Tag Archives: conservative

O’Donnell In 2006: Homosexuality ‘An Identity Disorder’

Here's another goodie from Christine O'Donnell, the conservative activist who has asked voters to look past her previous right-wing statements on sex: As recently as 2006 — the first time she ran for Senate, losing the Republican primary — she declared that homosexuality was an identity disorder. As Greg Sargent reports, O'Donnell said in an interview for the Wilmington News Journal in 2006 that homosexuality was a disorder. Greg has obtained the original quote from the reporter's notes: “People are created in God's image. Homosexuality is an identity adopted through societal factors. It's an identity disorder.” The TPM Poll Average gives Democratic nominee Chris Coons a lead of 52.2. added by: TimALoftis

Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Palin and Tea Party Agenda

Charles Krauthammer on Friday had a heated debate with the Washington Post’s Colby King over what the Tea Party stands for as well as who its leader is. As the panel on PBS’s “Inside Washington” discussed Delaware Republican senatorial nominee Christine O’Donnell’s surprising victory Tuesday, the conversation naturally gravitated towards the conservative movement reshaping the face of politics.   “They [the Tea Party] have a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues that they’re strong on,” said King. Krauthammer pounced, “Look, I hate to say this, but I think that is completely wrong.” The battle was on (video follows with transcript and commentary):  COLBY KING, WASHINGTON POST: They [the Tea Party] have a litmus test that goes into being right to life, social conservative issues that they’re strong on. No, they would get rid of the IRS if they could. There is no room, there is no room for compromise because compromise is a bad word as far as they’re concerned. CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Look, I hate to say this, but I think that is completely wrong. The Tea Party has distinguished itself in being almost exclusively about governance, the reach of governance, taxation, economic issues. It is not the social conservatives. In fact, that is what distinguishes it. And I think the other element that is being missed here is it arose spontaneously as a reaction to an extremely aggressive, extremely ambitious left liberal administration that instead of, for example, attacking tax reform – which had it tried that at the beginning of its administration would have had bipartisan agreement and great success, as Reagan in ’86 – it decided it wants a reform of health care which nobody at the time thought was the major issue in the time of economic recession. KING: You just can’t rewrite the rules. I mean, Sarah Palin didn’t even come to the state of Maryland but endorsed the Republican opponent of Governor Ehrlich only on the basis of a checklist. KRAUTHAMMER: Palin is not Tea Party. She is not Tea Party the titular head or at all. KING: She is a major… KRAUTHAMMER: The Tea Party is a spontaneous, leaderless movement which is economic and not social conservative. KING: I get mail all the time from the Tea Party of Florida for example there, Tea Party spokesman from around the country, they, they exist as a unit. As readers can see, Krauthammer might think the Republican Party would have been better suited if Mike Castle won Tuesday evening, but he still is an outspoken conservative ready to smack down media members when they’re wrong. Despite many Tea Party supporters’ disappointment over his views on O’Donnell, America would be far better off with more straight-shooting commentators like Krauthammer.

Visit link:
Krauthammer Smacks Down WaPo’s King Over Palin and Tea Party Agenda

Book Review: NY Times Reporter Kate Zernike Still Finding Tea Party Racism in "Boiling Mad"

New York Times political reporter Kate Zernike’s thin new book ” Boiling Mad — Inside Tea Party America ,” is among the first of what will surely be a flood of related books by journalists. Like her reporting for the Times, “Boiling Mad” covers the movement from a mostly hostile perspective that only intermittently becomes something like empathy when she’s talking to one of the invariably pleasant Tea Party citizens themselves. Behind the (of course) red-as-a-Red State-cover lies a mere 194 pages of text, not including a 33-page reprint of an old, biased Times poll on the Tea Party. While not wholly a notebook dump, there’s little new, and Zernike evinces little sympathy or feel for conservative concerns. Her expertise is instead finding racism everywhere she looks in Tea Party land. Even such benign conservative boilerplate as opposition to the minimum wage is racially suspect in Zernike’s eyes, as proven in her dispatch for the Times criticizing Glenn Beck’s gathering on the National Mall on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s March on Washington: Still, the government programs that many Tea Party supporters call unconstitutional are the ones that have helped many black people emerge from poverty and discrimination….Even if Tea Party members are right that any racist signs are those of mischief-makers, even if Glenn Beck had chosen any other Saturday to hold his rally, it would be hard to quiet the argument about the Tea Party and race. Zernike once wrote that Tea Party members “tend to be white and male, with a disproportionate number above 45, and above 65. Their memories are of a different time, when the country was less diverse.” And during the Conservative Political Action Conference in D.C. in February, Zernike falsely accused conservative author Jason Mattera of using a racist “Chris Rock” voice in a speech (turns out Mattera just has a thick Brooklyn accent). So it’s no surprise Zernike quickly reestablished her race obsession on page 3 of “Boiling Mad,” reflecting on a Tea Party speaker “looking out at the sea of faces, almost all of them white.” The book’s index reveals that 23 pages worth of the book’s slim content refer to”race and racism.” Unlike many mainstream journalists, Zernike grasps shades on the right, noting the Tea Party’s social-media savvy young are “largely libertarian,” and interestingly described the odd mix of young activists and retirees as a “May-to-September marriage of convenience.” But “Boiling Mad” lacks a cohesive narrative, which may be an accurate rendition of the decentralized, libertarian nature of the movement but doesn’t make for a satisfying organic read. That’s partly the function of a merciless pre-electoral book deadline leaving crucial questions unanswered. Will the movement lead the GOP to take back Congress or cause it to blow a historic opportunity? Besides her chapter on the Kentucky Republican primary won by Rand Paul, Zernike uncovers few clues about the political possibilities of the movement. And Zernike’s empathy only goes so far. Showing a touching (and Timesian) trust in government statistics, Zernike marveled at the Tea Party’s ignorance, “impervious to reports from the Congressional Budget Office…that the federal stimulus had cut taxes and created millions of jobs and that the health care legislation passed in 2010 would reduce the federal deficit.” If Zernike truly thinks the CBO is the last word on those issues, she is more gullible than any Tea Partier, especially with new indications health spending is on the rise since Obama-care was enacted. Zernike reaches back to the California’s anti-property tax movement of the 1970s for more racial subtext. “Race was more subtle in conservative populist movements like the tax revolts than began in California and spread across the country in the late 1970s.” So subtle that only liberal journalists can spot it. While loathing the movement’s aims, Zernike genuinely seems to like her individual subjects, like Keri Carender, perhaps the first Tea Partier, a 29-year-old Seattle woman with a nose ring who Zernike called “an unlikely avatar of a movement that would come to derive most of its support from older white men.” Zernike followed resident Jennifer Stefano’s evolution from a random visit to a park in Bucks County, Pa., where she encountered a Tea Party rally in progress, to being nearly arrested barely a year later outside a polling place while trying to get Tea Party candidates on the Republican state committee. She allows activists to have their say, like two women at a rally “agitated that government could force you to wear a seatbelt but left it to women to ‘choose’ whether to have an abortion.” But whenever Zernike steps back to take in the movement as a whole, her observations can be gruesomely unfair. Zernike consistently portrays the movement as antediluvian and racially suspect: To talk about states’ rights in the way some Tea Partiers did was to pretend that the twentieth century and the latter half of the nineteenth century had never happened, that the country had not rejected this doctrine over and over. It was little wonder that people heard the echo of the slave era and decided that the movement had to be motivated by racism. Little wonder indeed! The most unfair section of the book, predictably, involves accusations of racism — the controversial claim that Obama-care protesters shouted racial slurs at John Lewis, black congressman and civil rights hero, during the heated debate before Congress voted on Obama-care. Zernike claimed the Tea Party had “organized the rally,” then took advantage of its loose structure to blame the entire group for any possible bad behavior by any individual in the vicinity, something the Times has never done when covering the truly violent acts committed by some at loosely organized left-wing rallies: It was difficult, if not disingenuous, for the Tea Party groups to try to disown the behavior. They had organized the rally, and under their model of self-policing, they were responsible for the behavior of people who were there. And after saying for months that anybody could be a Tea Party leader, they could not suddenly dismiss as faux Tea Partiers those protesters who made them look bad. Oddly, Zernike’s colleague at the Times, Carl Hulse, wrote an unsympathetic piece on the protesters the day afterward that didn’t mention the Tea Party at all. And the paper actually corrected the same charge when made in its pages by political writer Matt Bai, saying he had “erroneously linked one example of a racially charged statement to the Tea Party movement. While Tea Party supporters have been connected to a number of such statements, there is no evidence that epithets reportedly directed in March at Representative John Lewis, Democrat of Georgia, outside the Capitol, came from Tea Party members.”   Another recurring theme of “Boiling Mad” is anger: “The supporters were angry, but the activists were angrier.” The April 15 rally on Capitol Hill was “a blend of jingoism and grievance,” concerns which Zernike only occasionally attempted to explain. She spent just as much time pulling back her focus to chide the movement with civics lessons: “People might get frustrated with Congress or the federal bureaucracy. But they did not want to leave old people relying on the whims of the market or charity for health and security in their sunset years.” Vulgar critics of the Tea Party movement (“tea-baggers,” anyone?) are left out of her narrative, contributing to the sense of imbalance. Even that back page poll, supposedly a true-to-life snapshot of the movement, is blurred in the paper’s liberal prism. Here’s Question 72: “In recent years, do you think too much has been made of the problems facing black people, too little has been made, or is it about right?” Besides the unsympathetic slant, the problem with “Boiling Mad” is that it’s hard to draw conclusions about a political movement yet to test itself in a nationwide election. The subject needs time to steep. Months premature, “Boiling Mad” is all steam, no substance.

Read the original here:
Book Review: NY Times Reporter Kate Zernike Still Finding Tea Party Racism in "Boiling Mad"

David Brooks Defends Tea Party – Right Before He Bashes It

New York Times columnist David Brooks on Friday defended the Tea Party from many of the criticisms commonly uttered by mainstream media members. In so doing, he took a couple of slaps at the conservative movement that continues to usher in surprising election results across the fruited plain. By the end of ” The Backlash Myth ,” Brooks went so far as to say “the Tea Party doesn’t matter.” But prior to this point, there were positives not typically reported about this group, especially on the pages of the New York Times: The Republican Party may be moving sharply right, but there is no data to suggest that this has hurt its electoral prospects, at least this year. I asked the election guru Charlie Cook if there were signs that the Tea Party was scaring away the independents. “I haven’t seen any,” he replied. I asked another Hall of Fame pollster, Peter Hart, if there were Republican or independent voters so alarmed by the Tea Party that they might alter their votes. He ran the numbers and found very few potential defectors. The fact is, as the Tea Party has surged, so has the G.O.P. Surprisingly honesty, correct? Quite a departure from the normal contempt for this movement and accusations that it’s helping Democrats keep control of Congress this year while killing the Republican Party. Brooks even shared some polling numbers supporting his belief that the Tea Party has actually helped the GOP. But then he took an all too predictable left turn: This doesn’t mean that the Tea Party influence will be positive for Republicans over the long haul. The movement carries viruses that may infect the G.O.P. in the years ahead. Its members seek traditional, conservative ends, but they use radical means. Along the way, the movement has picked up some of the worst excesses of modern American culture: a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil. The Tea Party uses “radical means?” Such as what? Do they break windows, loot stores, and damage private property during their rallies? Do they do any of the things leftist groups do when they protest wars, big business, coal mines, energy facilities, or G-8 meetings? Certainly not. So what “radical means” was Brooks referring to? He didn’t say. As for a “narcissistic sense of victimization,” this movement has been harassed and excoriated by media members for a year and a half. They’ve been called racists, hate-mongers, homophobes, and nutcases. As such, they’ve been victimized by the mainstream media more than any legitimate political group in recent memory. But Brooks ignored such inconvenient truths concluding: But that damage is all in the future. Right now, the Tea Party doesn’t matter. The Republicans don’t matter. The economy and the Democrats are handing the G.O.P. a great, unearned revival.  Unearned, Mr. Brooks? Hardly, for this organization has worked tirelessly for its electoral victories and to get some respect from detractors in the media. That any kind words are being written or uttered by folks like Brooks now is a testament to how hard Tea Party members have toiled almost since Inauguration Day to convey a message to the American people that is resonating enough to possibly ignite an historic transfer of power next January. As Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin noted Friday: [Republican success] is both a result of one-party Democratic rule and the best thing to happen to the GOP since Ronald Reagan. That doesn’t mean its candidates will all win, but when the GOP picks up oodles of seats, much of the credit will go to the Tea Partiers.  Indeed, but will mainstream media members give them such credit on election night, or blame Democrat losses exclusively on the economy? Stay tuned.

Go here to read the rest:
David Brooks Defends Tea Party – Right Before He Bashes It

Crickets Chirp at Palm Beach Post Over Student Conservative Club Kicked Out of Local College Event

EEK! There is a conservative student group at our sacred campus club rush. Remove them immediately! Such was the attitude of Palm Beach State College administrator Olivia Ford-Morris at the sight of a Young Americans for Freedom table. You can see and hear the extreme urgency in the attitude and voice of Ms Ford-Morris accompanied by campus security guards in this video as she demands the students at the YAF table “Pull it up!” Although Ford-Morris claimed she didn’t remember receiving either an e-mail or a phone call from YAF about getting a table for club rush, evidence is now contradicting that claim (below the fold). So this is obviously a great story of campus censorship that the Palm Beach Post would love to cover since it happened locally? Wrong. The only comment from the Palm Beach Post on this incident is the sound of crickets chirping. To get information on what happened at Palm Beach State College you would need to check sites on the blogosphere such as Orlando Political Press : (Lake Worth, FL) On Tuesday September 7, 2010 at around 11:00am one Palm Beach State College (PBSC) student and two Young Americans for Freedom (YAF) members, state chairman Daniel P. Diaz and state vice chairman Eddie Shaffer, were shut down and had campus police called on them after tabling and recruiting during club rush at the College. The PBSC student, Christina Beattie, had received prior permission from college administrator Olivia Ford-Morris to promote her organization on campus via telephone and email communication. On the day of club rush, officials approached the group and after seeing information about the organization and its ideals criticizing Barack Obama’s economic policy. Ms. Ford-Morris was visibly disturbed by the material presented, published by the Heritage Foundation, criticizing President Obama’s administration. College officials then called the campus police to assure the group left campus. Ms. Ford-Morris denied having ever talked to Ms. Beattie about giving permission to the organization to be a part of PBSC club rush. “I was shocked and offended by her dishonesty. She outright denied giving me permission to table at Club Rush simply because she disagreed with my beliefs! The fact is, she was using her administrative power to silence the conservative opposition.” said Christina Beattie. And as the Palm Beach Post continues sleeping, more evidence has been revealed that college administrator Morris-Ford was somewhat less than honest (to put it politely) in her claim about receiving no communications from the YAF concerning attendance at campus rush. Here is the Heritage Foundation presenting the evidence contradicting Morris-Ford in this story which the snoozing Palm Beach Post neglects to cover in its own backyard: A conservative student in Florida says he has the evidence that implicates a public college administrator who last week ordered members of Young Americans for Freedom to leave a campus event after they displayed Heritage Foundation research papers. Palm Beach State College activities director Olivia Morris-Ford, a Facebook fan of President Barack Obama and filmmaker Michael Moore , booted the conservative students from a rush event. Morris-Ford claimed they didn’t have permission to be on campus. Her assertion stands in conflict with evidence YAF state chairman Daniel Diaz shared with Heritage. Diaz presented both a June 21 e-mail from student Christina Beattie to Morris-Ford requesting permission to be at the event and Beattie’s phone log from June 23, which shows a call from Morris-Ford. Beattie said Morris-Ford approved the request on that call. Meanwhile, as this story unfolds, the crickets continue to serenade the Palm Beach Post. Chirp! Chirp! Chirp

More here:
Crickets Chirp at Palm Beach Post Over Student Conservative Club Kicked Out of Local College Event

George Stephanopoulos Touts Attacks By O’Donnell Opponents: She’s a ‘Nutty,’ ‘Mentally Unhinged’ ‘Liar’

Liberal journalists don’t usually highlight Karl Rove as an authoritative voice, but that’s what George Stephanopoulos did on Wednesday’s Good Morning America. Interviewing senatorial nominee Christine O’Donnell, the ABC host touted the conservative strategist’s dismissal of the Delaware Republican for saying “some nutty things.” Stephanopoulos also played up charges by Delaware’s Republican Party Chairman Tom Ross that O’Donnell is a “liar” and “mentally unhinged.” The ABC host wondered if her primary victory could “help the Democrats.” Stephanopoulos noted only negative news for the surprise winner of the Delaware senatorial primary, asserting that “…The national Republican Party is not going to give you any funds.” (This later turned out not to be true .) Later in the show, news anchor Juju Chang would label the liberal Mike Castle, O’Donnell’s defeated primary opponent, ” a mainstream Republican .” During Wednesday’s interview, Stephanopoulos never mentioned Castle. Instead, he parroted, “We saw that the Republican Party chairman in Jon Karl’s piece there, he went on to say, that you’re ‘not a viable candidate.'” Piling on, the host continued, “…You ‘cannot be elected dog catcher in Delaware.’ [Ross] went on to say that you’re either a liar or mentally unhinged.” Stephanopoulos then played a clip of Rove, on Fox News, slamming O’Donnell. When candidate Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman for Connecticut’s Democratic primary in 2006, journalists gushed over the insurgent “anti-war” politician. The Washington Post deemed him a “fiscal conservative.” A transcript of the September 15 segment, which aired at 7:04am EDT, follows: 7am tease GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: And this morning, Tea Party shocker. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: No more politics as usual. STEPHANOPOULOS: Another Sarah Palin mamma grizzly wins, this time in Delaware. But, could this victory help the Democrats? 7:04 STEPHANOPOULOS: And the big winner joins us now. Christine O’Donnell from Delaware. Good morning. Thank you for getting up so early. And congratulations. Did Sarah Palin make the difference here? CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Thank you, George. Yes, she did. All summer we’ve been working very hard to get out there. Give the voters an opportunity to meet me, to know me. So that I’ve been asking them that when you vote for me, I want you- I want the vote to mean something. I want it to be a vote of confidence. So, when the mud-slinging started, I was very encouraged that what a lot of people said was, “We knew what your opponent was putting out wasn’t reflective of who we know you to be.” And when Governor Palin stood up and so boldly made a statement that she supported me, it allowed them to get past the politics of personal destruction, to look at the message and look at the fact that I wanted to make this race about the issue. How we’re going to get jobs back in Delaware. How we’re going to defend the homeland of our security. And she helped to get it back on track. STEPHANOPOULOS: You’re going to need all the help she can give right now. She’s going to need to raise some money for you. ‘Cause we just heard Jon. Karl say the national Republican Party is not going to give you any funds. O’DONNELL: Well, that’s a shame. But they never thought I could win this race. And I believe that we can win without them. This is about giving the political power back to we, the people. And we proved the so-called experts wrong. So, I think a few of them, perhaps, may have their pride hurt this morning. But, you know, I didn’t count on the establishment to win the primary. I’m not counting of them to win the general. I’m counting on the voters of Delaware. And we’re going to work hard to make sure that we take our message to them. STEPHANOPOULOS: But- But you are going to have to answer some questions. We saw that the Republican Party chairman in Jon Karl’s piece there, he went on to say, that you’re “not a viable candidate.” That you “cannot be elected dog catcher in Delaware.” He went on to say that you’re either a liar or mentally unhinged. And Karl Rove, President Bush’s former political adviser, was on Fox News, very tough, talking about your checkered background. O’DONNELL: Right. STEPHANOPOULOS: Saying you say some nutty things. And, listen, he went on to say, you have to answer these questions. KARL ROVE: Why did she mislead voters about her college education? How come it took her nearly two decades to pay her college bills so she could get college degree? How did she make a living? Why did she sue a well-known and well-thought-of conservative think tank? STEPHANOPOULOS: Can you answer those questions? O’DONNELL: Yeah. Everything he’s saying is unfactual [sic]. And it’s a shame. Because he’s the same, so called political guru that predicted that I wasn’t going to win. And we won. And we won big. So, I think, again, he’s eating some humble pie and he’s just trying to restore his reputation. But, again, I’m counting on the voters in Delaware. Like I said this, is about giving the political process back to the people. People are tired of what’s going on in Washington. These failed policies that don’t represent them. My Republican opponent did not have a record to stand on. He supported the Democrats more than he supported the Republicans. And when we started gaining momentum and we started gaining credibility in this race, it made the Republican establishment look like lazy people who did not care about their principles. But I hope that we can put that behind us because if they’re really serious about winning, I was ahead in the general election, according to Rasmussen, before this Republican cannibalism started. So, if they were serious about winning, we could repair the damage done and move forward. And that’s the challenge I put out to them. But, if not, I truly believe we can win. STEPHANOPOULOS: You call it Republican- You call it Republican cannibalism, saying that what Karl Rove is unfactual. But it is true that you had conflicting statements about your college record. That you had- That the big issue in the campaign was failure to pay back taxes. O’DONNELL: That is not true. STEPHANOPOULOS: Failure to pay campaign debts. Failure to pay your mortgage. So, can you clear that up? O’DONNELL: That’s simply not true. We addressed all this stuff. Absolutely. Absolutely. And first of all, they also said that Ronald Reagan wasn’t electable. We’ve addressed all of this stuff on our website. It took me 12 years to pay off my college loans. I’m not a trust fund baby. Most Delawareans can relate to having to work hard to pay for their own college education. I was never dishonest about that. They made up an accusation about an IRS tax lien. The IRS said, “Oops, it was a mistake.” They cleared it up right away. We presented my opponent and the republican administration, showing them that the IRS had admitted to a computer error. They chose to ignore the truth because they don’t have a record to stand on. And it’s humiliating when the party gets behind this guy who they say is the only one who can win. But doesn’t stand for anything that the Republican Party stands for. So, they have to cling to these baseless accusations. And it’s a shame because I want to go into this general election telling the Delaware voters the proposals that I want to introduce in Washington to get jobs back into Delaware, to get our economy back on track. To take care of our veterans. And as we move forward, I hope that my Democratic opponent learns the same lesson that my Republican opponent learned. That dirty politics will backfire. In a state like Delaware, where it’s small enough to get to know all of the voters, that’s exactly what we intend to do this next month and a half. It didn’t work for Castle. It won’t work for the Democrats. STEPHANOPOULOS: And we will be watching. Congratulations again. Thanks for your time this morning.

Read more:
George Stephanopoulos Touts Attacks By O’Donnell Opponents: She’s a ‘Nutty,’ ‘Mentally Unhinged’ ‘Liar’

Noted Palin-Trig Conspiracy Loon Andrew Sullivan Piles on Anti-Levin Bandwagon

Want to make friends in “elite” political blogosphere? Don’t dare be outspoken on behalf of Delaware Republican U.S. Senate nominee Christine O’Donnell. In a Sept. 15 post on his The Atlantic blog , “The Daily Dish,” Sullivan takes a break from gossiping about political figures’ genitalia to take on conservative talker Mark Levin’s response to those who were seemingly hell-bent on O’Donnell not being the Delaware GOP nominee within the conservative media intelligentsia. After going through a litany of Levin’s alleged indiscretions against O’Donnell detractors, Sullivan argues that his so-called “conservative” counterparts had it coming since Levin had been so critical of the pseudo-intellectuals that have masqueraded as conservatives over the years. “He still hasn’t figured it out,” Sullivan wrote of John Hinderaker of Powerline, who argued Levin was too hard on his fellow conservatives . “If more conservatives had challenged Levin back during his similarly intemperate, intellectually bankrupt attacks on Jim Manzi , David Frum , and so many others , he might not be upping the populist ante some more. Instead they kept silent for a fellow movement conservative, or even defended him. And big surprise, he’s persisting in intellectually bankrupt attacks that egregiously mislead his audience. There is some karmic justice in all this, isn’t there?” It’s curious that Sullivan would suddenly take on this role of accusing Levin of bullying his conservative brethren. It’s not as if Sullivan doesn’t have his own demons, including his position on Judaism and Israel, as The New Republic’s Leon Wieseltier alleged earlier this year . “About the Jews, is Sullivan a bigot, or is he just moronically insensitive?” Wieseltier wrote. “To me, he looks increasingly like the Buchanan of the left. He is the master, and the prisoner, of the technology of sickly obsession: blogging-and the divine right of bloggers to exempt themselves from the interrogations of editors-is also a method of hounding.” However, it’s quite possible, based on his track record with the former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin questioning the authenticity of who Trig Palin’s real mother was , that defending Christine O’Donnell, a female conservative candidate, from some obsessive attacks from her own side might not make sense to Sullivan. Levin addressed Sullivan’s observations on his Facebook blog : “Yawn. Snore. You clowns are so irrelevant.”

Go here to read the rest:
Noted Palin-Trig Conspiracy Loon Andrew Sullivan Piles on Anti-Levin Bandwagon

NBC Reporter Throws Around Conservative Label but Can’t Call Rangel A Lib

NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell, on Wednesday’s Today show, in reporting about the results from yesterday’s primaries threw around the conservative label around as she identified several Republicans that way but for some reason when it came to reporting on Democrat Charlie Rangel’s win couldn’t manage to attach the “liberal” label to the ethics challenged Congressman. O’Donnell began her piece noting that “Democrats are suddenly very excited” about their chances of winning the Delaware primary seat due to “the conservative rebellion” that led to Republican Christine O’Donnell’s win in that primary, adding that “conservative Christine O’Donnell was propelled by several Tea Party groups.” And later O’Donnell even relayed the Democratic spin that O’Donnell was “an ultra right wing extremist.” However when it came to talking about Rangel’s primary win, the NBC correspondent, didn’t bother to attach an ideological label, merely calling him “20-term Congressman Charlie Rangel.” In total, Kelly O’Donnell used the “conservative” label five times in her piece but never once labeled any of the Democrats brought up in her story a liberal. The following is the full O’Donnell story as it was aired on the September 15 Today show: MEREDITH VIEIRA: But let’s begin with the results of the final primaries before November’s midterm elections and what they mean for both parties. We’re gonna talk to Christine O’Donnell about her surprise victory in Delaware, in just a moment. But first NBC’s Kelly O’Donnell has the latest. Kelly, good morning to you. [On screen headline: “Life Of The Tea Party, Upset Win In GOP Race For Biden’s Senate Seat”] KELLY O’DONNELL: Good morning, Meredith. Well the Tea Party has toppled conventional wisdom again and here in Delaware, the result is both shocking and convincing because it wasn’t close. The most popular Republican in the state, Mike Castle, he is out. Democrats are suddenly very excited and O’Donnell says don’t count her out in a fight to get the seat that Joe Biden held for 36 years. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Delaware have spoken. KELLY O’DONNELL: The conservative rebellion rolled over Delaware’s Republican Party brass. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: Don’t ever underestimate the power of we the people! KELLY O’DONNELL: An upset hard to imagine just a few weeks ago. Conservative Christine O’Donnell was propelled by several Tea Party groups and that movement’s most famous figure. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: You betcha! There’s another woman I gotta thank. You betcha! Thank you Governor Palin for your endorsement. KELLY O’DONNELL: O’Donnell was ridiculed and written-off by other Republicans as unelectable. She had never won before, but knocked out Congressman Mike Castle who had never lost in a dozen races. Castle did not offer his congratulations. REP. MIKE CASTLE: The voters in the Republican Party have spoken and I respect that decision. KELLY O’DONNELL: Castle had called O’Donnell unqualified. (Begin ad clip) ANNOUNCER: She didn’t pay thousands in income taxes. (End clip) KELLY O’DONNELL: Animosity was so intense, the state Republican Party paid for robo-calls where O’Donnell’s past campaign manager attacked her. (Begin clip of robo-call) UNIDENTIFIED CAMPAIGN MANAGER: I found out that she was living on campaign donations, using them for rent and personal expenses while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt. (End clip) KELLY O’DONNELL: O’Donnell denies misusing funds. She claims her own financial hard times actually help her understand voters’ anger. CHRISTINE O’DONNELL: A lot of people have already said that we can’t win the general election. I know. KELLY O’DONNELL: Democratic officials are gleeful and called her an ultra right wing extremist. Ironically, her supporters used an Obama slogan to predict victory in November. O’DONNELL SUPPORTERS AT RALLY CHANTING: Yes We Can! KELLY O’DONNELL: Turning to New Hampshire’s GOP Senate primary, a tight race too close to call. Former state attorney general, Kelly Ayotte, the choice of both the Republican establishment and Sarah Palin against a Tea Party endorsed conservative activist Ovide Lamontagne. On to New York, where the Republican nominee for governor is another Tea Party conservative . Real estate developer Carl Paladino over the party favorite former Congressman Rick Lazio, while New York Democrats stood by 20-term Congressman Charlie Rangel who’s accused of House ethics violations. Rangel beat back several challengers. REP. CHARLIE RANGEL: I go back to Washington stronger than I have ever been. KELLY O’DONNELL: And back here in Delaware, Democrats didn’t have a primary fight for the Senate seat, so Chris Coons is their candidate in November. O’Donnell who has worked as a media consultant for conservative non-profit groups says that she is hoping to get donations, even though the national party is reluctant to get behind her. And she also hopes to get the endorsement of Mike Castle. That has not happened. She is calling for unity, isn’t sure if she can expect it but says the Tea Party is behind her.

Read more from the original source:
NBC Reporter Throws Around Conservative Label but Can’t Call Rangel A Lib

Congressman Ron Paul Hints At 2012 Presidential Campaign

Texas Congressman Ron Paul has hinted that he is strongly considering another Presidential run in 2012. Paul, who previously ran for the Republican nomination in 2008 and under the Libertarian Party in 1988, told an interviewer that “It’s something I think about every single day,”. The Congressman’s comments came during an interview with his former House colleague, Bob Bauman, legal counsel for The Sovereign Society – an independent investment advisory group. Paul said it would “be a tough decision”, but that he believes the American people are ready to embrace a new political direction. The comments have not been picked by by mainstream media sources as of yet. The Congressman has previously downplayed rumors of another Presidential campaign, saying it is unlikely. However, following a string of successes in recent surveys and straw polls, including victory in the Conservative Political Action Conference’s (CPAC) presidential straw poll, it seems Paul is now reconsidering his earlier statements. The full Sovereign Society interview with Ron Paul can be heard here (registration required). Paul’s comments add weight to more recent rumblings that he may once again pick up the presidential campaign mantle in 2012. Earlier this year the Congressman’s wife, Carol, stated “If you would ask him now he would probably say ‘no’, but he did say…things are happening so quickly and fast in our country, if we’re at a crisis period and they need someone…with the knowledge he has…then he would do it.” Jesse Benton, Senior VP of Paul’s advocacy group Campaign for Liberty, has said of the prospective run: “If the decision had to be made today, it would be ‘no’, but he is considering it very strongly and there is a decent likelihood that he will. A lot of it depends on things going on in his personal life and also what’s going on in the country.” At the height of Paul’s 2008 campaign, dubbed the Ron Paul Revolution by supporters, the Congressman smashed the all-time record for political donations on one day, beating John Kerry’s previous effort as he hauled in over $6 million dollars during a 24-hour period that coincided with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. Indeed, as we have continuously highlighted, The Tea Party movement, originally Libertarian in origin, grew out of this trend of honouring the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. An event held in 2006 was repeated in 2007 with the Ron Paul Money bomb, and the movement evolved from there over the following three years. As part of an effort to encourage Ron Paul to run for president in 2012, a Tea Party moneybomb has been set up with the aim of repeating those previous successes. The goal of The Ron Paul Tea Party is to have 100,000 people donate $100 each on December 16, 2010 to kick off Paul’s 2012 presidential bid, should he decide to run. Infowars’ Alex Jones has personally pledged support to the Draft Ron Paul movement, noting that Paul is the only candidate who will inject real issues into an otherwise sterile debate format and that everything he has been warning the American people about for decades is coming into fruition as we approach 2012. Whether neocon and corporate Republicans like it or not, Ron Paul has had and continues to have a far reaching impact upon the direction of the party. Every rare intelligible thing that Sarah Palin has said regarding limited government, fiscal economic policy and the restoration of freedom is taken straight from the Ron Paul handbook. The core difference between Paul and Palin is that the Congressman has built a real grass roots following over the course of several decades. Paul is the real deal, while Palin, Romney, McCain and Gingrich, on the other hand are all neocons at the core, supporting the invasion and occupation of sovereign nations in step with the grossly bloated empire building military industrial complex. Never pandering to the crowds, Paul has consistently hammered home this key difference. Of the current crop of possible 2012 GOP presidential candidates, Ron Paul is once again the only one truly in step with the majority anti-war, anti-big government sentiment in America. The Texas Congressman has also been instrumental in leading a grass roots revolt against the real culprits behind the economic collapse, the Federal Reserve, introducing a bill to audit the private organization which has received widespread support from both Republicans and Democrats but has been fought at every turn by elitists in Washington. If you thought the impact of the Ron Paul Revolution in 2007 and 2008 was damaging to the new world order agenda, then imagine what kind of momentum could be built up over the next few years as we head towards 2012, which globalists have marked down as a key juncture by which they want their global feudalist system firmly in place. It almost seems like fate that the Congressman should lead the mass resistance to the globalist agenda at this crucial time in history, and we implore him to take on that hefty responsibility while guaranteeing that the grass roots will rally behind him with a ferocity never before seen in recent political times. added by: im1mjrpain

Democrats Imply a Publisher Promoting Republican Books Could Be Illegal

Over at stopnetregulation.org , Seton Motley reports that if the Democrats can’t ban books, they’ll try to ban book promotion. Democrats are furious that the conservative Threshhold imprint of Simon & Schuster (a corporate cousin of CBS) published a book by three House Republicans titled “Young Guns,” and included a promotional video:    That was too much free speech for the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), which lawyered up and sent the publishing house an ominous letter intimating it may be in violation of several campaign finance laws – claiming the video was an in-kind contribution to Republicans. This despite the fact that… Corporations are permitted to make independent expenditures with no coordination with candidates… Or the simple possibility that Simon & Schuster has printed tens of thousands of copies and would now like to, you know, sell them. The DCCC’s attorneys suggest it’s improper for a corporation to host a video on its website that in turn directs viewers to Rep. Eric Cantor’s ERIC-PAC website that solicits contributions for Republican candidates for Congress. But consider this: if Simon & Schuster really wanted this book to fly off the shelves, or Republicans to be helped, wouldn’t they offer a much more prominent video presentation — on a CBS property like 60 Minutes? It wouldn’t be the first time. (They put Simon & Schuster-published  The Big Short by liberal author Michael Lewis in that promotional slot.) Seton continued: Never ones to let the facts get in the way of a good beating…. The DCCC is looking for an “assurance” that the book will be promoted legally. This is chilling language and a chilling move coming from the Party that is (for now still) in control of Congress – what with their ability to hold “investigative” hearings and haul anyone they wish before them for intimidation purposes disguised as interrogative ones.  Not to mention a Democrat President with the keys to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and what is quickly becoming the most ideological and partisan Justice Department in our nation’s history.  It doesn’t occur to Democrats and liberals that they too can write a book and get it published and promoted – in just the same manner as have the Republicans?  You know, meet free speech with free speech. Apparently not.  Instead they seek to drop the censorship hammer.  Again.

Here is the original post:
Democrats Imply a Publisher Promoting Republican Books Could Be Illegal