January 31, 2010

RNC Adopts "Core Values" Resolution...and ABC News Asks Steele if He Plans to Run for President
— Gabriel Malor

Okay, two RNC/Steele stories came out yesterday. One's sorta noteworthy and one's just powerful stupid. So let's start with the stupid one:

For reasons passing understanding, ABC News thought that asking RNC Chairman Steele if he planned to run for the presidency was a good question. Even Steele laughed:

"Come on, don't ask me that," Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said when presented with the inevitable question about his 2012 intentions and if his political aspirations included running for the White House next time around.

"In all honest-to-good seriousness, that is such silly Washington talk. It's just not even on my mind," Steele said about a possible presidential run.

I think whoever wrote this up for ABC was a little embarrassed too. Note the editorial "the inevitable question" inserted into the quote. Uh huh. It's all cool ABC, it was "inevitable." Someone had to ask, though, so at least it's done.

Now we can all move on. Right? Right?

Oh, wait. You just won't let it go:

Why not rule it out completely and keep those Washington tongues from wagging?

"I just did. I don't know how many different ways I can do that," Steele said. "How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

I suspect that this was an attempt to get Steele to say something silly. It's not unprecedented, which makes ABC look that much more idiotic. How's your day going when Michael Steele thinks you're a retard?

Oh, right the second bit of RNC news:

They rejected both of Jim Bopp's "litmus test" resolutions in favor of a more wishy-washy resolution asking the Chairman to "carefully screen" candidates to see how close they stick to the Republican Party Platform.

Predictably, both sides of this little purity dispute are declaring victory:

Jubilant conservatives on the 168-member RNC -- the party's national governing body -- called passage of the resolution a "historic" step designed to make it difficult for Mr. Steele and future party leaders to help finance the campaigns of liberal Republicans.

"The importance of resolution's passage now is that it shows we have taken steps not only to welcome tea-party activists and other independent, small-government champions but also to solve problems within the GOP that caused many of them to abandon the Republican Party," said Morton Blackwell, a veteran RNC member from Virginia.

Opponents of the resolution disputed its importance and uniqueness. "This is not historic, nor is it binding," said Mississippi RNC member Henry Barbour, the nephew of Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former RNC chairman who is revered by most Republicans.

Effect of this resolution on this year's elections: ZERO. Exit question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 09:54 AM | Comments (127)
Post contains 479 words, total size 3 kb.

1 How's your day going when Michael Steele thinks you're a retard?

That's gonna leave a mark.

Posted by: alexthechick at January 31, 2010 09:58 AM (TtXKB)

2

I just did. I don't know how many different ways I can do that," Steele said. "How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

Obviously Steele hasn't taken into account that he is talking to an ABC reporter. He is not only stupid, he doesn't know how to spell "no".  He has a producer and a secretary to write his script for him.

As for the 8 out of 10 rule. It's too weak. Crap and tax and healthscam should be a single issue litmus test.

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2010 10:00 AM (QrA9E)

3 I don't think it makes a tinker's darn of difference.  It's not the GOP that's going to get conservatives elected; it's the Tea Party.  (Did you like what I did with the semi-colon?)

Posted by: RushBabe at January 31, 2010 10:00 AM (LKkE8)

4 3, I agree. This is all an outcome of "You can't stop the Signal".

Posted by: eman at January 31, 2010 10:03 AM (4tixt)

5
...Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, a former RNC chairman who is revered by most Republicans.

WTF does this mean?

Besides David Asslicker Frum, who doesn't like Haley Barbour? Why did they even write that?

Posted by: This is lolboner in the well with Timmy at January 31, 2010 10:04 AM (z37MR)

6

""Come on, don't ask me that....I've got another book to write".

I believe that was the full quote.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 10:05 AM (p8Wki)

7 Oh boy. Organizing. Little lists. Tests. Quantifying who gets blackballed and who can go on to the next round. Isn't this why I left the left?

Posted by: arhooley at January 31, 2010 10:07 AM (luaIZ)

8 Isn't this why I left the left?

One of the reasons, anyway.

Posted by: arhooley at January 31, 2010 10:08 AM (luaIZ)

9 Both sides DID get a victory:  Politics is not a zero-sum game.  You get some of what you want, and move on.

Meanwhile, Steele wants to run for Chairman of the Disorganized & Confused Persons Committee to Do Stuff

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 31, 2010 10:09 AM (JrRME)

10 The 'litmus test' is a lame attempt to co-opt the Tea Party by having a simple, Republican, bona fide, that they can point to. 

"See?  We're just like you!  You're one of us!  Give us your money and votes!  We're good!  We swear we're good!"

What they fail to understand as completely and utterly as do the Lamestream Media is: The Tea Party is made up of individuals.  

We're not an organized pack of sheep ready to be led by feckless Party Bosses like Steele, and all incumbent and hopeful Republicans are on the same shit list as all Democrats.

No dough for your machine, Michael.  We're not paying salaries for you and your ilk anymore. 

Thanks to the internet, we are informed, independent and able to choose the MOST conservative candidates we can find, and I, for one, will hand-carry my campaign contribution to them, cutting out all middlemen, hangers-on, and entrenched functionaries.

Declarations of 'purity' and the like are just red flags.  Prove your worth, or go hang.

You're no different from the Democrats.  

And you're about to be just as unemployed.

Posted by: Anon 1:50 at January 31, 2010 10:10 AM (OoXj6)

11 It's too weak. Crap and tax and healthscam should be a single issue litmus test.

Okay, Vic, but which healthscam?  The Dems haven't put a specific one forward yet.  So do we then say NO to any proposed solution to health care?  Then we truly are the party of no.    The problem with litmus tests is that they don't adapt to address specific cases, they deal only in generalities.  Don't get me wrong, I oppose both of these in anything like their current incarnations, and am yet to be persuaded that either one really needs to be addressed, at least by the Feds.  However, I think a  better solution to this dilemma of who to fund is to select better folks to make the decisions for the party.    Case in point: Dede Scozzafava.  Clearly most of the party disagreed with the decisions made by the locals.  That is an argument for replacing or correcting the attitude of the local party bosses, not applying a rigid formula.  If done correctly, the result should be the same most of the time. 

Posted by: pep at January 31, 2010 10:10 AM (0K3p3)

12 Agree entirely with your analysis, Gabe. Now, is there any way we can cut GOP funds off from Ron Paul, et. al.?

Posted by: Guy in Utah at January 31, 2010 10:11 AM (Or5BA)

13

I think the best thing we can do is to ignore this "core values" hullabaloo.

If I were a strategist and someone asked me these ridiculous questions I would flat out dismiss them and ask why people aren't questioning the "core values" of the Democrats who are clearly in a far more precarious situation.

Behind the scenes make sure we get the message out about the best candidates, but publicly, turn it back on the Dems AND espcially the nitwits in the media. Ask why people aren't having the discussion about why the Dems seem to be without a clear vision.

 

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 10:11 AM (p8Wki)

14

""How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

Serial rapist, ABC News, won't take "no" for an answer.

Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at January 31, 2010 10:12 AM (ucq49)

15 This kind of stupidity is what happens on a slow news day and when their is a 2 week wait for the not so Super Bowl.

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2010 10:15 AM (ekqTc)

16 Oh my goodness, a Party deciding on a platform?  The horrors.  Where is my fainting couch and smelling salts?

Posted by: Techie at January 31, 2010 10:15 AM (zbH+i)

17 Steele could run. Is it possible to actually receive a negative number of votes in an election?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 31, 2010 10:19 AM (P33XN)

Posted by: This is the concern troll police at January 31, 2010 10:19 AM (z37MR)

19
Just letting you all know...

I'm watching y'all.

So watch your asses, concern trolls, mobys, and eeyores.

Posted by: This is the concern troll police at January 31, 2010 10:20 AM (z37MR)

20

Okay, Vic, but which healthscam? 

Either one, the House Bill or the Senate Bill. I have read through both. And yes, we should be the Party of NO on that issue. There is nothing wrong with saying NO to nationalizing health care.

Make no mistake about it, that is the intent of this so-called reform. We should not allow propaganda from the media force us into some kind of stupid compramise.  That is what's wrong with the party bosses now and why the Tea Party people are doing so good.

 

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2010 10:20 AM (QrA9E)

Posted by: Dang Straights at January 31, 2010 10:21 AM (JJXZV)

22 Graham continues to fuck the chicken. Posted by: Dang Straights at January 31, 2010 03:21 PM (JJXZV) Gee what a moron and he is ours?

Posted by: nevergiveup at January 31, 2010 10:24 AM (ekqTc)

23

Yes Graham is back at teh stupid again. That illustrates hjow worthless this so called "core values" thing is. Graham would qualify for support.

 

Posted by: Vic at January 31, 2010 10:24 AM (QrA9E)

24 The media are not going to stop gnawing on this:  They don't know much but they know that the Republican Party has always been an uneasy coalition of social and economic conservatives.

 The Party needs both 'wings' but either can sabotage the other.  A strong leader like Reagan can merge the two; a popular figurehead like Ike can paper over the differences.  Absent either, the Repubs need a strong active organization in as many places as possible--which was why North's 'letter' was worth reading.

Get out and organize, with or without Tea;  the Bell tolls for Thee....

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 31, 2010 10:24 AM (JrRME)

25
Graham: “We tried immigration. It’s hard. And we failed. We tried Social Security. It’s hard. And we failed. We tried health care. It’s really hard. And it looks like we’re going to have to start over again,”

Take the hint, cocksucker! Stop meddling. You and the other nincompoops have no right whatsoever screwing around with the private sector.

STOP MEDDLING. YOU'RE MAKING THINGS WORSE.

Posted by: This is the concern troll police at January 31, 2010 10:25 AM (z37MR)

26 is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Better than naught.  I kind of like the watering down because it will allow the party to fund "moderates" in totally blue areas while hopefully stiffening the offerings in solid red states.  Personally, I think the party should go more conservative in the so-called purple states than heretofore.

And there is no excuse for running Graham in as solid a red state as South Carolina.

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2010 10:28 AM (PD1tk)

27 Republicans are so complicated! Our singular litmus test of blind allegiance is so much easier to follow!

Posted by: Ellie Light at January 31, 2010 10:28 AM (554T5)

28 Congress needs a "win".  Therefore I've decided to resign from the Senate, clone Jim DeMint, and let him serve in my place.


HAHAHAHA just kidding suckas!

Next up: I'll be lecturing you all on why gun control is not such a bad idea.

Posted by: Lindsey Graham at January 31, 2010 10:30 AM (Gk/wA)

29

"Graham: “We tried immigration. It’s hard. And we failed. We tried Social Security. It’s hard. And we failed. We tried health care. It’s really hard. And it looks like we’re going to have to start over again,”

Linseed, please remove both hands from your penis.  We already know what gets your juices flowin'

Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at January 31, 2010 10:31 AM (ucq49)

Posted by: Muckraker at January 31, 2010 10:31 AM (6K81O)

31 O/T  Bacon Alert:  Little kid on Fox this morning had multiple daily seizures until a doctor at the Mayo Clinic put him on bacon.  For real.  (Now I'm off to bed again with flu or whatever.  Sorry for the o/t.)

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at January 31, 2010 10:32 AM (UOM48)

32 Frankly, the "purity test" thing seems like it's only relevant when "Party Leaders" are picking the candidates.  If there is a primary election in between, let the "rank-and-file" decide are the principals they want to uphold.

Posted by: Neo at January 31, 2010 10:33 AM (tE8FB)

33

I really don't care what they choose for a litmus test.  They wouldn't follow it anyway.

More importantly, there's a new paradign.  Contribute to the Candidate, NOT the Party.  We morons can sort out who's the real deal.  In considering local conditions.

Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at January 31, 2010 10:34 AM (ucq49)

34 Neo, hear hear.  That's the only real "purity test" that matters.

Posted by: chemjeff at January 31, 2010 10:34 AM (Gk/wA)

35

"How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

noe?

Posted by: Dan Quayle at January 31, 2010 10:35 AM (/80mD)

36 "How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

Know?

Posted by: Ace at January 31, 2010 10:36 AM (554T5)

37 I keed, I keed

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 31, 2010 10:37 AM (554T5)

38 I kind of like the watering down because it will allow the party to fund "moderates" in totally blue areas while hopefully stiffening the offerings in solid red states.
Exactly.  Others may know, but I don't, whether or not Scott Brown would even qualify.  An algorithm is no substitute for wisdom and experience. 

Make no mistake about it, that is the intent of this so-called reform.
Agreed. 

We should not allow propaganda from the media force us into some kind of stupid compramise.

But the fact is that we have to compete in the real world.  Litmus tests such as you describe are gratifying, but don't help you win the election, unless your ideology is so muddy that noone knows what you stand for.  There have certainly been instances of that in the recent past, but I think the message is starting to get through.  A few salutory public hangings (cough**Lindsay Graham, Charlie Crist**cough) should help further that process. 

Posted by: pep at January 31, 2010 10:37 AM (0K3p3)

39 "How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

noh?

Posted by: toby928 at January 31, 2010 10:43 AM (PD1tk)

40

Republican Litmus Test:

1.  In in a Republican primary if you were the candidate and you lost support in your party and were replaced, would you support:

A. The Republican who replaced me

B. The Democrat I was opposing in the first place

If you pick B you are a Democrat anyway so run as one.

Posted by: kansas at January 31, 2010 10:43 AM (Wwi5M)

41

The Important Question:

Will Republicans again allow the NYT et al to pick their (RINO) candidates?

Posted by: Rewrite! at January 31, 2010 10:45 AM (d7Px0)

42 Nee!

Posted by: jcjimi at January 31, 2010 10:46 AM (XSikc)

43 Republican litmus test:
 
Are you now or have you ever been a squish?

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 31, 2010 10:49 AM (554T5)

44 OT but too good not to pass on.
From an article in the LAT about the upcoming assault on a fortified Taliban town in Pakistan:

And where do the Marines expect the Taliban fighters to go?

"To their graves," said Nicholson at the Marine base in Afghanistan.

Posted by: pep at January 31, 2010 10:49 AM (0K3p3)

45 do we get to see the core values?

Posted by: Sacajewea at January 31, 2010 10:50 AM (k9yF0)

46 Oops, Afghanistan.

Posted by: pep at January 31, 2010 10:50 AM (0K3p3)

47 47 Oops, Afghanistan.

the new name for Obama's policy in the region..........

Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 31, 2010 10:53 AM (JrRME)

48 "To their graves," said Nicholson at the Marine base in Afghanistan.

Booyah.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at January 31, 2010 10:54 AM (554T5)

49 "How many different ways can you spell 'no'?"

Nyet.  Be more in line with the worldview of the Obami.

Posted by: MDr VB1.0 CS1st at January 31, 2010 10:56 AM (ucq49)

50

Awful RINO Lindsey Graham Pushes Climate Policy Because “Congress Needs a Win”

Lindsey doesn't understand that he represents his constituents, not the Congress.  What Congress "needs" is a strong laxative.

Posted by: sherlock at January 31, 2010 10:59 AM (ktKOD)

51

13 - If I were a strategist and someone asked me these ridiculous questions I would flat out dismiss them and ask why people aren't questioning the "core values" of the Democrats who are clearly in a far more precarious situation.

Behind the scenes make sure we get the message out about the best candidates, but publicly, turn it back on the Dems AND espcially the nitwits in the media.

Lacey, excellent strategery, as Rush always says.  Refute the premise.  Refuse to play along in the first place!

Posted by: RushBabe at January 31, 2010 11:03 AM (LKkE8)

52

I don't know what justification Graham is using to support crap & tax. Certainly his conservative constituents don't support it.Like most politicians he is only representing himself and his own interests. 

Posted by: rino2con at January 31, 2010 11:05 AM (qLV03)

53 Hi M&M's. The local liberal rag (the Cincinnati Enquirer) actually has a front page article That states "Tea party works to extend influence" There is about 100 words then goes to page A10, where it takes up about 1/2 of the page. Excellent article. Wish I could link. It goes on to say, Tea Party people from BOTH parties are interested in controlling to some extent who runs on a local level.The founder of the Cincinnati Tea Party, says he has talked to over 300 activists who plan to run for Precinct Executives in Southwest Ohio alone. "Precinct executive" is political shorthand for a member of a political party's central committee. (translation is NO MORE NY23). Only 1/3 of dems and 2/3 of repubs positions are filled as it is a unpaid job. Need more info, be glad to supply it from this article. I do not know if you can bring this up on the internet...Does someone know how to do this?

Posted by: mystry at January 31, 2010 11:06 AM (kmgIE)

54 Mystery, is this the same article (this is from their online site)?

http://tinyurl.com/ylg792p


Posted by: Tami at January 31, 2010 11:09 AM (VuLos)

55 PS.  The Article goes on to say "It is a strategy that has worked elsewhere. Tea Party activists essentially took over the Nevada Republican Party earlier this month, and in Florida, they were successful in forcing out a state party chairman who was seen as too centerist."

Posted by: mystry at January 31, 2010 11:11 AM (kmgIE)

56 #56 Tami.   YES, Yes, Yes..  Thats it!

Posted by: mystry at January 31, 2010 11:12 AM (kmgIE)

57 My article is more in depth, and was written by Howard Wilkinson  (hwilkinson@enquirer,com)

Posted by: mystry at January 31, 2010 11:17 AM (kmgIE)

58 My purity remains untested.

Posted by: The actual, really, real, "true conservative" at January 31, 2010 11:18 AM (9b6FB)

59 I would like Obama and both houses of Congress to go on an extended holiday. They may reconvene to pass bills which keep the military funded. Play golf, go to basketball games, have parties, I don't care but not passing big f-ing expensive bills is a good thing not a bad one, Grahamnesty.

Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2010 11:22 AM (726kZ)

60 My article is more in depth, and was written by Howard Wilkinson

Posted by: mystry at January 31, 2010 04:17 PM (kmgIE)

Not sure what you mean by this. This article I linked and the article Amish linked are the same and written by Wilkinson. ?

Posted by: Tami at January 31, 2010 11:23 AM (VuLos)

61

The CIN article is exactly what I'm talking about.

The headline is about a year too late. The tea party has already influenced the GOP so this is yesterday's news. Today's news is that a no-named squoosh/moderate/whatevs won The Liberal Lion's seat and Obama is batting 0-3 in the endorsement column.

Write your local paper. Let them know they're behind the curve and missing, yet again, the real story.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 11:23 AM (7Fl7P)

62 Sorry Tami, you are correct. I did not see the name.

Posted by: mystry at January 31, 2010 11:26 AM (kmgIE)

63 Thanks lacey, as usual, you are on top of things.

Posted by: mystry at January 31, 2010 11:27 AM (kmgIE)

64

OT -

Re: FLOTUS and the Haiti commercial. 

Put a Bag on her head, already.  Seriously, if we ever had a need for the, "Unknown FLOTUS", now is the time.

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 11:33 AM (FoXsC)

65 That RNC sure gots a purity mouth.

Posted by: ABC Reporter at January 31, 2010 11:36 AM (9b6FB)

66

Garrett:

The red cross has to put a message at the bottom of the commercial saying that it will stop running her face if they get X dollars. The money would pour in.

Posted by: dagny at January 31, 2010 11:39 AM (726kZ)

67

Any measure taken to keep RINOs/Liberal Republicans out of office is a good thing.  This measure probalby won't do much in real terms, but perhaps it will serve as a shot across their bow.  RINOs are the main reason we lose elections.  They prevent the Reps from offering a legitimate, consistent alternative to the Dems.  The RINOs and their constant compromising are why the average person says there is no difference between the two parties. 

The formula for long term policy victory is to compromise on nothing meaningful and fight every battle to the death, pushing and pushing every damn day.  That's why the Libs have been rolling us - they compromise on nothing unless it moves the issue significantly their way.  They are tireless in their treason.   The current hard nosed obstructionism of the Reps - the so called party of "no" that is currently savings us from total collapse - is winning votes every day.  Fighting hard is the only thing people respect.  They have no admiration for soft, polite, considerate politicians.  Politics is a blood sport, and it's time to treat it as such. 

Posted by: Reactionary at January 31, 2010 11:40 AM (4nbyM)

68

afternoon, Ms. Underoos!

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 11:41 AM (FoXsC)

69

OT -

Re: FLOTUS and the Haiti commercial. 

Ditto. And that's with how many hair and make-up artists to assist? Good lord. No wonder they obsess over her arms. When I walk through bookstores and I see her on a jacket I instinctively turn the cover around. Why scare small children?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 11:41 AM (7Fl7P)

70

Put a Bag on her head, already.

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 04:33 PM (FoXsC)

That may not be enough - the FLOTUS is prolly a two-bagger.

Posted by: Reactionary at January 31, 2010 11:42 AM (4nbyM)

71

No Shit! 

That would be the way to motivate me.  She has a hard time with the speaking, as well.  Not a good showing.   

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 11:43 AM (FoXsC)

72 Oh, and Lacey - The Bourbon/Coconut Custard...oh, my!

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 11:44 AM (FoXsC)

73 FLOTUS'teeth look like those of The Hessian in Sleepy Hollow.  Although Christopher Walken has morepersonable qualities than Michelle.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 31, 2010 11:46 AM (zgZzy)

74 When FLOTUS comes on TV I change the channel. Great idea turning book covers around, I'll think I'll start doing that with magazines too.

Posted by: rino2con at January 31, 2010 11:46 AM (qLV03)

75

She has a hard time with the speaking, as well.

She'a bitter hag that's used to frowning, raging, and wagging her finger. It's tough to overcome that--even if it is for a 30 second commercial.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 11:47 AM (7Fl7P)

76 We need a puity test for the party; We need to strain out the likes of Dole, Powell, O'connor, Scozzofava, Crist, etc.

Posted by: R. Aurum Tar at January 31, 2010 11:48 AM (nvAgx)

77 I think that speaking issue is a family problem.  Isn't that right, Mr. uh, uh, uh, President?

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 31, 2010 11:48 AM (zgZzy)

78

I have no clue what the hell this purity test is?

Seriously, just back people who back fiscal/national security conservative/american values.

leave the social issues out of it or at least don't run on them (like Bob Mcdoneld and Chris christie and scott brown), and you will get millions of Independents like me counting the days down until its November 2, 2010 just to cast a vote against the marxist lunancy comning out of DC.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at January 31, 2010 11:49 AM (ACkhT)

79

garrett, now you're just being a tease That sounds amazing.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 11:50 AM (7Fl7P)

80 To be honest, I'm pretty much a single-issue voter at this point.  I have positions on every issue, generally leaning toward the Republican side, but immigration trumps everything.  We're never going to solve any of our problems if we keep bringing in a million illiterate peasants to flood the blue-collar working class labor force, and a million marginally skilled foreigners to flood the educated middle class labor force every year.  Not to mention half a million anchor babies born annually.  These people are not net job creators, they are not net taxpayers, and their "diversity" imported en masse is a cancer that destroys community cohesion.  We don't need another amnesty and a bunch of empty promises, we need drastic action.  If we keep ignoring this issue, it really doesn't matter what other band-aid fixes we put on our broken government.

Posted by: the peanut gallery at January 31, 2010 11:52 AM (mg/vv)

81

I'm going to treat this like an Open thread for just a moment.

Everyone knows Jews are funnier than gentiles.  Am I correct?  I think I'm correct in this.  But what if someone converts for Judaism?  Does that make them funnier automatically?  Does it take time?  Is there some Jewish secret to comedy?  Or does the person not get any funnier at all?

Posted by: Truman North at January 31, 2010 11:53 AM (FjC5u)

82

Exit question: is that a good thing or a bad thing?

Exit answer: Let's put it this way. When I get a request for "support", I put some play money in the envelope with a message: "Conservatives in name only get money in name only."

It'll be really interesting to see what happens here in California in the race to the bottom to replace Botox Barbra.

Posted by: Bill H at January 31, 2010 11:55 AM (q8CmE)

83

Recipe is really easy...

even a serial Cereal eater could hack it.

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 11:55 AM (FoXsC)

84 @85 - Janeane Garofalo could be Queen Rabbi and her humor would still suck the sweat from a yarmulke.  Just sayin'.

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 31, 2010 11:56 AM (zgZzy)

85

 ...to replace Botox Barbra

Sorry. That should have been Senator Ma'am.

Posted by: Bill H at January 31, 2010 11:58 AM (q8CmE)

86 85 sooo when is rod carou's next show??

Posted by: dananjcon at January 31, 2010 11:59 AM (E9Mvy)

87

As someone married to a Jew, it's the culture. My husband's family is a riot. Their whole life is Seinfeld reruns. And no, even if you convert you won't be funny unless you appreciate the culture.

Oh........he is now a conservative. I pulled him back from the edge!

Posted by: rino2con at January 31, 2010 11:59 AM (qLV03)

88

Heh, heh, "Rod."

Posted by: Wyatt Earp at January 31, 2010 12:00 PM (zgZzy)

89 Was sammy davis un funny before converting?

Posted by: dananjcon at January 31, 2010 12:02 PM (E9Mvy)

90

even a serial Cereal eater could hack it.

{hangs head in shame}

I do good when I have time. Today I made really yummy eggs florentine. Okay so that's not hard--but it's not cereal!

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 12:02 PM (7Fl7P)

91

91  I wholeheartedly agree!  ...and congrats on saving him.  Mark Levin's works are a Godsend for this explicit purpose. 

(The penchant for liberal social agenda is also an inherited cultural phenomena for us, as well.) 

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 12:03 PM (FoXsC)

92

leave the social issues out of it or at least don't run on them (like Bob Mcdoneld and Chris christie and scott brown), and you will get millions of Independents like me counting the days down until its November 2, 2010 just to cast a vote against the marxist lunancy comning out of DC.

You mean those social issues like gay marriage which the socially conservative position is constantly being defea... Oh wait.  Even in the People's Republic of California the conservative issue won.  Your argument is invalid.  They may not need to run on them but they should definitely articulate their position and articulate it well.  Because if they don't the Dem's will take the worst interpretation of the position and run with it and the media will reprint it without hesitation.

Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2010 12:04 PM (oVQFe)

93

Did anyone else think Michael Steele was wearing an orange prison inmate's uniform when you first saw the pic of him at the podium?

RINOs like Steele or Scott Brown are not our GOP presidental candidate hero, we still need to wait for the right person.

Posted by: Crusty at January 31, 2010 12:04 PM (qzgbP)

94 Let's see....lie in bed sick, or come here and kinda sorta forget I'm so sick.

And I've said it before and I'll keep on sayin' it, FLOTUS looks like she could unhinge her lower jaw and swallow a cat.  Woman needs some serious dental work.

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at January 31, 2010 12:05 PM (UOM48)

95

Florentine are a favorite of mine.  Very tasty, morning goodness - those.

 

Posted by: garrett at January 31, 2010 12:05 PM (FoXsC)

96

But what if someone converts for Judaism? 

It burns me up when people convert just for the jokes. Tim Whatley did it--and I called him on it.

Posted by: Jerry Seinfeld at January 31, 2010 12:08 PM (7Fl7P)

Posted by: franksalterego at January 31, 2010 12:08 PM (+6fgE)

98 FLOTUS Feminazi Liberal of the U.S.

Posted by: dananjcon at January 31, 2010 12:08 PM (E9Mvy)

99

here is my list as an Independent voter:

1)send 9/11 terrorists back to Gitmo for military trials, stop giving them rights given to American citizens, they are not US Citizens

2)NO DeathCare legislation, Healthcare needs reform... but do it in small pieces.. make sure they are market oriented to introduce competition to allow for lower costs, allow biz and people to buy insurance across the state line,  tort reform  and allow small biz to pool to buy insurance (this would help my biz a lot with costs)

3)Want an energy bill? -> HELL NO to any cap n tax, but allow permits for nuclear plants, more offshore oil drilling for those states will to do so. And the EPA needs to be reigned in, no unelected power grab!

4)tax cuts across the board... NOT tax credits, how the hell is a $5000 tax credit useful?  I still have to pay my employee 10's of thousands of dollars to hire them. A credit is only there when I file my taxes, they are useless if you want to get people to hire more people. Extend the Bush tax cuts. Bring back the line item veto, and stop funding crap like bridges for turtles, eliminate this nonsense.

5)anyone who has a net worth over 2 million in congress, half their pay, and no payment into the federal retirement plan.... just do this for 1 year.

6)as for the states, this is tricky, but need to let them know, the federal govt will not bail them out, they need to fix their own budgets, cut spending, create an environment for more job creation. Don't milk the system that others are paying into.

--that's all I can think of for now.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at January 31, 2010 12:08 PM (ACkhT)

100 I'll also add, if you're all about the fiscal conservatism and only want that as the focus.  Let's face facts: You know damn well the democrats couldn't even say fiscally conservative without everyone and their mother laughing them out of the room.  The Republican is almost always going to be the more fiscally conservative option.  If what's keeping you from voting for the guy is because he talks about his opposition to the killing of unborn babies then the problem is on your end not his.

Posted by: buzzion at January 31, 2010 12:10 PM (oVQFe)

101

 Tim Whatley did it--

That Guy is a Serial Re-Gifter!

Posted by: elaine benis at January 31, 2010 12:10 PM (FoXsC)

102

100 Very yummy paired with a strong Bloody Mary. Then again, Bloody Mary's are always a great way to kick off a lazy Sunday.

99-feel better Jane! Fluid up.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 12:11 PM (7Fl7P)

103

"They may not need to run on them but they should definitely articulate their position and articulate it well. "

I will 100% agree with you, they absolutely need to be articulated firmly, but not run on them or make them the absolutely main issue. Yes, I oppose gay marriage, civil unions I have no issue with, if a state decides they want gay marriage, like they did in MA, since I strongly believe in the 10th amendent, I have no issue with that.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at January 31, 2010 12:12 PM (ACkhT)

104 PARTY MUST GROW STRENGTH THROUGH STRENGTH OF WORKER VANGUARD!!!  ENDUT HOCH HECH!!!  ONWARD TO THE GLORIOUS REPUBLICAN RESTORATION OF MOTHERLAND!1!  

Posted by: Komrad Big Fat Meanie at January 31, 2010 12:12 PM (DPM1U)

105 #102  That Roger Ailes beat down was a thing of beauty.  And Krugman looked like he was trying to lay an egg.  I especially loved that ass' line about Ailes assertion that people aren't stupid.  Krugman's response?  No, but they're uninformed.  What a tool.

Posted by: Jane D'oh! at January 31, 2010 12:14 PM (UOM48)

106

Jerry, you're an anti-dentite. You're a RABID anti-dentite.

Posted by: Kramer at January 31, 2010 12:15 PM (7Fl7P)

107 Remember the states created the federal government. Most liberals don't understand this concept. That is why the states are losing power to the feds. This trend must be reversed.

Posted by: rino2con at January 31, 2010 12:15 PM (qLV03)

108

Everyone knows Jews are funnier than gentiles.  Am I correct?

No.

Exhibit A: Joy Behar

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at January 31, 2010 12:16 PM (P33XN)

109

Krugman is what is known as a political economist. His views change depending on who is in charge, he is nothing but a keyensian hack.

zerohedge.com had a great article abou this recent.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at January 31, 2010 12:16 PM (ACkhT)

110

Exhibit A: Joy Behar

I thought she was Italian?

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 12:17 PM (7Fl7P)

111

well, work calls.  Have a good sunday, what's left of it, everyone.

Posted by: johnc_recent_EX-democrat at January 31, 2010 12:19 PM (ACkhT)

112 Krugman's response?  No, but they're uninformed. 

Given that your fellow travelers control almost all of the media, I guess we know where to assign the blame then. 

Posted by: pep at January 31, 2010 12:20 PM (0K3p3)

113 Joy Behar is reptilian

Posted by: dananjcon at January 31, 2010 12:20 PM (E9Mvy)

114

Wouldn't it be something if the individual states would go to the World Bank for a bailout instead of Uncle Sucker's Bottomless Generosity?  The World Bank mandated to the more unkempt nations to straighten up their act and fly right, effectively taking over the controls of the economy.  The US pretty much fills the WB coffers anyway....

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 31, 2010 12:23 PM (DPM1U)

115 115

Exhibit A: Joy Behar

I thought she was Italian?

I thought she was a scrunt.  Didn't her parents immigrate here from Scruntistan?

Posted by: conscious, but incoherent at January 31, 2010 12:24 PM (Vu6sl)

116 Heh. Note to self: Never piss you boys off

Posted by: laceyunderalls at January 31, 2010 12:25 PM (7Fl7P)

117 Yup, Joy Behar is a paesana (face-palm).  We do claim Ray Romano and Neil Cavuto. 

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at January 31, 2010 12:25 PM (DPM1U)

118
OT: anyone think it's just coincidence that the reds are protesting in Tokyo at the same time the Norks are shelling the ROKs?  I know we have some dmz'ers here, what say you.

Posted by: Dang Straights at January 31, 2010 12:27 PM (JJXZV)

119

71 --Posted by: Reactionary at January 31, 2010 04:40 PM (4nbyM)

!!!Eleventy!!!

Posted by: RushBabe at January 31, 2010 12:27 PM (LKkE8)

120

Krugman proves himself to be nothing more than a politically motivated economics hack.. Cheering for Democrats policy, and jeering at Republican policy.

It's not Keynsian.. It's pure Hackery.

Posted by: franksalterego at January 31, 2010 12:29 PM (+6fgE)

121 Joy Behar is reptilian

Just keep telling yourself that.

Posted by: crab people at January 31, 2010 12:38 PM (PD1tk)

122 You remember what actually works, right?  You get a self-identified Conservative group, say People Paying Attention, or WTFUA, or whatever, and you make your own fzcking list.  Then you track down all the candidates positions by searching what they've said openly.  You collect all these "positions" on the issues you care about, and make a table, just like the League Of Women Voters used to do.

You provide each candidate with a courtesy copy of this PPA list prior to publication, and give them a chance to deny/spin/doubleDown or whatever.  Then you publish it.

Let us make up our own minds. We're gonna do that anyway.

Posted by: K~Bob at January 31, 2010 12:59 PM (9b6FB)

123 97
articulate their position and articulate it well.  Because if they don't the Dem's will take the worst interpretation of the position and run with it and the media will reprint it without hesitation.

Exactly.  R candidates need to know what to emphasize in which contexts at what times--without abandoning core social values issues..  The key issues now are economic, so they should be emphasized.  They can be linked social values without having social issue be paramount / 'make or break'


Posted by: SantaRosaStan at January 31, 2010 01:12 PM (JrRME)

124 In fact, I propose a Moron List should be created, and then published here at the HQ.

Item: Hobo hunting. License or Open season?

Item: Do you watch the fzking road when you drive, or are you staring at my cellphone like some self-righteous idiot?

Item: Bacon. Can we get rid of government cheese and get government bacon?
    (followup: will you send some to the Taliban?)

Item: Lindsey Graham.  Hobo or  yet-to-be-processed bacon? You may choose two.




(add more ya buncha maroons.)

Posted by: K~Bob at January 31, 2010 01:24 PM (9b6FB)

125

I never really viewed Steele as presedential timber.... hell, he can't even cut it as RNC chairman. Couldn't cut it in Maryland either.

Regarding his personal attributes..... Steelle doesn't really speak the Kings English.... Harry Reid wouldn't approve... a little too much jive dialect in his accent. Steele's too dark as well... scares white people... not that cocoa latte color that reverberates with white Senators.

If all else fails for Steele, there are some parking attendant opening's in mid-town parking garages.

Oh.. and the RNC idiots are still obsessed with the Republican purity test.... So stupid.

Here it is:

Do you belive in the Magna Carta?

Do you belive in the Bill of Rights?

Do you belive in the United States Constitution?

Do you belive in Education?

Do you belive in curbside trash pickup?

Do you belive in proper Emergency, Police and Fire Protection services?

Do you belive in Individule States Rights?

Do you belive in minimal tax burden to Individules and Corporations?

Done!!!....

Posted by: Last Conservative In Brooklyn at January 31, 2010 01:30 PM (7uAeI)

126 I was going to say Michael Steele should have told him we only nomimate Republicans, but then I remembered John McCain...

Posted by: Richard Mcenroe at January 31, 2010 04:40 PM (2joUy)

127

Purity? Hey, man, leave me out of this one. I'm still a little miffed about Brees not getting MVP.

Now will somebody please get me some waffles?

Posted by: A. Hitler at February 01, 2010 05:46 AM (cQyWA)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
139kb generated in CPU 0.28, elapsed 1.5672 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.4417 seconds, 363 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.