Here is a good reason why I will be voting Republican in 2012

This is very scary…:

In his remarks, Genachowski said the program has been successful, but has also been plagued with problems of accountability and efficiency. Multiple service providers are often supplying Lifeline subsidies to the same households, he said, because there is no centralized system. To address the issue, Genachowski said, the draft proposal creates a national database of Lifeline users to prevent duplicative billing. It also sets a budget for Lifeline aimed at connecting eligible consumers while staying within budget, and requires that participating companies be subject to independent audits every two years. — via FCC’s Genachowski proposes broadband reform – Post Tech – The Washington Post

National Database of internet users? Yeesh. 🙁 The Democratic Party has gone mad. Go read, that whole thing. I will say this; that low income thing is a crock; if they do it for them, they will do it for everyone. This is why we have to win in 2012 and further more, Why we also have to pick a real Conservative and not some idiotic Rockerfeller big-goverment Republican. Which is why I do not quite understand why people like Michelle Malkin get upset over the back and forth that is going on.

The Republican grassroots and the Conservative grassroots; which does include me — needs to know what they are getting this time. The last time around, everyone just followed behind what the Republican establishment gave them. Not this time; we are better informed, and thanks to twitter, facebook and blogs, we communicate better. Which is why elitists like President Barack Obama hate the internet so much. To be fair, I would be willing to bet some Republicans dislike it too.

(H/T Drudge)

Palin’s Hubby endorses Newt

This comes via Ace:

Todd Palin said he believes that being in the political trenches and experiencing the highs and lows help prepare a candidate for the future and the job of president.

He did not criticize any of the other candidates and said his “hat is off to everyone” in the Republican race.

But Todd Palin did point to last summer, when a large portion of Gingrich’s staff resigned and the candidate was left, largely by himself, to run the campaign.

Gingrich’s ability to overcome the obstacle and still move up in the polls showed his ability to campaign and survive, according to Todd Palin, who said Gingrich is not one of the typical “beltway types” and that his campaign has “burst out of the political arena and touched many Americans.” — Todd Palin Endorses Newt Gingrich – ABC News

I will resist the temptation to mock her for having her hubby do her dirty work. It could very well be that they both disagree on whom they support. It is primary season after all. I really do not see this being any sort of a game changer or anything. I will say this — the reason Newt’s staffers bolted back last summer is because they did not think Newt was really serious about running. Hmmm, kinda like — wait. I won’t say it. Never mind. 🙄

Others: : The Hill, GOP 12, The Jawa Report, Campaign 2012, The Right Scoop, The Raw Story, Conservatives4Palin and Wake up America

Ya know, I don’t always agree with Michelle Malkin; but this is very good.

Michelle Malkin is bit more “Firebrandy’er” than me. But, she makes a very good point here.

CBS News reports via Twitter:

Huntsman tells reporters in Concord: “Governor Romney enjoys firing people; I enjoy creating jobs.”

It’s a reference to this:

Mitt Romney, who’s under attack for his business record, said Monday that he likes to have the option of firing people.

“I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,” he told business executives from the Nashua Greater Chamber of Commerce, adding if he isn’t getting a “good service, I want to say, I’m going to get someone else.”

The point will get lost down the demagogic rabbit hole:

He added: “You know, if someone doesn’t give me the good service I need, I want to say, ‘You know, I’m going to get someone else to provide that service to me.’”

Mitt Romney’s chronic flip-flopping political career is teeming with reasons to oppose his nomination — from his support for racial preferences, to government funding of abortion, liberal judges, global warming enviro-nitwittery, TARP, auto bailouts, the Obama stimulus, gun control, and of course, individual health insurance mandates that presaged Obamacare.

Instead of focusing on his long political record of expedience, incompetent non-Romneys have morphed into Michael Moore propagandists — throwing not just Bain Capital under the bus, but wealth creators of all kinds who take risks in the private marketplace.

We’re screwed.  via Michelle Malkin » The abysmal incompetence of the non-Romneys

I don’t share her pessimism; it okay to paint contrasts between the establishment and the grassroots, between Moderates and Hardcores and so forth. However, like Mrs. Malkin points out, we should not start sounding like Michael Moore on process of doing such an exercise. 😯

I mean, Michael Moore is a fairly big guy and I do not think we should be trying to squeeze between him and Nancy Pelosi on thier side of the street. Put another way; its okay to strum the guitar of populism, but let’s not start taking up camp in “tent city,” those people stink and we do take showers. (Well, some of us do! 😉 )

This is why illegal immigration bothers me

Via Preston Wright on Facebook:

youtube placeholder image

The American Militia’s website

No, I did not watch the Republican Debate last night

I had good reason not to watch too. From what I was hearing on twitter last night; while I was lying in the bed and drifting off to sleep, is that the debate was lousy. This was confirmed by things that I have read this morning. I guess the usual liberal partisan hacks over at ABC NEWS were living up to their expectations — not to mention the fact that the head of the DNC was at the debate outright lying to the media.

Also, the silly back and forth, not to mention the preening; as to who is the most Republican of them all — I find all that quite the bore. The truth is none of these contenders is of the Reagan stripe of Conservative, most of them, with the exception of Ron Paul; who is too far in the other direction — are just Neo-Conservative war hawks. Now will I vote for one of them? At this point, I really do not honestly know. It depends on which one makes the cut with the GOP nomination.

To be quite honest, the primary process really does not interest me that much. Now the general election is another story; the debates that I very much look forward to are the general election debates, how is Obama going to face someone like Romney? How is Obama going to stand there with a straight face and repeat that silly mantra of Hope and Change?

The truth is the only thing that is changed, is the amount of debt and the rate of unemployment. This is not to even to mention all the bureaucratic Government regulations that was put into place that killed many jobs in the oil drilling business. I just do not see how Obama is going to defend all of that, without sounding like a blithering idiot.

There is supposed to be a debate tonight as well, from what I hear. I will most likely skip it too. Again, I just do not have any interest in the Republican Party fashion shows. I just want to see this failure of a President try to debate and defend his failures in leadership. It is something that I do look forward to very much.

Bet this would be an interesting book to read.

Man, and I thought the Clinton’s were dysfunctional:

Then-White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel offered his resignation to President Barack Obama in the winter of 2010 after a series of columns appeared depicting him as the lone element keeping the Obama presidency intact. According to then senior adviser David Axelrod, Emanuel understood that the stories “were an embarrassment” to the president. The president, already suffering from a setback to his health care reform effort, declined Emanuel’s offer to resign, despite being convinced that his chief of staff was the main source for the columns.

“I’m not accepting it,” Obama replied. “Your punishment is that you have to stay here and get this bill done. I’m not letting you off the hook.”

That revelation is one of the more explosive included in “The Obamas,” a new book by Jodi Kantor of The New York Times about the first few years of the Obama administration and the strains that it produced on the president’s marriage — strains that were ultimately overcome.

The dramatics that surrounded the passage of health care reform — culminating in Emanuel’s near-resignation — reflect the type of struggles that routinely pitted Emanuel against the first lady during the first two years of the Obama administration. The two jockeyed for influence over the president even before he formally took office. — Via ‘The Obamas’: Book Reveals Friction Between Rahm Emanuel, Michelle Obama (UPDATE)

Bet that would make a very interesting read.

Get the Book:

Update: As much as I hate to admit it; this guy does have a point. This is why I watch the comment section around here, like a hawk.

New Ron Paul ad dings Santorum in SC

(Via  POLITICO.com)

Video:

I wonder what Jesse Vantura would say about that? I mean, after all, he does support Ron Paul. Not only that, but Ron Paul has a lot of damned nerve even bringing up betrayal; considering the fact that Ron Paul has repeatedly betrayed the United States Military of which he served. All so he can remain true to his leftist ideology of isolationist utopia and foriegn policy disenguagement. Here is hoping that Rick Santorum fires back and fires back hard on this point. Not only that, I also hope Rick Santorum brings up his racist and Anti Semitic friends too.

Others: : National Review,, THE ASTUTE BLOGGERSAmerican Power  (via Memeorandum)

Kudos to Charles Lane

For standing for those who wish to love thier children and not have to be subject to these sort of attacks.

I’m not defending Rick Santorum the presidential candidate. From what little I know about him, he seems to have his own issues with moralizing and judging. To the extent he has used his family’s experience to make a point about abortion, I object.

But I am defending the right of the Santorums and all families to grieve an infant’s death in accordance with their personal needs and beliefs. My plea is for a little more respect regarding the way people deal with loss, and a little more maturity about physical contact with the dead. If that puts me in sympathy, for a moment, with this right-wing politician, so be it.

Jonathan’s death was probably the hardest moment of my life. But actually touching his body was a source of comfort and the first step in going on with life. Not weird — Via Rick Santorum’s baby–and mine. – PostPartisan – The Washington Post

I would recommend you to go read that whole thing; a very touchy story about a Father who also lost his child as well. Charles Lane is a brave man for standing up to his fellow liberals and objecting to the idea that loving a dead child is “Weird.”

Kudo’s to him. 🙂

Others: CatholicVote.org and National Review

Are the GOP’s Nomination Rules Are Rigged Against Grassroots Conservatives?

Jay Cost seems to think so:

Republicans all across America like to think of their coalition as the “party of Ronald Reagan,” but have you noticed how frequently the party nominates somebody who opposed Ronald Reagan in 1980?Since Reagan’s last nomination in 1984 the GOP has nominated four men to lead the Republican party into the presidential battle. Three of them were aligned against Reagan in the 1980 presidential nomination and the other was . . . John McCain.

Once again, the GOP appears set to nominate such a candidate. Mitt Romney strikes me as a very capable and competent person, possessing many qualities needed in a good president and most definitely superior to the current one, but he is not a Reagan conservative.

So, here’s the question of the day: why can’t the party of Reagan ever seem to nominate a Reaganite?

My answer: because conservative Republicans are not actually in control of their own party. Though they are its animating force – they give it policy ideas to implement, they turn out regularly to support the party in good times and bad, they advocate the party and its ideology to their friends, neighbors, and relatives – they are not in charge, and have not been since the 1970s (arguably the 1920s, but that’s another story altogether).

The lefty do-gooders who spearheaded the reforms of the 1970s thought that they were saving the parties from the machine hacks, but in fact they threw out the baby with the bathwater. They effectively destroyed the party at the grassroots level, and handed the nominating power over to candidates, strategists, donors, the news media, and ill informed voters who dominate the primaries. The biggest losers in this scheme were the kinds of committed citizens who took the time to participate in local party affairs, and on the GOP side that inevitably meant the conservatives. — Morning Jay: The Nomination Rules Are Rigged Against Grassroots Conservatives | The Weekly Standard

It is truly an interesting piece; what is even more interesting is where it is published. Seeing an article talking about “lefties” and “Reagan Conservatives” in a Neoconservative magazine like the Weekly Standard is very interesting to say the least. 😀

Kudos to Joe Scarborough

Two Cheers to Joe Scarborough for putting this liberal’s feet to the fire! (H/T to Jazz Shaw)

Via Mediaite:

Quote:

In a remarkably heated back-and-forth on Friday’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough grilled MSNBC contributor Eugene Robinson over his controversial comments — calling Rick Santorum‘s handling of the death of his newborn “weird.”

“Do you think you may have gone overboard a little bit in your criticisms of Santorum?” Scarborough asked. “We haven’t talked about it. I’m not setting you up for anything. I was taken aback by what you said. My wife likes you very much, couldn’t believe you said it.”

“That was obviously not the right way to say what I was trying to express,” Robinson acknowledged.

“I certainly didn’t mean to offend anybody, especially Mr. Santorum,” Robinson added. “But it was in a discussion of his views, and, you know, which I consider extreme, and Santorum himself who is a cultural — culture warrior extraordinaire, whose faith — and we all appreciate someone of deep faith — but it is — it is extremely deep, and it’s a kind of faith that some people, I think, are going be… if not surprised by… at least want to know more about.”…

“It is a personal decision,” Robinson noted. “And I’ve certainly been educated on the subject since — in the past day, so I do understand that — that this is not — it’s not something that’s in any way beyond the pale or considered inadvisable and that many grief counselors do advise a period of saying good-bye to a child who tragically dies in that way.”…

“Do you wish you hadn’t said it?” Scarborough clarified. “You can see how prepared I am.”

“I wish I hadn’t said it that way, Joe. You know, I — we had — had this sort of discussion when I wrote about Chris Christie‘s weight, and I do think that a columnist has an obligation to — to write what he or she thinks and write what he or she sees, but obviously I did it in the wrong way. Or in a way that rubs people the wrong way, and that’s not what I intended.”

 

I think that it is good for Joe for to put Mr. Roberson through the wringer for his rather idiotic comment.  What was said by this douche-nozzle and Alan Colmes was over the top and out of bounds.  Just to put this very simply, if we are going to have a standard — that all President’s and Presidential candidates children are off-limits, we have to hold everyone and I do mean everyone to that standard.  This is not about Freedom of Speech, this about what is morally right.  I do not give two flying figs about ANY of the Presidential candidate’s children at all.  Just like, I do not care about Obama’s children.  What makes this little incident here, along with the previous one so insidious is this — Liberals are slamming a man — who chose to take his dead child home, so that the he and his family could grieve over him.

Also too, as much as I hate having to do this — But I must — could you even remotely imagine the howls of outrage from the left, if someone on the right — anywhere on the right — had made a similar comment about Obama’s kids or any other Democrat’s kids — of this sort of a nature?  The outrage from the liberal community, the black community, and the chattering class would be deafening.  However, because this is a liberal black man popping off about a white Conservative, it is seen as just perfectly fine.  How ironic is that in the so-called post-racial America?  I also find it quite ironic that the left has been largely silent about both of these people making these comments.  There are exceptions, but for the most part, the silence is deafening. Maybe it is because they see children or in this case — babies as an unneeded inconvenience or maybe it is because they are afraid of offending their “Dear Leader.”  Either way, it speaks too, in this writer’s opinion, of the moral decay that has taken over that once great party.