About Me

Name: RME KRNL
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 
[Click to edit me]

RINOs Are An Endangered Species


The last few days, analyses of Tuesday's election results have been like quickly turning the dial past several stations on the radio: "NY-23 was" -- "NY-23 was not" -- "off-year elections don't mean" -- "off-year elections can be a bellwether" -- "all politics are local" -- "national implications" -- "What this means for the Republican Party" -- "What this means for Democrats" -- "NY-23 was important for both" -- "The upstate New York election was not important because" -- "Republican's sweeping victories in Virginia" -- "upset in New Jersey" -- "the right wing of the Republican Party" -- "moderate Republicans" -- "moderate, Blue Dog Democrats" -- "the conservative movement" -- "left-wing Democratic agenda" -- and blah, blah, blah.

Stop! Enough, already! You're all making my head hurt. Yes, there's a lot which can be said about Tuesday's elections, to include diametrically opposed things about the same election results, depending on who you are and how you want to spin those results. For example, the White House is sad, doesn't care, is scared, dismisses, is encouraged by, sees things this way, doesn't see things that way -- and all at once, if you believe all the "interpretations" and spin and blather.

What it all means to me, and I do hope I'm right about this, is that these off-year elections are a culmination of a long simmering disaffection with establishment Republicans in general and Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) in particular, which has been given even more impetus by the TEA Party and 9/12 grassroots movements which have been growing since last Spring's Tax Day TEA Party protests. If the nationwide TEA Party protests on April 15 and July 4, 2009, didn't give the Republican establishment and RINOs enough of a heads up, surely the massive march on Washington and protest at the Capitol building of hundreds of thousands, perhaps over a million, TEA Party and 9/12 protesters on September 12th surely should have. And if even all that didn't, then look to Virginia's and New Jersey's elections and their crushing victories for real Republican conservative candidates.

All liberals, in and out of the lamestream media and entertainment industries, and all Democrats and, so far, most of the Republican establishment, and RINOs alike, have acted like if they just ignore or make fun of the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers and frustrated town hallers long enough, the angry I-want-my-government-and-freedoms-back protesters will simply run out of steam and just go away. Well, hellooooo? Not hardly. Ain't gonna happen.

Add it up. Long-term, simmering conservative dissatisfaction with Republicans acting too much like Democrats and losing in 2006 (benchmark), then losing even bigger in 2008 (benchmark), to hundreds of thousands all across the country protesting on April 15th (benchmark), to hundreds of thousands more protesting on July 4th (benchmark), to many hundreds of thousands more protesting on September 12th (benchmark), to as recently as this Thursday when an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 more, again from all across the country, in the middle of a workweek, showed up to protest at the Capitol Building -- again -- based on a call from a single conservative, Republican Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, and with only a few day's notice! I'd say "benchmark" again. That's not a sign of going, as in going away. That's a sign of growing, as in growing enough to say, "We're here to stay and will not be denied."

I'm beginning to wonder how many times and in how many different ways we have to write things large and small for the Republican establishment and RINOs to finally see the handwriting on the wall: Conservatives are fine, and real moderate Republicans are okay, but RINOs are not! RINOs are an endangered species!

Case in point: Many liberals and much of the left-wing media are describing the NY-23 district election as a "split" in the Republican Party because a "moderate" Republican candidate was forced to withdraw because some national level Republicans and Conservatives supported the Conservative candidate. Well, yes, although the national Republican establishment did support the "moderate" Republican (that is, until they didn't), some nationally known Republicans and Conservatives did support the Conservative candidate. But they did not do so against a "moderate" Republican candidate, for there was no "moderate" Republican candidate in the race.

To describe State Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava as a "moderate" Republican is about as accurate, and truthful, as saying one of your very and most favorite things to do is reach, barehanded and blindfolded, into a sack to pull out a really ticked off rattlesnake.
 
Let's see, what makes Susieflavor NOT a "moderate" Republican? Well, for starters, she had run for the State Assembly several times before on the ballot line of the Working Families Party, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ACORN, which is not exactly a moderate, much less Republican, and certainly not a conservative organization. She's pro-abortion, for same sex marriage, for Big Labor's cherished “card check,” and in favor of Obama's so-called stimulus money. (Has she even read the official GOP national platform and what Republicans are at least supposed to stand for?)
 
Then, in this race, after accepting $900,000 in Republican establishment campaign money, in addition to another individual (and, as it turned out, embarrassing) contribution of $5,000 from none other than misguided Michael Steele, the Chairman of the RNC, she sees she can't win, drops out of the race, ostensibly for "the sake of the party," but THEN, perhaps in a snit fit of sour grapes, bites the hand that fed her and endorses, not the Conservative Independent, but the Democratic candidate. Can we all say, "True colors"? Oh, and while suspending her campaign, she still remained on the ballot lines of the New York Independence Party AND the GOP. Talk about trying to hedge your bets! Shades of Arlen Specter.
 
So, no matter how much which liberals try to spin that Susieflavor was a Republican, much less a "moderate" Republican, she was not. She was at best a RINO in name but a liberal at heart. And no matter how many nominal "Republicans" think we need to "expand the tent" ever bigger and bigger, they should remember that too big a tent can become unstable -- a somewhat smaller and sturdier, more storm worthy tent is better -- and that we don't need any RINO tent-pole shakers acting like traitorous weaklings in our midst and pulling the tent down on all of us from the inside. You can be a Conservative without being a Republican, or you can be a truly moderate, centrist Republican without being a Right-winger, but you cannot be a liberal Republican. That makes you a RINO.
 
So, welcome the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers, who are probably looking for an establishment home anyway, and other Conservatives, the Independents, the Libertarians, the Blue Dog and other moderate Democrats, and the disillusioned Obama voters, and I think our tent will be big and inclusive enough, while still strong and conservative enough. Then, take the RINOs out behind the tent and just shoot them.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Janeane Garofalo - Way Too Full of Herself

In a blurb entitled "Janeane Garofalo’s Lefty Mindset," Left Coast Report's James Hirsen recently noted that Joel Surnow may rue the day Janeane Garofalo got a role on “24.” Garofalo’s recent public denouncements of the TEA Party protests may have lots of conservatives turning the hit TV series off.

Hirsen also points out that the politically outspoken comedian, actress and failed liberal TV talk show host does, however, provide a look through the lens with which liberals view any criticisms of President Obama. The left sees Obama solely within the historical context of being the first black president and, as such, his success in all of the micro and macro machinations of governing apparently has to be defended, perhaps even beyond the point of rationality. To the liberals, criticism of any issue, statement or policy of his must take a back seat to the historic achievement of his black presidency. Well, except perhaps for one of the truer (and less offensive) things comedian Wanda Sykes, who is black, said at the recent White House Correspondents Dinner when she talked about knowing that Obama is biracial but she just liked saying "The first black president" - that is, unless he messes up, at which time she said it would change to "Hey, what's up with the half-white dude?"

You may recall, however, during the 2008 presidential campaign, that candidate Obama himself told a fundraiser crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, “We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?”  His "reverse psychology" yet deliberate playing of the race card caused many political pundits (I call them pol-dits) to wonder if any future negative comments about Obama’s words or actions would be dismissed as racist. Well, pol-dits, wonder no more.

This is exactly what Garofalo attempted to do on MSNBC's Countdown program with Keith Olbermann by insisting at some length and with a fair degree of vitriol that those who attended the recent anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-big spending rallies were “a bunch of teabagging rednecks.” She described attendees as being motivated by bigotry, adding “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism, straight up.” I don't recall any actual proof of that offered by Ms. Garofalo, then or since, but of course she is entitled to her opinion - however erroneous and unsubstantiated it may be.

However, when pressed about it in a recent ambush interview by Fox News, she did mention one sign she saw displayed at one of the protest sites. I guess that's enough "proof" for her to paint almost three-quarter of a million protesters at about 40,000 different sites all across the country with the same broad brush of blame. Hey, please put her on my jury if I'm the plaintiff but not if I'm the defendant. She gives a whole new meaning to the legal term "scintilla of proof."

Her liberal "open-mindedness" and "tolerance" were also fully displayed at the idea of conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh making a vist to the “24” set. As she told the Village Voice, “When Rush Limbaugh visited the set, and when Lynne Cheney visited the set, I refused to have my picture taken with them or meet them or anything.” Well, for one thing, Rush recently indicated that he had never visited the set while Garofalo was a member of the cast of “24.”  And, for another thing, it begs the question about what makes Garofalo think Rush Limbaugh or Lynne Cheney would actually want to meet her anyway? Get over yourself, Janeane.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Waterboarding = Torture? Maybe, Maybe Not

Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post recently wrote an article entitled "Torture Is Illegal." Aside from selecting as his title what would appear to be a BGO (blinding glimpse of the obvious), what Mr. Robinson and liberals in general insist on doing about the "we don't torture" issue is conflate that "we don't torture" with the statement that "waterboarding is torture" and therefore make the argument that we waterboarded, so that means we tortured.
 
Not so fast. While President Obama's Attorney General Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder has stated that, in his opinion, waterboarding is torture (and there are obviously others who agree with him), there are still other legal experts and scholars who disagree.
 
Evidently among them were the lawyers who drew up the very narrow and specific guidelines for waterboarding which the Bush administration followed, as well as briefing Congress on (Republicans AND Democrats alike) about 30 different times along the way. So, if lawyers who rendered their legal opinions can be prosecuted, surely so also can Congressional members who were briefed on what was going on and who not only did not object but agreed to and approved of such methods being used (Democrat House Speaker Pelosi's somewhat conflicting protestations notwithstanding).
 
I mean, illegal and morally wrong is illegal and morally wrong, right? Er, correct? And whether you made the pie or just stuck your finger in it is all merely a matter of degree, correct? Or in another context, if you and I rob a store and you shoot and kill the clerk although I didn't even know you had a gun, we both can be tried for murder. Anything less is comparable to the less-than-credible "I voted against the war before I voted for it."
 
So, if there is rational disagreement that waterboarding is torture, it's hardly ipso facto that we waterboarded, therefore we tortured. We did perform waterboarding, on three high value terrorists, it was done by professionals, it was done under extremely controlled and medically safe conditions, and we got valuable intelligence as a result. So, yes, we waterboarded and if waterboarding is torture, then we tortured. But if it's not, then we didn't torture anyone.
 
Aside from all of the legalese and ideologically and politically motivated arguments currently flying around, it is beyond me how something like waterboarding, to which many of our own troops have been subjected as part of their training to resist enemy interrogation (under much less medically controlled conditions than those provided for the three murdering terrorists responsible for killing thousands of Americans and others), can be considered torture. If so, lock up those un-American military instructors who conducted that training!
 
And this is all beside the fact that some college hazings also involve a type of waterboarding, usually without ANY safeguards. Is that torture? Then, lock up those monstrous, un-American upper classmen!
 
Oh, and for those of you astute enough to argue that, well, our troops and the college kids had a choice about undergoing waterboarding or not but the terrorists did not, here's a reality check for you. Sure, if the troops wanted to fail their training, they could have said no, and, sure, if the college kids didn't want to be accepted, they could have also. But then, so also could the terrorists -- by just giving up the intel before they were waterboarded. Everybody has choices, well, except unfortunate people like journalist Daniel Pearl who was brutally beheaded on video by cowardly, mask-wearing, sword-wielding terrorist thugs even after cooperating with his captors in making the video for their propaganda purposes.
 
Instead of disingenuous bleeding heart liberals saying they want to "restore America's image in the world" by protecting the "rights" of murderous terrorists not to be tortured (oh, and, secondarily of course, finally find a way to "get" George Bush in the process if at all possible), they should focus on people in the hands of our terrorist enemies, to often include many of their own -- now, THERE'S someone who's been tortured!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »