As some of you are aware, earlier this week I published a post that was chockerblock of full pictures documenting my adventures at CPAC. Well, included in that post were pictures of myself with the hilarious Red Eye guys, the hysterical Stephen Kruiser (who is a frequent guest on Red Eye, as well as the host of the Kruiser Kabana), and the lovely blogger Sarah Rumpf. (See the pictures below.)

[Above is a picture with me and Greg Gutfeld, the host of the Fox show Red Eye.]

[Above is a picture of me with Stephen Kruiser (in a purple shirt to my immediate right), and Bill Schulz (to my left) and Andy Levy of Red Eye fame.]

[The above picture is of me and the beautiful Sarah Rumpf, who is the proprietor of the blog Sunshine State Sarah.]

This past week, Stephen was kind enough to pass along the two pictures that my husband took of me with the Red Eye guys–and some pictures of Sarah taken with the Red Eye guys–to the Red Eye producers. Well, on Friday night, multiple pictures of Sarah and me posing with the Red Eye cast appeared in a photo collage on Red Eye! (Go to approximately five minutes into the video embedded below to see multiple pictures of Sarah and me posing with the Red Eye cast members.)

As I previously stated in my prior post, always bring a camera with you everywhere you go at CPAC.

Oh, and thanks for letting me brag a bit. I can’t wait to see you all again next year!

PS–Robert Stacy McCain was kind enough to write a cool post about Sarah’s and my “brush with fame”.

PPS–Thanks so much to Brian Henchey, host of The New England Job Show (who is pictured in my earlier post), for alerting me–via Facebook–to the fact that my pictures were featured on Red Eye.

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at The Green Room, Right Wing News and The Minority Report.

[A big thank you to Richard Hornsby for the photo]

This past Wednesday through Saturday, The American Conservative Union sponsored the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC. CPAC was open to all conservative activists who wanted to attend. This year, I had the honor of being a credentialed blogger for CPAC, and, thus, was able to sit in the bloggers’ lounge that was sponsored by Freedom Works. Tabitha Hale, the brains behind the bloggers’ row who put the whole thing together, really outdid herself. (All attendees should participate in a quiet “golf clap” for Tabitha.)

Folks, I had a blast this past week. Seriously, if any of you ever get the opportunity to attend CPAC, I highly suggest going. In fact, there are three very good reasons to attend CPAC next year (or any similar national conservative activist conference in the future). So, without much fanfare and ado, let’s get right to it.

1.) CPAC is a great place to hear some awesome political speeches, and meet many famous conservative political activists and politicians.

This year at CPAC, participants had the opportunity to listen to many famous pundits and politicians speak. Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry, Haley Barbour, Ron Paul, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, David Horowitz and Andrew Breitbart were some of the many famous speakers that were there. However, there were three speakers in particular that I, personally, thought brought down the house.

Herman Cain (who is a radio talk show host and the former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza) gave a speech that greatly exceeded the expectations of many people in the political class. Ed Morrissey–who wrote that Cain “stole the show” on Friday afternoon–has done a good job of collecting many of the highlights of Cain’s speech (the embed is below):

Cain said that the American Dream is being attacked by what he calls “the -ations” — legislation, regulation, and taxation. He continued that Republicans need to repeal and replace health care reform, and also “throw out” the “messed up tax code” and replace it with a new system.

The “objective of the liberals is to destroy America,” he Cain continued, but “if you can get a liberal to engage in an intelligent in the first place, ask them to strip away labels.”

Like, for example, Cain said, when liberals call anyone who disagrees with Obama a “racist.”

“They call me racist too just because I disagree with a President who happens to be black,” he continued. He told the crowd: “You are not racists — you are patriots.”

However, my favorite part of Herman Cain’s speech came when he said the following at around 8:10-8:20:

“Stupid people are ruining America.”

My husband and I nearly fell off of our chairs laughing when we heard that.

Then, on Saturday afternoon, Ann Coulter gave an excellent speech that had many good moments in it (particularly, from 4:40-5:15, 5:40-6:30, 7:40-8:20 and 12:50-13:45). (Oh, and Welcome to the Jungle by Guns and Roses was a cool choice for an entrance song).

However, Coulter was absolutely on fire during the Q&A that followed her speech (Q&A is her forte’). I would say that the best moment of her Q&A session with the crowd was when someone asked her, “Who is your least favorite Democrat?” (at 10:48-11:30 in the embed below), because Coulter responded by giving the following answer:

“That’s like asking me my least favorite disease. I can’t do my least favorite, I’m sorry”.

Then, she quickly quipped, “Cancer”. Again, my husband and I almost fell over laughing.

Now, immediately following Ann Coulter came Representative Allen West, the keynote speaker of CPAC. Before starting his speech though, Congressman West was kind enough to visit the bloggers’ lounge and take questions from the bloggers there.

Oh, and Colonel West was gracious enough to take a picture with me as well.

[Thanks again to Richard Hornsby for the picture.]

And finally, Congressman West gave an incredible stem-winder that finished up CPAC with a bang. He was introduced below by Sargent Jason Auburn who guards the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. As Congressman West walked onto the stage, you could hear Right Now by Van Halen playing. All I have to say is Dammit, you know that you’re at CPAC when you see a colonel–introduced by sergeant who guards the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier–walk on the stage while Van Halen is playing. (None of that wussified“Yes We Can” foolishness over here. And yes, wussified is indeed a word–look it up.)

Now, onto the second reason why CPAC is a must for any aspiring conservative activist.

2.) CPAC is a great place to meet people and network, network, network.

First of all, I obviously can’t stress the whole networking part enough. It is one thing to converse with your fellow bloggers/activists online or via email–it is a whole ‘nother ball of wax to meet them face to face. When you meet someone in person, you can get a much better feel for who they really are by their body language or facial expressions–which are things that cannot possibly be conveyed by simply communicating with someone online. Furthermore, if you form a personal bond with someone at a conference like CPAC–even if you only talk to the person for, say, fifteen minutes–given the choice, they are much more likely to link to, or pimp, your stuff than someone that they think is a total douche (no matter how good of a writer the douche in question might be). (Hey, I don’t make the rules–those are just the facts. You have to accept the world how it is, not how you want it to be.)

Moreover, at CPAC, I had the unique privilege of meeting some of the most iconic bloggers/writers online. It was a phenomenal experience. I mean, it is so totally cool to actually meet people that you’ve been reading or conversing with for years online. (See the photos below that my husband took in and around the bloggers’ lounge).

The above picture is of Daily Caller reporter, and CNN contributor Matt Lewis on my left and Garrett Quinn of The Boston Globe (or Boston.com) on my right. Both of these gentlemen are extremely knowledgeable about politics, and Matt Lewis told me interesting stories about his experiences covering the NH primary. I highly suggest picking their brains if you ever get the chance.

Above is a photo of me and Caleb Howe, a man who needs no introduction. He is the assistant editor of Redstate.com, and is a legend in the blogging community. The dude is just too cool for color TV, and he makes any party that he attends teh awesome.

Above is a picture of me with the totally cool editor of the highly influential Right Wing News, John Hawkins (where I am also a contributor).

Above is a photo of me and my husband (Chris Fleetwood) that was taken right after Herman Cain spoke on Friday afternoon.

Above is a picture of myself with the awesome, iconic Ed Morrissey of Hot Air. He is the driving force behind what becomes newsworthy in the conservative blogosphere. A link by him is huge–nay, monumental. Enough said.

Above is a picture of myself with Fingers Malloy of FTR Radio and Parcbench (where I am also a contributor). Fingers is an intimidating looking guy, but don’t let the mohawk fool you–he’s a real sweetheart.

Above is a picture of Jeff Dunetz who is the proprietor of Yid With The Lid. Jeff is a great blogger who blogs at all of the “Big” sites.

Above is a picture of Doug Welch, otherwise known as the popular blogger Stix 1972. (Doug also blogs with me over at The Minority Report, and can fix any technical issues that you might have.)

The above photo is of lovely Adrienne Royer (proprietor of the awesome blog Cosmopolitan Conservative) on my left and talented writer Warner Todd Houston on my right.

Above is a picture of me with the great Jimmie Bise Jr–who is the proprietor of The Sundries Shack, and who also blogs with me in The Green Room.

Above is a picture of Oregon Tea Party head (and former congressional candidate) John Kuzmanich on my right, and a blogger from Red County named Jeff Reynolds on my left.

Above is a picture of me with two adorable, talented, young bloggers who make me feel old–Amy Miller of Pundit League and Alex Knepper.

Above is a photo of me with the adorable Tabitha Hale who was the brains and the force behind the bloggers’ lounge at CPAC (and who is also a contributor to Redstate.com). Again, she deserves a round of applause for her outstanding organizational abilities.

The above picture is of me and Nice Deb who owns the excellent blog Nice Deb. My husband and I had dinner with her and John Hawkins later in the evening, and she was very….well, nice. She just exudes this whole Midwestern class/politeness from every pore. Her blog is quite aptly named.

And, here is another photo of my buddy, the awesomely, awesome John Hawkins (with a myriad of boggers scurrying around in the background).

And finally, here he is ladies and gentlemen. The man, the myth, the legend who made the fedora cool–it’s the one and only Robert Stacy McCain (with me) in the above picture. This guy is only the coolest cat in the conservative blogosphere. Getting linked on his blog means that you’ve finally arrived. Enough said.

Oh, and I almost forgot to give you all one final piece of advice before we move on to point number three. ALWAYS BRING A CAMERA EVERYWHERE YOU GO AT CPAC. Why? Because you never know who you are going to run into there. For instance, when I went downstairs to get a sandwich I ran into Johnathan Martin of Politico. He was an extremely nice guy and we talked for a good ten minutes, but I had forgotten my camera upstairs. I never made that mistake again. So the next day, when we went to McDonald’s, I took my camera with me and look who I ran into:

Yes Ladies and Gentlemen, that would be Alfonzo Rachel of PJTV who is famous for his “ZoBama” impersonations–and, who was personally attacked by Charles Blow for being part of a “minstrel show” (because liberals are all “tolerant” and stuff).

And then, when we returned to the hotel lobby, I ran into Jim Hoft–otherwise known as Gateway Pundit. He is pretty famous in blogging world and was mentioned by William Kristol on Fox News Sunday for breaking open the Van Jones story. (Oh, and he’s a very nice guy as well.)

Now, onto the third reason why CPAC is the bomb for all budding conservative activists.

3.) You get to party like a rockstar in the Kruiser Cabana with the Red Eye guys and various other conservative celebrities.

During every major conservative convention, like BlogCon or CPAC, Stephen Kruiser of PJTV is kind enough to host awesome parties in his room–or, turn his room into the “Kruiser Cabana”. Stephen is just a stitch (as we say down south). And, besides working for PJTV, he is also a stand up comic and is a frequent guest on Fox’s Red Eye. Therefore, Kruiser tends to get a lot of high profile guests to come to his parties (like, for instance, the guys from Red Eye). In fact, the Kruiser Cabana was so kickin’ this year, that Stephen Kruiser was named CPAC’s Miss Congeniality.

[Below are some pictures that we took in the Kruiser Cabana, as well as at other CPAC hot spots.]

Above is a picture of me with Stephen Kruiser (in a purple shirt to my immediate right), and Bill Shultz (to my left) and Andy Levy of Red Eye fame.

.

Above is a picture of Red Eye host Greg Gutfeld and me. How cool is that? (Gee, I sound like highschooler.)

Oh, and here is a little bipartisan love for everyone. On my right is conservative writer Philip Klein of American Spectator and Politico, and on my left is liberal writer Tommy Christopher of Mediate. (They both know a lot about politics and are awesome to hang out with, by the way.)

Above is a picture of the lovely Pamela Geller who became quite famous when she discussed her opposition to the Ground Zero Mosque on 60 Minutes.

And, above is a picture myself with the lovely Kristina Ribali and the lovely Pamela Geller. Did I mention that they were lovely?

Above is a picture of Stephen Kruiser and my husband. I think that they are both cuties, but I’m probably a little biased. (I’m married to one, and I had a blast at the other one’s parties.)

And, above is a picture of the awesome Ben Howe of Redstate.com (brother of Caleb Howe–awesomeness runs in their family) standing next to my adorable hubby.

Now, that handsome man in the tri-corner hat above is frequent Fox News Business panelist Paul Erickson. He threw a killer party earlier that evening. (Yes, there is life outside the Kruiser Cabana at CPAC. But hey, Stephen, you’re still Miss Congeniality and no one can take that away from you.)

And, above is my good friend Amy Miller posing with me at Mr. Erickson’s party. (She’s so cute isn’t she?)

Above is the always awesome Robert Stacy McCain and the very gracious Paul Erickson. (Hmmm….I don’t know what I like better, the fedora or the tri-corner hat.)

Pictured above is me with the always adorable Alexa Moutevalis and the always awesome Caleb Howe. (Remember, awesomeness runs in the Howe family.)

The above picture is of myself with Steve Eggleston (proprietor of the great blog No Runny Eggs) and the always awesome Ben Howe.

The five cute guys in the above photo are as follows (from left to right): Kevin Eder (who runs the Facebook and Twitter pages for the Media Research Center and Newsbusters), Stephen Gutowski of Human Events and Eyeblast TV, Fingers Malloy, Chris Fleetwood and Steve Eggleston.

And, here we have the iconic Robert Stacy McCain on my right and John Howting on my left, who is president of Miami Universities ISI Chapter. (Man, those college Republicans are just so darn cute, aren’t they?)

Oh, and here is another picture of the beautiful Kristina Ribali. I’m sure all of you gentlemen reading this just hate seeing her again.

Above is a shot of me talking to Da Tech Guy, who is one of my all time favorite bloggers–and favorite people–in the conservative blogosphere. (Oh, and check out his cool fedora!)

Above is a photo of me talking to the always charming Christopher Renner. (Hmmm….what’s better, the fedora, the tri-corner hat, or the cowboy hat? Decisions, decisions.)

The above picture is of me and the lovely Sarah Rumpf, who is the proprietor of the blog Sunshine State Sarah. This was my first time meeting Sarah, but she struck me as a, well….very sunny person–not to mention, she was a heck of a lot of fun to hang out with.

In the above picture (starting from left to right), you’ve got the adorable Jenny Erickson whispering to the uber-cool and super hilarious Larry O’Connor from Breitbart TV. And next to them, is Dr. Gina Loudon (in the grey) whispering to Meredith Dake, Mr. O’Connor’s very pretty producer.

And, in this picture, I am posing with the lovely Dr. Gina Loudon on my right (yes, that Dr. Gina Loudon who smacked down sleazy VF columnist Michael Gross), and the lovely and talented Jenny Erickson on my left.

Above is a photo of John Hawkins and Nice Deb at a killer Thai restaurant called The Thai Kitchen (they have great red chicken curry). John, Deb, my husband and I ventured over there after CPAC on Saturday night prior to heading over to the Kruiser Cabana.

The above picture is of me and charming, polite Glen Asbury, who is the proprietor of the popular blog Ramblings.

Above is a picture of a gentlemen by the name of Brian Henchey who is the host of The New England Job Show. I just met Brian late that evening in the Kruiser Cabana when I blurted out to him that he “had great hair”, and then asked to take a picture with him. He laughed, thanked me for the compliment, and then politely complied with my request. However, Brian turned out to be a great conversationalist and an all around funny dude; therefore, I really hope to see him again at CPAC next year.

And finally, rounding out my collection of party pics is this final parting shot of me and Stephen Kruiser. (Oh, how I will miss the Kruiser Cabana). One more thing. That button on my hat says, “Dale Peterson for President”.

So, in conclusion, I think that I’ve concisely summed up why CPAC is a must for any and every aspiring conservative activist–not to mention, why it’s truly a “can’t miss” event if you want to meet the who’s who of the conservative blogging/activist world.

However, I just have one more thing to add before I leave you all. I think that next year’s theme song for CPAC’s keynote speaker should be “Dreams” by Van Halen, because it’s got a very patriotic video that mainly consists of incredible footage of The Blue Angels flying and performing stunts. Since we had one Van Halen song this year, why not have another one next year?

And on that note, I say that I truly can’t wait to see you all again next year!

PS–I took those hats home with me that I was wearing in those photos. (You can clearly see them poking out of my tote-bags in the above picture taken outside of Reagan International Airport on Sunday afternoon.)

PPS–I see you over there doing air guitar at your computer.

This column is cross-posted from Parcbench, and it is also posted at The Green Room, Right Wing News, The Minority Report and Hillbillypolitics.

Tuesday night, President Obama gave his State of the Union Address. Then afterward, Republican Congressman Paul Ryan gave the official GOP response to the president’s SOTU address, and Congresswoman Michele Bachmann gave the unofficial Tea Party response. Most in the political world expected fireworks from Ms. Bachmann’s response, but, in the end, her speech proved to be highly unprovocative. In fact, many Republican pundits, like Redstate’s Erick Erickson, wrote that they were pleasantly surprised at how well Congresswoman Bachmann came across. As Da Tech Guy pointed out, on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, there was “not a single word of snark from the panel” when the topic of her speech came up. However, perpetual GOP critic, Meghan McCain, found a way to say something, not just critical of Ms. Bachmann’s speech, but over-the-top and mean-spirited as well. To be specific, Ms. McCain said the following to Laurence O’Donnell when he inquired as to whether Michele Bachmann giving the Tea Party response to the SOTU was “your worst dream come true” :

“Michele Bachmann is not the leader of the Republican Party. Michele Bachmann is a poor man’s Sarah Palin, and I think the fact that MSNBC and Fox elected not to run this is admirable to the kind of journalism that Fox and MSNBC is airing, and I think that CNN should be ashamed of themselves for airing this. This is one rogue woman who couldn’t even look into the camera directly.”

Oh, where to begin, where to begin. I guess I’ll start off with question number one.

1.) Why should CNN be “ashamed of themselves” for running Congresswoman Bachmann’s speech?

As Allahpundit pointed out, “Bachmann did a good job in both emphasizing her role as a spokesperson for Tea Party Express rather than the GOP and sticking with economic and fiscal issues”, so she clearly wasn’t some “rogue woman”. And yes, her not looking directly into the camera was slightly distracting, but it wasn’t disgraceful. In fact, I have embedded the dreaded Bachmann speech below.

Oh, my eyes, my eyes–it burns, it stings!! The inhumanity of it all! I can’t believe that I just watched that hateful woman talk about job numbers, debt ceilings and unemployment for six minutes! I mean all of that talk about spending and inflation and other “hateful” stuff that John McCain’s always talking about and Zzzzzz….Oh, I’m sorry, I’m awake now.

Yeah, you see, the reason why most networks didn’t carry Congresswoman Bachmann’s speech is not because it was hateful (as Meghan McCain implies by stating that “CNN should be ashamed of themselves”), but because it was boring–as most of these SOTU replies are. However, if CNN’s viewers find Ms. Bachmann’s speech to be interesting for some reason, then it is CNN’s right as a private company to put it on the air. CNN should not be forced to make its business decisions based around who Ms. McCain personally likes or dislikes. Hey Meghan, censorship much?

2.) Ms. McCain, do you want to be a political pundit or a Valley Girl?

During the first few minutes of her interview with Laurence O’Donnell (see the embed above), Meghan McCain said the following when Mr. O’Donnell asked her if she “enjoyed prom night”:

“Um, I enjoyed following on Twitter all what the congressmen and pundits were saying and there were a lot of jokes about prom night that I enjoyed and I think it was good…um, it was definitely a very metaphorical thing to do.”

Really?! That’s your actual response when asked–as a political pundit–to give your opinion about the SOTU address? “A metaphorical thing to do”? I don’t even know what that means. Oh, and could we please have some more “ums”, name-calling (like “poor man’s Sarah Palin” or “H8er”), and over-the-top rhetoric (like “CNN should be ashamed of themselves”) because all of that really makes you sound so professional. Seriously Meghan, if you sound like the actress from the 1983 movie Valley Girl when giving a political opinion, then it’s time to step it up a notch.

I imagine that if the character from Valley Girl was asked by Laurence O’Donnell to give her opinion on the STOU Address, she would probably sound something like this:

“Oh. My. God. I just loved the whole prom night theme from the SOTU–it was like totally awesome. Um, I mean, I like couldn’t shut up about it on Twitter. Date night totally rocks!! It was just so metaphorical and stuff. But then that H8er Michele Bachmann had to come on and just ruin it for me. Like gag me with a spoon. Um, she like totally sucks! She is such a loser and is just a poor man’s Sarah Palin. CNN should totally be ashamed of themselves for putting her on the air and ruining prom night for me!“

And yes Ms. McCain–even though it is a bit of an exaggeration–that mental image is what people are reminded of when you start to talk. It might sound catty, but if you are going to give an outrageous opinion–like say, stating that a network should censor a politician’s speech simply because you don’t like that person–then it would help if you didn’t sound like a walking, dated parody yourself. (That movie was made in 1983.) In other words, if you want people to start taking you seriously, then start taking yourself seriously and drop the Valley Girl routine.

3.) What in the heck does the Tuscon shooting have to do with Michele Bachmann’s SOTU rebuttal?

In the beginning of Meghan McCain’s interview with Mr. O’Donnell, he immediately started off with the discredited meme that “heated political rhetoric” somehow played a part in the Arizona shootings. Well, when Ms. McCain had the chance to respond and set him straight, she instead gave the following reply:

“Although I do think that it’s a wake-up call for what’s going on in the country, I don’t think that the shootings were necessarily politically motivated.”

Again, really??!!! “Weren’t necessarily politically motivated”? So, in other words, they might be politically motivated, but you’re really not sure, huh?

Then, to make matters worse, Ms. McCain goes off on a tangent and plays useful idiot to Laurence O’Donnell by agreeing with him that having Michele Bachmann speak is her “worst nightmare”, because of Bachmann’s supposedly “hateful rhetoric”.

[What pray tell was hateful about her speech? Bachmann was talking about spending and deficits--basically, the exact same thing that your father has talked about his entire political career. Does your father engage in "hateful rhetoric"?]

However, what is particularly galling about Ms. McCain’s willingness to play useful idiot to Mr. O’Donnell, is that MSNBC was ground zero for hateful rhetoric for pretty much the entire week after the AZ shootings by perpetually insinuating that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann and the Tea Party were somehow responsible for the shooter’s rampage (and they failed to mention that the killer was an undiagnosed paranoid schizophrenic). I think that David Brooks (of all people) said it best when he wrote the following:

“All of this evidence, which is easily accessible on the Internet, points to the possibility that Loughner may be suffering from a mental illness like schizophrenia.

In short, the evidence before us suggests that Loughner was locked in a world far removed from politics as we normally understand it.

Yet the early coverage and commentary of the Tucson massacre suppressed this evidence. The coverage and commentary shifted to an entirely different explanation: Loughner unleashed his rampage because he was incited by the violent rhetoric of the Tea Party, the anti-immigrant movement and Sarah Palin.

Mainstream news organizations linked the attack to an offensive target map issued by Sarah Palin’s political action committee. The Huffington Post erupted, with former Senator Gary Hart flatly stating that the killings were the result of angry political rhetoric. Keith Olbermann demanded a Palin repudiation and the founder of the Daily Kos wrote on Twitter: “Mission Accomplished, Sarah Palin.” Others argued that the killing was fostered by a political climate of hate.

These accusations — that political actors contributed to the murder of 6 people, including a 9-year-old girl — are extremely grave. They were made despite the fact that there was, and is, no evidence that Loughner was part of these movements or a consumer of their literature. They were made despite the fact that the link between political rhetoric and actual violence is extremely murky. They were vicious charges made by people who claimed to be criticizing viciousness.”

So, isn’t it a bit ironic that you, Ms. McCain, and Mr. O’Donnell were calling out Michelle Bachman for engaging in imaginary vicious, heated rhetoric, when it was you guys who were actually being the vicious ones by falsely accusing her (her speech was standard wonky stuff), and implying that her past rhetoric had something to do with the shooting. (Yes, you guys were clearly doing that by mentioning her speech right after you talked about “heated rhetoric” with regard to the AZ massacre.)

4.) Ms. McCain, what “hateful rhetoric” is specifically over the line for you?

For instance, it’s now a well-known fact that MSNBC was part of the MSM cabal that falsely implied that Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, the Tea Party and conservatives in general were accessories to mass murder. Moreover, as Robert Stacy McCain recently pointed out, Chris Matthews went on a sexist rant a couple of nights ago calling Michele Bachmann a “balloonhead”, and referred to her as “that woman” five or six different times. Of course, sexist rants are nothing new to Chris Matthews. John Guardiano gallantly called out Matthews, in a recent column, for his disgraceful bullying and abuse of Sarah Palin on Harball. Not to mention, liberal columnist Amy Siskind wrote a column for The Daily Caller where she asked the question, “Why does MSNBC tolerate Chris Matthews’ misogyny?” (Siskind even pointed out the fact that Chris Matthews has a long history of making sexist comments towards Hilary Clinton, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann–and pretty much every major female political player.) Oh, and speaking of MSNBC and misogyny, who could forget Keith Olbermann stating that “someone should take Hillary Clinton into a room and only he comes out”?

And finally, Ms. McCain, your pal Lawrence O’Donnell is a well-known anti-Mormon bigot who went on a long tirade a couple of years ago trashing Mitt Romney for his faith (see the embed below).

So now, my question to you Ms. McCain is exactly what is your definition of “hateful rhetoric”? Because, right now, it’s starting to look like you would give the following answer to my question:

“Um, like I don’t really mind the misogyny at MSNBC so much, because those guys are cool and hip unlike that stick in the mud Bill O’Reilly, so they’re just blowing off steam. They don’t really mean it when they call Michele Bachmann a “Balloonhead” (which she is), or say that people should kill Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, Sarah Palin like totally ruined my book tour, so she and her family kind of have it coming in my opinion. Umm…and, as far as Larry O goes, well, he’s my buddy–and besides, Mormons are weird and creepy anyway. Oh, and everyone knows that those teabaggers are all a bunch of H8ers and racists, so I don’t really care what people say about them–mocking them is kind of like a metaphorical thing to do because they are just so gross. But dammit–I draw the line when it comes to giving speeches about the debt ceiling and spending, because that will just like totally rile up all of those H8ers and teabaggers. Gag.”

So, in conclusion, Meghan McCain seems to think the reason that she rubs conservatives the wrong way is because we’re all a bunch of haters and bigots who want to automatically exclude her because of some of her more liberal sensibilities. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. I am not a big social conservative and I feel right at home in the Republican Party. The Republican Party is indeed a big tent party–we have social conservatives, libertarians, fiscal conservatives and defense hawks all happily co-existing under the same roof together. Meghan McCain’s problem is that she demands tolerance for her views, but shows none in return towards her fellow conservatives. My friend and colleague Amy Miller hit it out of the park when she wrote the following dissecting Ms. McCain’s writings:

“There is a place for the far right in this party, Malkin included, and I respect their right to be heard. But the Republican Party will continue to lose elections unless we start reaching out in a more effective way to people my age and to moderates. Barack Obama won the last election on the slogan “Yes We Can,” and there is no reason why Republicans can’t go forth and win elections with equally positive messages. We will not get anywhere by continuing to sell hate and fear…The old conservatives of the past need to start accepting that this is a new era and I am a part of a new generation. I am as sick of the infighting as everyone else, but I would like to point out that I am not the one starting this fight or demanding that the other half of the party leave.

Uh huh. There’s a place for me, a member of the “far right” crazy mob, but we should probably shut up so we don’t offend the sensibilities of those members of the party with questionable morals and an overwhelming desire to please everyone. Got that, everyone? Moe? Erick? EPU? STOP OFFENDING PEOPLE! It’s your fault we’re losing elections. Wake up, think young, and get serious. We, the youth of the world, have our iPods, our motorcycles, and our tattoos, and we’re taking over. And we’re going to be POSITIVE about it, because God knows all of your hateful fear mongering over the years has completely destroyed any chance the Republicans have of kissing the butts of people who live to destroy conservatives. UGH. Now my buzz is totally harshed. Thanks a lot.”

In other words, Meghan McCain has no problem going on television shows that routinely trash conservatives and playing useful idiot by joining in the fun. However, she wants you to be totally cool with her calling you an ignorant racist/hater on MSNBC, all the while, sounding like an ignoramus herself. What this behavior demonstrates is that Ms. McCain has no real interest in helping out the conservative movement–she is just in it for herself and to raise her own profile. Furthermore, someone needs to explain to Meghan McCain that one sounds disingenuous when her mantra is, “Everyone should be tolerant and listen to what I have to say, but shut your mouth you stupid teabagger because you should be ashamed of yourself for even wanting to give a speech. The First Amendment only applies to enlightened people like me–not to H8ers like you.” Tolerance is a two-way street. It’s high time that Meghan McCain realizes this simple fact.

This column was originally posted at Parcbench, and it is also posted at The Green Room, The Minority Report, Right Wing News and Hillbillypolitics.

Effect of D.C. party policies on the economy outweigh state policies and voting for “the man”

Even as a young Democrat in the 1980s, I disagreed with former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neill’s supposed axiom, no matter one’s definition of “local”. Then, as now, Democrats were facing an electorate suffering the consequences of policies enacted by their super-majorities in both houses of Congress and signed into law by their President. Clearly guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of economic and national security malfeasance based upon the relevant facts, one can understand the trial lawyer-like resort to avert the gaze of the jury to “local” facts irrelevant to the job description.

I voted the party as a Democrat from 1980-1998 because I favored liberal policies. Since my 2000 conservative epiphany, I have voted for Republicans because I favor conservative policies. The job of a member of Congress is to vote on issues that affect my wallet and national security.

I base my votes on how they will vote on issues that impact my life and that of the nation, rather than who I “like” as a person; campaign ads; so-called “smarts”; or other irrelevant factors usually even including ethics and character, except for executive positions as will discussed below. I also choose my barber based on how well he cuts my hair rather than on the quality of the patter.

In short, I vote the party, not the man. This is true at the national and state levels, but more so at the national level given the structural constraints of cities and states that can’t print money. Character doesn’t matter so much, it seems to me, in legislative positions given the publishing of laws and recorded votes. Character does matter in executive positions given the discretionary power of such offices.

That said, what matters most are the policies favored by parties as that is what affects our lives directly. Poor policies that wreck the economy or invite aggression for foreign enemies aren’t made more palatable when enacted by “good people” or those we like to watch in TV.

Moreover, I have always considered Presidential and Congressional elections to be much more important than state and local elections due to the determinative effect of national policies on the economy that dwarf the effects of policies of states, given the emasculation of state’s rights and the near all-encompassing power of the federal government since the 1930s.

Rare are the states that can avoid a recession brought on by failed economic policies emanating from Washington.

I said all that to say this: Nothing has been more important to me in politics since 2000 than that the failed liberal policies of the Democratic Party be utterly discredited in the electorate’s mind once and for all, and that they be defeated at the polls.

I converted based on the success of Reagan’s monetary, economic, social and national security policies. When a liberal and a Democrat, it was always clear to me what both parties stood for. I was Democrat because I was a liberal.

These facts are why it is so frustrating to me that so many Americans have had to be re-educated away from the obvious lie that there has been no difference between them except by degrees. I suspect this is the case because of the domination of American politics by the Democrats for most of our history. It is has been the default party for too long. After all, it was good enough for Grandma and America has done all right, or so the thought process may go.

I would argue that America has done all right for so long due due to the conservative movement push backs made increasingly necessary by a JFK-less Democrat Party that started selling its soul to the Left soon after his assassination. Moreover, it seems we have reached a Big Government tipping point this past decade especially since ObamaDems tripled the deficit in two years.

Is the GOP perfect? No, and as a conservative I have to accept that all choices since Eve bit the apple are between lessers of evils. But liberals have made the Democratic Party their home for decades. They aren’t leaving it.

The GOP would be better with a responsible opposition. There has been no responsible opposition party for many years and I think the electorate is beginning to realize this after the past 20 months of rule by leftists.

The path to redemption for the Democratic Party can only be trod after a deserved liberal comeuppance election that is likely next Tuesday.We need good liberals. They are good at spotting fires that need putting out. Its too bad they didn’t declare victory 35 years ago on civil rights and the safety net for the truly needy, rather than going to seed.

The present duty is to rebuke them utterly. I will be voting, with but one or two exceptions for Republicans only, at the local, state and national level. America can only begin to heal after the Democratic Party is rebuked.

The Rule: Vote out the Ds!

Now, I hope my exception proves the rule, as I now lean toward voting for Democrat Roy Barnes for Georgia governor based upon his performance in the office before his re-election defeat soon after the turn of the century; lack of any great differences in policy proposals with Republican Nathan Deal; a general liking of divided government and the fact of a Republican General Assembly in the Peach State; and the fact that Deal has been in Washington for the past 28 years.

But I remain persuadable on this race, so committed to the proposition that party trumps the man. Feel free to persuade me.

Mike DeVine

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Charlotte Observer, The Minority Report and Examiner.com archives

www.devinelawvista.com

I’m sure that by now, most of you have heard about First Lady Michelle Obama’s extravagant Spanish vacation. The story that was on the front page of The Drudge Report for days reported that Mrs. Obama’s trip would cost the tax payers around $75,000 per day (during a recession no less)–not to mention, it had photos of her wearing tight spandex leggings and a revealing, inappropriate top. In fact, Mrs. Obama’s vacation seemed so self-indulgent and over the top, that New York Daily News writer, Andrea Tantaros, called her “a modern day Marie Antoinette”.

Ruth Marcus wrote a column responding to Ms. Tantaros. In her column, Marcus conceded that the optics of Michelle Obama’s Spanish getaway might be less than ideal when she wrote the following–

“Let’s stipulate: A five-star resort on the Spanish Costa del Sol was probably not the first choice of White House spin-meisters for a mother-daughter getaway. Especially when the getaway included a posse of 40 friends of the first lady staying at the Hotel Villa Padierna, where rooms start at $330 a night, and photos of Michelle Obama strolling in Marbella wearing an off-the-shoulder number by Jean Paul Gaultier.”

[For the record, that John Paul Gaultier top probably cost over $2000.]

However, Marcus concludes her column by stating that we are all being a little hard on Mrs. Obama, and that maybe we should “give the First Lady a break”.

Well, I might tend to agree with Ms. Marcus if this had been Michelle Obama’s first foray into ridiculous behavior–however, it most certainly is not. Furthermore, if you will all bear with me, I am prepared to bring forth a plethora of evidence that spans back over two years in order to prove–beyond any reasonable doubt–that Mrs. Obama has gone out of her way to deliberately cultivate the image of a spoiled, entitled brat.

Now, let’s all jog our memories back to the Democratic primary. Does anyone remember when Michelle Obama said that, “For the first time in my adult life, I’m really proud of my country?”

I’m sorry, but how bratty and ungrateful can one woman be?! This is a woman who had attended Princeton University, Harvard Law School, was currently married to a US Senator (who himself was currently running for president)–and she was just now proud of her country?! Seriously?!!

Oh, and who could forget during the Democratic primary when she stated that she “would have to think about that” with regard to supporting Hillary Clinton if she became the nominee instead of her husband.

Again, I don’t think that it’s possible to sound much more bratty than that. You think that I’m being a little hard on Mrs. Obama? Well, imagine if in 2012, Sarah Palin was running for president and someone in the MSM asked her if she would support, say, Mitt Romney if she loses. And then, Palin replied to the questioner by stating, “I’d have to think about that”. The media would crucify her and everyone knows it.

And finally, does anyone remember how Michelle Obama would dress her beautiful ten year old daughter, Malia, in dresses to match her’s during the Democratic convention? Well, I personally didn’t have a problem with Mrs. Obama dressing her daughters to match her. However, what should trouble any parent is that her ten year old daughter not once, but on two different occasions wore a low-cut, spaghetti strapped cocktail dress on national TV–just so she would match her mother. (I’m sorry, but that dress is wildly inappropriate for any ten year old girl to wear.)

OK, now I realize that some on our lefty lurkers will be screaming from the rooftops, “But that’s not fair to bring up her kids!”. First of all, I am not judging her daughter (Malia is beautiful)–I’m judging her mother for putting her in two different inappropriate dresses for a child who is ten years of age. Second of all, could any of you imagine if Sarah Palin had dressed her daughters like that for the Republican convention (or if even Chelsea Clinton had worn a dress like that when she was just eleven or twelve)? We would never have heard the end of it! Andrew Sullivan (who is still obsessed with Palin’s gynecological records), Bill Maher, and Sally “the home-wrecker” Quinn (who has implied in the past that Palin is a bad mother for not staying home with her kids) would still be calling her “white trash” to this very day.

Oh, and if any of you are remotely curious, all of Sarah Palin’s daughters were quite demurely dressed for the Republican National Convention.

Now, let’s fast forward to the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States. Does anyone remember that God-awful, off the shoulder, inappropriate gown that Michelle Obama wore to the inaugural ball? It looked like something that Wilma Flintstone would wear. The guys over at The Hillbuzz called it “a yaba daba don’t” and wrote that she should be nominated for TLC’s What Not To Wear.

Moreover, after the inauguration, Michelle Obama’s insensitive, diva-like behavior continued full-throttle. On their first trip to visit the Queen of England, Michelle Obama gave the Queen an iPod and gave Prime Minister Gordon Brown some DVDs that were the wrong format for his English DVD player–and she gave Gordon Brown’s sons two plastic models of Marine One from the White House souvenir shop. (I’m not kidding–could they be any tackier?!) Oh, and it should be noted that Gordon Brown gave Barack Obama a pen carved from the timbers of a 19th century British warship, and his wife bought the Obama’s daughters beautiful dresses from Britain’s most exclusive children’s clothing store.

Oh, and did I mention that Michelle Obama wore a cardigan to meet the queen? Fashion icon Oscar De La Renta put it perfectly when he stated that, “You don’t…go to Buckingham Palace in a sweater.”

Furthermore, does anyone remember that soon after her husband passed a budget busting stimulus bill (because we were in the middle of a “great recession”), Mrs. Obama went to volunteer at a local D.C. food bank wearing $540 (extremely tacky) Lanvin designer sneakers?! Oh, yeah, she really feels your pain. (Can anyone imagine if Laura Bush had done this?!) Oh, and later that same month came the infamous “Broadway date night” when the Obama’s flew to New York at the tax payers’ expense right after GM had filed for bankruptcy and after Barack Obama, himself, had admonished CEOs for taking private jets to Las Vegas.

Then, a few months after those PR disasters, Dana Milbank of The Washington Post reported that Michelle Obama did the following in order to buy fresh kale from a local extremely overpriced farmers’ market (“$19 bison steak from Gunpowder Bison, organic dandelion greens for $12 per pound from Blueberry Hill Vegetables, the Piedmont Reserve cheese from Everson Dairy at $29 a pound”, etc.) –

“The Secret Service and the D.C. police brought in three dozen vehicles and shut down H Street, Vermont Avenue, two lanes of I Street and an entrance to the McPherson Square Metro station. They swept the area, in front of the Department of Veterans Affairs, with bomb-sniffing dogs and installed magnetometers in the middle of the street, put up barricades to keep pedestrians out, and took positions with binoculars atop trucks. Though the produce stand was only a block or so from the White House, the first lady hopped into her armored limousine and pulled into the market amid the wail of sirens.

Then, and only then, could Obama purchase her leafy greens. “Now it’s time to buy some food,” she told several hundred people who came to watch. “Let’s shop!”

However, Michelle Obama was just getting warmed up with her spoiled “I don’t at all feel your pain” act.

Back in May, as unemployment numbers rose to 9.9%, Michelle Obama threw a glitzy state dinner for Mexican President Felipe Calderone (you know, the guy who trashed the state of Arizona on American soil in front of the US House of Representatives)–and, she even brought in her favorite Chicago chef to put together an extremely ostentatious and expensive menu. To be specific, the AP wrote the following about Mrs. Obama turning the White House into “Club 1600 Ave.”–

“R&B diva Beyonce topped the entertainment bill for the dinner, taking place in the East Room of the White House, with the action later moving to a luxury marquee on the South Lawn of the presidential mansion. The marquee, the size of two-thirds of a football field, decked out in elaborate black decor and nightclub-style lighting, featured a stage and baskets of flowers and models of Monarch butterflies dangling from the ceiling.”

[By the way, I think that my colleague, Amy Miller, put it perfectly when she wrote that, "ONE DOES NOT POP, LOCK, AND DROP IT IN THE PRESENCE OF DISTINGUISHED GUESTS." But, I digress.]

Next came the oil spill, which really gave Michelle Obama the perfect opportunity to finely hone her Marie Antoinette/spoiled brat image. First, came the lavish state dinner to honor Paul McCartney who serenaded Mrs. Obama with the song “Michelle”–and, then proceeded to take a cheap shot at President Bush by stating that, “After the last eight years, it’s great to have a President who knows what a library is”. (I guess Mr. McCartney was unaware of the fact that Laura Bush is a former librarian.) Keep in mind by the way, that this whole spectacle took place as oil was continually pouring into the Gulf of Mexico.

Oh, and when Mrs. Obama finally did go to visit the Gulf Coast, she, literally, wore a dress that was “oil spill chic” (see image below). To quote blogger Doug Powers, “Yikes. That’s like visiting a state that was devastated by a forest fire and arriving in a limo covered with flame decals.” Please, allow me to put this another way. Suppose that Laura Bush had worn a “hurricane chic” dress when she went to visit Katrina victims? I rest my case.

Then, to make matters worse, instead of vacationing at the Gulf Coast in order to, you know, maybe help out the local economy there, the Obama’s instead decided to leave for a posh vacation in Maine the day after Mrs. Obama visited the Gulf Coast in her “oil spill chic” attire. (Not to mention, this wasn’t the first time that the Obama’s thought nothing about hurting part of the US tourist based economy. Remember when Barack Obama told people to “not visit Las Vegas”? Well, people in Las Vegas sure haven’t forgotten about it.)

So, after a long list of examples of egregious, bratty behavior–that spans over two years–we have, now, finally arrived at Michelle Obama’s recent Spanish fiesta, where she has been photographed wearing an extremely overpriced top (during a time of high unemployment) that kind of makes it appear like she’s “letting it all hang out” a bit much for a First Lady representing her country, if you get my drift (see image below). Now, some of you lefty lurkers, again, are going to say that I’m being too hard on Mrs. Obama. Except that I’m not. Remember when Hillary Clinton showed the tiniest bit of cleavage on the Senate floor and the MSM went nuts? The WaPo fashion editor devoted an entire column to Mrs. Clinton’s invisible cleavage (I’m serious–look at the picture in the link–I have NO IDEA what she’s talking about), and implied that it made people “uncomfortable”. However, a First Lady, literally, letting it hang out a bit in a foreign country is OK? Please!

[Oh, and speaking of dressing inappropriately as a First Lady, nothing says, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country" like getting off of Air Force One looking like a hung over beach bum/spring breaker. Again, could anyone out there imagine the fallout if Laura Bush had let herself be photographed like that?! But, I digress. Seriously lefties, I can play this game ALL DAY LONG.]

In fact, the optics for Mrs. Obama’s Spanish vacation are so cringe-worthy, that even perpetual Obama apologist, Maureen Dowd, has criticized her recent trip on her husband’s 49th birthday no less. (Not to mention, Democratic strategist, Kirsten Powers, called Michelle Obama’s trip “extremely tone deaf” and then stated that, “I can’t believe that she did it”.) However, the Maureen Dowds and the Ruth Marcuses of the world are partially responsible for Mrs. Obama becoming such a self-absorbed, disgrace as a First Lady. Maybe if guilty, white liberals like them weren’t perpetually making excuses for her, and occasionally told the truth about her (gasp!)–instead of shouting “RAAAAACIST!!” (that’s five A’s) at anyone else who does–then maybe Michelle Obama might be channeling more Elenore Roosevelt right now, and less Lindsay Lohan or Paris Hilton.

In other words, Mrs. Obama’s Spanish vacation isn’t her first foray in insensitive, self-indulgent behavior–it is the last straw in a long line of ridiculous breaches of etiquette, as well as ridiculous outfits (as the embed below demonstrates). This whole Michelle Obama affair is a perfect example of an “emperor has no clothes moment”–or actually, it’s an “the empress has really tacky clothes moment”. Everyone has known for years that Michelle Obama, with her whiny attitude towards America, her sense of entitlement, her ginormous “boob-belts” worn over cardigans, and her insensitivity to the suffering of her fellow Americans, is a total spoiled brat of a First Lady. It’s just that, until now, everyone’s just been afraid to say so for fear of offending Oprah, Maureen Dowd, or getting kicked out of the Manhattan cocktail party circuit.

And hey, I realize that “disgrace” and “spoiled brat” are heavy handed words, but if the way overpriced Lanvin sneaker fits, well….

Put it this way, you reap what you sow and Michelle Obama has not sown a whole lot of good will with the American people. She has made her own bed–it’s time for her to lie in it. (Don’t worry–I’m sure that it’s fitted with the finest of linens.)

PS–I would like to start a charity for the First Lady. I plan on calling it “Find Some Red State Women to be Friends With Michelle Obama”. Why? Because I am convinced that if Mrs. Obama had some friends who were southern belles–like, say, in Steel Magnolias–that she would never go out and about looking so ridiculous (see 1:20 to 1:49 of the embed below to see what I mean). Red state friends don’t let friends go out in public looking silly, and we tell them when they are about to make a giant fool out of themselves. Just sayin’.

This diary was originally posted on NewsReal and The Minority Report.

“I got a lot of problems with you people, and now, you’re gonna hear about it!!”

The above quote was uttered by Frank Costanza, the father of George Costanza of Seinfeld fame. Costanza invented the holiday Festivus, because he wanted to remove the traditional and commercial aspects of Christmas. Instead of a traditional Christmas tree, there is simply an aluminum pole. (Mr. Costanza said that he found tinsel to be “distracting”.) And, instead of a traditional Christmas dinner, there is the “airing of grievances” where you tell all of your friends and family how much they have disappointed you over the last year. And finally, at the end of the evening, there are the “feats of strength” where you attempt to pin one of your friends or family members to the floor. (See embed below for the story of Festivus.)

Now, in 2004, The New York Times ran a column reporting that some people actually celebrate Festivus. Well they should know, because Frank Rich apparently celebrates it in July instead of waiting until December. Honestly, it’s completely understandable. I mean, why tell just your friends and family how pissed off you are at them when you can tell off the entire country? Anything worth doing, is worth doing right.

So, without any further ado, here is Frank Rich’s airing of grievances against America, uh I mean a quick summary of his latest column about America and its history–

–When the Declaration of Independence was signed 234 years ago, slavery was still allowed.

–Fast forward to 1964, you got lynchings in Mississippi, Barry Goldwater voting against the Civil Rights bill, and Robert Byrd filibustering it for 14 hours.

–Now, Mayor Bloomberg doesn’t employ enough minorities, yada yada yada.

At this point, he takes a time out from his airing of grievances to praise my home state of South Carolina for the recent elections of Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. However, he immediately gets right back in the Festivus spirit by bringing up the Confederate flag and saying that “we shouldn’t read too much into these low turn-out primaries.” This from a man who reads racism into every Tea Party protest and any opposition to Obamacare, and hears racial slurs uttered when none were captured on any recording devices, but I digress.

So, in the spirit of Frank Costanza, Frank Rich is basically saying the following with regard to SC–

“Hey South Carolina–don’t go getting all full of yourself and thinking that you’re so high and mighty with the elections of Nikki Haley and Tim Scott! Remember the Confederate flag?! I still got a lot of problems with you!!”

Now, back to Festivus in July–or the rest of Rich’s column.

–Frank Rich is very disappointed in some Republicans for opposing Elena Kagan. It must be because they are racists who hate Thurgood Marshall (and we’re flashing back to the 1960′s again).

–Rich compared John Kyl, Tom Coburn and Orrin Hatch to Strom Thurmond, because if you have questions about Elena Kagan, then you are against Thurgood Marshall and, therefore, pro-Thurmond.

–Strom Thurmond is the father of the “Southern Strategy” and we can still see that today because Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell, brought back Confederate History Month, blah blah blah.

–Strom Thurmond had a daughter with an African-American teenage maid, yada yada yada….

…It was at this point that my eyes started to glaze over and I realized that I agreed with Kramer when he said, “Frank, no offense, but this holiday of yours is a little out there”. In other words, Festivus sucks. From here on out, I’m gonna just stick to celebrating Christmas and the Fourth of July and leave Festivus alone (no offense to anyone else–I am quite tolerant of all religious practices). In other words, let’s focus on what’s good about America instead of only what’s bad–like us recently electing the first African-American president, or Tim Scott (the likely first black congressman since Reconstruction) beating Strom Thurmond’s son to represent SC’s 1st Congressional District. There is a lot to celebrate about America. Let’s ditch the aluminum pole and go light some firecrackers!

PS–Oh, I almost forgot. Happy Festivus in July Mr. Rich! I hope that you didn’t tire yourself out too much by airing your grievances with us, and that you saved some energy so Charles “Minstrel Show” Blow doesn’t get the best of you during the feats of strength.

This diary was originally posted on NewsReal and The Minority Report.

OK–we’ve all seen small children put their hands over their ears and wail when they are told something that they don’t want to hear, like “eat your vegetables” or “take your medicine”. However, this is quite strange behavior to behold in adult journalists who work for mainstream media outlets. Now granted, anyone who reads newspapers, and doesn’t live under a rock, is somewhat aware that there is a left-wing tilt to the MSM. For instance, there have been the recent embarrassments involving the infamous JournoList–a sophomoric clique of left-wing journalists and bloggers. And, most people are aware that the MSM has a tendency to throw a fit whenever anything negative is said about President Obama or his Administration.

But now, it’s come to this. A few days ago, Megyn Kelly broke a huge story on Fox News where she interviewed former Department of Justice attorney, J. Christian Adams. Adams has blown the whistle on the Obama Administration’s DOJ for dismissing the infamous voter intimidation case against the Black Panthers, after he had already won the case (the Black Panthers never even showed up in court to answer the charges). Adams claimed that the main reason why the DOJ didn’t want to prosecute the Panthers was for racial reasons. Now, one would think that this would be an explosive story and that the mainstream media would be all over this, but instead they are like a toddler putting his fingers in his ears when he is told to eat his vegetables.

Wait–it gets better. In addition to Adams, Megyn Kelly also interviewed renowned civil rights attorney and life-long Democrat, Bartle Bull (who was Robert Kennedy’s campaign manager). Bull claimed that he witnessed the Black Panthers threatening voters and shouting racial slurs at the polling place, telling Kelly that, “Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy didn’t die so that uniformed thugs could be blocking polling places with weapons”. Not to mention, Mr. Bull also claimed that the Black Panthers were working in collusion with ACORN (you know, that lovely group that agreed to aid and abet a child prostitution ring) in order to intimidate the poll-watchers, because ACORN had registered a bunch of illegal voters. (See the embed below.)

Now again, you would think that the MSM would be climbing all over each other to be the first ones to put this story on the front page of their paper. Well, you would be wrong. In fact, The Washington Times recently wrote an op-ed titled, Media blackout for Black Panthers where they wrote the following–

“Where is the New York Times? Where is The Washington Post? Where are CBS and NBC? A whistleblower makes explosive allegations about the Department of Justice; his story is backed by at least two other witnesses; and the allegations involve the two hot-button issues of race and of blatant politicization of the justice system.”

In other words, with regard to this story, the MSM are acting like bunch of petulant children who are putting their fingers in their ears and screaming “LA, LA, LA–I can’t hear you!!”. Why, you ask? Because simply put, it makes the Obama Administration look corrupt. Not to mention, there is nothing that guilty white liberals in the MSM would hate more than having to report about criminal allegations against two African-American organizations. I’m guessing that many of them would rather shave their head with a cheese grater than report on this story.

Allow me put this another way. Suppose that two white Bubbas from Mississippi (wearing overalls and carrying baseball bats, instead of jackboots and nightsticks) were intimidating black voters outside a polling station and shouting racial slurs at them. Now, let’s suppose that George W. Bush was still president, and his DOJ dropped the charges on the thugs–after one of its attorneys had already gotten a conviction–for “racial reasons”. If you don’t think that the MSM would be all over this story and screaming for the resignation of Bush’s attorney general (and rightfully so), then I have a blind bird dog and some underwater real estate to sell you.

By the way, it’s a little ironic that ACORN turned out to be involved in this story, because, figuratively speaking, this is the ACORN story all over again. In the hilarious video below, Jon Stewart mocks the MSM for letting “the cast of High School Musical 3” scoop them on the ACORN story (or really, drag them kicking and screaming into covering the ACORN story).

Furthermore, after the ACORN story became too big to ignore, The New York Times dragged out its public excuse maker, uh I mean public editor, to explain why they had been so late to the party. No one should be surprised if Clark Hoyt has to write another op-ed in a week or so explaining why the Times neglected this story, but I digress.

And finally, what really galled me about this story was the mealy mouthed excuses that Obama’s DOJ put forth for not pursuing this case. According to the previous video of Kelly’s interviews with Adams and Bull, Obama’s DOJ claimed that there “were not enough facts to support the case” and that their lawyers just had “good faith disagreements”. (They also accused Mr. Adams of “having and agenda”–oooh, sounds scary.) Well, I decided to dig up the original video of the Black Panthers intimidating voters and watch it again.

Now, I don’t have one of them fancy Harvard law degrees, but that looked to me like a clear cut, undeniable case of voter intimidation that left nothing up for interpretation.

Hey MSM–it’s time to stop pouting, take your fingers out of your ears and eat your vegetables/report this story. Because with or without you, this story is going to get out. We, in the conservative blogosphere, are not going to stop talking about it until you stop ignoring it. You can get on board now, or you can be dragged kicking and screaming–again. The choice is yours.

This diary was originally posted on NewsReal and The Minority Report.

[This diary is my reporting on Tim Scott's Tuesday night victory party. I'm sorry that it's so late, but I had a medical board exam on Thursday and Friday that I had to travel to Atlanta, GA to take, and I just got back late Saturday night.]

From 2010-06-27

From 2010-06-27

As many of you are aware, I recently wrote a diary titled, “Tim Scott MUST Win–This Is Not Negotiable!”. In this diary, I explained that if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond (in the SC District 1 Republican Primary), it would be disastrous for the state of South Carolina, and for the Republican Party. Why? Because the spectacle of a more qualified, more conservative, more charismatic African-American candidate losing to an unqualified guy named “Thurmond” (and I realize that this might not be entirely fair to Paul Thurmond, but who said that life was fair?) would be just too big of a spectacle for us to overcome. Furthermore, in this diary, I explained that, the MSM was closely watching this race. Also, I mentioned that the mocking and humiliation that SC received with regard to the Nikki Haley circus, via Jon Stewart and the rest of the MSM, would be cubed if Tim Scott lost to Paul Thurmond. (See embed below–go to 4:30 in to see SC bit. H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air.)

To be specific, I wrote that the MSM would take us down like a hungry cheetah taking down a gazelle if we elected Paul Thurmond over Tim Scott.

Let’s face facts folks. To much of the MSM, we in SC were a big joke. I mean, does anyone remember when Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” at the State of the Union Address, and Maureen Dowd (and the rest of the MSM) tried to make everyone in SC look like Confederate flag waving racists? I certainly haven’t forgotten about it.

Well, Tuesday night, that all changed with Tim Scott’s and Nikki Haley’s victories.

How you ask? Because the elections of Tim Scott and Nikki Haley changed the entire narrative about southern conservatives and the issue of race. I mean, we all know that liberals love to support black politicians–that is if they represent primarily black districts, and/or race bait/play the race card by falsely accusing people of shouting racial slurs (see Jim Clyburn and John Lewis as prime examples of such behavior). Oh, and of course, liberals love to support extremely liberal African-Americans, like Barack Obama and Deval Patrick–that religiously tow the party line and are indentured servants to liberal special interest groups (like SEIU, ACORN, the teachers unions, etc.)–so that they can exorcise their white, liberal guilt.

For instance, the day after Obama’s presidential victory, Maureen Dowd wrote a column where she exclaimed that she was so excited to see black people and white people “talking to each other for the first time”–and, she admitted that she asked her “cute, black mailman” what he thought about Obama’s victory (someone needs to inform Ms. Dowd that, outside of Manhattan down in them red states, we’ve been talking to black people for years.) Then, Maureen Dowd wrapped up her ridiculous column by bragging that she was going to call her one black friend, Gwen Ifil (hey, she has a black friend, so it’s all good).

Anyway, my point is that it’s easy for Maureen Dowd, the MSM and the Democratic left (and Manhattanites) to support the most liberal guy in the US Senate who also happens to be black. However, I wonder what would happen if a black Democratic candidate actually started to think for himself, instead of simply towing the party line?

Well, if you’re curious, then just ask Alabama African-American US Representative, Artur Davis, what happened to him when he strayed from the Democratic party line and campaigned for governor of Alabama by running against Obamacare. You guessed it–the Democrats threw him under the bus. In fact, Jesse Jackson said the following with regard to Artur Davis–

“We even have blacks voting against the healthcare bill from Alabama,” Jackson said at a reception Wednesday night. “You can’t vote against healthcare and call yourself a black man.”

Really????!!!! I did not know that. I guess you learn something new everyday.

[Oh, and just to put this in perspective for you--Artur Davis has an undergraduate degree and a law degree from Harvard, and he graduated with honors from both (not to mention, he was also a assistant US attorney before he was a US congressman). Now, Ron Sparks, the guy who beat Artur Davis in the AL Democratic primary, was an AL agricultural commissioner with a degree from a community college. Kind of shocking, huh?]

By the way, did anyone remember what happened to Harold Ford Jr. when he tried to run in the Democratic Primary for the New York US Senate seat? Again, you guessed it. Democrats railroaded him before he could even get in the race, simply because he was seen as too moderate because he voted against gay marriage in the past, supported a payroll tax cut, and and was against trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York. (In fact, the Democrat party bosses pushed Ford out in favor of Kirsten Gillibrand, who voted against cutting off funds for ACORN after that huge scandal last year, so that should explain a lot.)

Furthermore, if memory serves, it was mainly liberals that griped when blacks voted in high numbers in CA against gay marriage. I guess that Harold Ford Jr. (and the CA African-American voters) didn’t get the memo that “you can’t call yourself a black man and vote against gay marriage”. (The nerve of him!! Who does he think that he is thinking for himself?!). But, I digress.

And finally, speaking of straying from the liberal talking points, we know exactly how much respect liberal elites have for black conservatives–just ask Clarence Thomas and Charles “Minstrel Show” Blow. For some odd reason, liberals seem to be extremely threatened by black conservatives (probably because they have proven that it’s possible to get ahead in America without towing the liberal line or being beholden to liberal special interest groups). Don’t believe me? Well just look here, here, and here at the comments sections of these articles about Tim Scott–all of the racist comments were made by liberals. (The liberal commenters compared Mr. Scott to “Marion Barry”, said that “he had sheets hanging in his closet”, called him “a token”, etc.)

So, in conclusion, when I was at Tim Scott’s victory party on Tuesday night, I saw a bunch of good old southern guys and gals who were sunburned, exhausted and dehydrated from standing out in the sun all day long holding signs for Tim Scott. In fact, many had gotten caught in a heavy afternoon downpour, yet refused to leave their posts despite the heavy showers. They were tired, yet ecstatic. Moreover, Brandon Rowland, one of Tim Scott’s aides, told me that he had forgotten to eat that morning when he was standing out in the sun holding a sign for Mr. Scott, but he was determined not to leave his post–so he stood out in the sun all day, dehydrated on an empty stomach. (I asked Brandon if he was afraid of passing out. He said that he went to The Citadel, so he had passed out before, and that it was really no big deal.)

[If you want to get an idea of the energy and excitement pulsating throughout the room at Tim Scott's victory party, then watch the video below. At about 1:25 in, people start chanting "We want Tim!". Then, his mother goes to get him, and at around 2:15 in, Tim Scott makes his grand entrance and the crowd erupts with applause and jubilation.]

And at the end of the evening, when I asked Tim Scott about how he felt after his victory, he told me that he was “elated, yet focused” on the general election race to come, and that “it is still only half-time.” (Mr. Scott is a former football player.)

Yes, the left and their lackeys in the MSM were not at all prepared to handle both Tim Scott (likely the first African-American US Representative from SC since Reconstruction) and Nikki Haley (likely the first Indian-American female governor anywhere, and the second Indian-American governor in US history after Bobby Jindal–who is also a Republican) winning in SC on Tuesday night. The left woke up Wednesday morning flat on their back, feeling as if we had gone straight for their jugular. We in SC permanently maimed the race card with the election of Nikki Haley and Tim Scott. We slowly snuck up on them and they never saw it coming. Tuesday night, we were the cheetahs.

PS–If you want to know why Tim Scott was elected to Congress, then watch his interview with Sean Hannity below. When Hannity asks Mr. Scott what grade he would give President Obama (at around 2:40 in), Mr. Scott doesn’t mince words–without even flinching, he flat out answers “F”. Just like Chris Christie, Tim Scott has a set of brass ones (which is probably why The Club for Growth endorsed him). We need a lot more like him in Congress.

PPS–The first photograph in this diary is of Tim Scott, me, and Brandon Rowland on the right (one of Tim Scott’s aides). The second photograph is of Andrew Boucher on the left (another one of Mr. Scott’s aides), me, and Brandon Rowland on the right.

This diary was originally published on The Minority Report.

Wait, what’s that you say liberals? There is no liberal indoctrination of children going on in the public schools? OK—well then, I would like to kindly ask that you please take a look at a Live Wire that I recently wrote that had videos of and links to multiple stories about children being told that drawing the American flag is “offensive”, children being sent home from school for wearing the American flag, children being browbeaten by teachers for saying that they supported John McCain, children being forced to draw pro-Obama campaign art, and, finally, children being forced to chant accolades to “The One” (“MMM—Barack Hussein Obama”).

Oh, and for those of you who still aren’t convinced, I would also like to remind you of a recent diary that I wrote titled, “China Yes, Arizona No”, where I exclaimed that Sarah Palin had officially become my hero. Why? Because she shined the national spotlight on the fact that Highland Park High School in Chicago, IL was not going to let their varsity girls basketball team compete in a national championship tournament, simply because the tournament was being held in Arizona (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air). So basically, these poor girls worked their butts off all year to become the state champions—however, their school superintendent decided that it was more important to use them to make a political statement about the AZ anti-illegal immigration law (that 73% of Americans now support), than it was to reward them for their hard work.

Furthermore, what really galls me about this story is the mealy mouthed excuse that Highland Park High School gave for not wanting these girls to go to AZ. Wait for it—they were “concerned for their safety”. I’m not kidding. Now, what’s even more unbelievable, is that, two years ago, this same high school allowed their students to visit CHINA! So now, communist China is “safer” than AZ?! REALLY????!!!!! Yeah, because as Palin pointed out on a recent radio show (see embed below), nothing says women’s rights like China—where they kill baby girls or leave them to die in garbage dumps. (Palin has even offered to help raise money to send the girls to AZ).

Below is an embed of those pesky students, from the Highland Park High School girls basketball team, complaining about about a year of their hard work going down the drain. The nerve of them!! Didn’t they get the memo that it’s more important for their school to be able to use them as political pawns in order to continue the liberal indoctrination of its students?! They were so upset, that two of the girls even went on Fox News to complain about it (gasp—the horror!).

OK–let me guess. Some of you liberals out there reading this still think that I’m an evil right wing vixen who tells nasty lies about our noble public education system.

Well, today when I was watching “America Live” (yes, that dastardly Fox News strikes again!), they reported that, as six students at Dennis-Yarmouth Regional High School in MA were being honored at their high school graduation for joining the military and received a standing ovation from the crowd, two of the school’s teachers actually refused to cheer, remained seated, and waved signs in protest (that said “End War”) instead of clapping. However, the local news also reported that some of the kids later staged a counter protest, and that many of the parents and students were outraged and wanted those teachers fired. (H/T to The Political Class for the video below.)

Did you hear that? That idiotic teacher called it “a teachable moment” for her students. That’s liberalese for “I just made a flaming ass out of myself”. Furthermore, I just loved it when the principal of the high school said, “I think that a class room is the better environment for that kind of dialogue”. Oh, I get it. Indoctrination of your students should be done quietly in a classroom behind closed doors. However, out in the open, at graduation, well….that’s a big no no.

Reason number 999,999,005 to homeschool or send your child to a private school.

Still think that I’m an evil right wing vixen who tells nasty lies–or, is even this too much truth for the biggest moonbat out there to overlook? I should hope so.

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.

So, now that we are are down to the wire, I thought that I would play a little game of compare and contrast with the resumes of the final two candidates.

Tim Scott has served thirteen years on the Charleston County Council–and, he has been in the SC House of Representatives for the last two years where he is currently the first black Republican state legislator since Reconstruction. Mr. Scott has impeccable conservative credentials, because he is just one of eleven candidates to have been endorsed by The Club for Growth (who also endorsed Marco Rubio and Pat Toomey). Michael Barone also acknowledged that Tim Scott was the most conservative candidate in the SC District One race, when he wrote the following–

“Interestingly, Haley is the daughter of Sikh immigrants from India. If elected governor she would be the second Republican governor of a Southern state, after Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, to be the child of immigrants from South Asia. Who’d a thunk it? And when you’re putting your mind around that, consider that the leader in the Republican primary for the open South Carolina 1 seat relinquished by retiree Henry Brown is Tim Scott, who may be the most conservative and assuredly is the only black Republican in the South Carolina legislature. He led Paul Thurmond, son of the late Governor and Senator Strom Thurmond, by a 31%-16% margin; in third place with 14% was Carroll Campbell, son of the late Congressman and Governor Carroll Campbell.”

Actually, Tim Scott won by 32%, but the rest is correct.

Now, as far as charisma goes, Tim Scott has it to spare–in fact, he has it oozing out of every pore. I have embedded two videos below of Tim Scott. The first one is his excellent advertisement that points out that he wrote the anti-Obamacare legislation in the SC House of Representatives. The second video is of a speech that Mr. Scott made before RNC members in Myrtle Beach, SC–and it is just made of awesome (watch the first 12 minutes of it if you don’t have time to watch the entire thing–that should be enough to give you an idea of who Mr. Scott is and what he is about).

OK–so now that I’ve told you about Tim Scott, I thought that I’d tell you a bit about Paul Thurmond. Paul Thurmond is the youngest son of the late Strom Thurmond. He got elected to the Charleston County Council in 2006, but decided to retire at the ripe old age of 33 (Tim Scott is 44), after serving only three years there. He is now running for Congress at the age of 34–that’s it, the end. I’m serious–that’s really all there is to his resume.

And as far as his conservative bona fides go, I can’t really tell you one way or the other, because HE HASN’T DONE ANYTHING YET.

Oh, and here are Paul Thurmond’s television ads for the SC District 1 race. I’m not exaggerating when I tell you that they are both in the top five WORST ads that I’ve ever seen.

Did you hear that? He said that he was “a conservative problem solver” and he has a family. Well, my mailman’s “a conservative problem solver” and he has a family–he solves the problem of getting me my mail everyday. Does he get to run for Congress? Do I? I’m “a conservative problem solver” as well.

Oh, and did you catch the end? “It’s not the name”, but it really is, because why the heck else would you bring it up? Besides, what else is he running on again? Oh yeah, silly me. He’s “a conservative problem solver” (whatever that is).

Now, let’s look at Mr. Thurmond’s next ad shall we?

Omigod–is it over?! Can I look yet? Man, that was all kinds of terrible! “Thad and little Fletch”?! Is he serious with this foolishness? If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear that ad was a parody. But hey, I guess if you don’t have any real accomplishments or legislation under your belt (like writing the anti-Obamacare legislation for SC), then “Thad and little Fletch” it is. (Don’t get me wrong–his children are adorable, but come on. This an ad for a congressional seat, not a home movie.)

Oh, and did you catch the beginning of that ad where he had a picture of him and his dad? Oh, but he’s not running on his family name….now, if somebody could actually tell me what exactly he is running on, I would love to hear it. Oh yeah. He’s “a conservative problem solver” (rolls eyes).

And finally, at the beginning of that ad, it mentions that Paul Thurmond is endorsed by Authur Ravenel Jr. Who is he you ask? Well, he is a prominent politician from Charleston from a very old Charleston family (there is a historic home in downtown Charleston, built in 1845, named after his family) whose son, Thomas Ravenel (who was the SC state Treasurer) was sentenced to federal prison for buying and distributing cocaine. (Arthur Ravenel Jr. was a Democrat in the 1950’s, but became a Republican.) Oh, and Arthur Ravenel is a member of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans, is highly in favor of flying the Confederate flag over the SC State House, and referred to the NAACP as the “National Association of Retarded People”. Whoa–this guy’s a real class act isn’t he? (And by “class act”, I mean a real scumbag.) Let’s just say that I’m not at all surprised that Mr. Ravenel is in favor over ANY guy named “Thurmond” over Tim Scott, but I digress. (Seriously Mr. Thurmond–you thought that it was a good idea to begin your ad with this guy’s endorsement?!)

Oh, while we’re on the subject of endorsements, that previous advertisement also said that Paul Thurmond was endorsed by Representative Thomas Hartnett who has been a SC politician since the 1960’s–he was originally a Democrat in the 60s, but he became a Republican in 1972.

So now, I bet you are curious about who got what endorsements the day after the Republican Primary. Well, the day after the June 8th Republican Primary, Paul Thurmond–the guy who came in a far distant second–picked up three new endorsements. I’m not kidding. Paul Thurmond–a second rate, unqualified hack of a candidate (Tim Scott is, literally, FIVE TIMES more qualified than him–he has 15 years in elected office and Paul Thurmond has 3), with the charisma of vanilla pudding got three endorsements in less than 24 hours after he LOST BY A TWO TO ONE MARGIN.

[One a side note, are you starting to notice a pattern here? That every ancient, entitled, pork barreling, SC political hack, who was friends/acquaintances with or worked with Strom Thurmond, is now endorsing Paul Thurmond over Tim Scott? It's quite obvious to me anyway. Oh, but I forgot. Paul Thurmond is a breath of fresh air whose going to change Washington by owing his election to a bunch of SC political hacks who have been in Washington for decades (rolls eyes).]

And, one of Paul Thurmond’s endorsements was from the guy who came in third in the primary, Carroll Campbell the third, who is the son of a former governor (Carroll Campbell Jr.). But, Carroll Campbell III has never done anything much except be a lobbyist. Oh, so he’s kind of similar to a lot of SC political hacks in that he has the following mentality—

(In my whiniest voice possible…..)

“My daddy was somebody big and important, so that makes me big and important! So I deserve this seat dammit!! And besides, who does that Tim Scott think he is working hard and playing by the rules and not participating in dirty, backroom politics?! Doesn’t he know how things are done around here??!! Doesn’t he know that your supposed to have a famous daddy and that we’re supposed to “scratch each others backs” to get ahead? Well, if this goody two shoes wins the Republican Primary, then I’m going to take my ball and go home and endorse the other guy with the famous daddy who will do more favors for ME! Me, me, me–it’s all about me! (Pouts and stomps foot.)”

Now, I realize that some of you think that I’m being a little hard on Mr. Campbell–well, I’m not! When Tim Scott first announced that he was running for Congress, Mr. Campbell blasted Mr. Scott for having the very temerity to throw his hat in the ring when he said the following–

“Tim Scott will be trying to run for his third office in just two years; abandoning what appears to be a failed campaign for Lt. Governor. Mr. Scott is just another politician in a string, all scrambling over one another to get into a campaign I have been in for nearly a year. The people of South Carolina are tired of political opportunists.“

OK–first of all Tim Scott didn’t have “a failed bid for Lt. Governor”. To put it bluntly, Carroll Campbell is shamelessly lying. In fact, in his first ten days in the race for Lt. Governor, Tim Scott raised a whopping $150,000 and was considered to be the front-runner. However, then Henry Brown’s seat opened up (and Tim Scott, for some strange reason, was not told ahead of time that it was going to open up), and Tim Scott decided that he would rather be a Congressman instead. (No Mr. Campbell–it was you who had a failed bid for Congress. Deal with it.)

Also, what I find to be extremely rich, is that Carroll Campbell’s father, literally, made a career out of perpetually switching elected offices in SC. Furthermore, he is now endorsing Paul Thurmond–a guy who didn’t even finish his first four year term in the Charleston County Council in order to run for Congress (not to mention, Mr. Campbell, himself, is not remotely qualified for this job either). So, let me get this straight. Carroll Campbell (and a lot of the good old boys in SC) seems to have a different set of rules for himself, his father, and Paul Thurmond, than he does for Tim Scott–who, by the way, has served more time in elected office than Mr. Campbell and Paul Thurmond put together. I would love to know, what other rules would Mr. Campbell like Tim Scott (and the rest of us) to follow that he and his cronies don’t have to follow?

As many of us know, Erick Erickson has written the following about the circus that was the SC Republican Gubernatorial Primary–

“Down in South Carolina we are seeing another one. Pulling the noose ever tighter, stringing everyone along, the good old boys in South Carolina don’t want the uppity Indian lady becoming Governor because she’s made life too miserable for them.”

Well, it looks to me like the good old boys in SC don’t want Tim Scott to become a US Congressman either, because they sure aren’t wasting any time rallying around the ridiculously unqualified and bland Paul Thurmond over the experienced, charismatic and Club for Growth endorsed Tim Scott.

Oh, and to all of you smarmy, entitled little parasites who think that you can sandbag great candidates like Nikki Haley and Tim Scott by lying about them because you are jealous or threatened…well, I’ve had enough of peering into your heads (I feel like I need to to take a shower right now), so I will let Daffy Duck do my talking for me–

Now, I think that I have definitely made it quite clear that the old guard in SC doesn’t want to see Tim Scott elected to Congress. However, I know that many of you are feeling complacent right now and think that it doesn’t matter, because Tim Scott is going to win anyway (due to his overwhelming victory in the SC Primary). Well, don’t get too comfortable, because Jim DeMint came in second in his first Republican primary, but won in the second round by consolidating all of the anti-David Beasley votes. (David Beasley was DeMint’s opponent in the run-off who beat him in the first primary.) In other words, Paul Thurmond is trying round up all of the good old boys/establishment/anti-change votes right now as we speak, and win in the second round. We can’t afford to rest on our laurels.

On a side note, the SC good old boys are not the only enemies that Tim Scott will face going forward during the next two weeks. The Democrats, the left and the Daily Kos crowd will also be out to take Tim Scott down as well–and they will use every dirty trick in the book. Let me put it this way–who do you honestly think that Nancy Pelosi wants to win the SC District 1 race? Paul Thurmond or Tim Scott? Tim Scott would be Nancy Pelosi’s WORST NIGHTMARE, because he could mortally wound the race card, and he is an extremely charismatic speaker who can cleverly attack Obama, all the while wearing a smile on his face (and he has the potential to become a conservative rockstar). On the other hand, Paul Thurmond would be the answer to Nancy Pelosi’s prayers, because she could use him as a club to beat us over the head with again and again. Oh, and we know exactly how much respect liberals have for black conservatives–just ask Clarence Thomas and Charles “Minstrel Show” Blow.

Oh, and as far as the MSM and the left goes (I know, same thing), don’t think that they aren’t watching this race, because they are. Remember how nuts the MSM went when Joe Wilson shouted “You Lie!” at the State of the Union, and how they wrote articles tying him to the Confederate flag? Well, that’s mere child’s play compared to what the media will do to the state of SC if Tim Scott loses to Paul Thurmond.

In fact, a couple of days ago, Jon Stewart gave us a glimpse of the humiliation that SC would be in for if Tim Scott loses to Paul Thurmond. (The ONLY reason why I can watch this video without breathing through a paper bag–the one that I’ve saved to cover my face with if Nikki Haley and Tim Scott both lose–is because it is now evident that Nikki Haley’s going to win.) (H/T Allahpundit of Hot Air–go to 4:30 in to see the SC bit.)

OK–so if Jon Stewart did that to us over some idiotic state legislator calling Nikki Haley a “raghead” and a couple of lying morons claiming to have slept with her, then can you imagine what he is going to do to SC is we elect Paul Thurmond instead of a MORE QUALIFIED, MORE CONSERVATIVE, MORE CHARISMATIC BLACK CANDIDATE?! Take the humiliation sandwich served to us in that previous video and cube it (because, of course, Stewart is also going to bring up Joe Wilson, the Confederate flag, and the Nikki Haley circus when he mocks SC–yet again–for acting like idiots and going with Paul Thurmond).

And finally, as I stated previously, the MSM is well aware of this race and don’t think for a second that they aren’t. Two days before the SC District 1 Primary The Washington Post wrote the following about this race–

“The offspring of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond and the late Gov. Carroll Campbell could be edged out by Tim Scott, the first black GOP state representative since Reconstruction.”

Did you read that? They referred to him as “the offspring” of Strom Thurmond (that’s one step removed from calling him “the spawn” of Strom Thurmond). No, the media is like a hungry cheetah stalking this race–they are sitting up on their perch watching us, just waiting to pounce and take out the weakest gazelle when given the right opportunity.

And, I know what some of you will say…”But Susannah, it’s not fair to hold his name against him”. And my reply is, first of all, who told you that life is fair? All the MSM will care about, is that we elected an unqualified guy named “Thurmond” over a more qualified, more conservative, more charismatic African-American who was a far superior candidate. Period. Second of all, Paul Thurmond made it about his name when he decided to run before he had any real accomplishments under his belt (what else–pray tell–is he running on?). The media will humiliate us in SC–and the Republican Party in general–with this because it will be fun for them. And worst of all, we will have no defense, because Tim Scott is such an obviously superior candidate. We will have to assume the position and take it–and, it will also kill our chances of appealing to future minority recruits and voters. We will be like that gazelle in the video. Well, you know what? I’m tired of being that gazelle. I would like–just for once–to be the cheetah instead. When Tim Scott came in first the other night, Bill Kristol called it “an amazing moment”, and Juan Williams’ face lit up with both surprise and pride. I would like the story, the night of the SC run-off, to be about another “amazing moment” in Charleston, SC–instead of just providing more fodder for The Daily Show.

So in conclusion, I don’t think that Paul Thurmond is a bad guy–I just think that he got a little greedy. I think that he saw an opportunity and he took it without thinking of the consequences. If he came back and ran in ten years–and got some real experience and accomplishments in his own right–then I promise to give him a fair hearing. However, he is just not ready yet.

Now, as far as Paul Thurmond’s endorsers go, I realize that a few people might think that they are motivated by racism, but I don’t think that’s the case. I think that they are, like Paul Thurmond, motivated by greed, as well as jealously (just like with Nikki Haley, they are jealous of a young upstart with more talent than themselves). Tim Scott didn’t get just one of eleven Club for Growth endorsements without ruffling some feathers. Mr. Scott has ALWAYS been extremely anti-earmark, and I’m sure that doesn’t sit well with the good old boys in SC. However, Paul Thurmond has always been, at best, quite wishy-washy on earmarks. In fact, he told the Politico the following with regard to earmarks–

“I’m not willing to say I’m not for earmarks if we have them.”

Furthermore, Paul Thurmond told The Post and Courier that he was critical of Tim Scott’s stance on earmarks. The Post and Courier wrote the following about Paul Thurmond’s position with regard to earmarks, and his critiques of Tim Scott’s position–

“Some of the early sparring points already have surfaced, with Thurmond saying Scott’s across-the-board opposition to earmarks could cost much-needed dredging dollars for Charleston Harbor, while Scott said budgets need to be tightened in D.C., with dredging pursued through the open bill-writing process.”

Now, contrast Mr. Thurmond’s statements with the statements that Mr. Scott makes about earmarks in his awesome new ad (embedded below) and you tell me who you think that the good old boys of SC would rather have in power.

Alright–now tell the truth and shame the Devil. If you are a “Me, me, me–what’s in it for me?!” kind of politician, then which one of these two men would you endorse? Yes, Paul Thurmond is indeed the correct answer.

So, in conclusion, rarely in life do you have such a clear-cut opportunity to do the right thing. Usually, there are some nuances or shades of gray involved–and, you might look back with 20/20 hindsight and say “Man, I really should have done X instead of Y”. However, this is not one of those times. This time, there is a bright, red arrow pointing in a specific direction with the words “This way to do the right thing, Dummy!” in flashing lights above it. The right thing for SC–and for the Republican Party–is to get Tim Scott elected to the US Congress as the first African-American Representative from Charleston, SC since Reconstruction. Guys, I’m telling you, we will all seriously regret this if we wuss out, because Mr. Scott has enormous potential and could become a great force to be reckoned with in Washington, DC (and, right now, Paul Thurmond simply could not). Let’s kick the tires and lights some fires people. Let’s get Tim Scott elected to Congress. Who is with me?

PS–If you are able, please GO HERE TO DONATE TO TIM SCOTT’S CAMPAIGN.

PPS–Please Twitter this diary out and pass it around. Thankies!

This diary was originally posted on The Minority Report.