RINO's: Why Bother?

I've long been fascinated by the conservative meme that accompanies much of the talk surrounding "Operation Chaos" both locally and nationally. On the national level most operatives seem to think it's a good idea, that to create utter and complete chaos on the Democratic side is a good thing, and I agree. It's not as if at least a third (or more) of conservatives are enthusiastic supporters of the McCain candidacy, and I've long held that perhaps, at least on the national level, it might not be a bad thing if Republicans suffered defeat in November if for no other reason than to get our house back in order.

That brings is closer to home where we're typically left with two competing lines of reasoning. One line coming from Dextra Montana's prolific anonymous blogging contingent holds that we we should be concerned with down-ticket races and should thus abandon the notion of supporting Op Chaos and worry more about our own house. The other tack typically concerns what is popularly known as the "11th Commandment" of Ronald Reagan: "Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican."

While both ideas have at least some merit they're both rooted firmly in the past. In Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again, David Frum adroitly posits that, "Ronald Reagan was a good man and a great president. What made him great was his ability to respond to the demands of his times. We must respond to the demands of ours." More recently Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, while speaking to the Fund for American Studies, proclaimed that it is "time to let Ronald Reagan go."

Indeed it is!

Perhaps one of the reasons Republicans and conservatives find themselves in the predicament we're in is that, following the void left by Reagan and other conservative leaders, we started acting more like members of the Democrat party when it came to our collective attitudes on spending, earmarks, and the size and role that government should play in the daily lives of its citizens. Today, Americans worry less about their society than about the competence and effectiveness of their government. Conservative and Republican failure have fed those worries.

Despite that what you hear from the guttersnipes on the Left this nation remains center-right oriented politically. So why, then, should it be taken for granted that electing a Republican just because they have an "R" behind their name on the ballot means anything anymore? As we've seen time and time again in recent history, it's not about principle and priorities for many of our elected officials under the shade of the Republican umbrella, it's about what cost Democrats control of Congress and the White House in what can only be described as too many years for some to remember...greed, power, and control. Are our collective memories so short that we forgot how we can win, and win big when it matters?

Writing in today's WSJ, Pat Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth echoes some of the same thoughts that have been on my mind for a while.

Winning for the sake of winning is an excellent short-term tactic, but a lousy long-term strategy. Just look at the consequences of the 2006 congressional elections, when the GOP lost control of both houses of Congress.

A Republican majority is only as useful as the policies that majority produces. When those policies look a lot like Democratic ones, the base rightly questions why it should keep Republicans in power. As the party gears up for elections in the fall, it ought to look closely at the losses suffered under a political strategy devoid of principle. Otherwise, it can look forward to a bad case of déjà vu.

I, for one, refuse to be fed the tripe that I should use my vote, the sacred and only means of expression that I have in the governance of my country, a vote that many men far braver than I have fought and given their lives to support and defend, and waste it for the sake of advancing the avarice of a party more interested in winning for the sake of it, than governing and advancing a time tested and proven set of principals. We are hardly in the twilight of conservatism in this country, but we only and truly deserve to win when we remember that our conservative principles trump their liberal progressive inanition every time.

Mike

Goose, Meet Gander

You know, with all of the hand wringing going on in the Mishblogha over Andy Hammond's capital idea of bringing Operation Chaos to Big Sky Country it's becomes instructive to look at what the batshit progressive asylum community planned for Mitt Romney during the Michigan primary.

Meanwhile, poor Mitt Romney, who’s suffered back-to-back losses in the last week, desperately needs to win Michigan in order to keep his campaign afloat. Bottom line, if Romney loses Michigan, he's out. If he wins, he stays in.

And we want Romney in, because the more Republican candidates we have fighting it out, trashing each other with negative ads and spending tons of money, the better it is for us. We want Mitt to stay in the race, and to do that, we need him to win in Michigan.

Now here's the thing -- without a real Democratic contest on the ballot, and a lack of party registration in Michigan, this is an open primary. Anyone can pick up a Republican ballot. So Michigan Democrats and independents who want to see the Republican battle royale continue should just take a few minutes on Tuesday, January 15th to cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary.

If we can help push Mitt over the line, not only do we help keep their field fragmented, but we also pollute Romney's victory. How "legitimate" will the Mittster's victory look if liberals provide the margin of victory? Think of the hilarity that will ensue. We'll simply be adding fuel to their civil war, never a bad thing from our vantage point.

So why are we doing this? Because we can. Because it'll be fun.

So get the word out and get out the vote...Tuesday, January 15th to cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the Republican primary. And don't feel bad or awkward about doing so... What's more, if Michigan Republicans didn't want Dems or indies to vote in their primary, they could have changed the rules. But they didn't, so here we are.

It's not that progressives are stupid per se. They're self-stupid, so absurdly lacking in self-awareness, self-criticism, or a sense of ego-puncturing irony as to be diagnosable retards in this area of cognitive development. But by all means, don't let me stop you from this journey of self exploration.

Mike

Rehberg Posts at MT Politics

Montana Congressman Denny Rehberg steps up to the plate and posts on the Blogger Protection Act of 2008 at Montana Politics.

One of the primary sources of participation in 2006 was ‘blogs’. It seems there is a blog for just about everything, and not surprisingly, many of them discuss politics. For that reason, young voters are participating in the process more than ever before.

In Montana, we have blogs of every flavor. Some are supportive of conservative ideals, while others are critical. Some write about local issues and some focus on federal matters. Some focus on policy while others concentrate on politics. Whether I agree with them or not, it’s always important to remember that these blogs are written by everyday Montanans. They are the Voice of the People. It’s important we protect that freedom.

Thanks to Craig and Congressman Rehberg for addressing a subject that of more than just a passing interest to many of us in the Montana Mishblogha.

Mike

Schweitzer's Groundhog Ag Day

In the 1993 movie, Goundhog Day, fictional weatherman Phil Connors (Bill Murray) finds himself repeating an endless day over and over again. In what could only be termed an unfortunate sequel to a boring and predictable movie, Governor Schweitzer (played by himself.. since the actor who portrayed "Boss Hog", Sorrell Booke, is deceased) attempted to make National Ag Day last an entire month.

For those of you not in the know, National Ag Day occurs every year on the first day of Spring. National Ag Day encompasses National Ag Week. Every year, producers, agricultural associations, corporations, universities, government agencies and countless others across America join together to recognize the contributions of agriculture. You'll notice that the week is supposed to be spent celebrating agriculture, not shamelessly changing the narrative to promote oneself.

Last month the Montana GOP filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Political Practices concerning Governor Schweitzer's foray into promoting "Ag Month." According to Helena's version of Leni Riefenstahl, Schweitzer spokesperson Sarah Elliot-Furey...

...reiterated a statement she made earlier this month when news of the complaint first made headlines. "A radio station asked us to make a statement promoting Ag Month to help promote Montana agriculture, and we prepared a free radio spot to honor the request. No state funds were used," Elliott said Wednesday. "Gov. Schweitzer is routinely asked to provide statements of support to commemorate events. The spot was in celebration of National Agriculture Month, which is now over."

The only problem for Ms. Elliot-Furey is explaining to the rest of us how Governor Schweitzer turned a PSA that was meant to celebrate National Ag Day (March 20th) into a month-long celebration of "National Agriculture Month," which is apparently celebrated no where else. In doing so, Schweitzer turned what was at most a one-week educational awareness celebration into a month long opportunity to air a PSA featuring his voice during the political season.

Without a proclamation or other device at his disposal why would Schweitzer, and his lackeys at the Department of Agriculture, attempt to make what is celebrated everywhere other than Montana a day long event (week-long at the most) into a month long opportunity to air a PSA?

This is what an e-mail sent from Ron Zellar, Information Specialist with the Department of Agriculture had to say:


"We broadened the concept a little..." I'll say.! It almost lives up to the Ketuvim in Ecclesiastes to "cast your bread upon the water and it will come back to you one-hundred fold." Except of course when it's political season in Montana and a declared candidate like Schweitzer can cast his PSA's upon the ag community in hopes of getting a hundred additional votes every time it airs.

In trying to explain himself out of his lack of judgement on this issue Schweitzer seems to be retreating into what Montana GOP Chairman Erik Iverson rightly calls "the worst sort of political legalese" over his contention that the use of state funds to produce the PSA's were "within the meaning of the law." Schweitzer has been described variously as either a "straight shooter," by Brian Schott at Montana Living Magazine, or praised as "governing like a Democrat" by Markos Moulitsas at Daily Kos.

In this case it appears Kos was right, Schweitzer is indeed governing like a Democrat...and speaking like one too! Can you imagine the teeth-knashing and hand wringing that would happen within the confines of the extreme left in Montana if a Republican governor had used state funds and manpower personpower to produce a PSA that airs following his or her declaration to file for re-election? The greenhouse gases expelled by that kind of concentrated and feigned outrage could well be responsible for melting a few glaciers.

Schweitzer simply needs to fess-up to the error. There was and is no "National Ag Month," as Schweitzer and his lawyers contend in their Motion to Dismiss. Schweitzer owes us all an explanation in the common-sense style we've been led to believe we can expect from his office and numerous national television apperances. In the end though, Schweitzer's epic ego will likely mean the people of Montana will be left without an explanation.

As Phil Connors explained to Rita in Goundhog Day, "they're all hicks, Rita."

Mike

Operation Chaos, Montana-style

Andy Hammond of The Hammond Report steps up to lead a continuing effort to deny the Democrat candidates a nominee before their convention in Denver.

My goal is to continue Operation Chaos in the Montana Democrat Primary. It's an open primary on June 3 so it will be very easy to just go and vote. It is the last state primary, along with South Dakota, before the National Convention and I am pretty sure Hillary will still be battling so I plan on voting for her. I have also recruited, to date, eight other conservatives to vote for her and plan on recruiting many more.

Since we have the last 24 delegates of the primary season and the race looks to stay very close, Montana could be a crucial battleground. So I encourage all Montana Conservatives and Republicans to participate in Operation Chaos. Vote for Hillary on June 3. If a pollster calls you, tell them you support Obama.

While this will be fun, it's also serious business. We can't have either of these far left Liberals heading the country. It will be devastating on so many levels. While I hold my nose about McCain, he is far, far better then Hillary and Obama.

Operation Chaos or Operation Schadenfreude. Whatever YOU call it, I call it genius!

Mike

Planned Parenthood: Show Me the $$

I can't think of a more disgusting organization...at the moment anyway.

Planned Parenthood likes to think of itself as above all reproach — a champion of women’s rights and also (as its annual report claims) the nation’s “social justice movement.”

But this week, in front of Planned Parenthood offices at 1108 16th St. NW in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, a group of black pastors and pro-life activists (joined by two GOP congressmen) will demand a congressional audit of what the group alleges are a pattern of racist practices, funded by taxpayers, at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood’s latest trouble began when a feisty pro-life student magazine called Planned Parenthood offices in seven states, posing as an openly racist donor seeking to make sure his check could be earmarked to abort “a black baby.” The resulting phone conversations are horrifying listening.

Ed Morrisey writing at HotAir:

Maybe the organizers at PP can live with themselves by redirecting the money elsewhere. For instance, Planned Parenthood has a goal to spend $10 million this year through its PAC, influencing voter decisions to keep their favored candidates in office. After listening to this, which candidate wants to accept that kind of support? In fact, opponents of such favored candidates should demand that they answer for this kind of despicable, conscienceless fundraising.

And it wasn’t just some part-time telephone operator at one office enabling racists to reduce the black population. This happened at four different offices, and these calls involved management. It recalls the original mission of the founder of PP, Margaret Sanger, who encouraged birth control of “dysgenic” populations and “racial hygiene”. (Interestingly, though, Sanger believed that abortion killed life and opposed it, preferring contraception.)

Planned Parenthood receives millions in federal funding. In 2006, various PP groups received over $13 million in federal grants; in 2005, the amount went over $16 million. Why does the federal government send grant money to groups exploiting racist appeals to cull donations for abortions in minority communities? Perhaps Congress should ask itself that question.

Indeed they should.

Mike

The Soothsayer of Turtle Bay

See that guy on the far right of the photo? He's the Marxist president of Bolivia, Evo Morales, though in the photo he's obviously playing Shemp to the other two stooges of the Americas.

At the United Nations this darling of the progressive community gave a speech that seems to mirror many of the talking points of those in our local communities. You see, every once in a while the truth accidentally tumbles out on global warming activists’ real agenda. That’s exactly what happened at the U.N., when Bolivia’s leader called for ending capitalism to save the planet.

Delivering the keynote address at the United Nations forum on Indigenous People on Monday, Bolivia's President Evo Morales told the adoring crowd that "if we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system."

Morales elaborated on that by calling for an end to "unbridled industrial development, extraction of natural resources, excessive consumption of goods and accumulation of waste."

More conveniently, he also demanded that trillions of dollars from the West be diverted to places like Bolivia, "to repair the earth."

Seldom has the environmentalist agenda to end the capitalist system been laid out so plainly.

But in reality, it's capitalism — combined with the framework that enables it to flourish, like rule of law and property rights — that has lifted billions of people out of poverty and improved the environment. Contrary to Morales' assertions, the most capitalist countries are also the cleanest.

According to a 2006 study by the Heartland Institute, free enterprise does more to protect the environment than state intervention.

"The nations that have the best track records on environmental protection and improvement are those with the highest amount of free-market capitalism," wrote Samuel Aldrich and Jay Lehr, in "Free Enterprise Protects the Environment."

Morales' attack on capitalism represents the real agenda for the radical environmentalists. They seek global governance and an end to private property, an unsalable concept given the record of communist countries. So they're marketing it under a new brand name, wrapped in the greener concept of "saving the earth."

Milking the West's fascination for the exotic, Morales has the game down flat. "We feel that we have the ethical and moral right to talk about these things as indigenous peoples because we have historically lived in harmony with Mother Earth," he said. "It is indigenous peoples who have defended this Mother Earth, Planet Earth."

For that, he's feted in the radical-chic circles of Manhattan as an indigenous font of truth — a real Aymara Indian from Bolivia and thus, wiser about conserving the planet than us ordinary mortals.

The real truth comes at the end of the IBD piece:

"Too often their real agenda is power — power to remake the economic and social systems to suit their own command and control goals, not to serve the public good as they so loudly proclaim," Aldrich and Lehr wrote.

Romanticization of nature to promote state control hasn't had it this good since the days of Rousseau's noble savage. The only problem for environmental radicals, of course, is that sometimes the designated "savages" accidentally reveal the truth.

Yeah, Evo, get back with me with the line about Socialist and Marxist systems being better able to grasp the concept of environmental health, economic prosperity, and workers rights. Until then, we're simply left with El Regreso del Idiota Latinoamericano.

Mike

Horton Style

Ouch!

Mike

Sunday Obamathon

Six degrees of Kevin Bacon Barack Obama. (Kippah-Tip: Doug Ross)

In truth, it doesn't take six degrees to connect Obama to a bunch of virulent racists, hate-mongers and deadly terrorists. One or two degrees is about all it takes.

Rozita Swinton, FLDS tipster and Obama delegate doin' what progressives do...makin' shit up.
(Kippah-Tip: The Jawa Report)

Rozita Swinton, the woman arrested today for falsely tipping off the police that she was an abused child bride at the FLDS polygamy cult in Texas is a PLEDGED BARACK OBAMA STATE DELEGATE!!

It was her initial false report that started the investigation which has led to the removal of 400 children from their parents' custody.

Patterico:

In an odd coincidence, a person named Rozita E. Swinton of Colorado Springs is listed on the El Paso County Democratic Party website as an Obama delegate.
From the webpage. The number next to her name indicates the precinct she's in.

How many Rozita Swintons can there be in Colorado Springs?

Another example of a Democratic activist making up a fake but accurate story? Sure, she lied about everything, but isn't the goal of removing children from parents who's lifestyle we don't approve of trump truth?

From the "Don't cry for me Argentina" file comes an opportune report from The Politico indicating that all the faux outrage expressed over Obama's treatment during the ABC debate, including much of the corn pone analysis here in Montana, is...wait for it, changing the narrative yet again. Hmm, where have we learned of that trick before?

In fact, the balance of political questions (15) to policy questions (13) was more substantive than other debates this year that prompted no deluge of protests. The difference is that this time there were more hard questions for Obama than for Clinton.

Moreover, those questions about Jeremiah Wright, about Obama’s association with 1960s radical William Ayers, about apparent contradictions between his past and present views on proven wedge issues like gun control, were entirely in-bounds. If anything they were overdue for a front-runner and likely nominee.

If Obama was covered like Clinton is, one feels certain the media focus would not have been on the questions, but on a candidate performance that at times seemed tinny, impatient, and uncertain.

The difference seems clear: Many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon.

(Harris only here: As one who has assigned journalists to cover Obama at both Politico and the Washington Post, I have witnessed the phenomenon several times. Some reporters come back and need to go through de-tox, to cure their swooning over Obama’s political skill. Even VandeHei seemed to have been bitten by the bug after the Iowa caucus.)

(VandeHei only here: There is no doubt reporters are smitten with Obama’s speeches and promises to change politics. I find his speeches, when he’s on, pretty electric myself. It certainly helps his cause that reporters also seem very tired of the Clintons and their paint-by-polls approach to governing.)

And finally, because I'm against everything Obama stands for, including Hope and Change™(I'm for despair and preserving the status quo), and because this is perhaps the most pertinent item for Montana voters to consider is another report from The Politico, this time casting doubt on yet another Obama claim, this time his unwavering support of gun rights.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

But before he became a national political figure, he sat on the board of a Chicago-based foundation that doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.

The foundation funded legal scholarship advancing the theory that the Second Amendment does not protect individual gun owners’ rights, as well as two groups that advocated handgun bans. And it paid to support a book called “Every Handgun Is Aimed at You: The Case for Banning Handguns.”

Now...back to dreaming of baking my first post-Pesach batch of baguettes.

Mike

Chag Pesach kasher v'sameach חג כשר ושמח!

If you know me you know that any "holiday" that does not involve leavened bread, cake, and other delicious treats is, well, not really a holiday. Except when it is of course. Not my favorite, mind you, but an obligation nonetheless.

So, as has been an annual tradition here at TLBP, mainly because my blood sugar is fixing to bottom-out for the next 9 days, I present the following:

Who Let The Jews Out?

Matzo Man

Next year in Jerusalem!

Mike (Kosher for Passover)

The Nexus of Progressivism

I'm still trying to figure out if Barack Obama is Gus Hall in black face. This is what happens when Obama supporting SEIU thugs turn their anger against Registered Nurses in Michigan. Whether it's a union meeting, foreign or domestic policy proposals, or the tired schtick about "Hope & Change™" this is what happens when an opposing point of view meets the power of so-called progressive "thinking."

7 busloads of SEIU members and Obama supporters busted into a nurses association dinner in Michigan last weekend. They chanted and banged their fists against the doors outside the event until one of their members let them in.

The SEIU members then trampled over people and injured several of the attendees. The nurses had to flee the area and run down the service hallway for their own safety. When the nurses went back they could see the SEIU members throwing punches and hitting people with their signs. The RN's treated their injured friends on the floor until ambulances arrived.
The nurses are now filing a complaint against the SEIU.

Some Hope. Some Change.

But by all means, fellas, keep drinking the Kool-Aid. It might come in handy on November 4th when yet another cult of personality meets its end.

Mike

Good For Denny

It looks like Denny finally signed onto cosponsoring H. Con. Res. 322, a bipartisan resolution recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel and reaffirming the bonds of close friendship and cooperation between the United States and Israel.

Also on the Middle East front comes the delicious news that Denny was one of 50 bipartisan signatories to a letter sent to The Carter Center urging Barack Obama's economic and foreign policy role model, Jimmy "Dhimmi" Carter to not meet in Syria with Hamas terrorist Khaled Meshal.

The U.S. State Department lists Hamas as a foreign terrorist organization. Hamas terrorists are responsible for the murders of at least 26 American citizens—some of them teenagers, children and infants:

David Applebaum of Ohio; Nava Applebaum, 20, of Ohio; Alan Beer of Ohio; Marla Bennet of California; Benjamin Blutstein of Pennsylvania; David Boim, 17, of New York; Yael Botwin, 14, of California; Dina Carter of North Carolina; Janis Ruth Coulter of Massachusetts; Sara Duker of New Jersey; Matthew Eisenfeld of Connecticut; Tzvi Goldstein of New York; Judith Greenbaum of New Jersey; David Gritz of Massachusetts; Dina Horowitz of Florida; Rabbi Eli Horowitz of Illinois; Tehilla Nathanson, 3, of New York; Malka Roth, 15, of New York; Mordechai Reinitz of New York; Yitzhak Reinitz, 9, of New York; Leah Stern of New Jersey; Goldie Taubenfeld of New York; Shmuel Taubenfeld, 3 months, of New York; Nachshon Wachsman, 19, of New York; Ira Weinstein of New York; and Yitzhak Weinstock, 19, of California.

Meeting with terrorists responsible for the death of American men, women, and children? Sounds like the foreign policy proposal of yet another Obamanation seeking residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

In light of Dhimmi Jimmy's "diplomatic" efforts JTA reports:

The U.S. House of Representatives is introducing a resolution condemning Hamas, pegged to President Jimmy Carter's meetings with a top representative of the terrorist organization.

The resolution, which makes special mention of Carter's planned meeting with Hamas official Khaled Mashaal in its first paragraph, calls on the group to "renounce terrorism, fully disarm, and recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state." It also expresses support for Israel's efforts to defend itself against terrorism."

U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) sponsored the bill.

"We ought to be screaming from the rafters about the lack of judgment in the former president going to see a known terrorist," U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), one of the bill's original co-sponsors, told JTA. "Khaled Mashaal is the worst of the worst."

Cantor said he believed the bill would enjoy broad bipartisan support and that it reflected the views of a broad swath of the Congress and the majority of the American people.

JTA is wrong on one account, the resolution is being sponsored primarily by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) and not Rep. Kirk (R-IL), at least according to the Thomas website. Thus far H. Con. Res. 329 has 8 cosponsors. Given Denny's history as a steadfast supporter of Israel against her terrorist neighbors I'll be happy to report back when I find his name listed as a cosponsor of this resolution.

Mike