Posts Tagged ‘instapundit’

In his examiner column today Glenn Reynolds (tomorrow’s guest BTW) talks about how the rules concerning “patriotic dissent” apparently change as desired by the holders of the meme:

“Protest is patriotic!” “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism!”
These battle-cries were heard often, in a simpler America of long ago — that is, before last November. Back then, protests — even if they were organized by the usual leftist apparatchik-groups like ANSWER or ACORN — were seen – at least in the media – as proof of popular discontent.

Yes we remember those halcyon days of yesteryear, when one could call for the murder of a president and yet simply be expressing dissent, exercising the rights guaranteed under the constitution. Who cares if some group might have fronted it. However now that the tea party has become a source of such protest…

Funny how fast the worm — or maybe it’s the pitchfork — has turned. Now that we’re seeing genuine expressions of populist discontent, not put together by establishment packagers on behalf of an Officially Sanctioned Aggrieved Group, we’re suddenly hearing complaints of “mob rule” and demands for civility.

Civility is fine, but those who demand it should show it. The Obama administration — and its corps of willing supporters in the press and the punditry — has set the tone, and they are now in a poor position to complain.

That’s why a “living breathing Constitution” is in my opinion BS. That allows people to decide it says what they want it to say rather than what it actually says (a contract).

I guarantee we will be talking about this tomorrow.

Hughey Woodring and Jason Fitzgerald talk to me about the Tom Marino campaign and Pa in general.

The most important words said in this interview:

Me: What would you like to say to those people not only in this country but all across the country republicans and conservatives who are thinking: “It’s looking good and we can ease off a little?

Hughey Woodring: Get out and volunteer and get the word out!

Me: Is there any other way to win an election without working just right till the end?

Hughey: No!

Hughey Woodring advice about not getting complacent predates Glenn Reynolds, after all Hughey is old enough to be his blogfather

Update: Stacy McCain has an update with some good poll numbers for the district

Update 2: Here is an example of a Poll not as reliable

Anyone who believes Ann Marie Buerkle is down 12 in NY-25 likely thought that Tom Marino had no chance in Pa-10

Update 3: Instalanche, check out the links to all of my posts on the road trip here.

Mommy I can see Nixon from my house!

Posted: October 12, 2010 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags: , ,

Remember when everyone was convinced that George W. Bush was going become a dictator and go after his opponents?

Ah how thing change in just a few years, the Wall Street Journal via Tax Prof blog editorializes:

Democrats claim only to favor “disclosure” of donors, but their legal intimidation attempts are the best argument against disclosure. Liberals want the names of business donors made public so they can become targets of vilification with the goal of intimidating them into silence. A CEO or corporate board is likely to think twice about contributing to a campaign fund if the IRS or prosecutors might come calling. If Democrats can reduce business donations in the next three weeks, they can limit the number of GOP challengers with a chance to win and reduce Democratic Congressional losses. …

Faced with electoral repudiation as the public turns against their agenda, Democrats are unleashing government power to silence their political opponents. Instead of piling on, the press corps ought to blow the whistle on this attempt to stifle political speech. This is one more liberal abuse of power that voters should consider as they head to the polls.

As DaScienceGuy notes today:

In a five minute google search I found on a US Government website (the FEC) a name under President Obama’s donators for the last presidential election. Hassan Nemazee. Too bad he is an Iranian citizen. But we will forget that one.

I personally think Sam Rayburn would be rolling in his grave.

Via Glenn who throws out this nugget

Just don’t complain when President Palin starts the investigations in 2013

To steal a phrase Heh, Indeed!

Apparently not because he makes the following statement:

They weren’t around protesting during the Bush years BECAUSE THE TEA PARTY IS REPUBLICANS. They don’t care about the deficit. They care that a Democrat (and a black “Muslim,” to boot), is in the White House. They don’t care about fiscal restraint, they care that a Democrat is in the White House.

Now I’ve attended a few tea parties and talked to people there. The trust level for republicans is not very high. If you had interviewed these people you would know this. As for the suggestion that people who support the tea parties care only that a Democrat is in the White House well, let me make the introductions…

John Cole…meet Glenn Reynolds. You might have heard of the man, he was writing about something you might recalled known as porkbusters. The earliest entry in the 3 pages of archives when you search for “Porkbusters” is May 16 2006. There is actually a blog entry from Sept 18th of 2005 as well available.

John Cole…Michelle Malkin. You might know the lady. (I’ve met her very gracious and did a kind deed for my older brother) I took the liberty of searching her archive for “porkbusters” and lo and behold it goes back to Sept 19th 2005.

Now I don’t claim to have a photographic memory but I seem to recall that there was no democrat, black or otherwise in the White House at the time nor was there a republican majority in the house where spending originates.

If you want to pretend that it’s all about President Obama’s pigmentation you go on ahead. It will earn you hits from the left and love from the media. Just don’t expect people who know how to use a search engine to take you seriously.

Update: Bad link, Thanks to Patrick for spotting it.

Update 2: Patrick does more than correct my bad link:

The reason I raised a stink about this, is because John Cole is doing two things; first of all, he is doing something that I feel is just wrong — but is what the liberal left is known for and that is collectivism. Blaming an entire group for the actions of a few. Which, I feel, is wrong. Secondly, Cole is playing fast and loose with the facts and with pinning blame, which I think he knows; but because he hopped the fence, because Bush did not do things, like he thought they ought to be done, he bailed on the right — he feels that he has to recite the talking points of the left, in order to remain in their good graces. Although, I could be wrong on that one.