Cocktail Party GOP
One of the many interesting sub-plots of the 2014 election year is the possibility that Congress may welcome its first openly gay Republican.
Dan Innis is running for a House seat in New Hampshire. He is a businessman, entrepreneur, Dean of the Whittemore School of Business and Economics, and is married to a man. It was his husband who convinced him to run, saying “You’ve got to do this” to see if Innis could “make a difference.”
Richard Tisei is running again for a House seat in Massachusetts. He lost by just 1 point in the general election to John Tierney, and will face him again this time around. He has already served as a state senator. He is also married to a man.
Carl DeMaio is running for a House seat in California. He is a businessman who provided training and consulting specifically to financially-troubled government entities to help them become more efficient. He has also served as a city councilman for San Diego. At the time of writing this I do not know if DeMaio is married to his partner, but it is my understanding they have been together for six years.
None of these men are making their sexuality part of their campaign. It will be interesting to see what the liberals do, should these men make it through the GOP primaries. Kevin has often pointed out that liberals reveal their ultimate hypocrisy when faced with an opponent who would traditionally be a liberal. As a living example, DeMaio and his partner were booed while walking in the Gay Pride parade, because DeMaio is a Republican and was running for Mayor.
The Right to Kill — how conservatives should use the right words to drive a wedge between Independents and the Left
[ Click to embiggen: Ask yourself this…how many women would voluntarily want to participate in displays like this if the emphasis was taken off the “choice” of having an abortion and was instead placed on the mother’s “Right to Kill” a baby that was developing inside her. Suddenly, women like those in this picture would seem like monsters for turning a “Right to Kill” demonstration into a carnival atmosphere ]
Democrats are trotting out the abortion-as-wedge-issue weapon today, due to stupid remarks made by Missouri candidate Todd Akin that have now given Claire McCaskill a lifeline to hang onto her Senate seat. Republicans have a gross history of allowing the Left to dominate with this issue, and continue to maintain it as an issue, to control a large percentage of women voters in this country. This is what the Left does: it keeps various identity-voting blocs on the Democrat plantation through combinations of scare tactics, outright lies, hate mongering, and goon squad enforcement. Women are perpetually told they must vote Democrat or else Republicans will take away their right to kill babies. Actually, Democrats say they’re “protecting a woman’s right to choose” but the more accurate and smart way to put this is to change it to the “right to kill babies” phrasing. If Republicans would do that, then comments from someone like Todd Akin would not due so much damage to the GOP ticket in a state like Missouri.
I graduated from a Catholic high school in a nice suburb of Cleveland that had a Pro-Life Club. I attended exactly one meeting of the club because I was turned off by the gruesome depictions of aborted fetuses that hung around the classroom. I’m someone who doesn’t enjoy sitting through gory slasher movies and I didn’t have the stomach to even consider going to medical school, as I’m not inclined to look at images of blood and body parts in general. Halloween for me is all about the candy and the colorful, cute, and/or sexy costumes…and not the severed limbs and dripping blood.
I’ve never understood why the Pro-Life movement made the strange marketing and branding decision back in the 1990s to feature gory abortion shots in all of its materials because this stuff turns off a wide swath of the public who is receptive to the Pro-Life message but is alienated by its messaging.
A few months ago it occurred to me how this could easily be solved if conservatives just started referring to abortion as “The Right to Kill”. As in, “a woman’s right to kill her baby”. That’s technically what abortion is, anyway: it’s the killing of the baby that’s growing inside someone. But calling it “The Right to Kill” will cull the crowd of those who feel comfortable standing on soap boxes to advocate “abortion rights” or “the right to choose”.
Words matter, and I realize that conservatives have a hard time understanding this. I’ve written many times about how saying “liberals” instead of “Leftists” actually helps Democrats, but almost every “heavy hitter” conservative writer and pundit frequently uses the term “liberals”. That’s foolish, because Democrats focus-group test everything and know that Independent voters (who, let’s be honest, really decide the elections at this point) have a positive impression of the word “liberal”…just as they have a positive impression of the word “Pro-Choice”. I bet the terms “Leftists” and “Right to Kill” would send Independents screaming in terror. Which is why conservatives need to start using these terms exclusively.
Read the rest of this entry »
[ Click above to embiggen: just five of the stupid things conservative writers do every day that help Democrats ]
My boyfriend Justin’s mother is a very nice woman in Eureka Springs, Arkansas who was a nurse for 30 years before retiring recently. She is very vocal about current events and loves talking to her son on the phone about politics, and rails enthusiastically against “liberals” — the word she uses when she actually means to say “Leftists”, since all the things about Democrats that upset her are points in the Left’s agenda. She refuses to stop using the word “liberals”, because she says “that’s what I’ve always called them and I ain’t going to change now”.
This isn’t like that thing where I call a can of Coke “soda pop” while Justin and his family say, “sodie” or “pop”, while people in New York would call it “a soda”. Words have a lot of psychological meaning in politics more important than the deliberate phrasings that marketing executives put into advertising copy. There’s a purposeful reason that Democrats want people like Justin’s mom to keep calling them “liberals” and it’s because “liberal” makes them sound nicer to Independents than “Leftists” does.
In the conversations I’ve had with her on this, the place where I lose Justin’s mother is the fact that she insists “she knows what she thinks of Democrats” and that, to her, “liberal” is a bad word that refers to the bad things the Left does. What I can’t get her to understand is that people who are in the political middle in this country (the majority of people) don’t register the word “liberal” as a bad thing. It’s a word that seems open and airy to them…and gives the impression that a “liberal” person is a good person because the opposite of “liberal” is constricted, or tight-minded, or backwards in some way. Words have great power, and whenever someone like Justin’s mom rails against “liberals” there’s a big portion of the country who’d tune her out because she was opposed to “those open-minded people” that the word “liberal” conjures.
[ Not to pick on Moe Lane at Redstate.com, because he is hardly the only conservative writer to do this, but do you see how much more effective his writing would be if he stopped calling Democrats “liberals” and started calling them Leftists instead? Replace “liberal” with “Leftist” in every instance in an article like this and it just reads much, much stronger ]
There is nothing “liberal” or “progressive” (another word that Justin’s mom uses without thinking about it) about the Democrat Party as it exists in the year 2012. The party was completely taken over by the Left in 2008 and people like me, who grew up Democrats, no longer recognize it (or feel we’ll ever have any place in it again). The Democrat Party is a Leftist Party and is now quite totalitarian in its quest to force the Left’s agenda on the country. There is nothing “liberal” about that.
Read the rest of this entry »
It’s no secret that we are big fans of Allen West around here. In a single paragraph, here is why:
There is no doubt that President Obama and his liberal acolytes in Congress have unleashed upon our nation the greatest economic policy failures in our 236 year history. The amazing thing is that they are so arrogant that they will not admit their own failure. Never in history have socialist egalitarian nanny-state economic policies ever been successful. The President needs to stop making excuses and stop blaming others. It is President Obama’s signature law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, that is a massive tax increase that will further cripple our economy. If America is so intellectually bankrupt to re-elect President Obama then as Benjamin Franklin stated, we get the government we deserve. However, I believe the American people are awakening to the dangers of liberal progressives and their incompetence.
This man is amazing. His ideology is spot on. His courage is unquestionable. He says what he means and does not back down. Unlike so many of the wishy-washy members of the Cocktail Party GOP who only offer a half-hearted defense of conservatism, Lt. Col. Allen West not only defends with brilliance, he mounts an impressive assault on progressivism as well. And man… he punches like a jackhammer!
West is going to be a main figure in the future of the conservative movement. He’s already tying liberals in knots because they’re not used to truly being called to the mat, and they REALLY have a problem with his skin color. Allen West’s rise to national political stardom is going to reveal the true racism of the so-called “progressive” left. As Michelle Malkin put it:
How dare we “people of color” stray from the left’s ideological plantation? If we choose personal responsibility over entitlement, capitalism over statism or self-determination over identity politics, presumptuous white liberals appoint themselves spokespeople for our forefathers and deciders of our true destinies.
If you’re not following West on Facebook, you should be.
While you were busy enjoying your bread and circuses yesterday, operatives from the Nevada GOP–aided and abetted by all four cable “news” networks–were busily manipulating the results of the Nevada Caucuses, handing another undeserved victory to Mittens “It’s My Turn, Peasants” Romneycare.
You probably aren’t aware of this, because the TeeVee told you that Mitt Romney won, nothing to see here, move along now, after a mere 5% of the vote had been counted.
But what the TeeVee didn’t tell you–for about an entire day–is that the Nevada GOP refused to release the results from Clark County, Nevada’s most populous county and the home of 60% of Nevada’s registered voters. In fact, as of this writing, more than 30 hours after the last caucus closed, the Nevada Caucuses are still not decided. (Well, not in the “lawfully and transparently counting the votes to see who got the most” sense. They’ve already been decided in the “we count the votes, and we already decided in advance that Mittens was going to win” sense.)
Here’s some coverage of the “special caucus” that Newt’s billionaire casino magnate backer bought for him. It was the last caucus that took place, and is in Clark County, where 60% of all Nevada voters are located. Later that night, CNN also aired the live counting of the votes at that caucus. In the video below, CNN joins the event at the point where the candidates’ supporters were giving stump speeches. Over two dozen caucus voters spoke on Ron Paul’s behalf, in an audience that was expected to be largely Seventh-Day Adventists and Orthodox Jews. Romney, Gingrich and Santorum only inspired two or three supporters to speak on their behalf, according to one witness who voted at the caucus.
Here are the results, counted and announced live on CNN:
Ron Paul: 183
Mittens Romney: 61
Newt Gingrich: 57
Rick Santorum: 16
It’s remarkable that the total is so high, given the fact that the caucus organizers forced those who wanted to vote to sign a “religious declaration” affidavit before giving them a ballot, likely in violation of the Voting Rights Act.
Even with religious discrimination the results favored Ron Paul, as the Paul campaign expected, based on their internal polling. (At some point in the past two weeks, I read that the Paul campaign had identified over 20,000 definite Ron Paul voters in advance of the caucuses. I’ll post a source if I can find it.)
Ron Paul’s vote totals have more than doubled in every primary or caucus so far over his 2008 totals, and since he has had a massive organization in Nevada for four years, and Nevada is a libertarian state, he was expected to either win or tie for first place. And in the ONE large Clark County caucus where the votes were counted in public, on live television, Ron Paul won by a landslide, as was expected.
Apparently, that was bad news for those in the Cocktail Party GOP in Nevada.
Miraculously, “irregularities” were quickly found that required the party operatives to sequester themselves in a smoke-filled room and “recount” the votes from Clark County (until they get the totals they had decided upon in advance?)
At 3:10 a.m. Monday, nearly 10% of the votes have still not been reported. At this point, Ron Paul is listed in third place with only 5,901 votes–fewer votes than he received in 2008, when he placed second to Mitt Romney in the Nevada caucuses.
And just as miraculously, the chairwoman of the GOP in Nevada resigned effective 12:01 Sunday morning, in a move she claimed was pre-planned and had nothing whatsoever to do with the voter fraud the Nevada GOP was apparently undertaking.
Move along, peasants. Nothing to see here. Turn up the surround sound and pass the hot wings.
This “Terry Tate, Office Linebacker” commercial originally aired during the Super Bowl in 2003…introducing the world to a marvelous character that I’m sure many have fantasized about having work in their own offices.
I never picked up on this before now, but the men who get tackled by Terry remind me a lot of the highly-paid (to lose elections) idiot consultants and (terrible at their jobs) strategists the Cocktail Party GOP establishment relies so heavily upon. Watch the videos, and you’ll see their smugness, their nonstop desire to fit-in and be well-liked, and the clownishness with which they conduct themselves.
I’ve been to both DNC and RNC headquarters in DC and can tell you that both parties are full of these kinds of guys — all in their twenties and thirties, behaving like the clowns that Terry tackles for not having covers on their TPS reports.
Since Terry Tate can’t start work at Cocktail Party headquarters to clean that place out…how about channeling a little of his spirit, wherever you live, and start thinking of ways that you can be a sort of work-from-home “Establishment Linebacker” to start socking it to the people who are responsible for pushing another “It’s his turn to be the nominee!” destined-t0-lose candidate towards the Republican nomination this year?
“But, it was our turn!”
Ladies and gentlemen — the Cocktail Party GOP establishment: pushing to nomination the precise candidate that Democrats most want to run against since 1996.
Reasons Romney Will Lose to Obama: #2 He Says Things In Public That Even Thurston Howell III Wouldn’t Say Aloud
[ Click above to embiggen: Reason #2 of Why Willard “Mittens” Romney Will Lose to Barack Obama ]
Can you think of any more quotes attributable to Willard “Mittens” Romney that Democrats will use against him in a generation election to paint him as the quintessential embodiment of what the Occupy Wall Street astroturfed protests were created to rail against?
Remember: one of the things Democrats are exponentially better at than Republicans is using words to their maximum impact — and also slightly tweaking things someone said to the full advantage of The Tolerant Left. For example, in 2008 Governor Sarah Palin never said that she could see Russia from her house; the actual quote was that you can see Russia from Alaska because Alaskan Bering Sea islands are incredibly close to Siberian islands off the coast of Russia. Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live tweaked what she said and added the “from my house” part to caricature the Governor as stupid (a classic attack on Republicans, whom the Tolerant Left forever portrays as dim-witted, backwards, saurian, or needlessly cruel in order to alienate Independent voters from the GOP).
Romney gives Democrats more ammunition — on a rolling basis — than any Republican presidential candidate in memory because he feeds so directly into the caricature the Tolerant Left needs to create of him in order to secure Barack Obama’s re-election.
What else has he said that Democrats will lampoon?
Besides Thurston Howell III, what other callous, super-wealthy, out-of-touch characters from fiction will Democrats use to further alienate Independents from voting Republican in the fall if Romney is the nominee?
Addressing this stuff now means we will have nine months to come up with some creative way to mitigate this if indeed the Cocktail Party GOP establishment gets its way and Romney is installed as the “it’s his turn!” nominee that’s destined to lose the general election in Dole and McCain fashion.
On the TV show The Simpsons, the Republican Party leadership is depicted as a board room full of various stock villains that assemble in a spooky castle atop a forest of thorns. At the table are Dracula, a parody of Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bob Dole, a crazed Texan, and other archetypes of what “The Tolerant Left” sees as the Legion of Doom-grade Republicans that supposedly control everything on the conservative side of the political aisle.
We all know this is bunk, because it’s sadly the Cocktail Party GOP establishment that has controlled the Republican Party for decades — consistently making the same mistakes while expecting different results and forever surrendering to Democrats on important issues in the spirit of being “bipartisan” (which itself is part of a bigger strategy these fools have of currying favor with an elite, agenda-driven media that will never, ever love them).
I coined the term “Cocktail Party GOP establishment” here on HillBuzz.org in 2010 after evolving the theme from a real-life incident that happened here in Chicago involving Willard “Mittens” Romney back in 2009 when he was beginning his fundraising push for this election cycle. Romney — like all Cocktail Party establishment types who roll through town — held meetings with donors in the cloistered, oak-paneled halls of the exclusive private clubs in the Loop. These places are massive, opulent, and as imposing as gothic cathedrals on the outside. In contrast, when Democrats come through Chicago to fundraise, they normally hold events in rented meeting rooms at the Marriott or Renaissance hotels. The Cocktail Party GOP establishment has never realized how much they reinforce the terrible image they’ve created for themselves in the minds of the public.
Romney, in particular, solidified all this for me when he repeatedly complained about the food he was served here in Chicago as being “too spicy”. Lunch was turkey sandwiches with water cress and shredded lettuce and lots of mayo — but Romney insisted it was all “too spicy” and provocative for him (one of my friends from Boystown was the waiter who had to take that complaint back to the kitchen, where the cooks laughed and laughed about a turkey sandwich being “too spicy” for Romney). He needed plenty of skim milk to wash his “spicy” lunch down. It’s just who he is, and he’s certainly not the only milquetoast patrician in the Cocktail Party GOP establishment ranks who is off-putting to the millions of Americans who respond to someone like Newt Gingrich, Allen West, or Sarah Palin because none of these people would be ordering skim milk chasers for their cucumber and mayonnaise soggy sandwiches.
I write about the Cocktail Party GOP establishment a lot but have never taken the time to specifically identify who these people are. In general terms, it’s always broken down to groups such as:
1. The consultants who have made lucrative careers in DC running losing campaigns where milquetoast moderate candidates lose to The Tolerant Left…but then these consultants get hired to run the next losing campaign.
2. The writers and talking heads who fill the required “Republican” seat on various panels…who then push for the milquetoast moderate candidates to be the face of the party, as if being conservative is something to be ashamed of.
3. The dynastic Republican families like the Bushes…who weigh in to make sure new generations of The Soggy Sandwich Society inherit their own invitations to the Cocktail Party elite in much the same way that wealthy families write recommendation letters for the children of other wealthy families who want to attend the most elite prep schools.
4. The big GOP donors who write checks to keep the Cocktail Party flush with cash so it maintains its influence for generations…with these people expecting permanent invitations to glittering cocktail parties in exchange for their continued financial loyalty.
5. Obviously, the men and women of the Cocktail Party who serve in the Senate and House for decades and who come to see themselves not as public servants but as aristocrats in their own imaginary House of Lords.
Who am I missing?
Please use this thread to brainstorm who YOU think comprises the Cocktail Party GOP establishment.
These are the people who keep pushing the “it’s his turn!” garbage when it comes to political nominees. These are the people who forced Bob Dole on us in 1996…who then forced John McCain as the nominee in 2008…and who are doing their soggy sandwich best to force Willard “Mittens” Romney on us in 2012.
WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?
If you were creating an image like the one featured in The Simpsons, what 7 people would you put at the table?
You can be specific and identify an individual person (like George H.W. Bush or Colin Powell or Lindsey Graham) or generic like “Highly Paid GOP Consultant Based in Alexandria, Virginia”.
Let’s try to use our creativity and flesh out who, exactly, sits on the Cocktail Party GOP establishment’s Board of Directors.
The first step in permanently defeating these people is to know who the heck we’re actually dealing with in those dimly-light, expensively decorated, wood-paneled interiors.
Mitch Daniels Looks and Acts Like Actor Leslie Jordan (Beverly Leslie From Will & Grace and Brother Boy from Sordid Lives) Republican Reponse to State of the Union Address Tonight
Whenever Cocktail Party Republicans start talking about how wonderful Mitch Daniels supposedly is, before my mind conjures up an image of the actual Daniels, I first think of actor Leslie Jordan who played Beverly Leslie on Will & Grace and Brother Boy on Sordid Lives.
Daniels is 5’4″ tall, shops in the boys’ department at Sears, has the world’s most egregious comb-over, and speaks with a squeaky little voice that’s frequently been used in Indiana to discuss terms of surrender to The Tolerant Left on many issues important to conservatives and Tea Party Americans.
He is a wimp of the first order, which is what the Cocktail Party favors in its candidates — for reasons I will never understand.
Why was this man chosen to give the Republican State of the Union Address….when that honor should have gone to someone like Congressman Allen West, who would have absolutely clobbered Barack Obama in a memorable way.
Instead, the Cocktail Party serves up another wimpy, squeaky, milquetoast cucumber and mayonnaise darling.
UPDATE: MSNBC is really stoking the “Mitch Daniels will replace Romney” if Newt Gingrich wins Florida meme.
Chuck Todd was really pushing this in particular. MSBC was repeating over and over that “Newt can’t beat Obama” and that “only Romney can beat Obama”. If you can’t see for yourself that the media wants Romney to be the nominee so that he will in fact lose to Obama, then there is no help for you.
It is clear, however, that the media and Cocktail Party are now scared that Romney has imploded and that’s where this “we’ll just insert Mitch Daniels” into this instead.
I’ll put Daniels’ speech up as soon as I see it on YouTube.
They’ve got him sitting on a phone book, stiffly reading off a TelePrompter. He is a good reader, but he has no emotion in his voice. He reminds me of my high school principal reading the morning’s announcements. He gives a long, running stream of information that I tune out. He’s trying hard not too blink too much, but blink just enough so that he doesn’t seem off-putting. That itself is unnatural and off-putting.
Mitch Daniels is creepy.
This is not as big a disaster as 2009 when Bobby Jindal delivered the Republican response to Obama — Daniels did not make a fool of himself, but he also did nothing to show me what the fuss is about this man.
Mitch Daniels needs to get someone to buzz his head and get rid of the comb-over. He also must learn how to speak so it doesn’t sound like he’s reading.
Allen West should have been picked to do this State of the Union Response. He would have knocked it out of the park.
Mitch Daniels reminded me of Kathleen Sebelius when she did the Democrats’ response in 2008:
She did that same, standing there, reading from a TelePrompTer, pretending to be the principal of a nice, moderately-priced, private school in the suburbs morning announcement routine.
Still waiting for the Response to hit YouTube, but I found this:
I will say that if Rachel Maddow doesn’t like Daniels and if he pissed off the unions by trying to strip their collective bargaining rights that earns him points in my book — but it still can’t overcome how much of a twerp he comes off as when he speaks or how nebbishly he behaves himself on camera.
This is not a man who can defeat Barack Obama…and the Cocktail Party has no ability to just waltz in and decide, “Screw you voters, we’re running that little guy from Indiana who sounds funny” instead of anyone people are voting on.