If you’re on CNN, what’s the downside of lying about Rush Limbaugh’s quotes?  A tut-tutting critique by The Cleaner Howard Kurtz on Reliable Sources?  After which, it’s all forgotten because The Word is out among the chattering class to drop it and move on.

Sadly, I think the NFL has sized us up well.  What can we do that will have an impact, really?

Stop watching the NFL?  Doubtful.

Turn in our season tickets? There are waiting lists of thousands of people, ready to buy them.

Complain about the obvious double-standard of Rush Limbaugh being too divisive to be a minority stakeholder in an NFL team, but Keith Olbermann is okey-dokey for all of us to watch every Monday night? 

We all know what’s going to happen.  The obliging, liberal, Limbaugh-hating sports media will ask Commissioner Goodell one or two questions on the subject.  He’ll dodge them, they’ll drop the matter, and that will be that.

They will expect us to suck it up.  They will pee on us in a way that would never happen to liberals.

And we are supposed to take it.

If anyone can think of an effective way to respond, I’m all ears.  I’m tired of being peed on and being told it’s the rain. 

It’s one thing for Hollywood to do it.  But…the NFL???!!!

What can we boycott?  What subscriptions can we cancel?

I hope Limbaugh sues.  Who cares if he only gets a dollar in judgements?  Maybe he can bankrupt a few of those jerks.  And make a lot more sweat, at the thought of a man with millions to spend on legal fees and a score to settle gunning for them.

Who can he sue?  Rick Sanchez?  Commissioner Goodell, for his comments?*  The Pulitzer Prize winning journalism professor on MSNBC?

Yes, I know this suit won’t go anywhere.  But the thought of forcing Roger Goodell to sit through a deposition makes for fine schadenfreude, IMO.

Why is this bad? I can think of two ways, off the top of my head:

1) Very few people know John Boehner, and even fewer have yet to form an opinion of him.
2) If the House GOP hopes to make significant gains in 2010, it will need a leader the public thinks it can trust and respect. As of now, that leader will be John Boehner.

See where I’m going here? You can bet that David Axelrod, Rahm Emmanuel and Chris Matthews do.

Thank you very little, Chris Muir.

From Muir’s Day By Day cartoon of this weekend: A scene of a smiling politician, who looks an awful lot like John Boehner, waving to an airport crowd. To his left is this caption (all emphasis added):

Remember how the Republican Party rallied us in 2009? How John Boehner flew back from his taxpayer-paid junket in Europe, and lifted our spirits by delivering that stirring anti big-government speech on the tarmac?

The cartoon is one big snark-filled jab at top Republicans, whom Muir thinks aren’t doing enough over the summer recess to fight Obamacare. (I’ll omit any more details, in case you want to read the cartoon for yourself).

OK…presuming that John Boeher is indeed on a junket (I can’t imagine Muir writing this cartoon if he wasn’t)…yes, that’s a politically tone-deaf thing for him to do.

BUT—Boehner is the presumptive Speaker of the House, if indeed the GOP Jets beat the DNC Colts and reclaim the House in 2010.

IMO, in order to win in 2010, we’ll need a visible leader figure. Someone whom the American people can look at, again and again between now and November 2010, and grow comfortable with. Someone who the American electorate is willing to think of as being “in charge” in the House of Representatives. (Remember—we need FORTY seats to beat the Colts).

Unless someone else comes forward soon, our quarterback will be John Boehner.

Axelrod, Emmanuel, Matthews, etc… know that, if you can’t make the voters like your guy, the next best option is to make them dislike the other guy. You de facto salt the earth with charge after charge after allegation after innuendo after rumor after whisper after ad nauseum. If your opponent can’t gain traction, he really can’t strike you, can he?

Expect the sliming of John Boehner to start soon. If you thought Hardball went wall-to-wall with Birther coverage, wait until the Boehner Stinks Saga begins.

And, if I were Matthews, if any Republican were to complain, I’d point to Muir’s cartoon and say “Hey! YOUR side brought it up in the first place!”

John Boehner doesn’t have a friendly MSM to cover for him, as Nancy Pelosi did. Nor do many Americans know him. First impressions matter. And, you can be sure, Team Axelrod will do their best to be the ones who create that all-important first impression most Americans will have of Speaker-in-waiting Boehner.

Wouldn’t it be nice if the folks on our “side” (as I’m presuming Chris Muir is) could refrain from giving the other side ammunition? I mean, they have such a big lead on us already…do they really need any more help?

I’m sure Muir didn’t mean to help Team Axelrod/Obama. But he just did.

We have to be smarter about this, people. Our margin for error is so small.

Sorry for not putting this in the comments section of the appropriate Redhot diaries—those comments are closed (for now).

I certainly want the leadership to keep posting here.  That adds value to this site, and it gives us a chance to respond directly to GOP leadership’s thoughts and opinions.  Maybe the leaders won’t see our responses—but other Redstaters will, and the staffers for those leaders should read those comments.

Here’s a recommendation; establish this policy:  Make it known to a GOP leader that, once he posts on Redstate, we expect the courtesy of some responses from his staff.  No, the staff doesn’t have to answer every comment, and they certainly can ignore the trolls. 

But, I don’t think it’s unfair to ask for some feedback from someone in the rep’s office.  If they’re too busy to have a staffer reply to our comments, then IMO we should politely recommend they post elsewhere.

My 0.02…

So, in the interest of helping to focus the discussion, what’s the answer to this question: Is Sarah Palin personally responsible for seeing that those bills get paid?

Here are some thoughts on the subject:

1. So what if she has a lucrative book deal?

Where does anyone get off saying that Palin should be expected to spend huge amounts of her money from a book deal on lawyers? It is HER money. Same goes for her earnings on the speaking trail.

2. Does anyone think this string of endless ethics complaints is going to end anytime soon?

I’m confident that Alaska Dems have a string of complaintants lined up, all ready to go. Funding those complaints isn’t an issue—I’ll bet Soros has a branch office in Juneau by now. The Alaskan government and press—all loyal Democrats first, Alaskans last I’ll bet—aren’t going to put a stop to this. If I were her, I wouldn’t want to sit still for another 18 months and have all the life sucked out of me by these Soros-funded leeches.

3. Why should we EXPECT her to rely on a Legal Defense Fund?

Some commentators make the idea of a Sarah Palin Legal Defense Fund sound so simple: Open up the fund and waves of cash will come flooding in!!! Is it really that simple? Does Palin have people who can run such a fund full-time? Does she have lawyers and staff who can fight off the inevitable lawsuits/ethics allegations/legal challenges the Dems will mount, in an effort to throw a monkey wrench in the legal fund’s gears? Can she be sure she’ll earn enough money to pay her current legal bills, plus the extra ones the Dems will certainly run up? If there aren’t easy enough answers for this, I can’t blame her for leaving office early.

4. Can she count on the Alaskan government and MSM giving her relief?

I’ll answer that question—NO! It’s been apparent for several months not that Palin’s political opponents are using the ethics charges process to harass and potentially bankrupt her. Has the legislature stepped in? Has the Alaskan MSM spoken up forcefully? Apparently, no and no. Apparently a fair number of Alaskans feel that Sarah should just stay silent and pay. Well, I think that exceeds the duty requirements of any public servant.

If Alaskans won’t back Sarah, then I don’t blame her for moving on.

The floor is open, fellow Redstaters….what are your thoughts?

Happy Fourth of July
smagar

On one of the show’s episodes, in which Larry the Cucumber plays Sherlock Holmes and Bob the Tomato plays Dr. Watson, two other vegetables play the roles of London constables guarding a crime scene. Whenever Holmes and Watson try to approach the crime scene, those “constables” always say “Move along…nothing to see here.”

NLT tomorrow, I expect the WaPo and its MSM allies to be saying “move along…nothing to see here” IRT Flyer-gate.

Howard Kurtz has spoken. The Post has explained that it was all a misunderstanding. And, after all, they are The Washington Post. If they say it was a misunderstanding, who are we to disagree. Therefore, any further discussion of this unfortunate matter (and all that it implies) would be much ado about nothing.

Not so fast. I’m an intelligence analyst by training. We intelligence analysts are supposed to connect the dots. And, IMO, there are plenty of dots to connect IRT the WaPo’s conduct since Barack Obama won his party’s nomination and then the Presidency.

John Hinderaker posed the question of the day: Where does the Obama administration end and the Washington Post begin?

Well…let’s connect the dots, shall we?

What dots do you see? My suggestions are below—what are yours?

(Posted earlier as a comment under Erick’s front page story on this topic):

1) Doug Feith’s War and Decision.

If that book had captured popular attention, it might have started a popular discussion that helped McCain and hurt Obama. Especially since, in the 2008 election cycle, we were well on our way to WINNING the Iraq War. Hey, if you can’t say bad things about Iraq, the next best thing is to make sure that nobody says much about it at all.

It turns out the WaPo did a rush-job review of the book…and then claimed it couldn’t give Feith’s book a more thorough reading, because the paper had already reviewed it! I remember Academic Elephant and other Bush supporters looking forward to the MSM’s review of Feith’s book, because Feith directly addressed lots of the criticisms levied against Bush 43’s war policies. That discussion never really happened, largely because the MSM starved the story of oxygen. The WaPo was a leading player in that.

2) Obama’s threat to “bankrupt” coal-burning plants and make energy costs “skyrocket.”

Ummm—aren’t some of the states in the WaPo’s part of the country big producers and users of coal? (WV, PA, VA)? Hmmmm…best not to make too much of that speech from The One, and (IIRC) the WaPo didn’t make a big deal of it. Good thing he gave it in San Francisco…

3) The Obama campaign’s alteration of its online donation software to allow millions of dollars in contributions that were most likely illegal.

Compare the amount of coverage the WaPo gave to that story, as opposed to “macaca.”

4) The paper’s editorial and reportorial soft touch toward Porkulus, in the weeks before it passed.

Remember Obama’s prime-time news conference before the Porkulus vote? The WaPo had one question to pose to the president, at a time when Porkulus was the hot topic in DC and the country. What subject did the WaPo, “the” newspaper of the capital city of the Free World, ask the president about, at this critical time in the national debate on Porkulus? (Drum roll…) A-Rod and steroid use! I’ll bet Rahm and Valerie and David Axelrod were thrilled to take that question, instead of a more journalistic one.

And, remember the week of the Porkulus vote itself? As the Dems tried to get that travesty of a bill passed, before evidence of all of the problems in it leaked out…imagine how powerful and influential a stern WaPo editorial on the bill could have been, prior to the vote. In fact, if the WaPo’s editorial page had spoken forcefully about the many flaws in the bill, it might have compelled Team Obama to revise the bill. A debugged bill could have saved our grandkids—the ones who are really paying for Porkulus—billions of dollars.

Well, the WaPo editorial on Porkulus came out on Saturday, the day after the Senate vote. What a coinky-dink!

Those are the dots I see, and IMO they’re building a pretty convincing trail of evidence to support this conclusion: The WaPo really, really wanted Barack to win. Now, after we’ve seen that flyer, maybe we know why: Obama in the White House + Dems in control of Congress = money, money, money for the WaPo!!!

There’s no way the WaPo could have run as successful a Salon racket if McCain had won and the GOP still controlled Congress. No way. Am I wrong?

Anyway, that’s how I see it. Specifically, those are the dots I see. What other dots do you see?

Let us flood this story with oxygen.

I am so VERY glad that you don’t plan to let this drop.  Enough is enough.

If we stand here and let them slap our faces, and all we do is turn the other cheek…at some point we stop being people and we start being sheep.

We need to talk about this…a lot.  I hope you can get this onto Hannity and O’Reilley. 

IIRC, Amanda Carpenter is a regular on Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz on CNN. While I think Howard’s a clear liberal, I don’t think he appreciates this kind of gutter “journalism,” and wouldn’t mind embarassing Playboy a bit if given the chance.

What’s say Amanda talks about what it feels like to be singled out for revenge sex in an internationally-read publication, because she views the world differently from Guy Cimbalo? I’ll bet Howard wouldn’t mind humiliating Playboy in public for a bit. Let’s give him the chance.

As for “let the thing be pressed”—on the road to Appomattox, Grant sensed that Lee’s forces might break if he pressed the Union attack against them. Grant sent a note to Lincoln that read: “If the thing is pressed, I think Lee will surrender.”

Lincoln’s timeless reply: “Let the thing be pressed.”

I’m disappointed that, IMO of course, many Redstaters seem to be ignoring Cornyn’s responsibilities, and especially the constraints upon him. After twenty-plus years in the military, I’ve learned that decisionmakers often adopt an unpalatable Course of Action, if they feel that the alternatives are worse.

Many of you have expressed your desire to see Senator Cornyn succeed in his efforts to revive GOP fortunes in the Senate. OK, then: help him out by giving him some idea of what risks you’re willing to accept elsewhere, in order to run Marco Rubio for Senate in Florida.

I’m sure many of you will disagree with the assumptions behind this scenario—but, play along with me. I think these assumptions accurately reflect the constraints upon Senator Cornyn, and how those constraints impact his choices of action options.

Rubio isn’t nearly as well-known as Cornyn is. He also doesn’t have the experience Cornyn does. Therefore, he’s going to have to work harder to gain the acceptance, and then the support, of FL voters.

FL is a big state, so TV ads are important in a political campaign. Rubio will need lots of ads, not only so FL voters get to know him, but also so they decide he’s worthy of election to the Senate.

The Dems will be flush with cash. They’ll blanket the state with ads. Those ads will not only introduce their candidate; they’ll tell all sorts of tails about this fellow Rubio, whom few Floridians really know. Cornyn will then have to spend extra money on defense, rebutting the tall tales the Dems and their allies are telling.

Enter Barack Obama. Expect him to spend lots of time in Florida, raising money and generating PR. If the Florida local media is as addicted to Hopium as the rest of the MSM is, expect fawning coverage.

From all that, I can see where GOP leadership would conclude that it’s going to be a lot more expensive to elect Marco Rubio than Charlie Crist.

IIRC, in 2010 several currently R seats are viewed as on life support, if not doomed. Off the top of my head: Voinovich’s in Ohio, and perhaps Gregg’s in NH. In those Northeastern, union-friendly states, expect Team Obama to flood those D election efforts with cash. If it’s at all possible to hold those seats for the GOP, it’s going to be very very expensive.

Pretend you’re John Cornyn. Your staff has crunched the numbers and determined that, if the NRSC has to commit large amounts of money to elect Rubio in FL, it has to be ready to lose another GOP seat elsewhere. The resources simply aren’t there to win both fights.

Which do you pick?

For me, I pick Rubio. I accept the risk that I’m going to lose a Senate seat for six years in OH or NH, in order to have the chance (not the “guarantee”) of electing a bright future GOP star in Florida.

BUT, I accept the risk that I may lose that seat to a concerted Dem election efforts that outspends me. I also accept the risk that I’ll lose another Senate seat elsewhere in the country, and be that much less able to fight cloture efforts.

I also accept the risk that I’ll be less able to influence treaties, executive branch appointments and judicial appointments. I accept the risk that, when the GOP does return to national power, it is more likely to find:

• a lifetime federal judiciary united in opposition to conservative ideals.
• a regime of international treaties—to which the US has agreed to—that impinge upon our soverignty and make us weaker abroad
• a depleted Federal treasury

Those are big risks to take. Is it worth it?

What say you? It’s easy to criticize. Pretend you have to make the decisions Cornyn has to make, facing the challenges he faces. Is it worth it?

The real question is…MSM, will you do what the Speaker wants and drop it? Or, will you do what reporters are supposed to do and follow the story?

I’m asking those questions because…that same CNN segment I referenced above makes me wonder if you will, indeed, follow the story.

Kudos to Dana Bash, the lead reporter on that CNN segment. She mocked Pelosi and Motion for turning a press conference into a PR session.

CNN ran a clock on the screen, showing how much time Pelosi and Motion took up in reciting talking points about all the good things the Democratic Congress had done. None of which were germain to the reason those reporters were really there—to ask the Speaker in detail about her criticism of the CIA.

It quickly became apparent that this whole press conference was structured to ensure that the Speaker was not compelled to defend her accusations. As Bash pointed out, the press conference only allotted FIVE minutes of time for questions.

And, when the MSM tried to ask about CIA-gate, the Speaker refused to discuss it meaningfully.

Bash noted how Steny Hoyer, who is perceived by many as one of the few adults in the House Democratic leadership, responded meekly to Pelosi’s commands during the press conference. Cesar Milan would have been proud of the way Hoyer responded to Pelosi. She has clearly trained him well.

So, once Dana Bash laid her smackdown on Pelosi and Motion, what did the CNN anchor, Kitty Pilgrim, and her producers do?

They dropped that story like a hot potato and moved on to other topics. Which is exactly what Nancy and David Axelrod want.

As usual, John Hinderaker at Powerline says it better than I could ever hope to:

Nancy Pelosi made the absurd claim that the CIA “lied” to her and “misleads Congress all the time,” without offering any support for her explosive assertions. I think everyone understands that Pelosi offered no evidence because she has none. Now, naturally, she wants to forget the whole thing: she says that she will have nothing more to say on the matter.

Think about it: the Speaker of the House of Representatives claims that the CIA, on which both Congress and the Executive Branch rely in making vital, life or death decisions, “lies” and “misleads Congess all the time.” If that were true, it would be a fact of astonishing importance. It would be vitally important to investigate and get to the bottom of why the Agency “misleads Congress,” so that we can sweep the liars and misleaders out of office and clean up the Agency. Right?

…

Nancy Pelosi is a fool and a liar, which is why she says: never mind. Anyone who saw her self-destructive press conference must wonder, further, whether she requires medication to get through the day and sometimes forgets to take her pills. There is no other obvious explanation for her bizarre performance, for her wild charges, or for her current, pathetic plea to forget the whole thing.

The country, to put it mildly, is not in good hands.

If our MSM does not follow up, forcefully, than our MSM is not in good hands, either.

The clock is ticking…

No repeats of the months-long series of funerals, day in and day out.

No need to once again sift through mountains of rubble and dust to look for the thimbleful of human remains that would allow a family to finally achieve closure.

For 7 1/2 years, George W Bush and Dick Cheney shielded New Yorkers from having to relive that terrible experience. 

How did New Yorkers repay the Bush administration?  They feted Will Ferrell. And more.

Next time these folks get hit, I’m going to find it a wee bit harder to muster sympathy for them. What an ungrateful bunch.

In order to learn how intensely New Yorkers protested Ferrell’s play, I did the following Google searches:

• will ferrell george bush broadway protest
• will ferrell george bush broadway criticism
• will ferrell george bush broadway mayor
• will ferrell george bush broadway bloomberg

(I included the last two search strings because I figured that, if anyone, the mayor of New York City would publicly express his discomfort with such a mean-spirited play being hosted in a city that George Bush and Dick Cheney had kept safe for more than seven years.)

Well…

• I found no evidence of a public statement or press release by Mayor Bloomberg.  To make sure, I added “statement” to the last string above and re-Googled.  No joy *.
• I did find lots of criticsm about the quality of Ferrell’s performance.  NONE from major news outlets about the mean-spiritedness of the play itself.
• I did find lots of evidence that the play was wildly popular in New York City.   I didn’t find any evidence of any meaningful protest outside the theater.

In more current events, Representative Jerry Nadler, of NY’s 8th Congressional District, is leading the Congressional push to investigate Cheney and the Bush administration.  Here’s what Nadler said following the Obama/Cheney speeches on Thursday:

Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is leading the charge for investigating Cheney, called Obama’s speech “powerful.”
“There are some areas where he didn’t go into detail, but I’m very hopeful, given his recognition of civil liberties and values questions,” he said.

According to his Congressional website, Nadler’s district encompasses:

most of Manhattan’s Upper West Side, and continues south to include most parts of Clinton, Chelsea, SoHo, Greenwich Village, TriBeCa, and Downtown Manhattan. In Brooklyn, the 8th District includes parts of Boro Park, Sunset Park, Bay Ridge, Bensonhurst, Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Gravesend, Dyker Heights, Bath Beach, and Seagate.

Silly me…I thought those areas lost people—lots of people—on 9/11. I guess not…

How disgraceful of these people. How ungrateful. How juvenile.

It’s hard not to feel contempt for them. The next time they get hit, I might find that my give-a-dang is a little slow to respond.

* I did find this Mayor Bloomberg press release, about a previous Will Ferrell effort:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Declares Friday, November 7 ‘Elf Day’ in New York City
November 07, 2003

At an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show this morning, Mayor Bloomberg declared Friday, November 7 “Elf Day” in New York City. New Line Cinema’s holiday film “Elf,” which shot partially in New York City, premiered in the City at Loews Astor Plaza on Sunday, November 2 and opens wide in area theatres on Friday, November 7. Directed by Jon Favreau and starring Will Ferrell and James Caan, “Elf” is the story of a toddler, Buddy, who accidentally ends up in one of Santa’s bags and is whisked away to the North Pole where he lives out his entire childhood.

The article goes on to say that the movie production of Elf did employ hundreds of New Yorkers and bring millions of dollars into the city. That’s good.

But it would be nice if the mayor could have said something good about the men who helped keep his citizens safe, so that people like Will Ferrell could come enjoy the wonders and freedoms that still persist in NYC today…

…thanks, in no small part, to the man Will Ferrell mocked for considerable profit, to the considerable adulation of the people who slept safely behind the walls that George Bush safeguarded for them.

Perhaps some of us can meet up?

Wasn’t Murtha contemplating retirement one or two election cycles ago?  Isn’t it likely that he’ll leave the Congress within a few years anyway?

Isn’t his district pretty safe for the Dems?  I.e., if Murtha turns out to be too toxic to keep around, isn’t it a pretty safe bet that the Dems can hold the seat if they nominate a more palatable pol for it?

Come to think of it…Murtha’s a gaffe machine, isn’t he?  And, with the House now firmly in D control, his vote isn’t nearly as important as it was just four years ago.

Meanwhile, CNN’s ratings are slipping.  Perhaps, one reason for that is a growing public perception that CNN wants to see Democrats succeed.  News organizations aren’t supposed to be openly sympathetic to one side or the other in a debate, are they?

Well, one way to counter that would be for CNN to skewer and help bring down a big name Dem pol.

Especially one that many Dem leaders wouldn’t mind being rid of in the first place.

Plus…if the Tea Party crowd and conservative bloggers get a scalp they can hang on their wall, maybe their “blood lust” will be satisfied a bit.  Maybe they’ll be distracted a bit…

It wouldn’t surprise me if ideas like this are hinted at (NOT said out loud) in those regular conference calls Rahm Emmanuel has with Paul Begala and James Carville.  You know, those two CNN employees…

Who knows…maybe ABC News might go after Murtha as well…

I’m just sayin…

Mr. President, in your first 100 days, what has surprised you the most, enchanted you the most, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?

enchanted you the most? Was this a presidential press conference, or a prime-time episode of Dr. Phil?

Well, AQ must have thought, these Americans are going to be a pushover. Heck, I’m not even sure if that NYT reporter is a guy?!

(Bernard Goldberg, in the attached clip, gave us all ammunition, when he described Zezelny as a “NPR man.” I’m going to write that one down.)

But, to AQ’s surprise, they ran into this guy, and a lot more like him, instead.

No wonder AQ was surprised.

On Wednesday, the Tea Party Movement will make its biggest splash to date.  David Axelrod and his team know they can’t stop it.  They can’t destroy it.  So, what CAN they do. Neutralize it. 

How will they do that?  Make the Tea Party organizers feel compelled to PROVE that they are non-partisan.

In so doing, the Dems, liberals and other free-spending types can deflect the strength of the Tea Party movement.  Just as a left tackle deflects an oncoming defensive lineman.

The left tackle’s goal isn’t to destroy the onrushing defensive end or blitzing safety.  He just needs to deflect him, briefly.  Redirect his energy away from the quarterback, <i>just long enough</i> for the quarterback to pass or hand off the ball.

David Axelrod is Barack Obama’s left tackle.

Team Axelrod needs to preserve Obama’s ability to spend freely.  So, he can’t allow the Tea Party Movement an unimpeded shot to the QB.   But, he can’t destroy the movement either.

So, I think he’ll try to redirect the Tea Party movement’s energy into less-harmful endeavors.  Like, proving itself to be non-partisan.

Dem spokespeople and liberal bloggers are making the case that the Tea Party movement is a GOP front.  In response, some Tea Party leaders apparently feel compelled to demonstrate that they are not partisan. 

The problem with that—if you want to stop excessive government spending, the best way to do that is elect people who won’t spend.

The best way to get people elected in America is through our two-party system.  Virtually all elected reps at all levels of federal, state and local government are either Republicans or Democrats.  Our system, for better or worse, is set up to nominate and elect either Republicans or Democrats.

The Democrats are the ones who are spending like crazy.  With leaders like Reid and Pelosi and Obey and Rangel, they will continue to spend like crazy.

The best way to stop or slow them: elect Republicans.  And David Axelrod knows that.

Hence, his strategy:  Create a PR climate where Tea Party leaders will feel compelled to shy away from local Republican organizations.

If Axelrod succeeds, where will the Tea Party movement go to capitalize on its successes?  How will it actually elect people who will stop the spending?  Start a third party?  <i>Great idea!</i>  Let’s all go joust with windmills!

The real overspending now is at the federal level.  Either Democrats or Republicans will control that, for at least the foreseeable future. 

If Axelrod succeeds at deflecting the Tea Party movement’s momentum away from our two-party system, he’ll have provided Obama and Pelosi and Reid the breathing room they need to keep spending.  By the time Tea Party leaders emerge from the wilderness with their newly-built Fiscal Responsibility Party, our grandkids won’t have any money left.

I’ll bet that that’s Team Axelrod’s plan

The media wants to drop it.  They don’t see it as a big deal.

For us, when we see the American flag, our eyes well with tears of pride.  For today’s typical MSM reporter, the sight of our flag makes his eyes roll in disdain. 

The president of the US is our flag, in the flesh.  He represents us.  When he’s overseas, he embodies us.

Barack Obama bowed and groveled while overseas, representing us. And the MSM could care less.  Why?

I think it’s because they aren’t as passionate for our country as we are.

For many MSM reporters, reared in an Ivy League culture that sees patriotism as passe’, or a sign of faulty breeding,  America is just an address, a place to hang your hat in a global society.  It’s also a place whose flaws they feel compelled to sheepishly explain to the Europeans whose approval they covet.

For us, it’s a source of inspiration and pride. It makes us want to flaunt the American flag patches on the sleeves of our ACUs—the ones immediately above the combat patches we won freeing Kuwaitis, Bosnians and Iraqis. 

Our MSM wants to cover for Obama by burying his bow in other news. 

Why aren’t they angry?  Why aren’t they demanding that the president defend why he dipped Old Glory. For, when he bowed to King Abdullah, that’s what he did?

I’ll tell you why?  It’s no big deal to them. 

Well, it’s a big deal to us.  I hope we keep talking about it.  Someone needs to care.  And that someone is apprarently us.

I look at it differently.  If some of our House Republicans are so gunshy that they don’t want Dick Cheney out there saying the things that need to be said…then we might need some new House Republicans.

We will be totally out of power until January 2011 at the earliest.  That gives us time to speak to the American people, and tell them things that the New Tone Bush 43 White House wouldn’t tell them.

Cheney is willing to say things that need to be said.  Things that will, eventually, sink in with a large percentage of the American people.

Things like:

• Obama’s policies and people (e.g. “Reset Button” Hillary) are encouraging despots and terrorists.
• It’s better to have people be intimidated by you and leave you alone, then think you’re warm and cuddly and a pushover. 
• Those wonderful European allies whom Obama wants to kiss up/apologize to are military wet noodles.  You know it, I know it, the enemy knows it, and the Dems/media won’t say it because they crave those Davos invites.

Dick Cheney is a compelling, inspiring figure.  Once he’s allowed to speak freely, I’m convinced many Americans will agree.  I also think that, as more and more Americans come to respect and admire Cheney the way we do, those Americans will take a second, more critical look at the institutions (Dems, media) who’ve demonized him these past four years.  And I’ll bet the Dems/media don’t fare well under that re-examination.

Case in point:

• When Robert Gibbs was asked about Cheney’s comments that Obama’s policies were making America less safe, Gibbs replied that Cheney was part of some Republican “cabal.”  That’s the best Gibbs could do?  If so, let’s give him many, many more opportunities to cement his image as a dolt.
• When Steve Kroft asked Obama about Cheney’s comments, Obama gave a dismissive but empty reply.  Many people noticed.

Now that Cheney is free from the shackes of New Tone, Turn-The-Other-Cheek Bush 43, he can say what needs to be said.  He can expose the Potemkin nature of much of Obama’s world and national security vision.  He can be our siege artillery, relentlessly and effectively pounding away at the Obama house of cards.

He can help America cut through the cloud of Hopium (h/t John Kass) that the media has blown up, to obscure the many, many failings of the Chosen One.

Let Cheney be Cheney.

Now,Powerline points out another interesting tidbit of Democratic Party respect for our Constitution: an article that points out that the provision in Porkulus that allows state legislators to bypass their governor and accept Porkulus money is most likely unconstitutional.

To do so would defacto nullify a state law—presuming, that is, that the state’s laws and constitution don’t already permit the legislature to just go over the governor’s head to the US Congress.

IIRC, the Constitution has never been interpreted in a manner where the US Congress can casually override state laws. 10th Amendment, anyone?

Either the Dems didn’t know that…or they don’t feel they need to waste time with following the US Constitution.

I think most Americans like our Constitution. I think they’d be disturbed with the mounting evidence of a party that just disregards it. Especially if that party controls all the levers of US elected government.

Disturbed people vote for change.

The man surely knows better.  I mean, after all, he is a leader on the editorial page of the signature newspaper in the capitol of the world’s only hegemon.  He can’t be a dummy.

So, I submit that we should conclude that he’s deliberately painting a misleading picture of history, in order to further the preferred political ends of he and his colleagues: the success of Democratic politics.

In so doing, he abuses the public trust.

he chose to launch a war of choice in Iraq, thereby shredding what remained of post-Sept. 11 national unity and diverting attention and resources from the fight against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

“he” being Bush 43, of course.

diverting attention and resources from the fight against al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The implication here is that, at the time we invaded Iraq, the focus should have been on fighting al Qaeda in Afghanistan. 

Well, perhaps we should ask ourselves:  How BIG a threat was al Qaeda in Afghanistan by the end of 2002?

Answer:  to the US, not much.

• All the major AQ bases had long since been destroyed
• The remaining capable AQ fighters were either in hiding or in Pakistan

AQ in Afghanistan may have been a threat—to Afghans.  I don’t doubt that AQ was attacking Afghan villages here and there.

But, the AQ that used Afghanistan as a base from which to plot and launch 9/11 was long-gone.

Many Americans don’t fully comprehend that.

Jackson Diehl, deputy editor of the primary voice of the signature newspaper of the capitol city of the world’s most influential country, should comprehend that.

As a public servant, his writings should dispel misperceptions, not reinforce them.

And, as a professional journalist with years of experience, who has obviously risen to a high position, he certainly doesn’t write carelessly.  So, we should presume he chose these words with care.

Yet, his words reinforce a misleading impression of what the world was really like in 2002 and 2003.

Hmmm…I wonder why he would do this…

Rush, one way you can defuse this “controversy” within the GOP ranks is by inviting your most vocal conservative critic—David Frum—onto your show.

If you invite Frum onto your show, here are the benefits I see:

1) You make a public effort to unite the conservative movement.

2) You force Frum to deal directly with you.  How can he turn down an invite from you?  I suspect he’ll find it a lot harder to throw rocks at you when he knows you’re right across the table, or on the other end of the phone line.   If Frum DOES decide to totally trash you on the air….well, you can handle it.  AND, he becomes the next Kathleen Parker….and I suspect Frum knows that.

3) You create an opportunity for both of you to articulate the common ground among you.  I suspect that much more unites you than divides you, in terms of ideas and goals.  On places where you disagree—well, agree to disagree and move on.

4) You and Frum can BOTH, on the air, take shots at Emmanuel and Begala and Carville, and the rest of the Dem PR team (Stephanopolous?)

5) If Frum refuses, he looks like a coward and opportunist.

One of the great benefits of a “spoiling attack”—it allows you to seize and maintain the initative.  When you have the initiative, the other guy has to react to you.  You call most, if not all, of the shots.

I don’t think Frum is a Democratic tool, a Manchurian pundit (so to speak).  He really doesn’t like a lot of what you say.

BUT, Reagan transformed American with big tent conservatism, not little tent.  We need more people inside that tent.

While you’re not our party’s leader, you are the ringmaster of conservatism at the moment.  You’re the conservative movement’s most influential public figure.  As the ringmaster, you don’t own the tent, but you guide what goes on inside it.

So, invite David Frum in.  The best circuses are the ones with all kinds of animals in them, under one roof. 

And don’t forget—you hold the bullhorn.  And the whip

1) Stall.  Slow this thing down.  The more sunshine that falls on it, the more that support for it will erode.  And, if America comes to see this stimulus bill as one big turkey, they’ll think much less of a President Obama who spent a fair portion of his first prime-time presser extolling the bill’s merits and denigrating its opponents.  (When he wasn’t musing on coffins or baseball, that is).

2) Be ready to make your colleagues mad.  Really mad.  By that, I mean you should be willing to use the kinds of parliamentary procedures that (a) slow the legislative process down and (b) make the Democrats publicly defend positions they’d just as soon not have to discuss publicly. 

The Senate has lots of these procedures.  I know the Senate prides itself on its collegiality.  With respect, though, I’m not willing to assume a $800 billion debt so that Senators can continue to be chummy in the cloakroom.   If there was ever the time to offend someone, then now is the time.

I think Obama and Rahm are counting on the GOP Senate leadership’s desire to preserve civility and decorum.  They’re counting on that to blunt criticism just enough for this bill to get through.  I suspect the White House is thinking:  let the GOP and the press criticize us as much as they want after the President signs this bill.  We can solemnly nod in agreement with their critiques, as we cash those Porkulus checks.

3) Figure out ways to force the media to cover you.  GOAD them if necessary!  CNN’s coffin question and the WaPo’s A-Rod question make me fear that the media will help President Obama and the Democrats through these perilous PR times by not asking the tough questions.  By the next time Obama holds a prime-time presser, billions and billions of dollars will be lost. 

The media will also try to help President Obama by minimizing its coverage of stimulus opponents.  You know this, GOP Congress.  You have to figure out ways to FORCE them to cover you.

Hold pressers on the steps of the Capitol.  Do it every day if necessary.  Everyone—what else can they do to make the media cover them?

4) Highlight the aggregious items in the bill.  Distill them into a list of short,bullet points that people can pick from and recite, over and over and over again.  It’s called messaging!  (I think).  Remember “miserable failure”?  That phrase, repeated over and over again, found traction in the public mind.  This Porkulus bill is FULL of 1-2 sentence tidbits that are idea for Twitter or sound bites.   

5) Be ready to embarass Collins, Snowe and Specter.  Don’t lowball your criticisms of the bill, out of fear of making three of your friends look bad.  They chose to be human shields for this bill. 

6) Embarass the media.  No one has worse public approval ratings than the media.  Fine–let’s use that to our advantage.  GOP leaders (paging Michael Steele!)—comment loudly and obnoxiously on the love fest that was last night’s prime time presser.  Wonder loudly why the media isn’t digging more aggressively into the stinky sub-parts and sub-sub parts of this bill.  Wonder why the media doesn’t care about rising mountains of debt.  Call them out by name.  Wonder, for example, if the WaPo screwed up and sent a sports reporter to the White House last night. 

For the rest of us

I gotta admit—I’m at a bit of a loss here.  The most effective thing I can think of is to keep calling the Senate.  But, I fear that the Terrible Three are no longer listening.  I fear that the best we can hope for is to keep the number of GOP Senate defections to three.

What we CAN do, is to get as many Dems to peel off as possible.  I’m thinking Blanche Lincoln, Blue Dogs, etc…   THe more Dems we peel away, the less bipartisan this bill is.

That’s all I have—-Little Smagar is up.  Gotta go. 

Everyone, please pitch in.  What are your good ideas.  We only have a few days left to save billions of dollars.

This one is about the execrable Will Ferrell play about George Bush. (Did you know that the play shows a graphic of a penis? Unfortunately, because I read this article, I now know. Forgive me, but if you’ve read this far, so do you.)

This one is a story by a former writer for Wired magazine. He went undercover as a Wal-Mart employee—and came away liking the company a lot.

The same kind of people who like Will Ferrell’s play hate Wal-Mart. After reading both Powerline articles, I feel compelled to shout that I want to have nothing to do with that kind of people. I consider them to be weak people and failed American citizens.

Andrew Breitbart, are you listening?  Please make the case that we have to deal with such people, no matter how much we’d prefer not to.

Read on

I’m a big fan of Breitbart’s Big Hollywood blog. I agree with much of what he says, to include the part about conservatives needing to be more active in cultural media—movies, TV, etc.

I think Breitbart is right, in his assertion that our culture is being corroded by the left. And, one of the biggest corrosives is the left’s control of the content of movies, TV shows, and plays.

But, I hope Breitbart keeps this in mind: IMO, one reason conservatives have decoupled from today’s media environment, is that we’re repulsed by the people who are driving it.

In my opinion, this play shows Will Ferrell to be a failed person. Only a failed person would put something together like this. Only a failed person would go to a play this mean, this juvenile and find enjoyment in it.

(Full disclosure: I have not seen the play, and have no plans to. I am basing my assessment on reviews by conservatives. I will revise my opinion if I see a positive review of it from a source I trust—but something tells me there’s little chance that I’ll have to issue a mea culpa.)

I want nothing to do with such people. IMO they’ve abrogated their responsibilities as adults and as American citizens. Our Founding Fathers invested American voters with the duty to behave and choose responsibly.

I shudder to think what the spririt of Jefferson thinks as he gazes upon the set of Will Ferrell’s play, or Real Time With Bill Maher.

I submit that many conservatives have turned their back on popular media because we want nothing to do with people like these. We dread the thought that our children might grow up like them.

These people derive a not-insignificant measure of their self-worth from mocking others. Their motto should be “I Mock [insert name of Wal-Mart, George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc...], so Therefore I Am.”

How pathetic. What failures. Frankly, I fear being contaminated if I spend any real time with people like these.

Andrew, as you move forward with Big Hollywood, you should emphasize the importance of dealing head-on with people like Will Ferrell and Bill Maher and Matt Damon and Ashley Judd and Ben Affleck.

There is a natural human predisposition to shun failed people like the ones I’ve just listed. To not want to spend time in a world contaminated by their presence.

But, we must steele ourselves and wade in there. We must take on and deal with the Damons and Ferrells and Mahers. For they are corroding the world we live in

And, this is the only world we have.