Wayne Allyn Root Still Can't Believe His Prediction Of A Romney Landslide Failed Topic: Newsmax
When last we saw Wayne Allyn Root, he was predicting a "Reagan-like landslide" for Mitt Romney and assailing the New York Times' Nate Silver for insisting that President Obama would win, insising that the election results would mean that "liberals should give delusional and clueless pollster Nate Silver of The New York Times a gold watch and a retirement dinner."
Well, not so much. And Root is still a little stunned that his prognistication skills failed him. From his Nov. 15 Newsmax column:
My prediction was based on a combination of scientific evidence and common sense. First, it was based on common sense that no president could possibly be re-elected with the worst economy of our lifetimes — with an economy that has produced more months above 8 percent unemployment (43) than produced by all the presidents between Harry Truman and George W. Bush combined (39).
People just don't vote for the guy that brings you misery, malaise, foreclosures, and bankruptcies, record unemployment, and inflation at the gas pump and grocery store. This election should have been, 100 out of 100 times, a repeat of Reagan’s landslide over Carter.
Secondly, my prediction was based on common sense that turnout, enthusiasm, and the makeup of the electorate would be far different than 2008. Obama's coalition of single women, minorities, and young people were the groups most hurt by his economy. They are the ones without jobs. They are the ones suffering, with 14.3 percent black unemployment and 53 percent under-unemployment for college grads. Logic dictated these groups would not come out in record numbers again.
No one is such a glutton for punishment they'd return and ask for a second helping of misery, malaise and despair, right?
Well, I was wrong. The 2012 electorate looked almost identical to 2008. Obama's supporters didn’t just come for a second helping of misery — they came out enthusiastically and cheered for more.
Lastly, my prediction was based on SCIENCE — the University of Colorado's predictive model had never failed. It worked to perfection in the presidential elections of 1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008. It predicted a Romney landslide based on scientific facts and historical precedent.
Obama’s re-election proves that bribery as a campaign tactic is validated. Promise enough "free stuff” and you win votes, even if the end result is no jobs, no hope, and a lifetime dependent on government. You wouldn't believe this could be true. Not in America. That's why my prediction went wrong.
Since he was apparently reluctant to do so before the election, Root launched into a list of reasons why Romney lost, which largely centered around him playing it too safe and, thus, screwing up his prediction. Indeed, he ends his column by writing:
If Romney had been aggressive and not played it safe, would we be talking about President Romney, and celebrating my brilliant prediction? We'll never know. But if Romney had picked Rubio as his VP, and GOP Senate candidates Akins and Mourdock had never tried to tackle abortion and rape, I have no doubt my prediction would have been "on the money."
Presumably Root knew all of this before the election. He could have adjusted his prediction to better reflect reality, which he apparently did not, choosing instead to put being a Romney shill ahead of smart analysis.
Root also owes Silver an apology, but none was forthcoming in this column.
The MRC's Hypocritical Attack on Christi Parsons Topic: Media Research Center
Who's the journalist the Media Research Center hates the most this week? Christi Parsons. She's the Chicago Tribune writer who made the mistake of congratulating President Obama on his re-election during a press conference last week.
In a Nov. 14 MRC item, Scott Whitlock called Parsons "a gushing fan" who "cooed to Obama that she had 'never' seen him 'lose.'" On his weekly appearance on Sean Hannity's Fox News show, MRC chief Brent Bozell sneered that "no one, but nobody seemed the least bit perturbed that she and [President Obama] are playing kissy-face in a press conference. Nobody was at all surprised by that. What does that tell you about our press corps?"
It's rather hypocritical that Bozell and Co. are pretending this sort of thing has never happened before. Take, for insteance, this November 4, 2004, press conference by George W. Bush, the first after his re-election:
THE PRESIDENT: Herman. I'm probably going to regret this. (Laughter.)
Q I don't know if you had a chance to check, but I can report you did eke out a victory in Texas the other day.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, sir.
Q Congratulations. I'm interested in getting back to Steven -- Stevenson's question about unity. Clearly, you believe you have reached out and will continue to reach out. Do you believe the Democrats have made a sincere and sufficient effort to meet you somewhere halfway, and do you think now there's more reason for them the do that in light of the election results?
Who is "Herman"? We don't know. It apepars that the MRC was so uninteresting in his fanboy fawning that it didn't bother to record the event for posterity.
Apparently, fanboy reporters are permitted at the MRC when they're fawning over a Republican.
CNS Puts Words In Tim Geithner's Mouth Topic: CNSNews.com
The headline of Elizabeth Harrington's Nov. 19 CNSNews.com article reads "Treasury Secretary Geithner: Lift Debt Limit to Infinity." Harrington starts the article by writing, "Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Friday that Congress should stop placing legal limits on the amount of money the government can borrow and effectively lift the debt limit to infinity."
Just one little problem: Geithner never says the word "infinity." While Geithner does advise eliminating the debt ceiling, it's to keep it from being used as "a tool for political advantage," as Harrington eventually concedes, not out of a desire to "lift the debt limit to infinity."
CNS has a notablehistory of putting words in the mouths of their political enemies.
WND's Farah: We're All Gonna Die Because Obama Was Re-Elected, But First Let Me Sell You Something Topic: WorldNetDaily
Joseph Farah has been speaking in increasingly angry and apocalyptic terms since President Obama was re-elected:
On Nov. 6, he asserted that Obama's re-election was "God’s judgment on a people who have turned away from Him and His ways and from everything for which our founders sacrificed their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor."
On Nov. 8, he called for "a counter-revolution in the culture – to start creating new institutions and restoring some of the old ones, to withdraw from the institutions that are corrupting our culture and degrading our principles and to create their own counter-cultural institutions.
On Nov. 13, he declared that Obama voters have "gone awhoring."
Farah takes it to another level in his Nov. 18 column, by digging around in the book of Hosea to declare that America is "where ancient Israel was before being destroyed by God":
Do you want to know where America is today in historical and biblical terms?
It’s where ancient Israel was before being destroyed by God.
In Hosea 8, God speaks to the prophet about the precipice on which Israel stands: “They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not: of their silver and their gold have they made them idols, that they may be cut off.”
We are in full apostasy boogie.
We have left our Judeo-Christian roots, values and heritage and are pursuing other gods.
We think we’re too sophisticated for accountability to God.
God’s laws and judgments are, well, too judgmental for a secular and advanced society like America’s.
We know how to do it better.
Which, of course, immediately turns into an excuse to try and sell something from the WND online store:
This is, in fact, the subject matter of the No. 1 faith film in America this year – “The Isaiah 9:10 Judgment,” which I was privileged to produce. Its popularity – 35 weeks as the No. 1 faith film and a top five documentary during most of that time – suggests not all Americans are falling for this retreat from reality. It’s a visual retelling of the No. 1 Christian book of 2012, “The Harbinger.”
Apparently, if America is about to be destroyed, Farah is going to try and fleece his readers for as much money as he can before the end.
CNS' Starr Misleads on Government Regulations Topic: CNSNews.com
Penny Starr writes in a Nov. 9 CNSNews.com article:
It’s Friday morning, and so far today, the Obama administration has posted 165 new regulations and notifications on its reguations.gov website.
In the past 90 days, it has posted 6,125 regulations and notices – an average of 68 a day.
But Starr is falsely conflating notifications with regulations. For instance, one recent notification is an announcement of a meeting by the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts -- clearly not a "regulation." And as Starr herself concedes, the "regulations" are often just proposed regulations and requests for comment on them.
But because the Regulations.gov website conveniently posts statistics on its website, Starr got a story out of some lazy reporting -- and, judging by the number of comments, it also served as irresistable Drudge link-bait. There's no evidence Starr lifted a finger to make the effort to separate actual regulations from proposals and notifications.
Talk about lazy. But Drudge seems to have linked to it, so it doesn't matter how true it is, right?
There are only two ways a president with Obama’s record could win. The one, of course, to have massive election fraud take place. The other is to run against him a candidate worse than he. Karl Rove, Reince Preibus and those who view Jeb Bush as the savior in 2016 chose the latter of the two options.
The next two years are critical. As a close friend and colleague wrote this morning, for the next two years we must: “Fire and fall back. Inflict maximum damage on the enemy, but fall back on prepared positions, and repeat this process until reinforcements arrive” This include Benghazi, Fast and Furious, Obamacare and the economy.
Never have we had a leader who can be so spooked-out by one-word attacks! “Solyndra!” Benghazi!” “Video!” “Fast-and-Furious!” (Oops! That one ran a little long!)
And this is the president you have re-elected, America. And you expect me to stand hunched over and look at my shoe-tops and mumble apologies for opposing him! Don’t wait without lots of Thermos fluids and sandwiches.
All of my voting life I’ve been able to say either, “My man won!” or “The other man won!” This is the first time I can say with clear conscience, “The wrong man won!”
What in hell has happened to you, America? Your major media have abandoned you, let you down completely, and you don’t emit a whimper of complaint. I suspect you’re not even aware. I suspect you think, “Well, if it ain’t there it ain’t news!” And you caused and rejoice in the victory of this thunderously inadequate president! And I’m supposed to show some kind of shame and contrition for being for Romney! In a pig’s eye, America, as radio’s Jean Shepherd used to say. “In a pig’s eye!” Well, Benghazi wasn’t in the news, but it was newsworthy. big-time newsworthy. Now that there’s a sex-angle, the major media have no choice but to pay attention.
I don’t think JFK would mind me stealing his construct.
“Ask not what’s wrong with Romney. Ask what’s wrong with America!”
How is it, people wonder, that Obama could be re-elected with an economy that’s barely breathing; a foreign policy that led to the Benghazi massacre and a cover-up that puts Watergate in the shade; soaring prices at the gas pump; a war on the oil and coal industries; a diminished military; increased taxes; Obamacare; handing GM over to a labor union; and an unemployment rate that’s worse than the one he’s spent four years complaining he inherited?
How, indeed? Well, for openers, Hispanics see the federal government as one big piñata, filled with goodies. Likewise, blacks, single women and immature males think that Uncle Sam is really their Sugar Daddy.
If America had been invaded by foreign enemies, we could have fought back. But this wasn’t a foreign invader. It’s as if America had died of cancer or a self-inflicted bullet to the head. The fat lady sang, and it wasn’t the National Anthem. We have all heard about criminals who, having been cornered, refuse to be captured and incarcerated. Instead, they choose to go out in a blaze of gunfire. It’s called suicide by cop. What happened on Nov. 6th was suicide by voter.
I see America as a nation in ruins. The difference is that, unlike the ancient cities of Rome and Athens, tourists won’t be showing up to take pictures.
When Barack Obama was re-elected on Nov. 6, 2012, I was momentarily sad for my nation; then, the only reaction I felt was anger.
Those Americans who are hardworking and believe that less government intervention and involvement in their lives is the surest way to prosperity (both individually and for the community at-large) were defeated by a voting base that believes the exact opposite.
I’ve said for a long time, fomenting widespread civil unrest has been part of President Obama’s game plan from Day 1. This, I have asserted, he will do in order to implement martial law or something resembling it, at least initially. Once this has been done, like so many government constructions, it becomes an entanglement from which it is damnably difficult, if not impossible, to extricate ourselves.
What better way to coalesce the aforementioned complete power than by enacting so many oppressive policies within a short period of time, and amidst charges of misfeasance and fraud, that Americans who do have a sense of what America represents finally determine they’ve had enough? All the while, the press maintains the deception that Obama is just Joe President trying to do the right thing amidst radical factions reacting to circumstances brought about by George W. Bush in the first place. Thus, Obama’s actions, no matter how tyrannical, will be validated.
There has been much talk of late about America’s “fiscal cliff.” As troubling as our impending (Obama-spurred) economic collapse may be – and it is more troubling than even our most pessimistic economists are willing to admit – I’m even more concerned about fast-mounting tensions worldwide.
I am a proud Jewish Christian and feel that Israel and its survival is synonymous with my American heritage. I am one with my people and will never forsake them. And, I am in Israel also on my professional and personal mission, to do whatever I can – particularly in light of the destructive and anti-Semitic policies and actions of President Barack Hussein Obama (our first and hopefully only “Muslim” president) and the ignorance if not stupidity of the 70 percent of the clueless American Jews who just voted to put him back in the White House for another four horrifying years. In my opinion, Obama is as much a threat to Jews and Christians as is Hamas because he enables Hamas and those other Islamic groups bent on destroying us.
MRC's Graham Baselessly Claims Susan Rice 'Lied' Topic: NewsBusters
In a Nov. 17 NewsBusters post, Tim Graham claimed that ambassador Susan Rice "lied on five Sunday shows about Benghazi." Graham offered no evidence that this was the case.
In fact, Rice was was accurately conveying the consensus of the intelligence community at the time -- that an anti-Islam video played a role in motivating the Benghazi attack, something that appears to have been confirmed by subsequent reporting.
So, no, Susan Rice isn't lying. But Tim Graham is.
Aaron Klein Anonymous Source Watch Topic: WorldNetDaily
There's trouble in Israel, which means that WorldNetDaily's Aaron Klein is treating is to more untraceable anonymous sources to advance his pro-Israel agenda:
A Nov. 14 article cited "senior Hamas members speaking to WND" to claim that "The Hamas leadership in Gaza is currently studying the possibility of firing rockets toward Tel Aviv, assassinating Israeli figures or launching suicide bombings inside Israel."
A Nov. 15 article cited "informed Middle Eastern security officials" to claim that "Advisers from Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Units are in the Gaza Strip helping to oversee the firing of long-range rockets by jihadist groups there."
A Nov. 17 article cited "an informed Egyptian official" to claim that "A senior Israeli military official is on his way to Cairo to discuss a cease-fire over the conflict in Gaza."
A Nov. 18 article cited "Israeli defense sources": to claim that "Iran and Hezbollah are furiously trying to resupply Hamas in the Gaza Strip with long-range missiles to fire into Israel."
There's no way for any civilian to independently verify anything Klein writes, of course. And it looks like, with his purported quoting of israeli and Egyptian defense sources, that he's more than willing to become a shill for the Israeli government, just as he was for ousted Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak last year.
MRC Writers Still Pushing Tired 'Liberal Media' Argument Topic: Media Research Center
Matthew Sheffield and Noel Sheppard -- executive editor and associate editor, respectively, for the Media Research Center's NewsBusters blog -- have taken to the far-right American Spectator to push the MRC party line on "liberal media bias." But it's just the same old stuff they've been spouting for years, with more whining and fearmongering.
Sheffield (who has yet to apologize for denigrating election polling that turned out to be correct about the level of Democratic turnout) and Sheppard (who has been fighting a losing battle against facts the entire election cycle) try to make their longtime bogeyman bigger and scarier than ever: "The 2012 cycle demonstrated that left-wing journalists have far more sway on Americans' opinions than many conservatives have been willing to admit." And those media liberals are everywhere:
Even though the influence and popularity of the mainstream media have fallen in its traditional venues of print and broadcast television, the left-wing media establishment is also in control of the rapidly growing Internet news market and the cable television market. Fox News and MSNBC aside, the cable market is entirely controlled by the left: CNN, HLN, Current, CNBC (news side), Comedy Central, and all the highest-rated entertainment channels that venture occasionally into politics lean leftward.
To some readers it may come as a shock to learn that the left owns and operates all of the most significant news sites such as Yahoo, MSN, Google News, and Wikipedia. The news side of the web is also dominated by the online presence of big-time traditional players such as CNN, the New York Times, ABC, and Politico.
The left dominates the social media scene as well. While it is true that some on the right have been able to use Facebook and Twitter effectively to push messages and spur activism, the ownership and top management of both companies lean hard to the left.
By contrast, the authors write, the "audience reach" of conservative media "is still tiny compared to the hundreds of millions who consume news generated by the liberal mainstream media."
Despite this, they write, "exposing liberal media bias and finding ways of reaching people who are not interested in the conservative 'alternative media' structure have become even more critical to our political system." But wasn't the the intent of the MRC's $5 million "Tell the Truth!" campaign this year, which seemed much more interested in making sure the truth wasn't told about Republican candidates? Sheffield and Sheppard make no mention of this campaign, let alone its effect -- though the article's lamenting tone tacitly admits the campaign was a failure. (Perhaps if the MRC hadn't squandered money on flashy promotions like a Times Square billboard, it might have had an impact.)
Sheffield and Sheppard went on to rehash the usual circa-2008 right-wing whining over Obama -- he wasn't vetted because it didn't "properly expose" his relationship to Jeremiah Wright (wrong), that the media ignored the role of the Community Reinvestment Act in the financial collapse (that's because it played no significant role).
The authors are also angry at how the Obama campaign out-strategized the Republicans:
In January, the White House released a new edict concerning companies -- including religious organizations -- being required to provide free contraceptives to their employees even if it violated their religious beliefs. Prior to this, there had been absolutely no discussion of birth control from Republican presidential candidates. Yet this set off a firestorm of media attacks on Republicans and their so-called "War on Women."
For the next ten months, the press pounded the previously non-existent issue right up to Election Day when 55 percent of women voted for Obama, likely giving him the extra votes he needed to win.
Even if you consider the contraceptive mandate to be nothing more than a political stunt, doesn't the fact that the contraceptive debate resonated with female voters suggest that "there had been absolutely no discussion of birth control from Republican presidential candidates" meant a missed opportunity on the part of the GOP? Not in Sheffield and Sheppard's world -- it just proves that the media is liberal.
The authors are also eager to hang Hurricane Sandy around Obama's neck despite offering no real evidence to do so:
And how about the way the press handled Hurricane Sandy?
Rather than expose the magnitude of the disaster and the clear failings of FEMA, Obama's media gushed and fawned over his handling of the situation, and were almost orgasmic when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie praised the President's response. Never mind the millions of people in the area that went without power for days on end. Even now, the devastation is immense. Residents in New Jersey and Staten Island are irate as they shiver in the cold while filling out reams of paperwork.
One might say this was Obama's Katrina.
Like nobody's ever called a given political event "Obama's Katrina" (Or "Obama's Watergate," "Obama's Waterloo,", etc.) before.
Sheffield and Sheppard continue their excuse-making, insisting that Romney's loss was not a loss for conservativsm:
Because relatively few Americans are actually exposed to conservative ideas, it is fair to say that the 2012 elections were not a mass rejection of conservatism nor were they proof that Americans have somehow moved to the left. This is not a "changing electorate"; in truth, a plurality of Americans have favored Democrats and their policies since the days of FDR. The wins that Republicans managed to achieve since that time were primarily due to appealing candidates and a ground game that was better able to get right-leaning voters out to vote.
Doesn't this also mean that GOP gains in 2010 were not proof that Americans embraced conservatism or otherwise moved rightward? The authors don't address that.
Nor do they address the fact that this theory also means that the millions of dollars the MRC spends every year to fearmonger about "liberal media bias" is essentially wasted. Perhaps that's why this article appeared at AmSpec instead of the MRC.
WND's Gun Columnist Suggests McVeigh Was Set Up By Government Topic: WorldNetDaily
The last time we checked in on WorldNetDaily gun columnist Jeff Knox, he was whitewashing the crimes committed by a gun dealer. Now, Knox is suggesting that Timothy McVeigh was set up by the government to bomb the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995.
Bill Clinton had pushed a radical liberal agenda, and a “patriot militia” movement was building and growing across the nation fueled by government-directed travesties like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Just as tensions between the two sides reached a boiling point, Timothy McVeigh detonated a bomb in front of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people and injuring nearly 700 others. Rather than triggering some sort of patriotic race war as McVeigh had envisioned, the blast resulted in the almost instantaneous dissolution of the militia and patriot movements as people tried to distance themselves from McVeigh and his actions.
There is an all too common government tactic of using paid informants to push extremists into planning serious crimes as a method of building cases against them. Informants provide encouragement, technical assistance and sometimes guns or explosives, and then government agents swoop in at the last moment to save the day. That is what some believe happened in the McVeigh case. Some take it the step further and suggest that McVeigh was allowed to commit his heinous act so as to gain public support for authorities to crack down on the militia movement. Whether that was the case or not, “agents provocateurs” are still commonly used, and there are plenty in power who will remember the lesson of McVeigh – such as then-Assistant Attorney General Eric Holder.
Today, as our nation is again faced with the challenge of an overreaching federal government feeling threatened by armed citizens who demand adherence to the Constitution, my great fear is that one side or the other will cross the line, resulting in reprisals and a cycle of increased encroachment on rights answered by increased violent resistance. Whether instigated by federal “agents provocateurs,” overzealous extremists, or unconstrained politicians and bureaucrats, the immediate result will be loss of innocent lives and further degradation of the Constitution.
Rather than shoot down a right-wing conspiracy theory, Knox has chosen to encourage it.
NewsBusters Defends Bradlee Dean Topic: NewsBusters
As has been pretty much standard procedure in Larry Klayman's legal work, his lawsuit on behalf of lyingpreacher Bradlee Dean against MSNBC's Rachel Maddow has been dismissed.
Needless to say, WorldNetDaily -- for whom Dean writes an error-filled weekly column -- sought to spin this latest loss in the best possible light. A Nov. 14 WND article by Bob Unruh recounts the case in a Dean-friendly way and permits Dean and Klayman to spout off at length about the dismissal and to bash the judge for dismissing it. Not only does Unruh make no apparent effort to balance his story by contacting Maddow's legal team for a response, he copies-and-pastes claims from Dean's website that he "is endorsed" by various musical instrument makers. In fact, he's endorsing them, not the other way around.
But Dean has another champion in the ConWeb: NewsBusters' Jack Coleman.
In a Nov. 15 post, Coleman recounts the dismissal in Dean-friendly terms, stating that "Superior Court Judge Joan Zeldon dismissed the case yesterday after Dean refused to pay $24,000 in Maddow's legal costs as ordered by Zeldon in June." But Coleman fails to explain the history of that ruling.
As we've detailed, the fine was imposed because Klayman and Dean wanted to move the case to a different court specifically to prevent Maddow from invoking the anti-SLAPP defense cited in her response to Dean's lawsuit, and that $24,000 fine was a condition of the move, meant to reimburse Maddow's legal team for having to come up with a new defense due to the proposed venue change. Dean and Klayman refused to pay, so the lawsuit was dismissed.
This attempt at after-the-fact venue-shopping can arguably be seen as incompetence on Klayman's part -- shouldn't he have picked the court in which to file his lawsuit against Maddow a little more carefully in the first place?
Coleman also uncritically note that Klayman "filed a motion requesting that Zeldon recuse herself for bias against Dean and ruling in favor of questionable attorneys' fees for Maddow." He doesn't mention, however, that Klayman's bill of particulars against the judge included such petulant complaints as the judge referring to Maddow's legal team, but not Klayman, as "distinguished." The motion also insulted the judge by claiming she acted like a "woman scorned" by Klayman's attempt to change venue.
Though it seems the next lawsuit Dean files should be against Klayman for incompetent representation, Coleman simply regurgitates the attacks by Dean and Klayman. But give Coleman brownie points for something, though: Unlike WND's Unruh, Coleman does claim he tried to contact MSNBC for a response.
Meanwhile ... Topic: WorldNetDaily
Richt Wing Watch catches WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah's appearance on the radio show of the American Family Association's Tim Wildmon, where he again likens Aaron Klein's identity fraud stunt of doating to President Obama's re-election campaign under the name of Osama bin Laden to "what Martin Luther King did, sometimes you’ve got to actually commit civil disobedience to get people’s attention to the injustices that are going on."
MRC Can't Stop Freaking Out About A Boy's Painted Toenails Topic: Media Research Center
It seems that a boy's painted toenails is being for the Media Research Center's Culture & Media Institute what George Allen's "macaca" remark is for the MRC's Tim Graham -- a touchstone of obsession.
Last year, CMI freaked out about an ad for clothing retailer J. Crew that featured a picture of the one of the company's designers painting her 5-year-old son's toenails pink, ranting that this was "blatant propaganda celebrating transgendered children." CMI showed no evidence that it ever considered the concept that both young boys and girls like bright colors.
Later that year, CMI decided that its transgender fearmongering was vindicated when the female designer reportedly romantically linked to another woman.
That brings us to a Nov. 15 CMI post by Lauren Thompson, which reports that the designer "appears to have come out as a lesbian." Thompson also defends CMI's toenail freakout, declaring that "social conservatives' concerns that J. Crew was exploiting and normalizing the feminization of the boy with 'blatant propaganda'" were legitimate.
How does painting a boy's toenails equal "normalizing the feminization" of him? Thompson never explains, yet feels the need to add, "Move along, no agenda here, right?"
The only agenda we see is the gay-hating one of Thompson and the MRC.
If there is such a thing as evil, bipartisanship surely deserves the label. First, because it’s nothing more than code for Republicans going along with never-ending, anti-constitutional, Democratic legislation. Second, and more important, to be “bipartisan” requires that one compromise between liberty and tyranny, and, given that the two are mutually exclusive, that’s a moral impossibility.
The purpose of an opposition party is not to “reach across the aisle,” not to compromise, not to be “bipartisan.” It is to oppose. It is to fight tooth and nail for the natural rights of every citizen – rich or poor, gay or straight, male or female, black, brown, or white. It is the duty of the opposition party not to give an inch when it comes to defending the Constitution and making certain that neither Congress nor the president be allowed to take actions that are not expressly granted to them by the Constitution.
Plain and simple, the objective should be gridlock – gridlock that prevents, rather than encourages, more legislation from being passed. I don’t want to see Congress accomplish anything other than dramatically reduce taxes, dramatically reduce regulations and dramatically reduce intrusions into our personal lives.
Forget all the political mumbo-jumbo you’re hearing from the television analysts about why the most failed president in history was able to win a second term. The Republicans lost because they once again chose a stand-for-nothing candidate who was not passionate about liberty and free enterprise.