Posted by: Gabriel Malor at 05:04 AM | Comments (93)
Post contains 8 words, total size 1 kb.

Maybe. Maybe not.

According to blogging heavyweights Don Surber and Roger L. Simon, Owens beat Hoffman due to Hoffman's focus on social conservative issues like abortion & opposition to gay marriage.

Silly me. I thought that card check was a fiscal conservative issue. And the Club for Growth? Not exactly a darling of the SoCon set, especially here in Iowa where they went after Mike Huckabee in 2007 with pliers and a blowtorch. Huck even took to referring to them as the "Club for Greed", and many of the social conservatives that Simon and Surber are afraid of consider the Club to be "just as bad as ACORN". I even saw speculation that Huck's unwillingness to endorse Hoffman until the last minute was because of his strong backing from the Club for Growth.

Did some voters sour on Hoffman because he was too strong on social issues for their tastes? Maybe so, but he wasn't exactly a one trick pony. His campaign was strongly focused on less federal spending, opposition to card check & definite opposition to Obamacare.

I thought the "Maximalists" were the only ones who were willing to cut off their nose to spite their face?

(I don't know if "Maximalists" has the right ring for my taste. How about "Hardcases"? SoCon Morons should sing out in the comments about their choice of a nickname. After all, we're not CNN: we're not going to call you "teabaggers" or "poop chuters" or any other smarmy sexual innuendo....unless you WANT us to call you by that name.)

UPDATE: Drew sends along this tweet from commenter "justkarl".

[re Maximalists] NY-23 was rep'ed by John McHugh, who had a 100% NRLC rating, and a 0% NARAL rating.

Well, there you go. These out of district "maximalists" were selling a MORE CONCENTRATED brand of religious snake oil than the former Republican representative.....who had a 100% rating on pro-life issues and a 0% rating on pro-choice issues. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Posted by: Russ from Winterset at 04:10 AM | Comments (207)
Post contains 337 words, total size 2 kb.

Here is a fascinating photo essay by the Denver Post showing the life of Ian Fisher over 27 months as he served in the US Army. It follows him through his recruitment, induction, training, deployment to Iraq, and finally his return to Denver in August 2009.

And it's a warts and all portrayal - Ian was kind of a screwup and made some dumb choices along the way, but he made it through training and honorably served a combat deployment to Iraq. Hopefully he's overcome his questionable friends and poor choices in women now that he's older, wiser, and back home.

Posted by: Open Blog at 12:13 AM | Comments (41)
Post contains 139 words, total size 1 kb.

Game Six. Last game, I imagine.

Posted by: Ace at 04:38 PM | Comments (168)
Post contains 12 words, total size 1 kb.

Because you all suck and it's time. Okay let me put this in words that even glue-huffin' sub-morons who are unfit to lurk in the daytime threads like yourselves can sound out:

Oh and the Mocking Rule is in effect: Everything you say and do can be mocked and held against you. Which actually is pretty much like every day except with more verbalizing and less pretending.

And if it's all too much for your pathetic pansy-ass self, just be sure and use the safephrase 'I'm a pretty, pretty fart sniffer' at the top of your comment.

Posted by: Open Blog at 06:00 PM | Comments (1206)
Post contains 257 words, total size 3 kb.

Has it been definitely ruled out or something?

Or did Fred's base defect to Palin?

Seems to me to have the same appeal he always did-- a credible, experienced qualified candidate with broad appeal to all wings of the party.

He just needs to sharpen up his retail politicking and get his energy level up. This time, though, he'd have a year to get into the swing of things.

Just wondering. Fred had such a huge pile of support and now no one talks about him.

Posted by: Ace at 04:04 PM | Comments (430)
Post contains 110 words, total size 1 kb.

Well that's one way to get to the top.

In related news, I have a feeling that the Phillies will be the World Champions tonight, except for the team that beat 'em.

Thanks to Kurt.

Posted by: Ace at 02:35 PM | Comments (183)
Post contains 79 words, total size 1 kb.

Gateway Pundit has some interesting video up of an Iranian protest where the protesters explicitly appear to be chanting "Obama, Obama, Are you with the regime or with us?"

The answer to that question is of course obvious to Americans. Interesting, because they're explicitly mentioning Obama, not "America" or "USA". I'm going to go out on a limb here and say this distinction is probably significant, and they understand that most Americans are pretty supportive of their desire to ditch the Mullocracy and the bad crazy leadership...Obama? well, not so much. He's stiff armed them once already, and seems perfectly willing to allow the regime to strengthen its hand even more with nuclear weapons.

My recommendation to the Iranian people would be to sit tight for another 3 years if they'd like any American help. Indeed, fortune does favor the bold, but the Obama administration isn't going to help you or even give you luke warm lip service, and may even actively work to hurt you if you get too bold. Hopes for Change placed on president "present" will go unrewarded. If you think you can pull this off on your own, then go for it. We'll be with you for moral support, and gladly post vids and descriptions of the effort for the world to see. But don't get unrealistic and overestimate your power and wind up crushed. That would suck for everyone (except Obama of course). more...

Posted by: Purple Avenger at 12:47 PM | Comments (135)
Post contains 244 words, total size 2 kb.

And I mean this: Good for you guys. I had been writing in my head a follow-up to yesterday's post, in which I would re-examine the situation, and see it instead as the maximalists saying We are going to saber-rattle for as much as possible; we're getting annoyed at you guys for trying to interrupt this complex negotiation prematurely and surrender to the milquetoasts at the RNC before we even begin wringing concessions out of them.

Understood like that, it makes sense to me. And I was even going to mention something like, "The RNC has to back off in some of these deals and let real contests occur without putting their heavy thumbs on one side of the scales."

So: Honestly, if this was part of your plan -- or even if it wasn't -- congratulations. I admit that as a pragmatist I would have rolled over and engaged in apologism for further party meddling.

With Republicans grappling with the fallout of an intra-party battle that may have cost them a House seat, the head of the Senate Republican campaign effort is making a pledge that may ease some of the anger being directed at the party establishment.

“We will not spend money in a contested primary,” Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, told ABC News in a telephone interview today.

“There’s no incentive for us to weigh in,” said Cornyn, R-Texas. “We have to look at our resources. . . . We’re not going to throw money into a [primary] race leading up to the election.”

This promise applies to open seats only, unfortunately; presumably then they will still consider throwing money in favor of an incumbent, because that worked out so damn well with Arlen Spector.

By the Way: This isn't an abandonment of my position. Just a recognition that the maximalist side can get some things done better than the pragmatists.

My continuing worry is: What if the maximalists make too many demands and they and the more accomodationist elements of the GOP never come to terms and both walk away from the table?

Disaster. Disaster. No one wins elections with 35% of the vote.

So my fear is, and will continue to be, that in some cases, with all this stare-down poker going on, there is going to be a genuine bust-up and seething anger between the two sides that results in some unnecessary Democratic victories.

And for the "not a dime's worth of difference" crowd -- A majority in the House gets to conduct investigations of the president and issue subpoenas on a party line vote.

A minority doesn't, because the majority just votes party-line to halt the investigation and refuses to put people under oath or compel the production of documents.

Keep that in mind, too. At some point we do have to unite, because we do not have more than 55% of the public with us, and that's under best circumstances.

Posted by: Ace at 12:14 PM | Comments (350)
Post contains 517 words, total size 3 kb.

Notes the strong parallels to Obama's Cult of Personality, and the media's embrace of it, yet enjoys it anyway.

magine this. At a time of political turmoil, a charismatic, telegenic new leader arrives virtually out of nowhere. He offers a message of hope and reconciliation based on compromise and promises to marshal technology for a better future that will include universal health care.

The news media swoons in admiration -- one simpering anchorman even shouts at a reporter who asks a tough question: "Why don't you show some respect?!" The public is likewise smitten, except for a few nut cases who circulate batty rumors on the Internet about the leader's origins and intentions. The leader, undismayed, offers assurances that are soothing, if also just a tiny bit condescending: "Embracing change is never easy."

So, does that sound like anyone you know? Oh, wait -- did I mention the leader is secretly a totalitarian space lizard who's come here to eat us?

Welcome to ABC's "V," the most fascinating and bound to be the most controversial new show of the fall television season. Nominally a rousing sci-fi space opera about alien invaders bent on the conquest (and digestion) of all humanity, it's also a barbed commentary on Obamamania that will infuriate the president's supporters and delight his detractors.

"We're all so quick to jump on the bandwagon," observes one character. "A ride on the bandwagon, it sounds like fun. But before we get on, let us at least make sure it is sturdy."

I was blogging the election and only half watched (or one third watched, really). From what I saw, it looked good enough.

In case you didn't see: Not only have the aliens smuggled infiltrators to prepare the ground for their coming, but those aliens are... terrorists.

White, WASP-y looking terrorists, but still.

But... The producer has been replaced, and the pilot rumored cut in half, in order to reduce the more-blatant Obama parallels. That "rumor" part isn't from the link, but a rumor sent by OgreGunner, without attribution.

The New York Times predictably slammed the show.

It's always amusing to me that liberals instruct conservatives that we should appreciate art for its own sake, even if -- especially if -- it "challenges our beliefs."

Do liberals behave similarly? Um, no. Full-fledged freak out whenever the industry they own puts out a single movie or tv show which raps them.

Posted by: Ace at 12:03 PM | Comments (76)
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.