Taste Of His Own Medicine....Sort Of

The following ad was run by Alan Grayson, the incumbent Florida House of Representative Member running against Dan Webster.

This ad has made headlines across the country because it's completely false. Webster was edited heavily taking his words way out of context. I won't spend a lot of time going over it since it's already been covered heavily. The short of it is that Webster was saying the exact opposite of what is portrayed. His point was saying that men should focus on the verses directed at them in the Bible. Specifically that they should love their wives to the point of giving their lives for them. The remaining points made in the ad have also been taken apart by the media. Even MSNBC too umbrage with the ad.

Alan Grayson is an obnoxious and arrogant person. He's the kind of person most people would have to fight the urge to slap if they had to deal with him on a regular basis. An ad like this from his camp is no surprise. I think it's a major political blunder, however. I know he was trying to get a little traction because he's struggling in the polls. However, this is more like to remind people of exactly what they hate so much about politicians.

All that said, TownHall.com has produced a "fade ad" on Grayson. I find it very funny.

Great New Ad

Civil War Is The Wrong Analogy

Since Christine O'Donnell became the latest Tea Party darling to unseat an established Republican politician in a primary this year the commentators have been repeating the phrase "Civil War" to describe the struggle between the so called "moderate" wing of the party and the conservative activists and voters. The analogy is completely wrong. A more accurate representation of what has happened in the last year is that of a hostile takeover. Not a hostile takeover by an outside entity but rather it is much like the shareholders of a company fed up with its performance replacing the board and management.

In this analogy, the elections are much like shareholder meetings. The Republican Party is a company who has strayed from it's original purpose and has become ineffective. Of course, the goal of the party is not to make money but to have a hand in managing the country. The majority of the registered Republican voters (or shareholders) expect a fiscally conservative approach to running Washington. They also expect government (especially the federal government) to have a limited role in their life.

For the last 10 to 12 years, Republican politicians have--for the most part--abandoned this approach to governance. They still push for tax cuts because they know that raising taxes is the one action that will kill any Republican candidacy. Other than this one issue, a large number of Republicans will talk out of the small government side of their mouths while pushing through or at least not opposing legislation that grows the federal government by leaps and bounds.

The worst part of this group is the party leadership (the management and board of directors). They are most concerned with winning power for the party and themselves as opposed to holding to and advancing principles the party is supposed to stand for. In this process, the Republican "brand" has been diminished. It has long been accused of being "country club elites" and similar descriptions. Unfortunately, the description has become believable as more of these types have acquired prominence and influence in the party leadership.

As a result, the average conservative voter looks at what is happening in Washington, D.C. and realizes that even though it is the Democratic party that has enacted so much detrimental legislation it is the Republican part that has stood impotent on the sidelines failing to offer any viable alternative and even cooperating in many ways. The shareholders have decided this primary season the problems in "the company" need to be replaced and have taken appropriate action.

Not unlike the corporate takeover, the ousted parties have largely bemoaned their treatment and refused to go away. Also, like their private sector counterparts, they refuse to acknowledge it has been their own ineffectiveness or even their collusion with the competition that created their situation.

Lisa Murkowski is running as a write-in candidate. Charlie Christ is running as an independent. Mike Castle refused to endorse O'Donnell. These are people who have been involved in the Republican party to expand their own power and influence. There is no actual concern for the good of the country. There are no principles on which they stand. The response from the "shareholders" has been overwhelming and very consistent.

So the supposedly conservative pundits can say this is a civil war while they whine about their friends who have been defeated. What they need to realize is their own influence is about to be greatly diminished. If they think they'll always be read or listened to because they are the lone token conservative at their paper or network, they need to think again. Did anyone think Bob Bennett would be ousted? A stance on anything other than principles that consist of common sense will make you irrelevant.

Additionally, the remaining leadership should realize this is not just a passing fad. Tea Party members or otherwise, the voters have begun to demand accountability and that the party stand for principles over power. They can either stand with the voters or the coming elections will be further rounds of pink slips.

Who Are You Calling A Facist?

Over the past two years Obama and Washington Democrats have been called fascists by some. These charges are usually dismissed by the talking heads as absurd and political hyperbole. If it is such an absurd notion, why does the thinking persist? It's not because of right wing nut jobs. It's because sometimes it's very close to the truth.

Case in point: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has told insurers that if they blame "Obamacare" for rate increases they will be locked out of the market. In other words, "Shut up or else." This is why people call the current administration fascist.

One can not hear the word without conjuring images of the most notorious of fascists regimes, the Nazis. The Nazis are more known for their incorporation of racial extermination into the fascist way of thought. But at it's core, fascism seeks to bring all parties into agreement by force or coercion if necessary. This is especially true of business and economic entities in fascism.

I'm not saying that the current Democratic leaders are Nazis. Not at all. I am saying that when it comes to one of the main tenets of fascism--specifically thought/speech control--they give a lot of indications of acceptance. To many, it's the whole appearance and characteristics of a duck thing.

Begs The Question

Every time I see or hear Chris Matthews, I wonder: Do they do drug testing at MSNBC?

Too Good Not To Post

Instant YouTube classic. It's inappropriate to talk about God or religion or politics at the Lincoln Memorial. According to Bill Press it's "sacred ground". That's so funny I don't even need to add to it.

One presumes that Bill Press considers that ground sacred because of the speech Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. gave there in which he proclaimed his dream for America. Would it be wrong then to say this on the steps of the memorial?

We cannot be truly Christian people so long as we flaunt the central teachings of Jesus: brotherly love and the Golden Rule.

The words of Glenn Beck? No, the words of Dr. King. This is proof to me that the media does not understand King or his message. They think he was a political figure. Instead, he was a preacher. He gave a message grounded in God and Christianity that did have a profound political impact.

If you actually read the words Dr. King spoke you'll find more depth, meaning and challenge than anything any politician has said in a hundred years. The ground may be sacred because of Dr. King's speech. If that is the case, it is so because he delivered a message from God to a nation trying to find it's way.

Chris Christie....Again

Chris Christie explains how a clerical error costs New Jersey $400 million in federal money for education. Three points are on my mind:

1. I still like this guy and the way he takes responsibility. "You wanna take shots, take shots at me"
2. Being in Washington, D.C. appears to have a negative effect on intelligence.
3. Would the error have been allowed to be corrected were Christie a Democrat governor and not ripping into Obama? It's interesting how the money went to Ohio where the hapless Democrat Ted Strickland is governor. I'm sure that had no bearing on the decision.