While I was finalizing the car situation this week Stacy McCain was on the road to Tampa filing report after report.

Today he and Ali are on the road home but a problem has come up with the car.

It might make it back, it might not, at best he will have a $300 bill when he gets home, at worst he will need an expensive repair on a holiday weekend.

That stinks.

He needs two things.

One is easy prayer, that can help him make it to the house.

The other is cash, let make sure once he gets there the car can be fixed.

Go over there and hit the freaking Tip Jar, Clint Eastwood would want you to.

Update: Stacy’s post at the local Ray Kroc Memorial Media Center is up,

Sheldon: Amy Farrah Fowler has asked me to meet her mother.

Leonard: Yeah, so.

Sheldon: What does that mean?

Leonard: Well, you know how you’re always saying Amy is a girl who is your friend but not your girlfriend.

Sheldon: Uh huh.

Leonard: Well, you can’t say that anymore.

The Big Bang Theory The Desperation Emanation 2010

Although my Breitbart “Bring it On” video remains the single most popular video I ever shot in terms of total hits (even making MSNBC) the video that constantly gets comments on a weekly basis is Rick Santorum’s answer to a college student during the New Hampshire Primary on the subject of Gay Marriage:

The full nine minutes is a spectacular reasoned argument by Santorum simply knocking it out of the park. The most interesting point was when he posed the following question to the crowd of liberal college students:

“Everyone has the right to be happy so if you’re not happy unless your married to five other people is it OK?”

The college kids were not happy with the question claiming it was “irrelevant”

Well it’s less than 9 months later and guess what? It’s not irrelevant anymore as per this article in the Guardian:

Why shouldn’t three people get married?

As three Brazilians are legally joined as a ‘thruple’ it starts to look illiberal to insist that marriage must be between two people

Note the appeal to “feelings” it doesn’t matter what Marriage actually IS it matters how something feels. Notice also the arguments that sound so familiar:

Without reverting to religious arguments, or logistical ones (does Ikea manufacture a big enough bed to accommodate this union?), it begins to feel a bit illiberal.

Is it possible that if we allowed more people to marry simultaneously that more marriages might be successful? Fewer breakups over infidelity might occur, for example, if those who found themselves in love with more than one person didn’t have to choose or conceal their feelings. And relaxing the expectation that one partner should fulfil all of one’s needs – good sex, complementary taste in television and shared preference for dogs over cats may just be too much to ask for – might mean that people who opt for a portfolio of other halves (or thirds) could outdo the rest of us in happiness.

Yes and if we re-defined the word deficit to mean only amounts over 500 Trillion then we would no longer have one.

That this is advanced in the Guardian is interesting, even more interesting is the comments, tons of people agreeing after all one does not want to be “Judgmental.”

I submit and suggest anyone who claims they didn’t see this coming was either delusional, ignorant or a liar and I further submit and suggest that the basic goal of this debate from the start has been for many of those involved the destruction of marriage as an institution.

But I will concede this in terms of logic, ignoring the religious argument she is quite correct, if you redefine marriage to include gay marriage there is absolutely no logical case to forbid any other different combination ick-factor not withstanding.

When I saw the Clint Eastwood speech yesterday, an image formed in my mind:

For those too young to remember that is Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In and John Wayne in that bunny suit. That’s the last time I saw something this Ayptical from a Hollywood icon.

I thought Eastwood’s presentation was one of the weirdest things I’ve ever seen, somebody said on TV it was a variation of an old Morry Amsterdam bit (Eastwood is certainly old enough to remember Amsterdam) but that might just have been a bad joke.

Nevertheless I submit that the Clint Eastwood bit worked absolutely perfectly for the GOP in general and Mitt Romney in particular. Here is why:

1. The Presence:

A lot of people who normally wouldn’t have tuned into the RNC yesterday tuned in to see Eastwood.

2. The oddity of it:

If it was a regular “Make my Day” speech they would have changed the channel when it was done, this was so odd that I suspect people kept the TV there just to see what people might say about it or if there was any odd reaction.

3. The memorable lines:

Because Eastwood bit was so odd, the memorable lines “Politicians are employees of ours”, “When somebody does not do the job, you gotta let ‘em go.” stood out and will be remembered.

4. The lead-in:

Those folks who stayed looking for Eastwood reactions who normally would have gone caught Marco Rubio, who hit it out of the park for Romney and he gave a speech that would hold them.

5. The Comparison:

The Mitt Romney speech contrasted to the Eastwood bit was a smashing success.

6. Drawing their fire:

Take a look at this image from Memeorandum as of 8:31 AM

And here is the stuff on the Romney speech same page:

What is Missing? Attacks on Romney’s speech! Today was the day that the Democrats should be hitting Romney’s speech and trying to counter it a-la Ryan. Instead the readers of the Morning papers, Cable TV and the left blogs are reading attacks on Eastwood. Clint Eastwood is playing the same role as a hero in an old western, drawing all the fire so the good guy could escape unharmed.

7. Picking on an old man:

The left has been particularly strong hitting Clint Eastwood, Here are three images from Twitchy

Not only is it not smart to hit an American Icon, what do you think the reaction of the elderly voters who always show up will be to the “pick on the old guy” bit? I suspect it won’t play well at all.

For tall these reasons Clint Eastwood appearance at the RNC made my day and I suspect it made the Romney campaign’s day too.

There were a lot of speeches yesterday. Mike Eurzonie gave a great one, Marco Rubio made a better one, Clint Eastwood made an odd one and Mitt Romney is giving his as I type this.

In the morning when this post will go up, there will be an awful lot of pixels spent to say what they think about Mitt’s speech but it was not the most important words said on the air yesterday. The most important words came from of all People Michael Moore:


Listen to these quotes:

The big problem is Obama’s base is ‘Yeah I think I’m going to vote for him’ but this time four years ago everybody including myself were working on phone banks.

and this

Young people who were voting for him four years ago are not that enthused and are not working like they were four years ago.

Moore did something you don’t often see him do, give an honest assessment of a situation, acting not as a propagandist but as a realist. He said out loud what a lot of people on the left know and what the media know but are doing their best to hide.

This post has over 10,000 comments I read through a bit over 50% during & after the Romney speech (a good speech but not a killer one) and from what I can see in comments it affirms what I’ve been saying for over a year…

“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”!

And if you don’t believe me read those comments and believe them and when you do remember, the Huff Post folks are the left’s footsoldiers.

Update: American Glob, The Daily Caller and the Evil Blogger Lady (who was there first) get it.

There are times when I really think the left thinks it is still 1992 or 1996 or before, the internet doesn’t exist and nobody is around to dispute a word they put out, but then I sit down and think and realize it’a all about short term gratification.

Yesterday after the Code Pink people failed to properly disrupt Paul Ryan’s speech the entire MSM speaking with one “Journo-listic” voice was screaming “liar LIAR LIAR!

While Robert Stacy McCain points to Joan Walsh I think the absolutely worst example of this is found by Legal Insurrection in the form of a Howard Fineman Tweet



“…Have to prove clearly he is a liar
“? Really Howard, Is that your unbiased experienced Journalistic opinion?

I’ve never forgotten that day at Darthmouth College after the debate when I was filming Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the spin room when this same Howard Fineman who is paid as an objective journalist, challenged my being there. So I might be forgiven if I tease him a bit on this.

I don’t claim to have the experience that he does in the field nor the connections of him or Joan Walsh, and I don’t pretend in the least to be unbiased. but you know one thing I apparently have over Howard Fineman and all his friends, the ability to do a Google Search.

…Since they were shut down in 2009, both the Janesville and Tennessee plants have been on standby status, meaning they were not producing vehicles, but they were not completely shut down.

That’s the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal via Twitchy, and here is Legal Insurrection quoting GM you know that company decided to buy for us, itself:

The Janesville plant was closed in 2009 after Obama took over, and as part of the takeover of GM by the government.

That’s when the decision was taken to shutter the Janesville plant for good, as GM itself announced on June 26, 2009 (emphasis added):

General Motors selected its assembly plant in Orion Township, Mich. and stamping facility in Pontiac, Mich., to build its future small car, which will add to the automaker’s growing portfolio of U.S.-built, highly fuel-efficient cars, including the Chevrolet Cruze and Volt. Today’s announcement will restore approximately 1,400 jobs in total — 1,200 at Orion Assembly and 200 at Pontiac Metal Center, Building # 14….

“This is great news for our members at UAW Local 5960, Oakland County, and the State of Michigan, and shows the world the UAW can compete in the most competitive segment of the automotive industry,” said Cal Rapson, UAW Vice President and Director, UAW-GM Department. “My heart also goes out to our UAW members in Janesville, Wisc., and Spring Hill, Tenn.

Stacy McCain, you know a real journalist, is outraged by this:

What is so profoundly offensive about the unethical and dishonest behavior of Chris Matthews, Joan Walsh and other such Democrat sockpuppets is that they won’t admit who they are and what they’re doing. They are not independent journalists, they’re partisan publicists, yet they expect to be taken seriously as reporters when they can’t even be bothered to do a Google search and find out when a factory closed.

They are a disgrace to the profession to which they claim to belong. Truth matters. Truth is precious and powerful. Liars are a dime a dozen.

Stacy Stacy Stacy, you don’t get it, their objective wasn’t to get it right, the objective was to counter Ryan for one news cycle so when people read their papers & web sites in the Morning they would see the word “lie”. If a CNN says otherwise later, it doesn’t matter as long as it’s in a difference news cycle or at least late.

Not only will less people will see it and by today everyone is talking Clint Eastwood.

Ideally of course as the Evil Blogger Lady says, they would Palinize him, but barring that disrupting the news cycle will do.

In a way it’s much like the proposed plans of the left, do just enough to win the current cycle for the voters and worry about what happens next, a budget is bad for the cycle, don’t have one, need to solidify the Hispanic base and can’t pass the dream act, order it, Gay Democrats won’t give money, reverse yourself, need to burnish your image among Christians reverse yourself on Cardinal Dolan.

The problem with instant gratification is eventually all this spinning and sliding catches up with you, as Glenn put it.

You know, the Democrats’ media base has served two functions. One, of course, has been to misinform the people who don’t pay much attention. It can still do that, though with reduced efficacy. But the other was to demoralize or intimidate the opposition. That part seems to have pretty much fallen by the wayside.

Or to put it another way, in the short term you might get away with it for a news cycle or two, but in the long term your reputation goes the way of Lindsay Lohan on a bender.

Either way what do we make of this move by the MSM and the left on Ryan? I think Robert Stacy McCain had a tweet that really summed it up well:

Hmmm “Demoralized as Hell” I like the sound of that.

Question: Why would Code Pink risk turning off voters by trying to disrupt Paul Ryan’s speech?

Of course code pink loves the attention and I’m sure somebody is paying for this stuff in the background, but one might think that this kind of thing isn’t a coincidence. Paul Ryan has been in congress 20 years, he could be a 21st Century John F Kennedy with better health and no war experience for the GOP

Of course if the Democrats believed what they did WHEN Kennedy was president, and Catholic’s who actually believe what the Church teaches were welcome in the party instead of called bigots the very Catholic Paul Ryan might have been a democrat speaking in Charlotte.

Stacy McCain has the text of the full speech but there was one line that Instapundit quoted that I think resonates very far:

“College graduates should not have to spend their twenties in their childhood bedrooms, looking up at their fading Obama posters and wondering when they will be able to get going in life.”

Now I’ve said before the tradition in Italian families is that children stay in the home until married but those days are pretty much gone (although both of my sons 21 & 19 next month are here during college). We have classified out offspring as “children” up to age 25 and thanks to the economy have made living in our parents home a necessity rather than a tradition.

Don’t think for one moment that doesn’t ring true to those who heard this and believe me the left understand that too.

And that’s why you need to send Code Pink to interrupt this speech. Cripes if I was the left, I wouldn’t be smuggling in just two people to disrupt this speech, I’d smuggle in a whole brass band.

Anyone who reads this blog knows I don’t have a lot of faith in polling unless I see the internals. So when I saw this story at life news:

Poll Claims Todd Akin Has Re-Taken Lead on Claire McCaskill

The lead shown was 3 points for Akin. While it was not an outrageous number it was 12 pts different that the last announced poll. So immediately was suspicious:

Fritz Wenzel analyzed the results of the survey and concluded that “Despite the firestorm of news in the Senate race over the past few weeks, most voters have already made up their mind in the race, the survey shows. The fact that 80% said they were firm in their choice certainly indicates that this is a race that will be decided more by ideology and turnout efforts by the campaigns and less by breaking news that flashes across the news pages and cable news channels.”

So I looked at the memo page but there were no internals listed.

At that point I was ready to put up a post calling BS but I noticed the memo contained a contact number so I did what a reporter who wants a question answered is supposed to do I called.

Not only did I get the company but I got Mr. Weaver himself, he agreed to talk to me.

I asked him about the poll and the internals. He told me the split was as follows:

Republicans 34%
Democrats 33%
Independents 33%

Talk about a balanced poll. I’ve never seen a poll so exactly split. and this split is consistent with the actual partisan split in Missouri. I asked why the internals were not included he said the internals were given both to the client and to Politico (which had this story but didn’t put them out in their piece.)

Mr. Weaver answered all my questions and agreed to be on this week’s DaTechGuy on DaRadio on Saturday.

If this poll is accurate it confirms what I said on the 24th.

For all of the grief you have gotten none of the underlying issues that were a problem for McCaskill are still there. The economy, Obamacare, unemployment the lot.

There are a lot of people on the right who might be embarrassed by an Akin victory. Apparently to the voters of Missouri they would be much more embarrassed by a McCaskill win.

Exit question. If this is correct and Akin wins without the GOP what will the MSM say, what will McCaskill say and most importantly what will the media say?

Update:
Claire McCasKill runs away…from Obama

So now we have the Republican candidate who has been told in no uncertain terms that he won’t be getting one penny from the RNC and the Democrat sprinting away from the titular head of her party like Usain Bolt toward a Nike endorsement. Who is going to wind up financing this shindig seeing the way things are going?

Claire Claire Claire, you can run all the comercials you want but you can’t take back that Obamacare vote

This morning I wrote about Roland Martin’s apoplexy over Artur Davis and his desperate need to discredit him.

One might ask why? After all Charlie Crist is going to give a speech at the DNC, why not just point to Davis as just the other end of the coin.

The answer is in not just the speech itself (which Rob Eno correctly identifies as the one that SHOULD have been the keynote) and these words in particular:

“There are Americans watching right now who voted for the President but they’re searching right now, because they know their votes didn’t build the country they wanted. To those democrats and Independents whose minds are open to argument, listen closely to the Democratic party that will gather in Charlotte, ask yourself if you hear your voice in the clamor, ask if these Democrats still speak for you?

There are an awful lot of people who voted for Obama in 2008 who were carried away with hope and change who are very disappointed with what they have, but they don’t want to be called, stupid or suckers for doing so. Davis is saying: Look it’s OK, but more importantly he challenges people to actually listen to what they are saying and decide if they agree. In other words, he is saying on a national stage what people like Cheryl have told me elsewhere.

That’s the danger, but Davis has been a danger to the Dems ever since he decided not to follow the line on vote fraud in a story the MSM did their best to ignore a year ago:

“What I have seen in my state, in my region, is the most aggressive practitioners of voter-fraud are local machines who are tied lock, stock and barrel to the special interests in their communities — the landfills, the casino operators — and they’re cooking the [ballot] boxes on election day, they’re manufacturing absentee ballots, they’re voting [in the names of] people named Donald Duck, because they want to control politics and thwart progress,” he told TheDC.

“People who are progressives have no business defending those individuals.”

Read that interview and listen to last night’s speech.

He is saying what people are already thinking but is saying it ALOUD,

Meanwhile Charlie Crist will be channeling Kevin Bacon

If you didn’t understand why the left fears Artur Davis, if you didn’t understand why MSNBC ignored him and why Roland Martin attacked him so, you do now.

BTW proving great minds think alike or at least former Catholic call center people who now have radio shows but are best known for blogging do here is Ed Morrissey thinking the same thing:

Davis speaks for the people who voted for Obama and have seen their lives worsen ever since, a widely-experienced phenomenon as incomes have dropped faster during the Obama “recovery” than they did during the recession. More people are unemployed, more people are despairing, and now more people want real change. That is Davis’ audience.

In contrast, what will Crist’s audience be? People who voted for McCain, but now want to vote for Obama because they’re lives are so improved? That’s a pretty narrow slice of the population. Where Davis speaks for millions

Ed nails it although I’m slightly annoyed not because his post made it up before mine, I’m annoyed that he had the part I wanted to quote already transcribed while I was listening to it over and over to make sure it was exact when I could have cut and pasted from him.

Ah well that’s the way the pixels bounce.

There was a lot of talk yesterday of MSNBC’s decision to cut away from every Minority & women speaker (except for Ann Romney who is NOT a poll).

When popular Tea Party candidate Ted Cruz, the GOP nominee for Senate, took the stage, MSNBC cut away from the Republican National Convention and the Hispanic Republican from Texas’ speech.

MSNBC stayed on commercial through former Democratic Rep. Artur Davis’ speech, as well. Davis, who recently became a Republican, is black.

Then, when Puerto Rican Governor Luis Fortuno’s wife Luce’ Vela Fortuño took the stage minutes later, MSNBC hosts Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews opted to talk over the First Lady’s speech.

And Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval? Noticeably missing from MSNBC, too.

Mia Love, a black candidate for Congress in Utah, was also ignored by MSNBC

This is getting some outrage online but there are two other media notes that should be discussed

1. The Rules fight:

There was a real divide between grass-roots activists and the Romney campaign, on twitter and in many posts people where rather outraged but strangely this kind of divide which would normally big news got very little play.

2. CNN & Artur davis:

While MSNBC pretended Artur Davis didn’t exist CNN’s Roland Martin not only called Davis a “Political Fraud“.

but while he was on the air with the panel Martin continued to pound him visibly angry while Davis remained composed. (this was just before this Gloria Borger clip that Newsbusters highlighted.

Both of these moment were PERFECT for TV yet got very little press. You don’t see it pushed.

Why?

Because the networks understand that this is a base election and as the NPR story I highlighted last week shows, there are very few actual independents to persuade.

The Davis exchange with Martin highlights an actual debate going on in the Black Community “0%” polling not withstanding, and the Floor fight story demonstrates the divide between Romney and the Tea Party base that was evident all during the primaries (Remember “Anybody but Mitt?)

Both of these things are threats to a Base that is not delighted with Barack Obama and must at all costs not be shown anything that gives one an excuse to stay home or vote Romney.

It’s more subtle than blacking out Women & Minority candidates but it adds up to the same thing.

“Ride right through them, they’re demoralized as hell”!

The media is on defense because they understand their candidates are too.

I just watched Mia Love’s speech and am listening to her interview now. The young woman’s family came to America 39 years ago from Haiti, with all of $10 in their pockets, and built a life.  They worked to send Mia to college; she obtained an art degree, got married, and moved to Utah.  Then, she was on town council for several years before becoming mayor (ousting the Democrat incumbent); she’s now running for Congress. Other GOP speakers include Nikki Haley (who won a four-way primary for the governorship of South Carolina), rock star Marco Rubio, Ann Romney, and rock star Ted Cruz.

In her remarks to the press, Gov. Haley stated that all issues are women’s issues, and that women are capable of deciding which issues are important for them to vote on.  The harsh reality that women’s brains can handle economics does not sit well with Ben Adler, who accused the Republicans of “tokenism“. Perhaps he thinks that Nikki Haley is only a token governor; that Marco Rubio is only an alleged Senator; that Mia Love is not really a mayor.  (Ted Cruz is obviously a token: Princeton undergrad, Harvard Law, Harvard Law Review, debate champion, Luttig/Rehnquist clerk, nine Supreme Court arguments, Texas Solicitor General, all before the age of 40… ohwaitaminute, the guy’s John Roberts without the blue eyes.)

Seriously, though, this “tokenism” thing raises my engineer/lawyer hackles.  As I responded to Adler’s article (and his moonbat commenters), women are not confined to a voting ghetto, allowed only to vote on specific issues in a specific, preapproved manner.  Susan B. Anthony did not fight for women’s suffrage so that I could outsource my thinking to men with half my native intellect.  This might come as a shock to sexist prat liberals, but my girly brain  can reason on economics, production, technology, the deficit, and the military.

I didn’t fight my way through a STEM field to be told that I can’t understand science and how the 2.3% medical device tax will affect technological development (“Just ignore those big numbers and vote for the party that gives you affirmative action, honey!” Adler all but says).  I didn’t make a name for myself in military technology to be told that I can’t vote for President based on who I think would be a better Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.  I didn’t graduate law school with honours to be told to not worry my pretty head about the expansion of the federal government and the blatant unconstitutionality of the Independent Payment Advisory Board.

“Tokenism”?  I know this might shock closet sexists and racists who think that voting the (D) makes that sexism and racism okay, but women and minorities do not owe you their votes.  The Republican Party: getting rid of chattel voting since 1861.