to a +11 even if his popularity drops with the black electorate by a full 3 points.
Or alternatively if his popularity doesn’t drop but the black turnout does, what are the numbers
If black turnout drops to 12% at 96% the split is 11.4% to .6% a difference of 10.8
If black turnout drops to 11% at 96% the split is 10.6% vs .4% a difference of 10.2
If black turnout drops to 10% (unlikely) at 96% the split is 9.6% vs .4% a difference of 9.2
Given these figures and estimates at worst the black community will provide a +9% for Obama and at Best +11 a difference on only 1-3 points of a vote that he won by 7.2 points.
Yet given these figures the Obama administration finds the need to invest time and money in a “African-Americans for Obama” organization where the return potential return is from such a venture is miniscule statistically. That suggests one or both of the following:
1. Press reports about the weakness of the current GOP field not withstanding the Obama administration understands the GOP is united in their dislike of his policies and their base, which was largely absent from John McCain’s corner is highly motivated to turn out decreasing the overall impact of the black vote.
2. The rumors of dissatisfaction of the black community with president Obama are not rumors but fact and even the prudent estimates I have given overstates his popularity among African-Americans requiring immediate action to motivate the uninspired and pressure the wavering to make sure Black turnout doesn’t drop.
This means that for all the propaganda driven by the left the Obama administration knows it is in deep trouble and needs every vote it can persuade, browbeat, buy or steal to keep it in office after Jan 20th 2013.
I don’t know what it tells you but I know what it tells me:
Update: Instalanche, thanks Glenn helps me toward that Millionth hit for next month hopefully.
Valley of the Shadow raises a great point concerning election 2012:
Stay on message. Remember the Surber Rule: The economy alone will get a Republican elected president next year. Talk about nothing else.
Surber himself gives this example:
Reporter: Is homosexuality a choice or genetic?
Answer: That’s above my pay grade, as the president likes to say. But unlike the president, the economy is not above my pay grade. I can promise you a lower unemployment rate when I am elected president and the economy is allowed to grow.
Me I’d answer a different way:
Reporter: Is homosexuality a choice or genetic?/Do you believe in evolution/should the church pay for contraception/ etc. etc etc..
Answer: Are you serious? Unemployment is over 8%, Millions have given up on looking for work, Gas prices are skyrocketing and that’s the question you’re asking? Is that really the question your viewers/readers want asked?
Reporter: It’s a topic on people’s minds
Answer: No it’s the topic you and the media want to talk about because you understand that a conversation on the economy is a loser for the left.
Reporter: So you are refusing to answer the question?
Answer: Look if a voter in a town hall asks me a question I’ll answer it, my views are not a secret, but if you want to get fodder for your talking points you’ll just have to do the legwork.
Surber is right in the sense of not playing the reporters but if the voter asks, you answer, unabashedly, unashamed and without reservation.
It was far easier for you as civilized men to behave like barbarians than it was for them as barbarians to behave like civilized men.
Mr. Spock Star Trek: Mirror Mirror 1967
The spreading violence concerning the burning of Korans in Afghanistan for all its death and destruction has a small silver lining, a chance for the International and American Muslim Community and a clarifying moment during the debate about Islam vs Radical Islam.
Let’s stipulate right up front that as both a strategic and a PR matter it was an error for the Army to burn those Korans or to let the news of it come out…
..but having so stipulated now the question comes. What is the proper response for such an act?
I suggest that riots, burning and murder is not. In fact I more than suggest it, I state it as a simple fact that they are acts of barbarism.
I have seen a lot of coverage of the various riots and murders concerning this matter, I’ve seen them in the press and heard them on the radio. I’ve furthermore heard person after person critique the actions of the Army but I’ve heard very few in our media critique the murder and barbarism that have followed it.
This, like the Mohammad cartoon business clarifies things tremendously.
Muslims have naturally condemned the burning of Korans as an insult to their religion. That is certainly not odd. When professor PZ Myers desecrated consecrated communion hosts publicly Catholics were outraged and complained loudly, both in the press and to him employer the University of Minnesota.
Meanwhile while Molly Norris, a US citizen who even after apologizing for her part in “Everybody Draw Mohammad Day” remains in hiding under an assumed name for fear of her life, Professor Myers remains unharmed, unhurt and unafraid in his employment prospects. In fact not only has he not been harmed, but no Catholic Leader, no priest nor Bishop would countenance any type of violence against this man.
Yet during the Mohammad cartoon business we didn’t see the same from our friends of the Islamic faith. We don’t see American Muslim groups calling for the ending of the Fatwa on Molly Norris nor a promise to protect her from violence if she comes out of hiding. In fact one might even point out that the one sect of Islam that has eschewed violence (the Ahmadiyya Muslim community) has not only been the target of discrimination worldwide but has actually been targeted by violence and bombings for their beliefs.
Now the Islamic world has yet another chance to redeem itself. Will we see Islamic groups worldwide condemn the violence? Will they do so in Arabic and in the native languages of the people committing the violence so it will not be just pulling an Arafat, that is saying one thing in English for the west and another in Arabic?
Will Muslims disavow this attacks as mainstream Christians disavowed the actions and tactics Westboro Baptist (regardless of their position on Homosexuality) will they like the Bishops of the Catholic Church be defiant in the face of Administration policy without violence? Or will they decide the reward system that Glenn Reynolds wrote about here is more valuable:
Reader Dustin F writes: “If Colbert did a Zombie Mohammed sketch, Comedy Central wouldn’t even air it anyway, given their censorship of South Park. These folks have zero credibility on the subject of tolerating offense, since Comedy Central’s compliance with threats is a major example of allowing terrorism to work.”
My advice to Mormons and others: If you want respect, behead a few people. It won’t take much violence, as long as the threat is credible. Though it helps if they see you as an enemy of Western civilization. Then they’ll enjoy being intimidated.
That’s the real question, is the ability to intimidate one’s foes valuable enough that barbarism is to remain uncondemned and encouraged. Does western Islam really want to be considered a “religion of Peace” or is it just talk to keep liberals in the media quiet?
Or to be more blunt. While the Muslims rioters are either civilized men behaving like Barbarians due to anger or Barbarians acting like Barbarians. the verdict on the West’s Muslims is still out:
Are they Civilized men or Barbarians?
If they are barbarians trying to behave like civilized men we should expect some kind of toothless statement in English, if however they are civilized men as they maintain then the willingness to strongly and forthrightly condemn these actions in languages of those rioting should be there and ought to be done. in fact one might think it should have already been done.
The ball is in your court Muslims of the west, what shall it be?
BTW the reaction of the Mainstream media has already rendered it’s verdict on the question.
They believe the Muslims in Afghanistan are barbarians acting like barbarians. They don’t expect better so they don’t waste their breath to say a word. Meanwhile their unwillingness to question call on the west’s Muslims to speak against the violence coupled with their previous actions concerning the Mohammad Cartoons and their silence on Molly Norris suggests they believe the west’s Muslim’s are barbarians pretending to be civilized men and are afraid of angering them for fear of their own lives.
That makes the MSM by their own standards, both racists and cowards.
Update: While I was writing this Doug Mataconis wrote the following piece that answered one of the questions asked here:
Even without the Koran burning incident, though, I have got to wonder why anyone would think that this “stabilization” mission would succeed to begin with. Dave Schuler puts it best in a post over at his own site:
We’ve done our best to make the Afghans prosperous. Clearly, they would much rather that we leave so they can go back to killing and abusing each other without whatever hindrance that we provide. The difference between us and the Taliban can be summarized succinctly: the Taliban cuts off young women’s ears and noses and leaves them for dead; we restore those noses and ears and try to heal their scars.
And in return all we get is hatred and attacks. Really, what’s the point anymore? Why are we bothering to try to civilize a nation that clearly is either incapable of being civilized or simply just doesn’t want to join the 21st Century?
Read his whole piece
Update 2: Some desecrated Korans are apparently more equal than others.
Update 3: Doug Made a point in his piece but a question, if England pulled out because they considered India “Barbarians” would widows still be thrown into funeral pyres via sutte or sati
Update 4: Tangential, but telling quote from Jay Nordlinger’s latest piece
The U.S. Army, using Black Hawk helicopters, has been dropping food, medicine, and livestock feed to people stranded in the mountains of Montenegro, which have been socked with snow. (Story here.) Nice to know our soldiers have taken a break from killing babies and wiping themselves with Korans to help the hungry.
One of the helicopter pilots compared his work in Montenegro with his work in Afghanistan: “There, we were getting shot at.”
Me, I think the greatest fear of the barbarians rioting over burning Korans is that we successfully educate and empower women over there. Oh and one thing about Nordlinger, I still think he’s awesome even thought he hits Santorum a lot, everyone is allowed a fault or two.
Update 5: The BBC answers the question too:
But he also revealed that producers had to consider the possibilities of ‘violent threats’ instead of polite complaints if they pushed ahead with certain types of satire.
Mr Thompson said: ‘Without question, “I complain in the strongest possible terms”, is different from, “I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write”. This definitely raises the stakes.’
In other words, the BBC considers British Muslims Barbarians and British Christians civilized, does that make them religious bigots? Cowards or both. I’m going with both.
Carolyn Euell, 38, mother of two of the defendants, Erika Stroud, 21, of Dorchester and Felicia Stroud, 18, West Roxbury, told reporters the alleged attack “can’t be hateful” because both her daughters are lesbians.
This refers to a case in Boston where the two lesbian girls assaulted a gay man.
the victim, who suffered a broken nose, told cops he believed the attack was “motivated as a crime because of his sexual orientation” since the three women “called him insulting homophobic slurs.”
Now as I’ve said before the whole idea of “hate crimes” is to me an absurdity. Hate is a thought and/or emotion and to charge a person based on it is the ultimate in playing “thought police”. If these ladies assaulted this man, the law should punish them based on the assault, not based on if they hated him for any reason whatsoever, even if it was something as egregious as being a Yankees fan.
But given the existence of hate crimes laws the idea that due to their lesbianism the attack “can’t be hateful” doesn’t just create an incredible double standard but flys in the face of reality.
My friend Cynthia has talked in the past about the horrible vitriol that was directed against her and her partner when she veered from or critiqued actions of “official lesbianism” for example she got grief for being part of a group called the “lesbian ladies society” for lesbians who are feminine and like to be.
in the late 1980’s, when I ran a group for feminine lesbians — who are NOT the same as femmes! — in Silver Spring, Maryland, which is a suburb of Washington, D.C., a pre-op male-to-female trannie attended one of my meetings and infuriated pretty much every woman there so much that I had to tell him/her not to come back or I would not have had a group. After that, I caught hell for stipulating that to be allowed to attend the meetings, you had to be born female as well as wear a skirt or dress (the latter requirement was the cheapest form of dyke repellent I could think of).
Now we don’t know all the fact of this case, but the moment you have felony laws on the books that sone people can’t even be charged with, yet alone violate because of the particular race or sexual orientation you’re talking nonsense.
Update: I had trouble finding the above link and ended up calling Cynthia for help in discovering them, it turns out he disagrees on this case suggesting, (like the woman above) that this can’t be a hate crime against gays due to the lesbianism of the women, although we do agree on the absurdity of hate crimes laws themselves.
She argued that phrases these women might have used would not be hate crimes if used by them, but would be if I used them as I am opposed to gay marriage (or as she puts it “gay equality”) but noted that if such an equivalence was made the proliferation of hate crime charges from “black on black” crime would be so prevalent that it would be worth enforcing them to illustrate the absurdity of hate crime laws in general.
…who wished to talk to Bishop Reilly during the show in the hopes that he could help him.
The call dropped before we could bring the Bishop into the booth to talk to you but I’ve talked to the Bishop and if you e-mail me or leave a comment in this post I will see that he contacts you directly to help you in your hour of need.
Today’s Saturday diner is Stella’s Coffee Shop in Leominster:
It’s a small building that seats maybe 40
Like most diners of its type the menu is pretty straightforward, with a daily special offered:
Da Wife came with me and had the Saturday Special (hash in omelet) I had the hungry man special:
it was a very good breakfast at a good price, if you go down to Stella’s for a bite of breakfast you will be happy
and Today on DaTechguy on DaRadio we have our Lenten show. Our first guest is Blogger Jerry Wilson of Goldfish & Clowns who will be talking about his book First & Forgotten on the pioneers of Christian Music
At 11 a.m. we will be joined in Studio by Bishop Reilly former head of the diocese of Worcester, so join us today at 10 a.m. EST on AM 830 WCRN, call us at 508-438-0965 or 888-9-fedora, tweet us at #wcrn or listen live at wcrnradio.com
I was at an event hosted by Granite Grok’s Mike Rogers at CPAC when Robert Stacy McCain (one of the 5 non-pols that Politico says you have to watch) came up to me and thanked me for “forgetting” my hat at CPAC 2010 (Stacy partied till 5 a.m. and I flew out a 7 but be that as it may…) That led to my hat going all over the country.
Stacy in my fedora was seen from New Orleans to Las Vegas, From Delaware to Sarah Palin’s house. As Politico said…
How can you find McCain? If the chain smoking and fedora don’t tip you off, he’ll be the guy in the press section who brings his family and boisterously laughs at Ann Coulter’s jokes, to the chagrin of mainstream types. And how do you know he’s pumped for this year? He’s already dubbed it the “best CPAC ever” and has planned how to “be in seven places simultaneously.”
And thus the Axis of Fedora was born.
Today Stacy is in Michigan doing shoe leather work, he went into a Romney HQ when that same Mike Rogers gave him a call just as he came through the door, well I’ll let Stacy tell the tale:
“I need to take this call,” I told the Romney volunteer lady, and retreated to the foyer area to talk to Mike. He was calling from an airport, about to board a flight back to New Hampshire, and said he’d been reading my campaign-trail blogging. As I was talking to him, however, a couple of young guys came out of a back office in the Romney headquarters, and I overheard one of them mutter the phrase “Santorum blogger.”
By the time I got off the phone with Mike, one of the young Romney guys was standing there in a polite-but-serious posture. The dude looked like he might have played linebacker in high school. A brief conversation ensued, which I summarized on Twitter:
5:39 p.m.: Folks at Romney Michigan HQ recognize me, invite me to leave. Must be the hat.
The perils of notoriety. They didn’t even let me get a picture of the office.
The Fedora giveth and the Fedora taketh away.
Over the last few days I’ve seen a lot of traffic over twitter attacking Rick Santorum as some kind of religious extremest or bigot, we have Alan Simpson calling him a homophobe and Maureen Dowd calling him a Mullah despite his beliefs being consistent with Catholic Teaching. Yesterday morning a clarifying event took place online in an exchange between myself and Doug Mataconis (who I know and like) that I found most interesting.
The word had just gone out that 2 US troops had been shot if Afghanistan by a man wearing an Afghan uniform over the burning of Korans. Doug’s tweet about leaving Afghanistan was read on Morning Joe (congrats Doug!) but in all of the talk about the waste of the war and why we shouldn’t be there I noticed something was missing.
Everybody seemed to accept the idea that it was normal or in fact acceptable for an Afghan to kill over a burned book, nobody seemed to consider the actions and the violence as barbaric or over the line.
It sounded a whole lot like the old “she had it coming” line, so I made a statement
And then my tweets began I found it fascinating that everyone was focusing on the American presence in Afghanistan (which is a debatable issue) but nobody seemed willing to condemn the idea that somebody would kill over the burning of a book, to wit:
And I asked my question:
What really got me was this:
Think about it, saying that killing someone over burning a book is “hateful rhetoric”. And Pam Geller my friend is a spreader of “Hateful rhetoric” for being willing to condemn such a thing. This is being said by a mainline pundit in America in the 21st century.
Meanwhile while our friends choose not to condemn murder based on the destruction of a book Radical Islam continues to act:
A judge condemning a defendant for insulting Islam…
Iranian counts condemning a Christian pastor to death…
Honor Killings continue:
The goal remains annihilation of the Israel
Yet the response of intelligent people in a free pluralistic society is an unwillingness to condemn things like this because they so dislike the people sounding the warning that it preempts what would normally be a natural reaction.
That’s why you see people who make fun of dictators banned from cultural events.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m outraged by all these acts and most especially the killing of these to US servicemen because I don’t consider Afghans or Muslims inferior and because of this I expect and demand the same civilized behavior as I would expect of anyone.
Ah how DARE she demand civilized behavior from our allies, next thing you know you’re going to start critiquing their treatment of women under Islam. After all honor killings, female circumcision and treating them like cattle are one thing, but not being willing to pay for contraception coverage, THAT’s barbarism.
Tonight I attended a local GOP event in Hollis NH
Al Chase ran the initial meeting where the primary topic was local issues.
Several candidates spoke
Cliff Hurst running for NH State party Vice Chairman
Diane Bitter who is running for Assistant Secretary of the NH GOP
And Raul Blanche a former Cuban refugee running for the town budget committee.
Funny how many Cuban refugees are so successful in the US isn’t it?
After the meeting Mike Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center (who was in NH for another event) arrived
One might say, “Why cover local events like this?” the point being that local events like this build the farm team that allows a state like NH to advance and a city like Hollis to thrive as opposed to my State of Massachusetts that overspends and my city of Fitchburg that can’t even afford to have their street lights on.
This beyond anything else is the reason why you have to get involved, as I’ve said before about all this: If not you? Who?
For reasons I still can’t understand Stan Musial somehow doesn’t seem to get the respect among the greats of Baseball.
You don’t hear people speaking about his greatness outside of St. Louis. They don’t talk about his longevity, his hitting, his work ethic and the killer numbers he put up year after year.
(This might be sacrilege for a person in Massachusetts, but Stan Musial was superior to Ted Williams in every aspect of the game except pure hitting and Musial as noted by Bill James, “could hit a little too”)
I think the lack of respect speaks very poorly about baseball in general so I was delighted to see this story about Albert Pujois:
ALBERT PUJOLS is the man for realizing he’s not The Man.
According to Pujols, that designation is reserved for Stan “The Man” Musial, who crafted a Hall of Fame career in 22 years with the St. Louis Cardinals.
Which is why Pujols wants his current team, the Angels, to take down billboards in and around the Los Angeles area that refer to him as “El Hombre,” Spanish for “The Man.”
I was indifferent to Pujols before, not anymore. This was a class act.
Oh and if you aren’t familiar with Musial’s stats, they’re here and they’re incredible.
My thoughts on the debate, I think the strategic move for Romney people in crowd to be nice to Newt was cute. Newt proved that when he is not attacked he makes good points. Paul remains the same and I think gains in every debate because of the way he portrays himself, I think Santourm didn’t have good visuals but gave complete answers. He does better on substance than Style. Romney was crisp and remains so. The question remains if people actually believe him.
10:00 p.m. Am I the only guy who noticed the weird (How to identify a Mason via Monty Python) handshake. between Paul and Santorum?
9:51 p.m. I like the last question.
9:37 p.m. “As long as your an enemy of the US you are safe” Gingrich nails it.
9:34 p.m. Santorum states Syria is a puppet state of Iran, it’s absolutely true. Strangely enough Paul was right about the declaration of war bit, not about Iran in general
9:30 p.m. “Find the Biden position and do the opposite and you’ll be right 100% of the time.” Santorum mentions the green revolution.
9:22 p.m. I never thought I’d hear Ron Paul quote the “just war” theory of the church.
9:05 p.m. I must admit that Santorum’s answer on Arlen is something that never occurred to me. A much better answer than I had.
8:55 p.m. Government control of services lead to tyranny. Next having a good night.
8:50 p.m. The GOP candidates are hitting the “contraception” question out of the park, Newt and Mitt on Religious Freedom, Paul on immorality, and Rick on the ills of pre-marital sex.
8:45 p.m. Coming up faith and immigration, they’ll get to fast and furious sometime after a discussion of subsidies for Unicorn breeding.
8:41 p.m. Paul having a good debate.
8:39 p.m. good exchange on bailouts, Gingrich has better debates when Romney isn’t targeting him.
8:34 p.m. good question on auto bailout
8:31 p.m. Santorum refuses to pander on earmarks
8:22 p.m. The Catholic church is pulled out of adoption in Massachusetts, is Mitt really claiming social conservatism in Massachusetts? Please.
8:16 p.m. Gotta love Paul’s answer to the “fake” question.
8:09 p.m. Opening question on debt, good!
8:07 p.m. Good opening by Romney best of the 4
That means I’m putting in entries when the mood strikes me.
I’ve seen a lot of commentary about the number of GOP debates there have been and how more debates add nothing to the pool of knowledge.
To many of our media friends and to some of my fellow bloggers today’s debate will be a matter or obligation rather than interest. They have heard point after point before and are simply looking for a moment that might entertain to break up the monotony of the day. Only the (strange to me) controversy about Santorum’s speech at Ave Maria College on good and evil has any potential for them to get anything out of it at all.
To me this is not only short-sighted but missing the entire point(s):
1. Eyes on the prize:
The idea of these debates is to inform the voting public, not to entertain journalists or to give an excuse for a drinking party. The deal is the candidates will answer questions and the people voting will have a better idea of who they should consider going with.
2. Who’s watching:
A lot of people forget the vast majority of the debates took place before Iowa and New Hampshire. For the voter in Arizona, months away from a decision (and told constantly that the race would be over by the time it’s their turn to vote) the early debates were an oddity at best and a waste of time at worst. After all why spend 2 hours listening to 10 candidates when half or all of them will be eliminated by the time you get a say?
Now however things are different. Not only do the people of Arizona and Michigan have a huge stake in the outcome of the race at this point, but no matter what the results it is unlikely that the field will be trimmed further before Super Tuesday so voters from multiple states have both an incentive to watch and their best chance to see the prospective candidates before they vote.
3. Filter filter who’s got da Filter:
As anyone who pays any attention to the MSM knows, the presentation of the candidates is presented through the filter of their own biases, with trims and cuts to play the points the various hosts and guests want to emphasis. Likewise the Super Pac ads the internet ads and the paid advertising of the candidates naturally produce a spin to favor the message of the desired candidate or oppose the message of the foe.
While said bias does exist in the selection of the questioners, such a setting gives a voter the best chance to see a candidate answer in his own words, unfiltered and untrimmed questions put to them. As not everyone can attend a political event, nor do people get to see Q & A sessions the importance of seeing direct and complete answers from a candidate can’t be overstated.
(Incidentally this is why I tend to video Q & A at events and break it up into the individual questions. Those answers to the questions of the voters say give the most complete picture of all).
4. The media unmasked:
For those who are bored by debates proper the various panels on the Cable networks talking about it is the most entertaining part, but it’s also the most revealing for the casual viewer. If you watch a debate itself you know what you saw and what you think of it. When you watch the media directly after a debate making points totally contrary to what you’ve seen with your own eyes, it’s a revelation.
Remember all during the debates the network’s producers are deciding which sound bites matter, which will make a good 15 second clip and what will be the focus of the post-debate show. Those decision and conclusions might be diametrically opposite to your own. When you’ve seen the debates yourself and you see a media person obsessing on a piece of minutia instead of an answer on say jobs or gas prices, you get a crash course in the media spin that happens daily. That increases the chances of you picking up on MSM pushing a desired meme in the future. Seeing for yourself is the best source of education for the public on how the “unbiased” press actually works.
Bottom line, if you want to moan and groan about debates, fine do so, but I see them as the best tool in the deck to create an informed and undeceived electorate, and I have faith that an electorate, well-informed will make the right decisions.
Back in the days of New Hampshire when the race was very different I talked to Tom Mountain about the prospect of another Kennedy running for office. Now that it’s official it’s a great time to promote that video that I somehow missed back then:
Now I think that Bielat will do very well against Kennedy.
There is a very interesting quote that is even more timely. As a rule when I interviewed folks in NH who supported a different candidate I asked them to make the case for me changing my vote. Tom said this about Rick Santorum:
“Because the media is going to come after Santorum like you wouldn’t believe…they’re going to rip him apart.”
I disagree with him on Santorum’s ability to take it relative to Romney but when it comes to the media doing their best to rip him apart, he’s spot on.
Update: And apparently in some locations the party apparatus has taken sides
Daria Novak is running in CT-2
If you want to help, her campaign site is here.
The ultimate proof the Axis of Fedora is a cool place to be:
Meet the family of Mark Oxner who will be preventing the return of Alan Grayson to congress in what has now been renumbered the florida 9th district.
My interview with the Oxners is here
His Turn this ship around ad is here
and you can donate to his campaign here.
You may not appreciated the necessity for uniformity , gentlemen, unless you make use of your imagination. A single document may well be accepted, but you must think of a series. After receiving, let us say, six genuine documents, someone receives one spurious one. The recipient naturally lays them together in the course of the routine of his office. If one is markedly different from all the others –even if one is different in only a small degree–attention is clamorously called to it. Hine illac lachrymae. And if that document has a content somewhat unusual–even though in other circumstances it might have passed-then the fact is in the fire and Bow Street is called in. Et Ego in arcadia vixi, gentlemen.
C. S. Forester Hornblower during the Crisis 1967
As I’ve said many times, media bias is expressed more in the stories that are not covered or promoted than those that are.
The “climate gate” e-mail story was completely ignored by the MSM and our fiends in the left but through facebook and videos like “hide the decline” the story got out.
The left that was so upset about the “hacking” of the climategate e-mails has been orgasmic over a set of e-mails purported to be from the Heartland Institute and one particular memo on Strategy.
However (via Glenn) it seems more and more likely that the primary document in question is fake. As Stacy noted the Heartland institute has been pushing back, the Atlantic and the PJ Tatler have both written on the subject and it doesn’t look good for Peter Gleick as a NY Times online blog is questioning him.
One of the blogs that has so trumpeted said documents is DeSmogBlog and now that evidence is mounting that a key document may not be genuine they are making the defense:
The DeSmogBlog has no evidence supporting Heartland’s claim that the Strategic document is fake.
Really? You publish a set of documents from a 2nd or 3rd party source claiming to be from an organization and it is THEIR job to prove that they are false? As you did not obtain the documents yourself would it not be logical that the burden of proof is on you?
Megan McArdle at the Atlantic is disappointed and not just in the misrepresentation of her own views:
Mr. Littlemore contends that this is a distraction from larger issues, but I cannot agree. The foundation of journalism is accurate sources. Anyone who considers themselves to be in the business of informing the public about the truth should care very deeply when faked documents make it into the public record. They should especially care if their own work has been the vehicle.
Dismissing the possibility of fakery–and the obvious questions about who might have perpetrated it–does not help us focus on the “real issues”. I’m afraid “Fake but accurate” just won’t do. Nor will trying to shift the burden of proof to the people who are pointing out solid reasons for concern. Instead, the stubborn willingness to ignore obvious problems becomes the story–something that Dan Rather learned to his dismay in 2004.
Now if this was purely a question of journalistic ethics Ms. McArdle’s objection might carry some weight, but she seems to miss the point here. The battle our friends on the left are fighting right now is not journalistic, it’s political. The Goal is to keep this from breaking into the MSM in a negative manor or to make sure that the narrative reported is their narrative.
Mr Gleick’s post a Huffington is to that end to put his narrative to the MSM first so that anything that follows up is a response rather than the news.
Update 3: Stacy McCain weighs in
“It’s not my fault!” The end justify the means: The alleged evil of their opponents excuses any shoddy smear Gleick and his allies may perpetrate against them. And despite their admitted amorality, they wonder why we doubt their claims to “science”?
He also gives some leftist history worth remembering
Update 4: Irony overload at Quark Soup:
Wow, this is bad — Peter Gleick chairs an AGU Task Force on Scientific Ethics:
CPAC, which now takes place at the Marriott Wardman Park Hotel in Washington, will meet next year at the Gaylord National Resort Hotel and Convention Center at National Harbor in Prince George’s County, Md. The Gaylord bills itself as the largest hotel and convention center on the East Coast.
And we all know whose fault this is, don’t we?
And don’t forget this week’s show is our annual Lenten show. Bishop Reilly is our guest
Remember you can listen online at wcrnradio.com from anywhere in the country
…that person in the late 20’s, with a fine writer as a mother. In my imagination I can see the same eyes and hear the sound of the laugh. I can imagine sparing back and forth over various issues, me with an east coast old-fashioned Catholic perspective, they with a west coast LA one.
I can see a different blog written from the perspective of someone raised (perhaps) by a single mother, I can see the arguments made, the cross posts and watching the mother and child alternately ganging up on or agreeing with Stacy McCain depending on his point of the day.
I can see greeting them in the CPAC lounge and imagining where the years have gone, I can picture them being facebook friends with my oldest and giving writing tips. I can see my son going west to stay a week with him friend and my friends child crashing here while traveling New England as well.
I can see my friend’s child, a child no longer and marrying. I can see the photos of grandchildren shown to me with a pride and a pleasure when we meet at various events nationwide.
I think of all these things, and I find myself crying because no matter how hard it was to get there, these would have been good things and fine memories for both me and my friend to take with us to old age 3000 miles apart.
But it was not to be, her boyfriend pressured her into an abortion and being a young woman without the experience or the foreknowledge of today she complied
I am ethically and religiously compelled to oppose abortion as an intrinsic evil by the simple knowledge that it kills an innocent for the convenience of others, but when I think of what might be I realize that I also oppose abortion for a slightly selfish reason.
I think of all the millions of lives like this one that have been lost and the millions of good memories that my friend and other young women has been robbed of and the good for society that could have been done by the millions who were not here to do that good, and it burns me.
The potential of the young is the only real currency we leave behind; abortion robbed my friend of that currency, it robbed me of those memories and it robbed society of all that could have been.
Rick Santorum Catholicism is rapidly becoming an issue in this race, at least for the left. Over and over we see them (and some Romney supporters who are becoming increasingly desperate) fret over beliefs concerning contraception, abortion and sex before marriage, all doctrines of the Catholic Church to which he belongs. This is in marked contrast to the MSM cavalier attitude to a certain Chicago Senator’s church but we can’t mention that without charges of “racism”.
One of the advantages of being born in 1963 to parents born in the early 20’s and grandparents born in the 1890’s is it gives one an excellent perspective on the massive cultural changes of the 60’s while still being young enough to talk about it without people dismissing you.
Many people do not remember that Orthodox religious belief for almost the entire history of the country has been the norm. If you go though the record of speeches, of official documents at all levels from presidential on down you see this same type of thing. Likewise if you look at what was orthodox protestant belief 100 years ago on subjects such as birth control, there is not much if any difference between that and current Catholic belief.
Somehow people don’t remember a time when teens suicide was not common, nor was resignation of premarital sex, the acceptance of divorce as the best solution, gangs not being strong on the streets, drugs not being prevent in our schools, police officers not having to be stationed inside.
Even more amazing is the change in the Black community, at the same time as giants fought for an achieved civil rights, black families stuck together and in strong families despite the oppression and discrimination that had to be endured. Today with the legal protections in place and a generation that considers the entire question of race as a qualification for employment or advancement an oddity we see black illegitimacy rates, incarceration rates, and crime rates though the roof.
The question is why?
I think the answer is exemplified by a simple contrast between two events:
NYC announced that they would not be holding a parade for the troops, (somehow these “objections” didn’t stop St. Louis) The fact that is even was a matter that needed discussion is a matter of great amazement to me, then again as colleges had to be dragged kicking and screaming into bringing back ROTC and as the left spent the last decade demonizing soldiers, the idea that volunteers who willingly risk their lives to defend the country might not be supported (unless they shoot their officers of course) should not have surprised me.
These serving men and women are the modern greatest generation yet many in our society, particularly on the left disdain them.
Meanwhile in New Jersey flags in the state were flown at half mast for Whitney Houston, a pretty good singer who rose to fame and wealth due to a fine voice but wasted in on drugs until it killed her. Yes she sang very nice but her life and death is a celebration of hedonism and the fact that every cable network felt complected to cover is was astounding to me.
BTW there is no parade scheduled for the troop in New Jersey either.
Mike Barnicle’s close to his famous article on the death of Mother Teresa and Princess Diana comes to mind:
Anybody who claims they can explain the logic behind the enormous outpouring for a dead princess is not to be believed because it is inexplicable. And anyone who equates the deeds of Diana’s life with those of Mother Teresa’s is a fool.
Substitute “Whitney Houston” for Diana in that paragraph and Sgt. Paul Smith posthumous medal of Honor recipient for Mother Teresa in those two sentences and it reads exactly the same.
Put simply the culture has gone from a culture that celebrates merit and duty to a culture that celebrates fame and hedonism.
And that brings us to Rick Santorum.
Unlike the Pelosis, Kerrys and Bidens of the left he doesn’t proclaim his Catholicism and then distort or disdain the beliefs of the Church he proclaims. He is more Rosemary Reynolds than Mario Cuomo unwilling to divide himself. Like most practicing Catholics (you know people who actually go to church weekly) his faith and belief informs him, it is not something that comes out once a week to be hidden from view. For the majority of the history of this country this was nothing odd, and in our divided culture, the half that still honors religion it is perfectly normal.
To an MSM that has abandoned faith and religion of their parents and have filled it with noise Santorum is a strange and frightening thing. Santorum is a direct threat, a reminder of the cultural failure of the 60’s and the hook up culture, a reminder that one can’t command a majority when your voter base aborts their children or chooses to delay or avoid having them. (There will be a lot of Santorum children voting long after both Maureen Dowd and I are dead and gone).
Demographics are destiny and the 60’s generation that never quite realized that never quite abandoned their teenage belief in their intellectual superiority to their parents who won the 2nd world war are slowly losing the fight, not just because of demographics but because of the cultural failures that people of the right and of faith have been avoiding through home and religious schooling.
What they forget is that “dark age” that they proclaim Santorum belongs to was an age of intact families, an age of people knowing their neighbors and an age where schools were safe and the children in them not only respected their teachers but were learning things that our current crop of public school students can’t seem to manage. They largely are railing against a past that didn’t exist to a group of people so ill-informed that they don’t realize that they are fighting against a myth.
Now in terms of electoral politics for Democrats it’s an open and shut business. It’s a lot easier to hit Santorum on issues of culture than trying to defend the Obama economic record. For many others there is something more elemental going on.
They can’t allow Santorum to be considered a credible or mainstream candidate. It’s not enough that Santorum be defeated to the left, he must be marginalized as a fanatic, it must be made clear to any in America that no believing Catholic need apply for the office of president of the United States.
Because if Rick Santorum is elected and the world doesn’t end and the values of a generation that held them against a self-destructive culture are put on display and expressed from the bully pulpit, the clarifying effect on society would be more than the left can bear.
Update: Glenn Reynolds on the attacks hitting Santorum:
Democrats are worried, so they’re playing the Republicans Will Steal Your Ladyparts!!!! card. And the knees are jerking as hoped. Women, you’re being played. Again.
However on Taxes and spending Norquist is usually spot on, so I was surprised when I saw this post at Granite Grok:
I got an email – below – from Grover Norquist at ATR requesting the recipients take action and sign a petition to free up spectrum for wireless expansion. All well and good, but the thinly veiled subplot was to demand that Congress force the FCC to permit Obama cronies Lightsquared to use spectrum adjacent to the GPS band, regardless of interference to GPS, in order to prop up the shaky company, in which Obama and crooked cronies had invested.
Grover is shilling for an Obama crony here and should be ashamed.
Check the site and read the whole thing
Today’s Saturday Diner is the Ugly Omelet in Lunenburg Mass.
You don’t think of a diner as a place that delivers but they do
It’s a small place maybe seven tables plus a small counter
But there is nothing small about the breakfast
My meal? a mug of tea, two eggs toast and BACON!
The Bacon was simply the best Bacon I’ve had. I interviewed the owner about it:
He also roasts his own beef for sandwiches rather than buying it, just like Romano’s
Frankly this place is worth hitting for the Bacon alone.
Directions are at their website here.
And make sure you join us on WCRN AM 830 for DaTechGuy on DaRadio 10 AM EST you can listen live at wcrnradio.com or tweet us at #wcrn. Today’s guest is Sarah Rumph joining us at 10:30. Call in at 508-438-0965 or 888-9-fedora
An advantage of being in the bloggers lounge early is you get to see people come in. Grover Norquist was passing through the Bloggers lounge early in the morning and not only consented to an interview but he and his escort allowed me to follow them to see where the guests on stage entered:
Early bird gets the worm and all that.
Jeff Semon (R) is a candidate for congress in the 5th Massachusetts district:
His campaign site is here.
Today on Morning Joe both Joe and Mika are absent and the conversation got…interesting.
I’ll deal with Mike Barnicle’s remarks about bloggers in my Under the fedora column at The Conservatory and the Minority Report but lets deal with the idiocy of Donny Deutch.
He commented that he knows a lot of rich people who don’t want to pay higher taxes and share. The idea that if I’m not giving my money to the government to distribute as they see fit I’m not helping anyone or creating jobs.
Let me explain how the world actually works in under 100 seconds
Here is the quote that matters
George Washington McLintock: Gave? Boy, you’ve got it all wrong. I don’t give jobs I hire men.
Drago: You intend to give this man a full day’s work, don’tcha boy?
Devlin Warren: You mean you’re still hirin’ me? Well, yes, sir, I certainly deliver a fair day’s work.
George Washington McLintock: And for that I’ll pay you a fair day’s wage. You won’t give me anything and I won’t give you anything. We both hold up our heads….
One of the things I didn’t understand when I opened my first business at 24 was this: Don’t do $10 an hour work when you can do $100 an hour work. If you are the man in charge and you can do work that earns your business $100 dollars an hour you are a fool to be doing stuffing envelope work that you can hire someone to do for $10 an hour.
The cost of that $10 an hour job is a lot more than $10 for the employer and the more the government taxes and regulates that employer the higher the cost of that $10 job (and the $20 & $30 an hour jobs) for that employer.
Eventually it becomes cost prohibitive to make that next hire, or that promotion and in a small business the $20 & $30 an hour people usually start as $10 an hour people who prove they can get the work done.
Most small businesses the ones that don’t have lobbyists at K-street work on very small margins you have people who work 75 hours or more a week and have responsibility to keep everything and everyone afloat. You would think Donnie & company would understand that, but I suspect they actually do, but this is MSNBC and there is a narrative to be supported.
Since Foster Freiss is in the news now seems a good time to post my interview of him from CPAC:
I want to thank Mr. Freiss he was running late for a flight but still made time for me.
Jamie Radtke talks about her candidacy for the Senate in Virginia
Her Campaign Site is here
Guess who’s too busy for the next presidential debate:
GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney will skip a March 1 debate in Atlanta sponsored by CNN and the Georgia Republican Party, CBS News/National Journal has learned.
“With eight other states voting on March 6th, we will be campaigning in other parts of the country and unable to schedule the CNN Georgia debate,” Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul said. “We have participated in 20 debates, including 8 from CNN.”
On a tactical level it makes sense, use Newt and Paul attack Santorum and not be associated with “negative” campaigning.
On a strategic level it is a cataclysmic blunder. It creates the image of Romney as afraid and/or desperate.
Meanwhile while Romney ducks Santorum engages:
Rick’s not afraid to go 12 min with Hotair. If I’m the Romney Camp, i’d be very afraid
Update: Apparently Santorum is now skipping the debate as well, the question is, did he decline before or after Romney? If before the Romney critique can be justly applied, if after then it’s a smart counter to keep from attack but it gives Newt an opening and that might also not be a good move.
update 2: It’s the same story updated to reflect Santorum too, that suggest that the Santorum decision came after the Romney one