Conservative Energy Returns At The Americans For Prosperity Summit

Saturday, August 30th, 2014

Rand Paul And Rick Perry Address Defending American Dream Summit
[Getty Images]

Attending a conservative conference, even after a losing political season, encourages people. Liberals even when winning, mope. Conservatives, when losing, drink and have a good time anyway. Well, they usually do. That hasn’t been the case for the last two years. Conservative gatherings have been depressing and sometimes, strife-filled.

Not this Labor Day weekend in Dallas, Texas, though. The Americans for Prosperity leadership picked a weekend after school started in Texas, picked a state that is an instant sweat bath in August, and decided it would be a good idea to ask activists to listen to politics and policy rather than eat dogs and burgers and drink beer and watch football on Labor Day weekend. And still, the people came.

More than 3000 very excited, energized conservative-libertarian activists descended on Dallas and joy abounded. Ronald Reagan would be proud of the happy warriors here.

Maggie Thurber says this about the weekend:

“…the new message is that preaching to the choir isn’t going to advance the message or persuade those who either disagree or are uninformed and whose hearts and minds we need to win.

In fact, overwhelmingly, the discussion in sessions and speeches is that techniques that work on conservatives are likely to backfire when talking to those who are receptive to conservative principles but are predisposed to reject the buzzwords usually associated with them.”

The happy warriors speaking the language of building bridges to disaffected Obama voters should scare the Democrats. The conservative depression has lifted.

Based on this sold out conference, the right is back.



Fixing the GOP: Bruce Bartlett Is Better Than You

Tuesday, November 27th, 2012

There is burying the lede, and then there’s burying the lede. In this case, the whole article can be flushed if only one reads the last line:

“When Republicans and conservatives once again start asking my opinion, I will know they are on the road to recovery.”

What could have been…. What could be…. If only….

It’s not that I disagree with everything Bruce says, because I don’t. It’s that he’s wrong enough about so much which causes me to question the areas where I agree with him.

P.S. I read the New York Times. Does the fact that I’m still searching for that Benghazi exposé make me a right-wing nutter?

P.P.S. That Krugman is being touted as a towering intellectual giant and some sort of litmus test for inclusive thinking, uh, please… And how, out of one side of your mouth do you dislike Medicare Part D but love Keynesism out of the other? Oh never mind, this isn’t about making sense. This is about feeling spurned and superior. It’s the same thing with his best buds Andrew Sullivan and David Frum. Maybe they can build a treehouse and decry epistemic cloture together. All by themselves. Just them.



Tool Of The Left: Silence Opposition By Any Means Necessary — UPDATED

Wednesday, May 23rd, 2012

UPDATE: Read all the history of Brett Kimberlin here.
*******

How low will they go? Silencing the opposition is not only encouraged, but paid for on the left.

The Left looses in the arena of ideas. When they speak freely and share their point of view (collectivism, state-ownership, transfer-the-wealth, union thuggery, post-birth abortions), the vast majority of Americans disagree.

It is only by obfuscation and attempting to bully the opposition into silence that the Left wins. Only today, this is what S.E. Cupp endures because she won’t toe the leftist thought police line.

This May, my seven year anniversary blogging rolled by. In that time, my site has experienced Denial of Service attacks, I’ve received death threats, had a real-life stalker, my site had more DOS attacks and hacking attempts, I was called a racist on the front page of the Huffington Post the day after Obama was elected, people have photoshopped me in unflattering ways, I’ve been called every vile name in the book, and another Huffington Post writer excavated my personal and professional life–looking for dirt, evidently–and trying to intimidate me on Twitter.

Most of this, I have never written about and even now, I’m keeping it general lest I give some stupid leftist the attention he or she wants.

Being a conservative woman blogger is not for the faint of heart. And even still, it’s much better now than it was six years ago.

Michelle Malkin had to move her family to protect them. Now, it comes out that Ed Morrissey has been dealing with his hell. There are many, many more people who have privately shared the abuse they’ve received. They stay silent because talking openly and giving attention is often exactly what our opponents want.

Now, as reported by Michelle Malkin, this:

Over the past year, Aaron Walker (who blogged as “Aaron Worthing”),PattericoLiberty Chick, and now Stacy McCain have been targeted by convicted Speedway bomber Brett Kimberlin because they dared to mention his criminal past or assisted others who did. The late Andrew Breitbart warned about Kimberlin and company.

I have spoken directly with both Patterico and Aaron about their ongoing battles.

The mainstream press, not just the conservative blogosphere, needs to hear and report their stories.

This is a convoluted, ongoing nightmare that combines abuse of the court system, workplace intimidation, serial invasions of privacy, perjury, and harassment of family members. McCain was forced to move with his family out of his house this week, and has just gotten a small taste of what Aaron and Patterico have been enduring over the past year. Aaron and his wife were fired from their jobs after their employer feared the office would be targeted next. Convicted bomber Kimberlin has filed bogus “peace orders” against Aaron, when it is the Walkerswho are the victims, not the perpetrators.

This abuse MUST STOP.

The media needs to report this.

And the lefties who purport to hold peace and love as high attributes need to call out their violent, menacing, terrorist brethren.

Please stand with these brave researchers and writers. Please support them in their quest for truth. Please hold the bad guys to account.

 

Who is Brett Kimberlin?

Brett Kimberlin is the face of the American political left.

Bookworm Room says this:

Kimberlin is a convicted bomber. He even has a nickname: “The Speedway Bomber.” Back in 1978, he set of a series of eight bombs in Speedway, Indiana, one of which blew the limbs off Vietnam Vet Carl DeLong, who later committed suicide because of his injuries. Kimberlin is also a convicted drug dealer. In 1988, he claimed that he sold drugs to Dan Quayle, but there was nothing to corroborate this claim. Given Kimberlin’s far left politics, it’s reasonable to believe that he was lying for political effect. Incidentally, you won’t be able to discover any of this through Wikipedia — it’s been scrubbed.

More from Dan Collins and from Dan Riehl.

And here’s Ann Althouse talking about how the left exposes personal information to try to silence you.

Blackfive is all in.

Instapundit has a round-up.

Kitty Genovese and the by-stander effect.

Day by Day.



The New Hollywood Blacklist: What You Can Do To Help Conservative Hollywood Fight Back

Monday, March 5th, 2012

Imagine being afraid you’ll lose your job because you believe the people to blame for 9/11 are the Islamofascists who plotted it. That’s what one Hollywood writer, Daniel Knauf endured. Here’s what he said:

Toadies in the MSM assert that there is no Blacklist in Hollywood.

And they’re right.

It’s not necessary because Hollywood is a very, very small, very, very ruthless town, where a few key words spoken in the right ears can absolutely wreck a career–code-words like “difficult,” “high-maintenance” and “uneven.” When you can obliterate a fellow professional with a few well-chosen phrases, why maintain something as crude and inelegant as a Blacklist?

How dare anyone even suggest that there’s a Blacklist against conservative artists and performers?

Blacklists are for mouth-breathers.

Blacklists are for knuckle-draggers.

Blacklists are so… so… Republican.

And so I kept my mouth shut. And a funny thing happened: The longer I was forced to withhold my opinions and beliefs, the brighter they burned in me. Funny. Oppression has a way of doing that to the oppressed.

Ask any Soviet defector…

For years, I bit my tongue, nodding and making non-committal sounds while listening to the most virulently noxious Leftist spew imaginable: Explicit rape-murder fantasies directed toward Palin, Coulter, Malkin and Ingraham; blithely expressed wishes of cancer, assassination and mutilation of Bush, Cheney and Limbaugh; the snide denigration of “civilians” (i.e. anyone not in the entertainment business) in the “flyover states” (i.e. everywhere except New York and east of the Golden State Freeway–Pasadena, for instance is a “flyover state”); and, of course, the endless venomous, profanity-laced screes against the Tea Party.

Even more shocking was the rampant hypocrisy, the endemic corruption, the casual thievery–from producers ordering custom built doors and windows for their homes from the construction department, to having their Beemers and Benzos topped daily with gas by Transpo. All on the studio dime.

Meanwhile, any actress or female writer can tell you that the Casting Couch is alive and well in contemporary Hollywood. And it’s absolutely fascinating just how many male producers and execs time their set-visits to coincide with nude-scenes…

And forget about “diversity.”

Please, go read the whole thing.

Hollywood and the Left use their political correctness–sexism, racism, environmentalism–as a sword and a shield. They would skewer Rush Limbaugh, destroy him, and happily do it while their own side commits grievous insults of the worst, most virulent kind. More here.

They do it so people will be afraid and so people will shut up.

And many in Hollywood are afraid and have stayed quiet. Who wouldn’t be afraid of being Black Listed? Andrew Breitbart gave them courage and a voice.

Across this fruited plain, there are all sorts of folks either too cowed or too weary to take on the liberals.

The folks in Hollywood have to endure the leftist mentality in the surreal insanity of an utterly narcissistic culture. They need help. They need an army of Breitbarts.

So what are conservatives doing to help the Hollywood types?

Are we buying Robert Davi’s music CD’s and watching his movies? I interviewed him. Get to know him here. See what he said about Andrew Breitbart here.

Are we supporting Gary Sinise’s charities?

Are we signing up for Daniel Knaup’s new production? Sign up here. (Just need an email.)

Are we listening and buying Five for Fighting’s music? See what John Ondrasik says here.

Are we watching Chuck to support Adam Baldwin? Buying Firefly (something you should do no matter what, anyway, because it’s perfect.)

Are we supporting Patricia Heaton, off of Twitter right now, as she bravely stands for what’s right?

Are we standing for Kirk Cameron while he stands for traditional values? Do we stand for his free speech even if we disagree with him?

Are we downloading the Children’s app [full disclosure: I am helping promote the app — business sent to me via Andrew Breitbart, by the way]: CherryTree? It’s for children. It’s safe. It’s free. And it’s being developed by Hollywood conservatives Dan Kessler and Allen Covert. These men, by the way, are wonderful. I had the joy and honor of walking around CPAC as these two Hollywood men, locked in liberal land, received hugs from adoring conservative fans.

If Andrew showed us anything, he demonstrated an absolute faith in the conservative movement–from conservative moms doing Tea Parties fearing for friendships to Hollywood actors fearing for livelihoods.

We need to do better helping each other, building each other’s businesses, hiring each other, buying each other’s products and promoting the work of dedicated conservatives–some risking everything.



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:



An Indictment Of Right Leaning Journalism By Ben Domenech

Wednesday, November 16th, 2011

Ben’s Transom newsletter was particularly good today and he saved the best for last. It’s so important I’m sharing it here.

Here’s the nutshell: The Left-leaning journalism investigates the right. The Right-leaning journalism provides commentary and (and Ben doesn’t say this, but I am) when they do rarely investigate, investigates the right after being given oppo research by someone on their own side.

The right is resource-deprived and lazy with the resources they do have.

Here’s what Ben says [subscribe here]:

RISE OF THE CONSERVATIVE THUMBSUCKER CLASS:

David Freddoso isn’t wholly wrong here, but I think his career is instructive in the real failings of conservative journalists. http://vlt.tc/cu Freddoso is one of a number of solid shoe-leather investigative journalists with a conservative bent – he’s now at the Examiner as an opinion page editor. Phil Klein was the same – now he’s an opinion columnist at the Examiner. So was Tim Carney – same deal. The general trend among conservatives is to ditch the investigative thing and move into what we might call Novak-lite opinion writing; they talk to sources and cover events but rarely break news. They take the second or third bite out of something, not the first. And they generally leave it to Gawker to file the FOIA requests. http://vlt.tc/da

There’s a whole class of people in DC who live this trend, wasting writing talent on minor league punditry which ought to be applied to keeping politicians accountable and rooting out scandals on the other side. Instead of offsetting in some small way the overwhelming advantage the left has among investigative journos, the sights of these writers are nearly always trained on their own party (Carney, for example, criticizes both sides, but much of his aim is at remaking the right into a less big business friendly entity). At the same time, the big publications on the right have gravitated toward three kinds of stories: the thumb-sucking or humorous rehash of what’s in the news; the big think-piece commentary about some social or political meme; or the throw-off profile of a friendly Republican politician. The effect is that these publications have little or no impact on the left or the broader conversation – their influence is limited to the right and stays there.

This trend is a real shame, and it’s one of the reasons that story-breaking on the right about the left has been almost entirely conceded to the amateur or semi-pro class online. The biggest story of the year on the right is Solyndra – a story broken by ABC News. The second biggest story of the year on the right is Fast & Furious, which is now resulting in Congressional investigations and calls for Eric Holder’s resignation – it’s a story broken by CBS News. In a just world, these stories would’ve been broken first on the cover of a major conservative publication. But that hasn’t been true since, well, the days of David Brock.

At the Redstate confab in South Carolina (this was pre-Solyndra) I pointed out onstage that Obama’s administration had been to that point remarkably scandal free. I pointed out that scandal had followed the Chicago team for decades, and that we’d learn about the scandals eventually, but likely only after everyone was out of office. This is an indictment for every journalist on the right who has the capability to investigate but spends their time on opinion writing instead. It’s no longer debatable: Andrew Breitbart has done more for the cause of conservative investigative coverage than any of the right-leaning outlets under Obama (Schweizer works . And that’s something the DC-NY conservative professional thumb-suckers should be ashamed of.

As for Freddoso – who’s no more than an acquaintance, but again I genuinely like his work – yesterday is a bad day for him to be throwing this stone. He spent a good hour on Twitter deriding Rick Perry for calling Sam Brownback “John” at an event based on a Twitter report from a Bloomberg journo, a report which turned out to be completely false – Perry was referring to John Archer, a candidate for Congress who was in attendance at the government reform event. http://vlt.tc/cv It’s not that there’s anything wrong with that –but the point is that the Examiner doesn’t have anyone covering that event to correct him, and neither do any of the right-leaning outlets. It’s a different problem from the lack of investigative-focused stuff, but it illustrates the same truth. Writers on the right mostly don’t do journalism; they do play-by-play.

So much of the investigative work is being done by bloggers and they are under-funded and often over-worked.

One thing Ben doesn’t mention is how the right-leaning DC journos don’t want to be hated. They hang out with other journalists and want to be included. The social pressure in DC is liberal. Always.

Journalists are people (most of them). They want to be liked, included and respected. The way to be a skunk at a garden party is to criticize Democrats or investigate them.

Note also: bloggers and commentary from outside DC tends to be a lot more strident, and, I’d like to add, truthful. That social pressure isn’t there. It’s difficult to write about friends.



Herman Cain And Sexual Harassment: Am I In A Conservative Twilight Zone?

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

Have conservatives lost their minds? Am I really hearing talk show hosts picking apart women who have asserted that Herman Cain engaged in sexual harassment? Am I seeing bloggers and journalists trot down the race card road?

I have been utterly appalled this last week. Mind you, and before getting into all this, here’s some of my history: When the Duke LaCrosse story came forth and after examining all the facts, it was evident that the whole thing was preposterous and a disgusting false charge against innocent young men. So zealous about the case was I that two mothers of boys accused of the heinous crimes wrote me emails to thank me for standing for their boys.

The stench of sexual assault and harassment charges lingers around even innocent men and it is an objective evil when this happens. Not only are innocent men tainted for the rest of their lives with doubt, women who have been abused and assaulted fear charging their aggressor for being accused of making up the story.

False charges are an abomination.

True charges denied by a serial abuser are an abomination, too.

We don’t know all the details yet, surrounding Herman Cain’s alleged sexual harassment charges. Here’s what we do know:

  • Five women have been either outed or spoken of in the press
  • Two women have come forward publicly
  • One woman has given a detailed account with verifiable/refutable details
  • Herman Cain has issued a blanket denial that he has EVER sexually harassed anyone
  • Herman Cain has blamed the press, Obama, David Axelrod, Rick Perry, the women
  • Herman Cain didn’t know about the settlements agreements and never knew there were accusations
  • Herman Cain detailed the settlements/agreements/accusations to Curt Anderson in 2004
  • So, on this backdrop, I’m going to tell you my story of sexual harassment. Why? Well, it damn sure isn’t because it’s helpful to my cause if I do. Thank God I’m 1) self-employed and 2) don’t give a poop what people think. Most women don’t have that luxury. Just leveling a sexual harassment charge can damage a woman’s credibility. She’s “difficult”. She will be trouble. So, women with legitimate complaints stay quiet. They want to move forward in the work world.

    The reason that sexual harassment settlements are sealed are often for the benefit of the accuser, so her reputation isn’t destroyed by a vindictive work peer or employer.

    Does that mean that there aren’t women who bring spurious and frivolous claims? Hell no. That exists, too. Obviously. I’m guessing it must happen a lot because the men of Twitter and talk radio have been venomous and utterly certain that all five of the accusers are vile skanks making up stuff to destroy an innocent, innocent man.

    Some men aren’t innocent men. I know you’re thinking of your own behavior and thoughts and figuring your clumsy actions and stupid jokes qualified as harassment at some point. Maybe. Some guys have a pattern of being harassing jerks, though. One socially awkward moment does not a harasser make.

    Anyway, since many of you reading this know me both through my writing and in real life, I thought I’d tell my story.

    Newly married, recent college graduate, 23, and jobless, I took temporary jobs to live. You know those kids bitching at the Occupy Wall Street rallies? That could have been me. Instead, I worked minimum wage plus as receptionists and secretaries. A Theology degree won’t get you a job? The hell you say!

    So, my second job after working as a receptionist at a trucking company (all the men were respectful, if crass) was at an architectural and engineering firm.

    My new boss was Ken. Ken had a reputation. He had gone through something like 21 assistants in 20 years. Ken picked fights with younger workers. He came to work drunk after his five martini Friday lunches. Ken was old school.

    Ken had a glass office. On two sides of his office, Ken stared out at his assistant. More specifically, he leered out at his assistant all day. It was disconcerting, to say the least. He didn’t have to say a word. He just eye-f*cked you all day long.

    But that sort of behavior doesn’t rise to the level of harassment–well, at least it didn’t to me. Annoying? Yes. Disgusting to be stared at by a nearly 60 year old man all day long? Absolutely.

    Then one day, Ken reached for something on my desk, after walking up behind me, and “accidentally” grabbed my breast.

    I was shocked. I told one girlfriend and swore her to secrecy. Why? Because Ken was powerful. I needed the job and he had a reputation for firing uppity help. Plus, the local human resources guy was impotent and cowered before mighty Ken. Ken happened to own the biggest account in the company. He was, he thought, untouchable.

    Around two weeks later, the corporate head of Human Resources, a woman, came to town for meetings. We happened to be in the bathroom at the same time and I told her what happened. She asked if I would be willing to go on the record. I said yes. She told me that they had tried to get women to go on the record for years, but they were afraid of Ken.

    I knew all hell was about to break loose, but by this time I hated Ken and didn’t care. He was put on probation. Not fired. And as much as I disliked Ken, he hated me with a pure, singularly-focused hatred. He shot laserbeams through that glass at me. Hostile work environment? You betcha!

    Now, you might say, “Melissa, he grabbed you, that’s assault! Why didn’t you go to the police?”

    Back then, no one thought in those terms. He was just an entitled dick. The thought of going to the police never occurred to me. Even now, the idea seems laughable.

    I just wanted Ken to stop. More, it made me really angry that he had gotten away with this for years.

    Maybe I should have threatened a lawsuit. I can understand why some women did. As it was, I was interviewing for another job outside of this company and got out and had the satisfaction that the next woman who had to suffer with Ken wouldn’t have to worry (probably) about being abused by him.

    What people now don’t understand is the way the work world used to be. Twenty years ago things were entirely different. There was a five to ten year transition where men learned and adapted to women being in the workforce –and not just in helping roles.

    Twenty years ago, women were graduating with degrees and just starting to be peers to men, instead of subordinates.

    Guys my age and younger have less issues. They’re used to working with women and having female bosses. The dynamics of the workplace have changed dramatically.

    The world has changed and a lot for the better. Some things not for the better. But a woman in the work world does not have to deal with the bull women dealt with even a decade ago.

    A friend of the former generation spoke of anger between the sexes–strident women and frustrated men. Now, men and women have far more flexibility and amicable relations.

    When I see young men decry the spurious claims against Herman Cain and say that a $35,000 or $46,000 claim is small potatoes, I laugh. Really? Most of these cases were like mine and no money exchanged hands at all. That Herman Cain has two, TWO!, cases like this outstanding against him makes me think that there’s more than nothing to this story.

    One woman bringing a spurious claim against an executive is absolutely plausible. Two? Come on. And now, there’s five women who have spoken out about harassment or certainly, highly questionable judgement?

    It seems that conservatives would at least give these women a hearing before casting them into the lake of fire.

    This case is nothing like what happened to Clarence Thomas. I’ll even give Anita Hill the benefit of the doubt and believe Thomas said something about a pube on a Coke can. That is not sexual harassment. It’s stupid. People are stupid.

    Now, I recognize that everyone one of these women can be filthy, lying [fill in the blank epithet] manipulated by nefarious Democrat or establishment Republican or biased media sources to plot against a black conservative man.

    Can we wait, though, to destroy these ladies until the whole story comes out? Herman Cain doesn’t think so. He’s in full nuke ’em mode.

    I understand that Herman Cain can’t prove a negative.

    What he can do is this: he can prove positive assertions wrong. He can go to the Hilton and release those room records and prove his accuser is a liar instead of asserting that she is one.

    The Anchoress just wrote about what Herman Cain should have said today.

    So, maybe everyone can just chill a bit?

    Beyond all the media bias (and there’s lots of that), there are people involved. It would be appalling if these women were victimized twice–and at the hands of conservatives who know better.



    Herman Cain: Untenable Positions

    Monday, November 7th, 2011

    1. I like Herman Cain.

    1.(a) Well, I liked the Herman Cain who was giving inspiring speeches and firing up a movement. The blaming, obfuscating Cain? Not so much.

    2. I do not want Herman Cain to be our President because of things like this. [I have openly endorsed Governor Rick Perry in the Republican primary.]

    3. I can still like Herman Cain even if I think he mishandled the crisis.

    1. The press is grossly biased. See also Bill Clinton and John Edwards.

    2. The press was right to post the Cain case. It was news. Yes, the press is unashamedly hypocritical: Edwards was BIGGER news.

    3. The press should be as bull-doggedly after the Democrats as they are the Republicans.

    1. Sexual harassment laws are vague and can harm people.

    2. Sexual harassment happens and is wrong when it does.

    3. It strains credulity that four women are making up charges (just like it did with Clinton).

    3 (a). Women coming forward in this day and age know that they will be destroyed by the media (left, and now, it seems, the right) when they bring forth charges against popular men. Why on earth would a woman come forward in this climate? Some say money or fame. Really? These women would likely be middle-aged now or mid-career and with kids. They have NO good reason to come forward in the face of this.

    1. The left is far more racist and sexist than the right.

    2. The left would bring these charges against ANY conservative, no matter the race or gender. They hate conservative ideology and especially their special-interest groups (blacks, women, other minorities) who embrace conservatism.

    3. The race card should not be played. Period. Unless there is actual racism.

    What bugs me about this whole thing is that conservatives are using liberal defenses they’ve long reviled:

    1. Talk radio wants to destroy the traditional media so badly that the Big Three ignore how their posture negatively influences the conservative movement, ultimately. They end up sounding like they excuse sexual harassment. They end up sounding like they’re blaming the (possible) victims which is exactly the disgusting thing the press did with the women who came forth about Bill Clinton. It is wrong. Period. In addition, their fury at the media sounds like ardent support of Herman Cain as candidate for President at any cost. This is ridiculous and ultimately undermining of them.

    2. People who support other candidates who take glee in this story should beware. Candidates who pile on with the media destruction of another Republican should also beware. The media loves destroying conservatives. Remember the media lovefest over John McCain? Slobber, slobber — until he became the nominee. The same thing is happening in the conservative political field now. The media, one by one, is systematically making it seem like all conservatives are awful. They’ll take a magnifying glass to little problems and blow them up into huge issues. It is distressing that people participate in this game because their favored candidate is spared. It is NOT okay.

    3. Defending the indefensible is indefensible. It damn well DOES matter if Herman Cain or any other nominee sexually harassed or assaulted a woman or women.

    I understand the fury at the press. After watching Jay Rosen in his journalism class at NYU where he discussed manipulating the front page of the New York Times to create a guy like Barack Obama and destroy conservatives like Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry, I wouldn’t be sad if the whole media system got nuked. Either that, or they should just out their biases instead of being deceitful, hypocritical moralistic destroyers of truth.

    I get it. But hot damn, I haven’t been part of the conservative blogosphere six years to become the very thing I hate.

    Conservatives should:

    1. Be open about biases.

    2. Print the truth.

    3. Do not defend wrong.

    “By any means necessary” works for leftists and it is destroying the fabric of our society. See the Occupy Wall Street folks? They believe that anything is fair game — children as shields, crapping on police cars, raping, stealing, breaking things.

    No.

    We win nothing if we win this way.

    Herman Cain is well-liked, an amazing speaker, he energized the Tea Party movement. He is loved. It seems he is also a flawed person.

    The women who have stories, if they’ve watched this media storm, would be terrified to come forward. Remember what the feminists did to Monica Lewinsky? It made me sick.

    Some people I very much respect are treading awfully close to this evil territory. A woman who has a true story to tell, shouldn’t fear being assassinated by conservatives. CONSERVATIVES. That is the provenance of the left. It should stay theirs. This is sickening.

    More thoughts here and here and here.



    Marco Rubio: American. Exiled Cuban.

    Friday, October 21st, 2011

    Marco Rubio punched back against the defamatory Washington Post piece. Liberals are loving it because Marco Rubio — an ardently pro-American Senator of Cuban descent can not only lead, but he can give a speech, too — scares them to death. More here.

    Articulate minority? Why, he should be a Democrat. How dare he be uppity?

     

    Since he isn’t, it’s a mission to destroy him as a person.

    A friend of mine, Bettina Inclan, also of Cuban descent was incensed at the hit and said this privately and I asked if I could share her thoughts. Here’s what she said:

    I am beyond disappointed by the Washington Post and their attack piece on Marco Rubio and his family’s history fleeing Cuba’s political turmoil. I keep wondering why they deiced to run this piece now? Is it for the financial gain of article’s author Manuel Roig-Franzia who has an upcoming unauthorized biography on Rubio?

    I’m not sure what to be more upset about, Washington Post’s sloppy reporting, their total lack of understanding of the Cuban exile experience, how they conveniently ignore Cuban history or their veiled attempt to try to bruise Marco Rubio, a rising Hispanic Republican star ….

    My grandfather suffered for 13 plus years in a Cuban prison because he refused to become a Communist. His experience as a political prisoner and my family’s flight for freedom in America has shaped my political beliefs. My story is similar to thousands of Cuban-Americans whose family history might be slightly different, yet their pain is very much the same.

    Marco Rubio embodies what we feel, what we’ve experienced and the hopes and dreams of our parents and grandparents. He has succeeded not only because he been able to effectively communicate the Cuban American experience but also because he represent thousands of exiles and immigrants who might have come to America for different reasons, but all are searching for their American dream…

    For the Washington Post to say that he is not a “real” exile is beyond insulting. The facts stand, his family left Cuba because of a dictatorship. They tried to go back, but because of Fidel Castro, they couldn’t return to their beloved homeland. Like many Cuban exiles, the Rubio family felt like all was lost. In 50 years dates and exact details get blurry and bruised. Yet, even with half of century past, the exile experience is still raw and in many ways sacred…

    The Washington Post is opening a huge can of worms. They attack Rubio for not being a real Cuban exile. This hit piece on Rubio is tied to birther attacks that Rubio is not American-enough to be considered for President of the United States of America. It’s an unfortunate game… I hope that if anything comes of this, more people learn about the harsh realities many Cuban families have faced and the sacrifices they had to make in search of freedom in this great country.

     

    Like Bettina, I think the Washington Post and the DC media, hell-bent on helping Democrats, is making a big mistake here. The country is becoming more diverse, not only racially, but ideologically. Independents make up a huge portion of the voting demographic. This kind of thing doesn’t sit well. You’re hurting the Democrats, WaPo. I know that’s not your intention.

     

    Here is Marco Rubio’s own statement in full:

    Dear Friend,

    The Washington Post on Friday accused me of seeking political advantage by embellishing the story of how my parents arrived in the United States.

    That is an outrageous allegation that is not only incorrect, but an insult to the sacrifices my parents made to provide a better life for their children. They claim I did this because “being connected to the post-revolution exile community gives a politician cachet that could never be achieved by someone identified with the pre-Castro exodus, a group sometimes viewed with suspicion.”

    If The Washington Post wants to criticize me for getting a few dates wrong, I accept that. But to call into question the central and defining event of my parents’ young lives – the fact that a brutal communist dictator took control of their homeland and they were never able to return – is something I will not tolerate.

    My understanding of my parents’ journey has always been based on what they told me about events that took place more than 50 years ago – more than a decade before I was born. What they described was not a timeline, or specific dates.

    They talked about their desire to find a better life, and the pain of being separated from the nation of their birth. What they described was the struggle they faced growing up, and their obsession with giving their children the chance to do the things they never could.

    But the Post story misses the point completely. The real essence of my family’s story is not about the date my parents first entered the United States. Or whether they travelled back and forth between the two nations. Or even the date they left Fidel Castro’s Cuba forever and permanently settled here.

    The essence of my family story is why they came to America in the first place; and why they had to stay.

    I now know that they entered the U.S. legally on an immigration visa in May of 1956. Not, as some have said before, as part of some special privilege reserved only for Cubans. They came because they wanted to achieve things they could not achieve in their native land.

    And they stayed because, after January 1959, the Cuba they knew disappeared. They wanted to go back – and in fact they did. Like many Cubans, they initially held out hope that Castro’s revolution would bring about positive change. So after 1959, they traveled back several times – to assess the prospect of returning home.

    In February 1961, my mother took my older siblings to Cuba with the intention of moving back. My father was wrapping up family matters in Miami and was set to join them.

    But after just a few weeks, it became clear that the change happening in Cuba was not for the better. It was communism. So in late March 1961, just weeks before the Bay of Pigs invasion, my mother and siblings left Cuba and my family settled permanently in the United States.

    Soon after, Castro officially declared Cuba a Marxist state. My family has never been able to return.

    I am the son of immigrants and exiles, raised by people who know all too well that you can lose your country. By people who know firsthand that America is a very special place.

    My father spent the last 50 years of his life separated from the nation of his birth. Separated from his two brothers, who died in Cuba in the 1980s. Unable to show us where he played baseball as a boy. Where he met my mother. Unable to visit his parents’ grave.

    My mother has spent the last 50 years separated from her native land as well. Unable to take us to her family’s farm, to her schools or to the notary office where she married my father.

    A few years ago, using Google Earth, I attempted to take my parents back to Cuba. We found the rooftop of the house where my father was born. What I wouldn’t give to visit these places where my story really began, before I was born.

    One day, when Cuba is free, I will. But I wish I could have done it with my parents.

    The Post story misses the entire point about my family and why their story is relevant. People didn’t vote for me because they thought my parents came in 1961, or 1956, or any other year. Among others things, they voted for me because, as the son of immigrants, I know how special America really is. As the son of exiles, I know how much it hurts to lose your country.

    Ultimately what The Post writes is not that important to me. I am the son of exiles. I inherited two generations of unfulfilled dreams. This is a story that needs no embellishing.

    Marco Rubio



    CPAC High Points So Far

    Saturday, February 20th, 2010

    1. Energy is high. People are vibrating with excitement.

    2. Democrats are going down in a ball of Fail.

    3. Conservative candidates are energized.

    4. Everyone predicts a sweep in the House…..even the politicians who don’t predict these things.

    5. Speakers who excited the crowd: Cheney, Scott Brown, Chuck Devore, Ann Coulter, John Bolton.

    Will detail it more later in my podcasts.