Morris Dees has become rich by selling hate, from Rosslyn Smith, American Thinker:
Last week’s shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council (FRC) has placed the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) back into the news. The SPLC recently had placed the FRC on its list of hate groups because the SPLC claims that in its opposition to gay marriage, the FRC defames gays and lesbians.
It should be noted that the not-for-profit SPLC ostensibly began its mission to help those who had been victimized by civil rights violations by filing suits on their behalf. In recent years, the SPLC greatly expanded its definition of civil rights and hate groups to the point where any organization that opposes the left’s favored causes risks being labeled a hate group by the SPLC. It has also moved away from suing on behalf of the aggrieved to raising awareness of the presence of “hate groups.” Most of all, for the last 35 years, it has become a real fundraising dynamo
No person should get rich off selling hatred.
The Supreme Nine in their infinite wisdom has forbade the death penalty for rapists. So why do liberals who profess to take their moral guidance from the Supreme Court insist that killing produce of a rape, to wit a living human being, is a mere choice> Robert Stacy McCain weighs in, from Other McCain:
Akin’s fundamental problem is that he was arguing the wrong point.
Whenever supporters of abortion start throwing up arguments based on exceptions, the proper response is to point out that well over 90 percent of abortions have nothing whatsoever to do with such exceptions, but are strictly a matter of choice: post-conception birth control. And the pre-Roe history demonstrated that permitting abortion under specific exceptions resulted in those exceptions being abused. The rape exception resulted in false accusations of rape, and the “health” exception resulted in doctors fictionalizing health risks, including false determinations of mental health risks.
Fact, Norma McCorvey, b/k/a Jane Roe, lied about being raped. No human being should be killed just because he was fathered by a rapist, and more importantly, no human being should b e killed just because he mother lied ab out being raped.
Aside to Mr. Akin: Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.
Yet another suicide from a tall structure. We need to start a national conversation about bridge control, from Andrew Blankstein and John Horn, Los Angeles Times:
“Top Gun” director Tony Scott jumped to his death from the Vincent Thomas Bridge in San Pedro on Sunday afternoon. He was 68.
His body was pulled out of the water by Los Angeles Port Police, who were the first on the scene.
Several witnesses told police they saw Scott get out of his Toyota Prius, which was parked on the bridge, about 12:30 p.m. Then he scaled an 8- to 10-foot fence and jumped off without any hesitation, law enforcement sources said.
Bridges don’t cause deaths, people do.
I did know that anybody, not named Joe Biden, could be so utterly stupid, from Daniel Halper. Weekly Standard:
Yesterday, when introducing President Obama at a campaign event in New Hampshire, Senator Jeanne Shaheen, a Democrat, said that the president “led the mission that brought Osama bin Laden to justice”:
Video:
Hat tip: Doug Ross.
Reax: Right Scoop:
Obama surrogate and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), introducing Obama yesterday in New Hampshire, really poured it on thick which she said this
Question is the letter D to the right of Shaheen’s named denote democrat or dumb?
Comments:
- Is this really Shaheen, just Blue Hen Joe in drag?
- Will the White House attempt to walk back Shaheen’s bidenism?
- Does the Obama campaign even smart enough to know that Shaheen committed a biden.
- I continue to be amused by the Eric Holder doctrine that is a crime to capture or interrogate an enemy combatant but it perfectly alright to kill them.
Off the top of head, I can think of several presidents who lead troops in combat, before they became commander-in-chief, George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Harrison, Abraham Lincoln William McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower. I can name no active American commander-in-chief whoever led soldiers in combat. George (Forty One) Bush never claimed to have personally expelled Saddam Hussein from Kuwait. George (Forty Three) Bush never claimed to have personally captured Hussein Yet this Obama fellow seems to think of himself as greater than Washington, Jackson, Roosevelt, Eisenhower and even Truman.
From CNS, via Guns and Whiskey:
Social Security Administration Explains Plan to Buy 174,000 Hollow-Point Bullets
(CNSNews.com – By Penny Starr) – Aug 16, 2012
The Social Security Administration posted a blog on Thursday to explain why it was planning to purchase 174,000 hollow point bullets. SSA posted a “Request for Quote for Ammunition” on the FedBizOps.gov website on Aug. 7.The request listed the commodity that SSA desired as “.357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow point pistol ammunition.” The quantity listed was “174 TH.”
The SSA’s Office of the Inspector General’s said it posted a new blog on the agency’s website, “Beyond the Numbers,” “as we strive to be a transparent and accountable government organization for all of our stakeholders.
“With those goals in mind, we thought it would be appropriate to address recent media reports regarding the organization’s purchase of ammunition for our special agents’ duty weapons,” the blog post states. The blog states that the SSA has 295 special agents who work in 66 offices across the United States.
The administration which pulled over seven hundred billion dollars out of Medicare, seeks to arm agents for which is has no need.
I propose that the Social Security Administration spend more money on benefits and zero on hollow point ammo. What say you?
The subject of hate crimes has come up again, what with the Chic-fil-a thing and the more recent (And more violent and hateful) shooting at the FRC.
I want to refer you to something I wrote back in 2001, which today seems rather prophetic:
The pattern is well established. Politicians and others have frequently blamed “hatred” for headline making crimes, particularly when in the act of pandering to so-called Minority groups..
*After the April 1995 bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City, President Clinton named G. Gordon Liddy among the conservative talk-show hosts he called “purveyors of hatred and division,” saying they were “encouraging violence.” The liberal press, who has long been willing to prostitute itself to the end of defeating anyone who holds views to the right of say, Fidel Castro, gleefully agreed with him. There was serious talk of McVeigh being charged under “Hate crimes’
laws, but I’ve forgotten if he ever was prosecuted under those laws. I suspect though, that he was so charged.*’Concerned’ over arson attacks on black churches in 1996, (You recall, the ones Mr. Clinton lied about) civil rights leader Joseph Lowery accused the Christian Coalition of fostering an “extremist climate.” The non problem was followed up as a group of hate crimes.
*When avowed homosexual Matthew Shepard was killed in Wyoming last year, Homosexual-extra-rights advocate Joan M. Garry suggested it was the result of a conservative anti-homosexuality campaign she said “fuels the fires of bigotry.”, and his killers were subject to and convicted under Hate Crime statutes.
*Following the shootings at a Jewish community center in California, the leftist media and politicians jumped onto the hate crime bandwagon, labeling those episodes of violence “hate crimes”..
*In Texas, the dragging death of a black man has brought two white men to conviction and the death penalty. These were reported by the press, most notably CBS and CNN (who forever shill for big government ) as hate crimes.
Yet there is another pattern, also well established… a more disturbing one.
#When a gunman spouting blasphemous rhetoric burst into a youth service at a Fort Worth Baptist church this week, and fatally shot seven persons, the liberal’s war on hate crimes was nowhere to be seen. Nor were there endless lines of liberal leaders, making as much out of the situation as possible.
#When in 1997, a kid who had been known as anti-Christian shot up a high school prayer group in Paducah, KY where were the people protecting us from ‘hate crime’? They must have hidden behind the folks who want to remove the second amendment from the books. It’s the oddest thing; these looked just like the folks who had been
screaming about hate crimes in my first examples.#When the April murders of Christian students at Columbine High School in Colorado, made the front page… where the shooters specifically picked out Christians to shoot at by asking them for professions of faith and then killing them for their answer, we saw no crying and wailing from the usual suspects about ‘hate crime’. Yet, there can be no question that these crimes too, were motivated by hate.
Such discrepancies alas constitute legal life in America today. And with our over dependence on law, and on government, such nonsense penetrates every aspect of our day to day lives. The obvious question is why such double standards are permitted to exist. The answer, I fear, goes directly to the heart of the motive behind the hate crime laws.
Understand; “motive” is not an idle choice of a word.. I consider the laws and the motive behind them, criminal. Why?
Well, in answer, it doesn’t pass my notice, and I hope it doesn’t pass yours, that there are many who scream loudly to the populace for hate crimes laws when certain groups… groups whom they have historically favored… are targeted. Yet, these same people keep stony silence when other groups that they don’t favor are. You should also take note, of which are which. This disparity, (along with the disparity in the implementation of hate crime laws themselves) sends the message that hate itself isn’t the real issue… but rather WHOM you hate… that it’s OK to hate certain people. And of course, by passing hate crime laws and selectively implementing them, the government sends the clear message of which we shall and shall not hate.
A look around provides the idea that open hostility to Christians, and others who hold traditional American values, is growing rapidly, and government is doing much to foster this hostility. Let’s be honest enough to say that this is the real purpose of “hate crime” legislation; to provoke hatred against politically incorrect groups, such as those who dare to try and uphold traditional cultural values, and/or those who are Christians.
I suggest that this double standard is just one more front on the culture war … a war so many deny exists. Yet, it is a war that continues to claim victims. As in this case.
Let me be clear, here. I am not suggesting that we give ‘hate crimes’ status to those crimes that we have not. I’m suggesting that we should grant ‘hate crime’ status to NO crime. By their design, and certainly by their implementation, the Hate Crimes statutes tend to reveal motives on the part of the government, which have racial and cultural motives, which are directed against the majority. Lincoln once observed that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Hate Crimes laws, far from being the healing tool they were supposed to be, have only served to deepen our division. It’s time to remove so called hate crimes from the books.
With what we see with the events with Chic-fil-a and the FRC shootings and the reax of the usual morons to each, it seems to me not thing one has changed.
Tags: hate crimes
I’ve been saying it now for a decade and more… Get a real conservative in the lead role of a presidential election and there will be no stopping them.
Romney and Ryan
Of course, the usual suspects pooh-pooh that concept, saying a conservative has no chance up against a “moderate”… like John McCain, for example. That real conservatives are radicals, have no connection with mainstream America, and particularly with the mainstream American voter. I’ve said all along that the leftist concept of what is mainstream is suspect at the off, and Paul Ryan’s nomination as Romney’s VP and the public reaction to it, confirms this very nicely.
OK, look, Paul Ryan of himself disproves many myths of the value… or more correctly the myths of the lack of value… of a real conservative on any ticket… but while one point doesn’t prove a whole lot of itself, two, do. Who s the second? The answer is obvious; Sarah Palin.
There seems no doubt, even on the left, that Ryan, like Palin before him, is more popular than the top of the ticket… and that’s because of his being far more conservative than Romney. He draws far larger crowds, his ideas are discussed more, and agreed with by a far larger majority, and so on. The reason is because he, like Palin is unashamed to stand up for American values… something the left has been working actively against, since we “didn’t build it”.
And it seems obvious that the GOP leadership is decidedly fearful of a real conservative being the standard bearer, as I’ve pointed out in these spaces many times. As fearful, even, as the Democrats are. And that tells many people, myself included, there is a sickness in the GOP leadership… John Boener and company included, that needs repair or more likely, replacement.
The GOP Establishment over-ruled the majority of Republicans in 1996 and we got Bob Dole. In 2000, People had had enough of Bill Clinton and The GOP Establishment responded with George Bush, who is at best a centrist. The GOP Establishment over-ruled the vast majority of GOP rank and file and we got John McCain in 08. . The GOP Establishment once again over-ruled the GOP rank and file in in 2012. We Got Mitt Romney. These last two tried to appease the base instead of following their lead, and came in with popular conservatives, and got overwhelmed.
At what point do we stop going for the mythical center? At what point does the GOP leadership start actually BEING conservative? At what point do the rank and file GOP have a real say? It makes one really wonder just what the motivations of the GOP Establishment really are.
I suggest, as do rally attendance figures that Palin, Ryan and the other far more conservative candidates’ popularity far outstrips the GOP leadership’s chosen ones… and the treatment they receive at the hands of the GOP establishment outright proves that, as well. Conservative ideas and ideals will win the day every time they’re tried…. and the real issue is they’ve not been so tried in many decades because theGOP Establishment won’t allow it to happen. Of course the left knows it as well. They each know very well know someone with real conservative ideas and ideals will suck all the air out of the room.
Consider the question I asked last week; “Will Ryan get the Palin Treatment?” I said then:
Sarah Palin
As with Palin, what we have with Ryan is someone who understands what Reagan meant when he said government isn’t the solution, but the PROBLEM. As such, Ryan, clearly, has the ability to argue these points forcefully and convincingly. That can only be a plus, however, if the Romney campaign is willing to stand up and be counted as conservative.
The question seems to me open as to how seriously Romney and the remainder of the GOP leadership take that point, today.
As a measurement of that, watch with me to see if the GOP will make the same mistake with Ryan as they did with Palin; Muzzling him in an effort to appease the left, which is masquerading as “the center”. Again, speaking for myself in the suspicion that a Reagan-sized majority agrees with me, I will say my support for Romney/Ryan will be established if they do not muzzle Ryan, if they do not ignore the message the public support of Ryan shows.
So, today, we see in the AP:
Ryan, the nation’s most controversial budget architect, is often described as the intellectual leader of the House Republican caucus. But Romney’s presidential campaign headquarters in Boston seems, for now, to prefer that the 42-year-old father of three talks about camping and milking cows instead of the fiscal proposals that made him a conservative hero.
Ryan, who wrote a plan to overhaul Medicare as chairman of the House Budget Committee, did not use the word ”Medicare” with voters over the first four days as the vice presidential candidate. When he finally touched on the health care insurance program for seniors, he did so only in broad strokes after Romney himself first outlined the campaign’s talking points.
”We will not duck the tough issues,” Ryan said Friday in Virginia. ”We will lead.”
But Ryan has been directed to avoid taking questions from reporters who travel with him, and to agree only to a few carefully selected interviews.
Sounds to me, like they’ve already started to treat him the same as Palin. If they continue on this path, they deserve to lose.
So why don’t the GOP Establishment actually go with a real conservative? Why not tap that huge voter base? Why not let the logic of conservatism sweep the national debate, as it has every time it’s been tried before? Since the numbers of Palin and Ryan together, the reax to them both, and their popularity.. even among the center, doesn’t lie, the most logical answer is they don’t believe in conservative values themselves.
The lessons the Gipper taught us are being ignored by the GOP Establishment, now, as they were then.
Of course there’s a third point in history, a third lesson to be learned, and add to this trend line, and it’s one the GOP tried desperately to unlearn… Ronald Reagan.
Remember, folks, the GOP establishment didn’t much like Reagan, either. Limbaugh pointed this out some years ago:
You and I know that the establishment Republicans don’t like conservatives. They didn’t like Reagan. They were embarrassed of Reagan. They were embarrassed of us. They didn’t like the Moral Majority, they didn’t like the Christian right, they don’t like the pro-lifers. They don’t like the social conservatives at all. They’re embarrassed by us, in many ways, with their other buddies, the establishment Democrats — which combined gives us the Washington establishment, and they very much prefer to be members of that club than ours. But they know that it doesn’t help them to be called “establishment Republicans.” So they’re trying to take the term “conservative” and co-opt it and define it as they behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics.
That’s exactly correct. And the way the GOP establishment ” behave, write, speak, and even vote on matters of politics” isn’t even remotely conservative as you and I understand the term. Remember; Bush was nominated as VP to appease the GOP establishment who thought him…. incorrectly… to be too far to the right. Reagan didn’t win because he’d be “moderated” by Bush, but because he was stoutly and unapologetic about being a real conservative.
They apparently didn’t learn that lesson, either. For that alone, they should have been replaced, years ago.
The American Conservative Party in a recent op-ed, suggested, and I think correctly:
Do Speaker of the House John Boehner, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and GOP Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney fit within the fabric of the “Establishment” or Washington Politboro that seeks its own sufficiency? Based on the definers, the answer is clearly, “YES!” Simply, those that preserve their interests of excessive government rule and intervention into the daily lives of Americans fit the bill of the “Establishment”. Those that resist the excesses of governance and imposition of state and federal taxation into the lives of individuals, families and private organizations are “conservatives”. Talitha McEachin, in her essay The Black Community’s Distrust of the Government, provokes her readers with this question, ?”How can some of us say we don’t trust the government, yet vote for more of it in our lives?” Blogger Dan McLaughlinwrote a seminal piece about the separation of Establishment and Conservatives entitled, What The Republican “Establishment” Really Means. In it he advised that a key matter separtes us: “it’s almost entirely about spending.” For those following along at home, the analysis is clear. There are three groups that empower politicians in general elections: Conservatives, the Establishment (Republicans and Democrats) and Liberals. Conservatives believe that Americans are better stewards of their finances than government and that spending should be reduced as austerely as possible. The Establishment believe that you could not possibly build a home, receive medical care or flush a toilet with out some form of government intervention.
In short, you can’t fit water between John Boener and Barrack Obama who advised us a short while ago, “we didn’t build that”.
It’s time for the conservative voice to be followed by the leadership… not just heard, and ignored. And I say again, if this situation does not change, Romney/Ryan deserve to lose. And will.
Yo, Eric, I noticed you uploaded a couple pics of Paul Ryan. Well I uploaded a pic of his pecs. Plus the other person in the picture ( Mrs. Ryan, I assume) is lust a wee bit cuter than Mitt Romney:
Hat tips: TMZ and Lonely Conservative
Comments:
- Paul’s chest is alright, but I prefer the redhead.
- Going topless worked for Dim Won, and Paul’s got a better chest.
- Unlike Dumbo’s picture, this one wasn’t stage for the campaign.
- I am sure the Mr. LC understands what a blogger has to due to get hits.
And last, at least Ryan isn’t drinking any White House beer.
“Mr. President, you did not kill Osama bin Laden, America did. The work that the American military has done killed Osama bin Laden. You did not
Via Mark Hosenball, Reuters.
Hat tip: Professor Althouse.
Mr. President, swords have two edges, and cut in both directions. You should have thought twice before you lifted Fauxasquawa’s, Elizabeth Warren’s, meme.
Another day, and another leftard goes postal. from Washington Examiner, via Jawa Report:
Two people, including one security guard, were shot at the office of the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., this morning.
“The police are investigating this incident,” said FRC President Tony Perkins in a statement on the shooting. “Our first concern is with our colleague who was shot today. Our concern is for him and his family.”
The shooter was also reportedly shot, according to a local news report, which notes that the FBI is at the scene.
If this report from Fox News is confirmed, the attack was terrorism:
The suspect “made statements regarding their policies, and then opened fire with a gun striking a security guard,” a source told Fox News. WJLA-TV7 reported the suspect was also shot.
Violence in an attempt to further political objectives is by definition terrorism. The suspect one Floyd Corkin has strong ties to radical left wing.
Food for thought, was Corkin pushed over the edge because the Southern Poverty Law Center deemed the Family Research Council a so-called hater group,Jammie Wearing Fool. How much violence will it take before Morris Dees quits spewing hate? Dees seems to define hatred as promoting any value of which he does not personally approve. the very definition of intolerance.
What is the difference between G. Gordon Liddy and Frank Cordaro. Liddy didn’t become a convicted criminal until after he got caught in the Watergate hotel In contrast Cordaro was already a convicted criminal when the Secret Service dragged him off stage, via Scott Johnson, Powerline:
One of the hecklers taken away from Paul Ryan was a former Catholic priest who attended high school with me named Frank Cordaro. Frank never had time to protest at an abortion clinic but was arrested at Offut AFB many times through the years. Carter invited him to the White House and he responded by throwing ashes inside (something to do with nuclear fallout). He has lately been active in what passes for the occupy movement in Des Moines. Sadly a jackass showing no tolerance for an opposing viewpoint
from Wikipedia:
Frank Cordaro (born 1951) is a peace activist and co-founder of the Des Moines, IowaCatholic Worker group. He frequently attends protests and gives lectures at school and community events in Nebraska and Iowa. He was a Roman Catholic priest from 1985 until leaving the priesthood in 2003 for personal reasons, including his wish to be released from the vow of celibacy.[1][2] He is known as a Christian anarchist and frequently participates in peace rallies involving civil disobedience. He has been sentenced to at least eight six-month terms in federal jail for trespassing onto military bases and federal buildings during demonstrations, most often at Strategic Air Command at Offutt Air Force Base near Omaha, Nebraska.[3][4]
Is Cordaor Axelrod’s first string? Who’s next David?
Paul Ryan went solo in Iowa and got assaulted bo democrat rent-a-thugs. How do I now the rental thugs were democrats? Because they are stupid. from Zeke Miller et al, Buzz Feed:
DES MOINES, Iowa — Paul Ryan’s remarks at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines today turned into a confrontational scene when hecklers sought to drown him out and then rush the stage.
Ryan had barely begun speaking when a woman shouted, “Are you going to cut Medicare?”
Two women rushed the stage, and one was apparently arrested by three Iowa State Patrolmen after getting on stage with a banner.
“Woah…hey…alright…she must not be from Iowa,” said a rattled Ryan as the woman got on stage and grabbed by police.
Axelrod’s thugs rushed the wrong stage. Neither Mitt Romney nor Paul Ryan has proposed to cut Medicare. In contrast, Barack Obama already has cut Medicare, when he signed Obama Care into law. It Obama who is waging war on seniors, and nearly everybody else.
Hat tip, reax and BSWK to Professor Althouse:
Paul Ryan, heckled in Iowa, said “We’re used to this in Wisconsin.”
Ha ha.
Having seen Wisconsin protesters in action, I appreciate the humor.
Speaking of humor, remember that “civility” bullshit?
The Professor knows what is is like to be on the political front lines when the leftards attack.
The little old lady from Washington outdoes herself, Clarice Feldman, the Sharp Tack, on Paul Ryan, from American Thinker:
[Payk] Ryan, a man who does know what’s he’s talking about on the most important issue before us — rescuing the economy from Obama’s mismanagement and getting America back on track — has to be Obama’s worst nightmare.
Clarice has much more to day.
The issue should be the Obama Economy. David Axelrod and company, don’t want to talk about Obama’s handling of the economy. Ryan will not allow Axelrod to duck the issue.
As regards Romney’s pick of Paul Ryan as a running mate, I tend to agree with David’s initial reax; “Bring it on”. I look forward to the VP debates, which should be the highlight of the campaign for me. As Ace said on Twitter, the other day,
Let’s face it, no one picks Joe Biden for his brains. They pick him for his ability to casually insult different races without consequence.
Romney/Ryan
The VP debate will be a blood bath. Aside from the fact that Biden has the IQ of the average horse dropping, there’s a 27 year gap between Ryan and Biden. That’s the largest in 108 years, for VP candidates. I wonder if in the target rich environment that Obama /Biden presents, if this age difference will even come up, but it does seem a cultural curiosity. And certainly, the difference in smarts will… and has already, if we are to take the resounding approval we see from the American voters. Romney garnered something on the order of $3.5MUSD in campaign cash, in the 24 hours after the announcement.
Speaking for myself, I must admit, that my first and enduring reaction, is that the ticket is upside down…. Ryan would be more effective at shrinking government, as President than Romney left to his own devices will ever be. Ryan is in fact more presidential than his running mate. Of course, that was also my reax at Palin as a pick.
That said, I’ve been saying all along that this election will not be about how good Romney is, but how bad Obama is.
As a recent example, Axlerod on just today saying of the Romney/Ryan economic plan: “This is a prescription for economic catastrophe.” Which, of course would be downright laughable, if it weren’t so tragic, given what Obama and his enablers like Axlerod said would work … and is “working fine”. The more this administration does, the worse things get. Because, dear reader, the only trick in their bag is growing government.
Sarah Palin
As with Palin, what we have with Ryan is someone who understands what Reagan meant when he said government isn’t the solution, but the PROBLEM. As such, Ryan, clearly, has the ability to argue these points forcefully and convincingly. That can only be a plus, however, if the Romney campaign is willing to stand up and be counted as conservative.
The question seems to me open as to how seriously Romney and the remainder of the GOP leadership take that point, today.
As a measurement of that, watch with me to see if the GOP will make the same mistake with Ryan as they did with Palin; Muzzling him in an effort to appease the left, which is masquerading as “the center”. Again, speaking for myself in the suspicion that a Reagan-sized majority agrees with me, I will say my support for Romney/Ryan will be established if they do not muzzle Ryan, if they do not ignore the message the public support of Ryan shows.
Seems to me that Reagan won the center in large numbers… not by leaning left so as to look centrist but by standing up unapologetically for what he believed in.. unabashed conservatism. The left and the supposed “center” saw Reagan’s 30% tax cut, for example, as a loser. History records that their dislike didn’t stop the November landslide that swept Reagan into office. Now, we see the likes of laughable leftists like Candy Crowley, Andrea Mitchell, Brainless EJ Dionne, and Stink Progress, the NEA, MoveOn, Daily Kos, all expressing their dislike for Ryan. I’m reminded the press and the usual suspects on the left didn’t much like Reagan, either.
Ponder with me for a moment, the success of candidates these folks DO like. McCain, for example….who aimed at the mythical center. The aforementioned Mitchell, Crowley and Dionne LIKED McCain. That campaign, the GOP and McCain, got their backsides handed them, and demonstrated clearly the path not to tread.
I wonder, has the GOP learned that lesson? Our country and it’s further existence depends on it.
