There are a lot of conservatives simply delighted with the victory of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in the NY 14.

Some because it unseated a longtime and very powerfull Democrat leader.

Hold on to your hats, Democrats. The chairman of the House Democratic Caucus lost his primary in New York’s 14th Congressional District. And to add insult to injury, he lost to an avowed socialist running her first serious political campaign who managed to raise only 10% as much money as Crowley had to spread around.

Some because she is, as the good folks at Victory Girls put it a “Raging Dumpster Fire

Yep, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a dumpster fire. But she’ll win in November, no doubt. The borough in Queens she hopes to represent is deep blue, so there’s little chance of a GOP victory. And it looks like New York’s 14th District just elected themselves a joke.

She’ll be a hoot when she gets to DC. We’ll just sit back and enjoy the show.

And yes, to whatever extent she’s hurting Democrat chances in the House and senate, I’m pleased as well.

But there is a more basic reason to be pleased,at Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s victory, the fact that she accurately represent the Democrat party as it is and thus presents a clear choice to the voters of her district.

They can choose to support an open socialist who wants open boarders, government provided jobs for all, Medicare for all, free college for all, or someone who lives in the real world and understands what the consequences of that kind of nonsense would be.

Now given the makeup of that district their choice is almost going to be the former and that’s OK because voters should get the representation they want and if they want that kind of lunacy they should get it.

Just as important if elected, and it’s likely she will be, she will reflect the authentic voice of the Democrat it is.

Right now Democrats generally get elected by pretending they are something they are not, basically deceiving voters that they are centrists making claims to support the police, the law, the troops and not having animus to people of faith or the 1st and 2nd amendment rights of their fellow Americans.

You also get the occasional Maxine Waters a powerful longstanding dem pol who is the Yasser Arafat of American Political who tends to say one thing to excite the base and bring in the cash but starts to back off or spin it away once her rants begin to be considered representative of the positions of the Democrat party.

That’s generally not how Bernie bros like Ocasio-Cortez operate, they are open about their beliefs and are not shy about publicly advancing them. This means that instead of American voters being deceived they would have an honest debate over the choice between socialism and Capitalism and be able to choose one or the other rather than being deceived about the intentions of those they vote for.

If the Democrats want socialized medicine, abortion up to the 9th month, confiscation of guns, a weak military and people taxed to death so the government can provide for woman’s studies majors let them run 435 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs and if the American people choose them, so be it.

However they are not honest enough to do such a thing because if the Democrat party and their media and cultural organs portrayed themselves as they are, they might never win an election outside of the deepest blue states again.

In closing let me send this message to Maxine Waters who is now claiming that she’s a target for assassination for her views.

If I can’t get Democrats to run 435 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortezs I’d love them to run 435 Maxine Waters:

If you think this site in general is worth supporting please consider kicking in here:

Or even better subscribing.

Choose a Subscription level

Or buying my book Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Either way it’s most appreciated.


I’ll have a lot to say about events in Boston tomorrow with photos, video and several interviews to round it out. But before I upload those videos and do anything else let me give one thank-you and two shout outs.

First thank all those who consented to interviews (either recorded or not) and gave me some of your time. You were all a pleasure to meet.

Now two shout outs. The primary shoutout goes to the all the Police present.

Unlike Chancellorsville the Boston/State and other Police were present and on the ball. While I didn’t like that I was unable to approach the primary rally and cover what people were actually saying which had been my goal, they did yeomans work to keep people safe and prevent those who would have liked to have cracked heads (and believe me there was a significant number of people there with that goal) in check.

So to all the police there, the Boston Police, the State Police, the Transit Police and even the Police who were guarding the parking garage, you symbolized the best of both Boston and Law enforcement and I tip my Fedora to you.

The second shoutout goes to a set of young college age ladies that I don’t know.

By the time I standing in the subway car back heading back to the parking garage at Alewife Station my body, which had gone all day without food or water on a hot day while running all around the Boston Common covering the story, finally had its say. I found myself suddenly dizzy and nauseous and had to sit, so I lowered myself to the floor taking my laptop bag and camera off from around my neck. Immediately three young ladies standing next to me were at my side offering me water and a fourth offered me her seat.

All of these ladies had been at the protest and were carrying signs to that effect. I suspect none of them were Trump supporters or shared anything close to my political views.

But here, away from the crowd, their concern wasn’t with who I voted for or what I thought of the various event I had seen. All they saw was a fifty something man in some distress and wanted to help, our common humanity overrode everything else.

They did me a great service, not only by giving me a hand but by reminding me not to judge all those in attendance by the signs they carried or by the lowest common denominator of a crowd at a time when I most needed that reminder.

In this age of division it was a breath of fresh air. Ladies I tip my fedora to you

My pay for this work comes from you so if you want a source of on site reporting other than the MSM please consider hitting DaTipJar below to help me get that next paycheck filled ($370 to go)

Please consider subscribing, Not only does that get you my weekly podcast emailed to you before it appears either on the site or at the 405media which graciously carries it on a weekly basis but if you subscribe at any level I will send you an autographed copy of my new book from Imholt Press: Hail Mary the Perfect Protestant (and Catholic) Prayer

Choose a Subscription level

One of the advantages of being a liberal who covers conservatives (and actually mixes with them) is perspective and at the Washington Post Dave Weigel brightly illustrates the difference between being owned by a campaign and not. (emphasis mine)

In outrage mode, it was easy to ignore something Clinton spokesman Jake Sullivan said in his reaction. Trump didn’t just praise Hussein. He “yet again lauded” him. As the Post’s Jenna Johnson pointed out, Trump had used this language many, many times, with plenty of cameras pointed at him. The narrowing of the field, the fact that the rally was on prime time television — some of that contributed to the furor, which began before anyone from team Clinton spoke out.

And remember many of those speeches were televised by the same media outlets that are now shocked Shocked at his words:

By consistently covering Trump’s argument over time, and by following up on it, media outlets did their job to inform voters. That was why Tuesday night’s collective Captain Renault moment was so strange, and so demonstrative of why many media consumers are skeptical of what they’re hearing. Instead of a debate on the facts — should Hussein have been removed? Did he “kill terrorists,” in a contradiction of what Americans were told before the war? — there was manufactured outrage, straight from a rival campaign.

or as a Daily Mail reporter quoted by Dave put it:

Actually I disagree, there is nothing at all remarkable about it, it’s the standard operating procedure of the media in full Clinton protection mode and Dave Weigel deserves a lot of credit for noting it, particularly for doing so at the Washington Post.

However unfortunately for all those media outlets because they DID carry so many of those Trump rallies live their viewers likely have likely seen Mr. Trump say these words before and have come to the same conclusion that Dave Weigel did.

It’s very hard to define your opponent when you’ve already allowed him to define himself.

Believe it or not via Memeorandum and not Instapundit

I’ve taken a lot of time to deliver some well deserved hits on the various Michael Brown Protesters.

However I’d like to draw your attention to a man I disagree who deserves to be mentioned.

Meet the Reverend Jarrett Maupin

rev MaupinI have never met the reverend but by that description odds are we have little in common and likely disagree on most major issues.  But after reading this article

Rev. Jarrett Maupin agreed to take the use of force test administered to police officers, in an attempt to prove that police are using too much force when responding to calls.  TheMaricopa County Sheriffs Department gave Maupin the three scenarios and here is howMaupin did:

In the first scenario, Maupin did not shoot.  The perp hid behind a car, pulling out a gun and shot Maupin.  In the second one, Maupin had to break up an argument that was getting physical.  When an unarmed man rushed at him, Maupin fired.  He said afterwards that the man had forced him to shoot by entering his zone:

And this reaction:

Maupin, who in the past has led several marches against police, including one case where police shot an unarmed man, also led the crowd in a chant of, “We want his badge, we want his gun, we want his job.”

To his credit, Rev. Maupin admitted that he had no real understanding about the compliance issue and that the tests allowed him to see things in a new light:

“I didn’t understand how important compliance was, but after going through this; yes my attitude has changed, this happens in 10-15 seconds. People need to comply for their own sake.”

I can tell you that he is without a question an honorable man and deserves a seat at the table when these things are discussed.

Maupin didn’t have to take this test.   He could have maintained standing within his community without even giving lip service to this test.

That fact that he took the time and objectively evaluated it says he’s looking for what’s right not what’s expedient.

He may be wrong but I’ll always sit at the table of a man whose honest, when you have honest men at the table you will get honest & honorable solutions.

One of days I must have the Reclusive Leftist on my show on the subject of Sarah Palin and the left. We disagree on almost everything else but she has been willing from day one to call out her fellow leftists on Palin Derangement syndrome.

I finally had a chance to take a peek at her blog to see what she had to say about the last week and she wrote a series of post that confirmed her dislike of the right but were as honest as the day was long.

She started on the 9th:

As soon as I heard the news Saturday and read an online article (forget where) with the gleanings from the guy’s various communiques, that was my impression. Mind control, grammar, the possible constitutional ramifications and/or mind control of said grammar, strange obsessions with the currency and its frightening message to trust in God, nonsensical ramblings: it could be a page out of Vaslav Nijinksy’s diary. It’s not just the content, but the style. Classic paranoid schizophrenia.

So imagine my surprise when I checked in on the news later last night and saw that Sarah Palin had been blamed for the shooting.

In the post she insults the tea party but that doesn’t stop her from seeing nonsense for what it is.

Later that same day she reminds us of some of the non violent memes of the lefts opposition to Sarah Palin and says:

That’s right. He was busy calling for Hillary Clinton’s death and then, when Clinton was over, foaming at the mouth about

Palin hunt image via the reclusive leftist
Sarah Palin. Lots of people were foaming at the mouth about Sarah Palin. There was the “art” exhibit in New York inviting people to play at shooting her with a rifle. She was hung in effigy in Los Angeles. Sandra Bernhardt said she should be raped, and not a few other people gleefully called for her death.

Was there any outrage about this at the time? Only from people like me, who were running around with our hair on fire, screaming to our allegedly “progressive” brethren and sistren “UR DOIN IT WRONG!!!!!” Everybody else seemed to think it was just fine. After all, Sarah Palin really did deserve to be raped and murdered and shot and lynched because she’s a foul c*** who needs to die, so what was wrong with saying so? Lighten up, bitch. What are you, a secret Republican?

And again she is the reclusive leftist so she makes it clear what she thinks of Sarah Palin’s political positions:

Sarah Palin is a Republican. That’s all. She’s just a silly rightwing Republican. The country’s crawling with them. Look, they’re all around you! They’re your county supervisors, state senators, congresspeople, governors, and former presidents. Remember Bush? Remember Reagan? Sarah Palin didn’t invent any of this stuff. She didn’t invent any of the ideas or any of the rhetoric. She certainly didn’t invent extremist violence, nor does she seem to be in any way connected with that kind of thing. She’s just an ordinary idiot Republican who believes ordinary idiot Republican things, like the millions of other ordinary idiot Republicans in this country.

What is it about her that’s so special? What could it possibly be that makes this utterly ordinary idiot Republican somehow a billion times worse than all the rest?

…and she gives her explanation but go to the link and read it, she deserves the hits.

Finally on the 16th she hits it out of the park on RFK Jr’s essay:

He just wanted to talk about the dangers of right-wing hate. Okay, fine. That’s cool. Let’s talk about it. But still: how do you leave out the sentence about Oswald? As a writer, how do you do that? I couldn’t. It feels obligatory. You write this highly-charged essay, you make a big deal about how ugly the right-wing stuff was in Dallas, you evoke the horror of the president’s death; even if you want your takeaway message to be about the dangers of superheated rhetoric, how do you leave out the undeniable historical reality that Oswald was cut from an entirely different bolt of cloth? Even if you tuck it in as a parenthetical throwaway (”of course, ironically…”), you still have to acknowledge it. Don’t you?

I had just about persuaded myself to forget about it—chalk it up to a single editorial decision not to muddy the main point—when I learned today that Eric Boehlert wrote an extremely similar essay in 2009: A President was killed the last time right-wing hatred ran wild like this. It’s exactly the same argument RFK Jr. makes, and with exactly the same stunning omission. No Oswald! Oswald has simply disappeared. He’s gone. And everything that motivated the man is gone. No Cuba, no Fidel, no Soviet Union, no Marxism, no Communism, no nothing. There’s not even a nod to Oswald’s real motive, which was the inchoate longing to be somebody, to be a great man, to be important.

Read this whole essay, yeah it’s hard on the right, but it’s honest and fair and from the left.

I will never agree with the Reclusive Leftist on religion, abortion, George Bush and a million other issues, but boy do I respect her.

Update: Thanks for the lanche Glenn but thanks even more for linking to Violet, honest leftists should be celebrated. BTW Insty readers make sure you read all three of her posts on the subject.

Update 2: A lot of readers think that I’m giving Violet too much credit. Remember a lot of us on the right were once on the left, it took a while for us to get it, its not a switch. If you want to let people find their way to truth the best way is to encourage them along the way.

Glenn linked to one other interesting piece today from one of the few people on the far lets on my blogroll, the Reclusive Leftist who said this:

Nobody has ever apologized to me. Not that it would make a difference, but still. Not one of those people who accused me of being a racist and secret wingnut has ever said, “You were right about Obama. I’m sorry I called you those names.”

What they do instead is claim that no one could have known how Obama would turn out. He seemed like cream of Jesus on toast, so how could they know? Nobody could know! And as for the uncomfortable fact that a bunch of people, including me, seemed to know exactly how Obama would turn out and were saying so loudly in 2008—well, that was just coincidence.

Get used to it Violet we on the right are constantly being accused of being racists for daring to disagree with the one or even with Deval Patrick

Anyway your willingness to see what others ignored and say it aloud earns you my respect.

They report his background, (not specifically mentioning his support to park 51) but since they can’t directly attach him to opposition to the mosque they still play the Gingrich card. You can see them trying to hold back, unable to make the direct connection so it is all a question of “climate”.

I would think the irony of his attachments would be the big story, but I think it is disgraceful that they attempt to link Gingrich here or opposition to the mosque here when the facts are exactly the opposite. Since the guy supports the mosque how does the “climate of hate” connect to the attack? The only climate that mattered was the climate of alcohol in his system.

I haven’t been making it up early enough today to catch the first hour so I don’t know if they hit the Carnahan story but it would be nice.

Then again they have been very balanced looking at the president and noting that he is again being treated differently that Bush would have, noting the double standards.

That’s the thing about this show, compared to every other show on MSNBC they are not afraid to look at reality. They even pointed to Sarah Palin’s success today and acknowledged it.

I wonder if MSNBC tolerates them because a morning show by nature attracts people outside the clique?

Cripes they just played the Rubio Ad. It’s awesome!

but Chris Hitchens has only so many columns left in him so they should be promoted while there is still time:

Emboldened by the crass nature of the opposition to the center, its defenders have started to talk as if it represented no problem at all and as if the question were solely one of religious tolerance. It would be nice if this were true. But tolerance is one of the first and most awkward questions raised by any examination of Islamism. We are wrong to talk as if the only subject was that of terrorism. As Western Europe has already found to its cost, local Muslim leaders have a habit, once they feel strong enough, of making demands of the most intolerant kind. Sometimes it will be calls for censorship of anything “offensive” to Islam. Sometimes it will be demands for sexual segregation in schools and swimming pools. The script is becoming a very familiar one. And those who make such demands are of course usually quite careful to avoid any association with violence. They merely hint that, if their demands are not taken seriously, there just might be a teeny smidgeon of violence from some other unnamed quarter …

As for the gorgeous mosaic of religious pluralism, it’s easy enough to find mosque Web sites and DVDs that peddle the most disgusting attacks on Jews, Hindus, Christians, unbelievers, and other Muslims—to say nothing of insane diatribes about women and homosexuals. This is why the fake term Islamophobia is so dangerous: It insinuates that any reservations about Islam must ipso facto be “phobic.” A phobia is an irrational fear or dislike. Islamic preaching very often manifests precisely this feature, which is why suspicion of it is by no means irrational.

Read the whole things and as you do remember this is from a supporter of the Mosque.

I’m going to miss Hitchens when he’s gone

memeorandum thread here

Their interview/article on Pam Geller was tough but fair.

I think it is an excellent example of how to do a “hostile” interview, dealing with someone you disagree with fundamentally.

I hit the left side of the ‘sphere a bit so when they do it right they deserve a pat.

Good show.

Memeorandum thread here.

Update: Jim Hoff mentions the Washington post bloggers are also giving credit to Pam, but he teases them for putting a clip of her in a bikini.

Let’s cut to the chase: Pam is an extraordinarily beautiful woman who looks even better in person. Any picture is going to get hits because of that, so you might has well go whole hog in the Stacy McCain vein.

Update 2: Stacy updates on Pam and the Bikini and exploding heads at LGF

But Melissa Harris Lacewell of the Nation is making some excellent points on Morning Joe.

She hits Breitbart, the administration and the NAACP but notes that it was the advocacy of the white farmers who were helped that turned this story around.

I also didn’t know Schrrot’s families history in the civil rights movement, Barnicle made an excellent point about how a person suddenly becomes famous but that’s a difference in culture.

Joe points out the actual timeline and defends Fox’s piece in the timeline, and Lacewell points out that she has more anger for the NAACP and the administration presumably because they should have known better.

Just before she was introduced Joe talked about “fringe elements on both sides” and coincidentally introduced her next. She joked saying I hope I’m not part of that fringe. Since she writes for the Nation, for me that would be the default assumption but her presentation was anything but fringe.

I like pleasant surprises like this.