Archive for the ‘Political Animals’ Category
Mitt Romney Could Have Been A Shoo-In — Updated
Tuesday, February 21st, 2012
Mitt Romney, for all the irritating inevitability story lines, could have been inevitable. Instead, he’s fighting for his life against an annoying former Senator who lost his last race by 18 points. No big loss, there. Mitt didn’t even run again, so sure he was of losing.
Mitt should already be the nominee but he’s not and the reason for that is simple: He could not throw the center right even one conservative bone. Not. One.
Wait, check that. Two bones. He pandered on illegal immigration, but that was just to get rid of Rick Perry. Remember him? Yeah, the guy who was a fiscal conservative with social conservative underpinnings and oodles of executive experience. Oh right, he had a few bad debates.
But I digress.
So we’re left with Mitt duking it out with Rick Santorum and Newt who has been quiet as of late. Or is it that the press and pundits want him gone and/or are bored of him so just refuse to engage with or talk to him?
No matter. Mitt should have this wrapped up and he doesn’t. He could have it wrapped up if only he were willing to pick one conservative idea that he likes now, liked once and has consistently liked.
Problem? There isn’t one. Even the illegal immigration stuff is undermined by his workers being illegal aliens. He’s not that offended by them, evidently.
If there was a government intervention, Mitt loved it.
He has a difficult time speaking passionately about a conservative idea because he’s worked hard at being bland and inoffensive to liberals.
Mitt has made almost no effort to shore up the base. The calculation has been thus: Obama is such an atrocity that the Republican candidate shouldn’t offend the center, the base will do what it’s told.
That might have been true if the Republican party hadn’t already burned every bridge with the base. They didn’t just burn them though, they torched them and put conservative heads on spikes along the way. (Not sure about that? What happened to Sarah Palin couldn’t have happened if the Republican hierarchy, lead by John McCain hadn’t sat on their hands.)
The Republicans have been pushing back at the conservative base. They insulted them with No Child Left Behind and creating loads of agencies in a post-9/11 world and sealed the deal with government bailouts of banks, Wall Street, GM, and every sort of shifting money from taxpayers to irresponsible institutions and people.
And then there’s Obamacare. And Romneycare. Does this even need to be explained? Yanking the choice away from people responsible enough to buy insurance and making the responsible pay…for less.
And Romney defends it all.
If he could convincingly say that he made mistakes and give a soaring speech defending liberty and the American way, that contrast would be enough to ensure his candidacy. He’d win in a landslide.
He simply can’t do it. For months, he’s had the opportunity to speak imaginatively and passionately about America, the individual and possibility.
So, he fights for his life in the GOP primary losing to a guy who at least believes something. Santorum, is rather annoying but he at least believes the conservative rhetoric he speaks about.
Is Santorum a big-government guy? Yep. He’s G.W. Bush part deux. GOP base voters are deciding that’s better than Obama-lite.
Mitt Romney could have had it all and a lot easier, but he just can’t close the deal. He just can’t sell conservative…anything.
UPDATED:
Bethany Mandel has some advice for the Romney team:
If Romney can’t shake the perception others have of him, this will be a replay of the 2000 Gore campaign. In the summer before the 2000 election, the Washington Post reported that 65 percent of Americans thought Gore’s “stiffness” was a problem for his campaign, and the same amount of voters said the word “inspiring” did not apply to him. Leading up to the 2000 election, “Saturday Night Live‘s” number one caricature of Gore was how Romney will be portrayed if he becomes the nominee: A robot. With a public relations shop as bad as Romney’s, get ready for some reruns.
Go read the whole thing.
And, via TPM, ugh:
Revisiting Decorum: The CPAC Controversy
Thursday, February 16th, 2012
It didn’t strike me as particularly controversial to say that a business-political gathering calls for business attire generally or to say, specifically, don’t dress like a tramp. Here’s the link to the offending post.
Why is this controversial?
Well, some objected to me using the words “whore” or “slutty” to describe the dress. The language was provocative but no more provocative than the dress, itself, which was the point. Do young women want to be seen first as a sex object? If the answer is yes, then dress that way.
To be clear, the vast majority of women dressed beautifully at CPAC. Look at how awesome conservative women looked here. Enough poorly dressed women got my attention, and a guy brought it up to me (and then a girl did) at the convention, and then I read Erick’s post about young men, and all this was on the heels of an event I took my daughter to recently, that I decided to write about the phenomenon. Altogether, I came to the conclusion that firstly, we are doing a poor job teaching proper decorum to the next generation and secondly, these young women won’t have the benefit of being long forgotten fashion fails. Social media will capture it for all posterity.
Young people need to be more careful these days to maintain their reputations than those of my generation.
I should have divided my post, had I to do it again, because I was really talking about two things: social behavior and sartorial behavior. They are correlated, but not causative. That is, dressing sleazy does not necessarily mean one is a sleaze. That impression can be taken though, and can be detrimental to a woman’s professional and personal opportunities.
It may surprise people to know that I don’t particularly care about fashion in the abstract. I don’t pay attention to it. Women who pull off pulled-together consistently have my full respect. It’s not easy. I’ve referred to myself as fashion-unconscious.
Decorum, though, does matter, and when not one or two outliers, but groups of women seem to be so clueless that even I notice, it might be a problem. So I wrote about it.
This was not a prescriptive post. That is, I wasn’t telling people to wear such and such. It was proscriptive. That is, don’t do this.
Some men lamented that I recommend the coverage of cleavage. Some men were relieved. It shouldn’t be controversial to say that women should be aware of their effect on men and to be respectful. And even I noted that women will show a little bit and can be tasteful, but too much is too much. Who is to say what’s too much? Well, that takes judgment, discernment, and that’s what seems to be lacking.
Some folks worried that even mentioning decorum would discourage young people from getting involved. The mohawk-wielding, Fingers Malloy said that he thought the GOP was too uptight as it is, fashion-wise. Probably. But I never said to be uptight or nunnish but to dress to suite the situation. To be respectful.
And since I’m here, I may as well go all the way. Some of the young men and women I’m writing about didn’t look edgy fashion-wise–they looked unkempt. They looked like they needed showers.
Personal hygiene, being schooled in basic etiquette, knowing where to wear what, are all foundational to being respectful of those around you. I’ve caught a couple episode of What Not To Wear, and repeatedly, the hosts are stressing being respectful by dressing and grooming in a manner appropriate to the situation. They don’t ask people to give up their essential selves. They ask that the people be their best selves.
And really, that was my whole point: Young ladies, those few who this was written to, being their best, pulled-together selves is simply respectful to themselves and to their friends, their co-workers, and the environment. What you wear, how you wear it, and in what situation you wear it does provoke a reaction from people either good, bad or neutral. To pretend that people don’t judge is just silly. They do.
On Twitter, I gave examples of women who are beautiful and even edgy and sexy but not overtly sexual or sleazy. There’s a line. We all seem to know the difference. Well, Michelle Malkin, Dana Loesch, Pamela Gellar, Abby Alger and Tina Korbe are all unique and uniquely beautiful, tasteful, and sartorially pleasing, as just a few examples.
As to the latter, Robert Stacy McCain, decided to link-whore (there’s that word again) on my previous post and took the opportunity to be vile to Tina Korbe. There is no excuse for what he wrote. Please read Katie Pavlich’s thorough evisceration. He was wrong and came across as a sexist pig. Tina is an example of what TO do. That she sat down, and her skirt hiked up, and that someone captured it and pointed it out is classless. All women in a skirt (even ones that go to your knees), can empathize with her situation. The people publishing the photo should be embarrassed. [It just makes me angry that I'm playing into what Stacy really wants, which is for someone, anyone, to link to and read his blog.]
Hopefully, this clarifies things. There’s a line between stylish and even sexy, and sleazy and kinda dirty. Women who dress the latter at a business or politics conference shouldn’t be surprised when people judge them. Some ladies do this knowing the effect and being happy for it. More women though, are unaware of the impression they’re leaving and would like to be seen differently. For those women, a knowledgable Department Store worker can be a huge help. I know I have one. She calls me when she thinks something would be good, since I’ve told her my job. Being fashion stupid doesn’t mean one has to violate decorum. It just means one has to work harder.
Here’s a link to good advice. There’s more at the link.
Oh, and since I’ve irritated everyone, I’ll address the social behavior in another post.
The Tea Party Is Killing The Republican Party And Therefore America
Thursday, February 16th, 2012
The Tea Party would be the assemblage of the most annoying people on the planet if the Republican Party didn’t already exist or if Tea Partiers didn’t breath the same air as Democrats, Liberals and the Occupy Wall Streeters. Political people are annoying. They are, by their very essence motivated by ideas and care enough to do something about it. Most people just want to live their lives and be left alone. People in the political realm want their ideas and rantings to matter. They want to change things. That makes them annoying.
Tea Partiers are getting a bad rap right now. In fact, I just spent far too long debating Outside The Beltway’s libertarian curmudgeon James Joyner about the root cause of trouble in the GOP. It’s the Tea Party’s fault, he says:
@MelissaTweets Could well be. I think the Tea Party will take the party over the cliff, as it did with Angle, O’Donnell, Raese, Buck, etc.
— James Joyner (@drjjoyner) February 16, 2012
Oh dear. Bad Tea Party! Bad, bad Tea Party!
Whenever I see these assertions, I never see the GOP pondering their really bad choices in politicians that had money but had little charisma, political deftness or policy intelligence. See also: Meg Whitman, Carly Fiorina, and Linda McMahon. And that’s just three of them. Many bad candidates put forth by the GOP got trounced in the primaries by these Tea Party candidates because the candidates stunk so badly.
GOP apologists also don’t seem to remember what prompted the Tea Party to begin with: The Bailouts. TARP (something I was on the fence about, myself, but eventually came out against on the principle that everything the government touches turns to poo), GM bailouts, the stimulus and the gnawing anger that Republicans left their values behind with the creation of things like Medicare Part D and the Department of Homeland Security (two things that infuriated me at the time).
The Republican party leadership left their party planks and so people who actually believe in smaller government, in personal liberty, in freedom, left the GOP.
The sense that the government is doing too much for too many for little or not return; the sense that the government is piling up debt for a future generation enslaving them and their children horrified average people who decided to become politically involved and joined the Tea Party.
Anyone who is a third generation Christian knows the joy and dismay being around a new convert. It’s wonderful to see their wonder, love and affection for God and His word. It’s a little disconcerting to see scriptures distorted and extreme behavior in the name of zealotry.
The new Tea Partiers are nothing if not zealous. Sometimes, they misdirect their energy, but overwhelmingly, their impulse has been the right one.
Do Republicans really want to argue for the individual mandate, government control of the internet, and on and on? Well, actually, the current crop of Republican presidential candidates seem to, yes. They’re being “pragmatic”. No, they’re being sellouts.
The Republican party has consistently chosen big money candidates hoping self-funding will help the party. They’ve been consistently proven wrong on this account.
The Republican party continues to cling to big government ways and means. It’s power after all, and they seem disinclined to give it up. Even Paul Ryan’s budget is incremental, long-term and likely to not be enough to save the Republic.
The Republican party leaders cannot articulate conservative values (Santorum articulating conservative social values, notwithstanding) in a positive way because they don’t believe them.
And yet, it’s the Tea Party, the group who reflects what regular Americans believe, who is going to ruin the Republican party and by extension, the Republic?
The Government is too big and too powerful average Americans believe. This is not some wild-eyed notion. And yet, Republicans are not articulating a smaller government message.
Worse, Republicans are not voting that way. So, to the dismay of many long-time Republicans, notorious Dem-liters like Orrin Hatch and Dick Luger, don’t represent their states constituency or their party’s planks. Why have them? Terror at being primaried and losing power seems to be the only thing that penetrates the consciousness of politicians. So, pain is on the way.
Before the Tea Party came along, the Republican Party was a hot mess. The New York, California, Nevada, Ohio, and Colorado GOP (just to five states off the top of my head) stunk. Calcified, self-protective, hierarchical, detached, and consumed by infighting, it’s rich that people want to blame the Tea Party for failure when the Tea Party new blood is coming in and attempting to right the sinking ship.
Is the Tea Party blameless? No. I was dismayed when Tea Party Express went into the Nevada primary and endorsed Angle. The other two candidates were good enough and had a great chance against a very weak Harry Reid. In Pennsylvania, one Tea Party leader has nearly derailed very good school choice initiatives by being absolutist and self-aggrandizing.
Still, the Tea Party energy and idealism has been great for the Republican Party, the body politic, and the country. America teeters on the edge of insolvency and has been pushed leftward fiscally by not only liberals, but so-called “Blue Dog” Dems and Republicans, too. It’s appalling.
Two years ago, I wrote that Mitt Romney was a weak candidate and that the GOP leadership should be looking, and intently, for better alternatives. They chose to travel the path of least resistance. They should not be surprised that the majority (not just the hard-core Tea Partiers, who seem to be divided themselves) are seeking a candidate who shares at least some of their conservative values.
As for me, I’m not particularly attached to any of the candidates. It would be nice for a GOP complainer to make an affirmative conservative, or even Republican (read the party planks) case for Mitt Romney. I have yet to see it. But I do see a lot of pre-emptive blaming of the Tea Party.
Sorry, the GOP needs to look for another scapegoat. Looking in the mirror would be a good start.
CPAC: The Jersey Shore-ification Of Our Young People — UPDATED
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012
Erick Erickson wrote a must-read piece to the young men of the conservative movement. It’s good stuff and especially important considering men are to be future leaders at home, at church, etc.
Women will be future leaders, too, and I was dismayed to see how many of them either looked frumpish or like two-bit whores.
First, are these young people being taught anything by their parents? I was at another service-oriented gathering of young women where the girls were in tight bandeau-skirts (you know, the kind of tube-top skirts that hookers wear on street corners?). They were sitting with their mothers. What is going on here?
Second, have women so internalized feminist dogma that they see themselves in only two ways? Butch, men-lite wannabes or 3rd wave sluts who empower themselves by screwing every available horndog man?
Neither path is a way to self-love and respect, mind you. Both tracks will inhibit future success.
Women, if you’re at a conference where you’re learning to be a future politician or wish to succeed in the business of politics, dress the part. No, you don’t have to be in a business suit with pearls. However, modesty is a minimum. So:
1. No cleavage. That’s right. Cover that up. I say “no” in absolutist terms because women will show a tiny bit and that’s okay, but really, in a business environment where ideas are the priority, a dude thinking about your ta-tas is counter-productive.
2. Skirts no more than three finger-widths above the knee. Why do I even have to write this? Well, because someone is allowing these girls out of the house with mini-skirts that reveal too much.
3. Save the stilettos for Saturday night on a date with your boyfriend.
4. Bend at the knee. No, I don’t want to see your butt.
Young women, you degrade your own value by dressing and then acting the ho.
I cannot even tell you how many girls have told me that all they want is to get married and have babies. They do not seem to make the connection that a young man is not interested in getting married and making babies with a girl who is so easy as to have a one-night stand over a CPAC weekend (or any other weekend.)
You know what a guy thinks when you slut-it-up? He thinks: If she’ll do that with me, she’ll do that with anyone.
This is not politically correct advice, mind you. Young ladies at college are encouraged to embrace their sexuality and flaunt it on the one hand (empowerment!) or to be tough, gruff and make-up free (man’s world!) to be taken seriously.
A successful woman can be tough and beautiful, modest and stylish, smart and sexy while still being chaste and having expectations of men.
The conservative movement means conservative values–promoting behavior that will lead to a sound society. Family is at the basis of this. Sexuality, and the self-management of it, is at the core of family.
A man who will use self-restraint, respect a woman, honor her enough to not pressure for sex–is a man who will more likely be faithful in marriage, work and life.
Likewise, a woman who sees herself as more than a sex-object and realizes she doesn’t need to be a man in order to be worthy, who carries herself with confidence and modesty, will attract men who want to get married and make babies.
It is disheartening that these ideas even need to be written about, but clearly they do. If, at the number one conservative conference of the year, young men and women are looking and acting like the cast of Jersey Shore, it’s time to reset the compass.
It’s past time.
P.S. Parents, your children reflect your standards, or lack thereof. For. Shame.
UPDATED: Worth a read. A father gives his account of young women and says, in his article, The Death of Pretty:
Most girls don’t want to be pretty anymore even if they understand what it is. It is ironic that 40 years of women’s liberation has succeeded only in turning women into a commodity. Something to be used up and thrown out.
Of course men play a role in this as well, but women should know better and they once did. Once upon a time you would hear girls talk about kind of women men date and the kind they marry. You don’t hear things like that anymore.
But here is the real truth. Most men prefer pretty over hot. Even back in 6th grade I hated the “hot” Olivia Newton John and felt sorry for her that she had to debase herself in such a way. Still do.
Please read the whole thing.
Updated again:
Well, at least Wonkette is consistent. They are for sluttiness! Yay! Let’s promote STDs, drunken debauchery, casual sex, and by extension, the inevitable unwanted pregnancies and abortions that result. Isn’t being progressive positively regressive? Like it’s some big cultural evolution and progress to have humans rut like animals.
Updated:
Dan Riehl welcomes Tube Tops.
On “Whorishness.” Related: STDs
Little Miss Attila on navigating gender relations:
There is, in fact, a sort of intellectual jujitsu that a few conservative males practice, wherein they decline to respect women in the egalitarian John Stuart Mill sense (because, doncha know, that’s feminist, and it’s bad), and yet they decline to do it in an Old-World, gentlemenly sense (because that would be old-fahioned, and we’re all very modern around here). These two approaches can overlap, but in a certain type of male they might both be eschewed . . . and that is a recipe for caddishness.
I’ve seen it, and it isn’t attractive.
But, you know: these matters of etiquette aren’t easy, no matter where one stands on the social-conservative spectrum. And conventions . . . well, they can be dicey arenas when it comes to the etiquette of flirting. (Rebecca Watson just called to point out that a guy once tried to coffee-rape her in an elevator, which, you know . . . made me sigh heavily.)
The bottom line is, treat people decently. If you’re wrestling with heavy-duty personal demons such as uncontrolled anger—or a tendancy to proposition new acquaintances‐don’t drink as heavily, even if there is a hosted bar.
She brings up a good point on acting respectful. And that’s really what I’m talking about here–dressing, acting respectfully, appropriately (man, I hate that word).
It’s a matter of even knowing what is respectful attire, action, etc. This all makes me seem terribly old-fashioned. And it probably makes me seem hard on women.
If a woman is looking for a man, don’t act like a little girl, don’t dress provocatively and then be appalled when you’re propositioned, and have a couple standards for behavior–your own and his.
These sorts of things used to be taught. Now the rules and expectations are so blurred and confusing, there’s a certain amount of blithering hysteria involved in the Western mating ritual. Girls really have no concept of their own value and are shocked at being treated as a commodity.
Question: Were loose standards the standard for getting into the bloggers lounge? Inquiring minds outside the room want to know.
The Romney V. Santorum Cage Match
Tuesday, February 14th, 2012
Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum throwing down. They will cut…
Oh, who are we kidding? This is the prissiest primary slap fight anyone could imagine. When pressed, both whine. When criticized, both wear their persecution complex like a hounded high school nerd.
This primary is insufferable and has been. There shouldn’t be an enthusiasm gap in the primary, yet here we are.
What is amusing in this situation: All the die-hard defenders of both men.
I don’t get it.
Don’t you have to feel ardently about someone in order to defend their honor? Who feels passionately about these guys?
Romney feels passionately about nothing.
Santorum feels passionately about everything.
Consequently, it’s difficult to prioritize. It’s difficult to latch onto an issue and identify with either candidate.
Neither man is a bad man. In fact, they both seem to be quite good people.
They’re just throwbacks to a former GOP mentality where the government solved almost everything in not so stark contrast to liberals who were quite sure they knew how to make the world right with the government.
It’s too bad we have these men at this time. We could really use a dedicated conservative willing to articulate passionately conservative values and push forth a grand vision for a self-reliant America.
Unfortunately, we don’t have a man or woman like that still in the running.
We have Mitt and Rick.
Both men are incremental and concerned about trimming around the edges. Both men practices a big government interventionism.
But they’re conservative in practice, you say.
Yeah, so is Barack Obama. He has the high expectations, early bedtime and family man image. He has the rather boring demeanor and technospeak that puts one to sleep.
Philosophically, politically and policy-wise, though, Barack Obama wants to make the world “fair”, he wants to save those who he deems needs saving, he wants to make sure the government is nudging people in a certain direction to achieve a certain kind of behavior.
Is that very different than Romney or Santorum? Using the government to achieve big ends?
It’s time for the government to BUTT OUT. It’s time for a leader to be responsible.
On Mike Koolidge’s radio program, I asked where the candidate is who articulates (forget Reagan’s vision) but John F. Kennedy’s vision,”Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”
Where is that guy? He’s nowhere in this primary and he’s certainly not Barack Obama.
So. We have a slap fight over trivialities for the GOP primary when we should be having a cage match over ideas and big visions.
Enthusiasm gap? It’s downright depressing.
CPAC: The Conservative Movement’s Confusing Conference
Monday, February 13th, 2012
CPAC 2012 seemed surreal. The event was anchored by two staunch conservatives.
Thursday, Governor Rick Perry gave a rousing speech with multiple standing ovations. Saturday, Governor Sarah Palin gave a barn burner of a speech, firing up the crowd. She deftly dealt with protesters. She painted a soaring vision.
Sandwiched in between these speeches: Moderately interesting political speeches from Santorum, then Mitt, then Newt.
Internet connectivity was spotty to an enraging degree. I couldn’t write, upload, and sometimes even tweet. Any coverage I did give, came via my phone and 3G.
Aside: This is the fourth time I’ve been to CPAC and this is the fourth time the internet has been a problem. If they want their event to be reported effectively, you’d think the organizers would make the investment into some serious bandwidth.
A couple people asked me how I felt CPAC compared to years past. Well, in 2008, Mitt Romney got out of the race at CPAC and there were multitudes of weeping Romneybots there. Mitt Romney still won the straw poll that year.
Romney edged out Santorum for the CPAC Straw Poll this year. In years past, paid Romneybots or Ronulans stuffed the vote. It was a competition to see who could win. The Straw Poll has never mattered, but the press loves to blab about it anyway. That Santorum came so close to winning this year is somewhat significant. He must have some organic following amongst the faithful to even compete with Romney’s Straw poll ballot-stuffing machine.
Generally, the energy just didn’t seem to be there for CPAC this year–not like I think it should be during an election year. Does it concern me for November? Yes, it does. This should be a shoe-in year for Republicans. I’m afraid it’s going to be close because our candidates can’t articulate a clear, inspiring vision. We’ll see.
Some fun moments included the Paul Begala – Tucker Carlson slap fight, Andrew Breitbart’s rousing speech and the promo for the Hating Breitbart movie, and Steve Crowder and Chris Loesch’s parody rap (watch for the N-word–lefties fell right into the trap).
Mostly, CPAC is about networking. On that account, it was a spectacular success.
Some years back, Hillary Clinton groused about a “vast right-wing conspiracy”. That statement was laughable when she said it. Now, there’s a right-wing network. No, it’s not the top-down MMFA-Obama machine fueled by Journolist like on the left. The more a patchwork of people who tolerate each other and work together when forced to achieve a useful end. Ever try to rangle a hoard of one-man-bands? Well. The bands are starting to become aware of one another, work together, and help promote each other’s work. It’s heartening.
A couple events help with that. For the third year, Ali Akbar, Aaron Marks and I decided to torture ourselves by throwing a party for bloggers. Microsoft on the dreaded K-street hosted and the party was an alcohol-soaked success. As John Brodigan says, the proponents of limited government are not for limited alcohol. See also karaoke.
At the Blogbash awards were given by and for bloggers. They weren’t the only ones. The TeaParty.net presented some awards, too.
Winners included Michelle Malkin (legacy award), Andrew Breitbart (changing the narrative — Weiner Press Conference), Ezra Dulis (video–Attack Watch), Jimmie Bise (podcast–The Delivery), RB Pundit (Twitter–@RBPundit), Peter List (Activism — unions), Lisa DePasquale (friend of bloggers), Jason Hart (state level blogger of the year — Ohio politics), True The Vote & Catherine Englebrecht (bloggers stand with), James O’Keefe & Project Veritas (Sunlight–New Hampshire voter registration fraud) and John Sexton who won both investigative post AND Blogger of the year for work at Verum Serum with Morgen Richmond.
One heartening part of CPAC: Hollywood types are starting to come out of the closet. Kirk (Growing Pains) Cameron spoke for the first time. Allen Covert and Dan Kessler launched their patriotic iPhone/iPad app CherryTree for children. I saw Chuck Wollery on Radio Row.
CPAC seemed better and more discouraging than in past years. Better because it was wonderful to make more new friends and renew old acquaintances. Worse because I believe that the country is moving leftward both morally and fiscally to our eventual demise. Conservative actions are spreading locally and at the state level. Nationally, conservatism is voiceless and leaderless and that’s too bad.
Bloggers Honoring Bloggers: Award Nominees To Be Voted On At Blogbash CPAC
Tuesday, February 7th, 2012
Blogbash was created for one purpose: to honor the unpaid, activist bloggers who are making a huge difference in the conservative movement. They are, as Pamela Gellar said, “the ones who will change the world.”
This year, we’re adding something special: A tangible way for bloggers to honor bloggers by nominating posts, blogs, tweets, podcasts for awards. Seeing all the amazing things bloggers have done over 2011 in one place is inspiring.
Below, you’ll find the nominations for the different awards and you bloggers will be able to vote for the winners.
You’ll also note the categories of awards to be chosen by committee.
This is so exciting! Please tweet this post and share all the great work bloggers are doing!
See you Thursday!
Activism Post
(The Right Sphere) Brandon Kiser, Editor and (Tea Party Brew) Dennis Pedrie, Editor — Greater Food Bank of Boston/Occupy Boston, encouraging readers to donate
(RedState) Breanne Howe, Writer
(LaborUnionReport) Peter List, Writer
Investigative Post
Welfare Reform (Christine Rousselle – The College Conservative)
Occupy Wall Street (John Sexton – Verum Serum)
Weiner-Gate (Ace – Ace of Spades)
Sunlight Post
James O’Keefe, Project Veritas, New Hampshire Voter Fraud Expose
Matt Boyle, Daily Caller, Fast & Furious
Doug Powers, at Michelle Malkin on Solyndra
Best in Show: Podcast
Jimmie Bise, The Delivery Show
Andrew Lawton & Ben Swenson, Strictly Right
Fingers Malloy, The Snark Factor
Best in Show: Twitter
@rumpfshaker (Sarah Rumpf)
@iowahawkblog (David Burge)
@RBPundit Rebel Pundit
Best in Show: Video
Attack Watch: Ezra Dulis, Misfit Politics
New Hampshire Voter Fraud: James O’Keefe, Project Veritas
The Story of Citizens United, A Critique, Lee Doren
In addition, there are more awards that will be awarded, selected by a Blog Bash panel of your esteemed colleagues, including:
Best State-level Blogger
Changing the Narrative
Friend to Bloggers (Julie Laughridge Award)
Bloggers Stand With…
We will honor one pioneer blogger with the Legacy Award. And, of course, we will honor the Blogger of the Year.
Learn more at Blogbash.org
Obama’s War On Religion–Updated Marco Rubio Rebels
Tuesday, January 31st, 2012
There’s some discomfort on the part of the more secular DC inhabitants both left and right with any pro-traditional values anything. Perhaps that’s why President Obama feels free to do this, as reported by Elizabeth Scalia:
There are questions as to whether HHS has authority to issue exemptions to Obamacare, although quite a few have been issued for reasons other than conscience. There appear to be no questions in the president’s mind, or in Secretary Sebelius’, that they have the authority to intrude on freedom of religion. With this ruling they insist that church-affiliated institutions either act against their own belief or so narrow the scope of their community service as to be removed from the public square; either way, the government is deliberately affecting the free exercise of religion. Considering some Catholic schools, hospitals and charities were serving their communities before the secular governments even thought to follow suit, that is a damnable, and damning, legacy for a president who once taught constitutional law.
If the culture war has seemed oblique to you or somehow irrelevant or perhaps a thing of the past, read Elizabeth’s post.
If you have wondered what Rick Perry was talking about and now, what Newt Gingrich has been decrying in Florida, read Elizabeth’s post.
If you give a crap at all about the idea of Freedom of Religion and the exercise of, even if you believe nothing, read Elizabeth’s post.
Ultimately, you serve a god–either the One who bestows inalienable rights or the state as run by the latest human flavor.
Unless you’re in the mood to serve Barack Obama and his grand vision, defend your rights to self-determination and worshiping in the way you see fit.
UPDATED:
Marco Rubio rebels against Obama’s regulations.
Bookworm calls the cultural divide a “gaping chasm”.
School Choice And Education Reform: It’s Personal
Monday, January 30th, 2012
Like health care, education affects everyone. Like the new Obamacare, education sets central recommendations, controls choices and creates a bureaucracy.
The government way is one-size fits all.
The problem is that just as every patient is different, so is every student. Patients and students need MORE choices not less.
In education, teachers unions and state and federal bureaucrats have powerful incentives to keep things the same.
Unfortunately, same harms the powerless–our future generation.
Education reform is an easy issue to get worked up over and then do nothing. There are multiple reasons for this:
1. Education reform can take a long time — by the time motivated parents take on a certain issue, it is likely their children won’t benefit and once the child is done with school, the parents are simply relieved.
2. Parents have kids in the system — Yell at he warden, beat up the prison guard, and see how comfortable your stay at the clink is. Parents worry about their children being at the mercy of angry educators. They have good reason to be concerned. Teacher retaliation is not theoretical. It’s happened.
3. All ed reform seems to be trimming around the edges and not overhauling central issues.
4. Teachers unions actively fight against any meaningful change. Kids are caught in the middle.
The solution to this problem is to create more flexibility. One proposal in Texas is to have the education dollars follow the child.
I like this solution. Here’s why:
1. Education is still industrial-revolution ready, but less useful for the technological age. Money could be shifted to education focused on modern economic needs.
2. Children are diverse and learn differently. I have an Asperger’s/Autism student, a GT student and a kid who I’m still trying to pin down. The education system is perfectly suited to the middle of the bell curve. What about all the kids who are outside the middle? What about the kid who needs far more structure verses the kid who is so self-motivated he or she could be a college grad by age 17?
3. It’s market-based. Success breeds success. Money will go towards the best solutions.
I wonder why teachers unions are so insecure about their ability to keep and serve students? Why don’t they believe they’d be as competitive as private schools if they’re loosed from all their educational shackles?
Bad teachers would likely have a tougher time. Isn’t that a desirable outcome? Don’t we WANT good and great teachers? Don’t we want to eliminate the bad eggs?
My uncle who has been a Superintendent of Schools in Michigan and has been a part of nearly every ed reform change over the years says that people just want to talk about it but not really effect real change.
That’s probably true. It is patently unfair, though, that wealthy folks (like the Obamas) can put their kids in private schools that succeed while forcing the poor people to stay in failing schools. It is patently unfair that tax paying parents get no benefits while home schooling their own children.
People vote with their feet while resources are being thrown down the gluttonous public maw of educational failure.
It is time to become more innovative, not less, with education.
Working with National School Choice Week has been eye-opening. There is much work to do.
Choice is the answer.
More at SchoolChoice.org and PutKidsFirst.com
Newt the Alinskyite?
Wednesday, January 25th, 2012Is Newt being Alinskied or is he an Alinskyite?
Newt is an Alinksyite says Phil Klein:
“Gingrich’s clashes against the establishment are classic Alinsky.”
I’ll admit that primary elections of all stripes have more than a little Alinsky, a lot Machiavelli and a dollap of Sun Tzu thrown in for fun, but the brass knuckle tactics go with the territory.
Mitt Romney ran to the left of Rick Perry on Social Security, called Perry a “crony capitalist”, and became a positively scandalized church lady in the face of Perry’s reasonable solutions to illegal immigration–solutions, I’d add, that he supports now that Perry, his chief nemesis, is gone.
If Newt is Alinsky, we’re all Alinsky now.
Added: Ann Coulter is going all-caps on Newt. She makes a compelling case for Mitt Romney. The arguments are nuanced and policy oriented. I’m not sure how that works against Prez Hope and Changey.
I will say this: I’m not willing to fall on my sword for any of the remaining candidates. I don’t like any all that much.
The bigger macro issues of fighting with the press and fighting dirty like Obama, I think Newt may be better equipped to do. And that goes to electability, too.
Emmett Tyrrell Jr. makes a compelling anti-Newt case, too. He calls him “our Clinton.“
Maybe there should be a new TV show: Everybody hates Newt.
Just a thought. Clinton was scandal ridden and awful and evil. He was also expedient. So, here’s the question: If Newt got elected, and has a Republican Congress, and is a Clintonian expedient President, which way does he go?
Does he go this way to keep the Tea Party happy? Here’s what Reagan said about Newt’s plan.
Terrifying.
Updated:
When I say everyone hates Newt, I think maybe, it’s not an exaggeration.
Newt the honey badger. Not kidding.
Found someone who likes Newt. He DID work with Reagan and make positive change. Not so fast says another writer at NRO. Newt is the devil and never met Reagan ever (I’m taking liberties at this point).
Another defense of Newt?
More Newt hate. Jim Geraghty channels Tom Coburn (who I like but blocked me on Twitter because I tweet to much, so what does HE know)?
