Why I’m happy SCOTUSBlog didn’t get press credentials

While sitting at the SCOTUSBlog LiveBlog today, waiting for the opinions, I saw a link to Amy Howe’s “Plain English” review of McCullen v. Coakley. She closes with this:

The case is also interesting because of what it may signal for the challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate, in which we are still waiting on the Court’s decision.  Although the precise issues before the Court are different, both involve the intersection of the First Amendment (the McCullen plaintiffs’ desire to counsel women who might be seeking abortion and the Hobby Lobby families’ firm opposition to providing their female employees with birth control) and women’s reproductive rights.

What a load of crap.  Hobby Lobby pays for 16 different types of birth control.  What they refuse to pay for is abortificants.  This sort of dishonest left-wing propagandizing (and if she really didn’t know those facts, and if no one else at SCOTUS Blog didn’t know those facts, that would be world class incompetence) is why I’m happy SCOTUSBlog got stiffed.  If we want to read a dishonest fmale pushing left wing propaganda about Court cases, we’ve already got Linda Greenhouse, we don’t need amy Howe and the rest of the SCOTUSBlog crew.

Too stupid for words

Josh Marshall, who was apparently born about 6 months ago, has a moronic post up that ends with the following:

Let’s be honest with ourselves: the American right has a deep-seated problem with political violence. It’s deep-seated; it’s recurrent and it’s real. And it endangers the country. It just makes sense to say something the first time they hit the sauce and not wait for things to get really out of hand.

Wow, and here I thought the Weathermen, and the SDS, were left wingers.  Earth First, the other animal rights wackos (and, Contra Josh’s attempt to minimize their violence, spiking trees, burning down research labs, and destroying researchers work are not minor things), I guess they’re all “True Conservatives.”  Union Thugs?  True Conservatives, on and all, esp. the ones who beat up Ken Galdney.  Anti-globalization protesters?  They, like Andrew Sullivan, are of course the last true conservatives.

Political violence in America has been mainly the domain of The Left since the late 1960s.  You want to see criminality, violence, the destruction of property?  Go to a left wing protest, that’s where you’ll find those things, and that’s most certainly where you’ll find those things glorified.

Josh Marshall can’t possibly be ignorant enough not to know that.

Judge Arthur Gonzalez is Criminal Scum

This is utterly disgusting news

The White House said Wednesday that a US court ruling clearing the way for the sale of Chrysler , likely to Fiat, cleared the way for a quick and orderly bankruptcy for the collapsing auto giant.

…Gonzales told a packed federal courtroom in New York on Tuesday that the plan was “a fair and ordinary process,” stressing the “urgent need for the sale to be consummated.”

Dear “Judge” Gonzalez:

I don’t think that phrase “a fair and ordinary process,” means what you think it means.  Giving secured creditors < 35 cents on the dollar, while giving unsecured, politically connected creditors > 50 cents on the dollar, isn’t “fair and ordinary”, it’s political corruption,  Your willingness to spit on bankruptcy law and allow this political theft is arguably criminal.  You are a contemptible and worthless human being.  Given a chance to do your job, you violated your oath of office, and allowed political thugs to steal from a group of politically unpopular people in order to give the money to their campaign donors.

This is the kind of corrupt behavior we expect from Third World hellholes, not the United States of America.

I don’t know what kind of payoff you expect to get for this behavior, but whatever it is, understand it has cost you your honor, and your reputation.

Why “liberal” is now a synonym for “dishonest”

A comment on OLC nominee Dawn Johnsen

In my opinion, some critics of her nomination have focused on the wrong questions — whether or not she is too “liberal”

In America today, to be “liberal” is to be dishonest. Once you’ve decided “the Constitution is a Living Document”, which is to say once you’ve decided that the Constitution means whatever 5 left-wing justices think they can get away with saying that it means, you’ve permanently forfeited any claim of being able to “provide an accurate and honest appraisal of applicable law”.

I’m sorry her confirmation is being held up. She should be testifying in front of Republican senators, who should be asking her:

1: What’s her position on the Constitutionality of the DC voting bill?
2: Should the OLC Opinion be released?
3: What’s her opinion of Holder doing an end-run around the professional staff of the OLC when they told him something he didn’t want to hear?

“Liberals” believe that any means are permissible when you are pursuing the “right” (which is to say their) ends. It’s time they received what they’ve been dishing out.

Sweet

I’ve been banned from Volokh. Ah, my heart bleeds. Here’s my other comment:

Wow, so every single member of the Iowa Supreme Court is incapable of telling the difference between a couple that can procreate, and one that can’t. Clearly Iowa needs to work on its sex education, when not one iowa Supreme Court member knows where babies come from.

Tell us, Dale, what’s it like knowing that the only way you can advance your agenda is through dishonesty? And what kind of person are you, that you’re willing to embrace that dishonesty, rather than working to change people’s minds so that you could win honestly?

Do you ever wish that you were a decent human being, rather than a fundamentally dishonest one?

My comment to “liberals”

The members of the Iowa State Supreme Court have decided that their oaths of office are meaningless, their personal desires are all important, and that therefore Iowa must now have Same Sex “Marriages”

I have posted the following comment at Volokh. It will probably be deleted. Even if it isn’t, it belongs here

Dale,

I couldn’t care less who or what you sleep with, or have sex with. I don’t care what kind of stupid little ceremonies you have with your sex partner du jour. Whatever fantasies you want to engage in, go right ahead.

I have complete, utter, and absolute contempt for you, as a human being, because of your willingness to cheer people on as they violate their oaths of office, and rewrite State Constitutions according to their (and your) personal desires.

<b>If it wasn’t explicitly put in there by the voters, then it’s not there.</b>

The reason why I’m not, and will never be, an American “liberal” is because American “liberals” are evil human beings.

You are not evil because of your policy disagreements with me. You are evil because you’ve decided that your beliefs are so “special” that the fact that you can’t win at the ballot box gives you the <b>right</b> to make the ballot box meaningless.

You are evil because you believe that 4 – 7 black robed thugs rewriting the Constitution to suit their personal beliefs is “justice”, and 6 million people voting to save their Constitution from the depredations of those thugs is “mob rule”.

I don’t know what lies you tell yourself so that you can pretend that your beliefs aren’t utterly noxious. I don’t know if it’s simply that you favor dictatorship over democracy, and think that honesty is for chumps. Frankly, I don’t care.

I do wonder, however, at the idiocy that leads you to believe that a small minority is <b>better off</b> by destroying the rule of law. Exactly what do you think will protect you when your opponents decide that you’re right, and the law simply doesn’t matter?

Liberals have no judgment

All through the Bush years, a common scene played out: Republicans would point out that a particular left winger was a blithering idiot, proposing lame brained polices that simply could not achieve their stated goal. The leftie, unable to defend the policies, would respond “Don’t question my patriotism!” The Republicans would respond that “we’re not questioning your patriotism, we’re questioning your judgment.” The leftie would ignore this and keep on whining about patriotism.

With the advent of the Obama Administration, we now see lefties constantly criticizing Republicans’ patriotism (“Republicans just want to destroy the country” is my favorite so far), especially on the issue of going after Obama’s nominees (Megan McArdle’s post spurred me to write this, but Thomas Friedman’s whine in the NYT was a fine example of the genre). Some thoughts on the matter:

1. Barack Obama is a big-government, high-tax leftie, and that’s the kind of Administration he’s running.
2. If you want me to pay lots of taxes, then you damn well better be paying all of your taxes. That’s called reciprocity.
3. IF you think the government should be big, and therefore taxes on other people should be high, but you think it’s perfectly fine for you to cheat on your taxes and not pay your “fair share”, then we are now deeply into issues of character and judgment. Those are issues that must be considered when judging a nominee.
4. Another issue that should be judged is your willingness to follow the rules, and the law.  “The rules for thee, but not for me” is not the attitude I want to see in anybody in government.
5. If the laws are so unworkable, change them.  Tell us why those laws are such a bad idea, and get them repealed.  I see no evidence of the Obama Administration being willing to do that.  In fact, I see the opposite.
6. “Oh”, you say, “I just couldn’t find a nanny for my kids who was willing to be paid ‘above the table’.” Bullshit. Let’s say your nanny was willing to accept $30,000 / year under the table. Then you could pay her $45,000 – $50,000 / year and that would give her $30,000 / year take home pay. She’s better off because she’s working legally, you’re better off because you’re now living according to the rules and principles you wish to force on everyone else.
7. What’s that you say? You don’t want to have to pay an extra $15,000 – $20,000 / year in taxes to the government? Neither do I. You’re the one who wants to work for the guy who wants to raise my taxes. You going to tell him it’s not right to force people to pay more to the government? No? Then I guess you should have paid the government everything it was owed, rather than keeping the money for yourself by paying your nanny under the table.
8. Clinton had the same problems in 1993. President Bush did not have the same problems in 2001. So I’d say the real problem here is that Democrats are crooks, hypocrites, and your basic all around scum. People who favor the rest of us paying high taxes, but only because they have scams that let them get out of paying those same taxes themselves.

In short, I feel no sympathy for Obama, his nominees, or Democrats in general. You want a big government, then you damn well better be willing to follow all of its rules. If you can’t, then stop trying to force them on the rest of us.

I Support Operation Leper

Various scum-bag McCain aides have been trashing Sarah Palin to try to draw attention from their, and their candidate’s, failures in this campaign.  Over at RedState Operation Leper has begun, to hunt down and out the cowardly jerks.

As someone who donated both time and money during this campaign, I’m promising that I will never support any candidate who hires any of the people identified by Project Leper.  I encourage all other right-wing bloggers to make the same pledge.

The Queen of Vote Fraud

This person is a despicable and worthless human being. Jennifer Brunner is the Secretary of Vote Fraud enhancement in Ohio.

Jennifer Brunner cancels cross-checking of Ohio’s new voters

Posted by Reginald Fields/Plain Dealer Columbus Bureau
COLUMBUS — It is impossible to cross-check nearly 700,000 new or revised voter registrations filed this year without crashing Ohio’s registration system, Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner said Thursday. She added that the entire system will have to be rebuilt after next week’s election so that fraud can be more easily detected.

That’s a load of crap. Any relational database can handle a join between two tables on the contents of one field. Search of all registrants whose SSN doesn’t exist in the table of all valid SSN. That’s one pool of failures. Then search for all registrants whose SSN exists, but the name doesn’t match. You can set up the entire database, and do the searches, in less than a day on any “server quality” computer.

Same for the BMV. None of this is rocket science. Hell, it’s not even computer science. It’s basic DBA work.

Brunner said she discovered the system was too fragile to double-check the names, which her staff began trying to do earlier this month after the Ohio Republican Party sued the Democratic secretary to force her to check the registrations. At the time, even as she fought the lawsuit and eventually won at the U.S. Supreme Court, Brunner said she was making an effort to cross-check the registrations against state driver’s license and federal social security records.

“I spoke too soon,” Brunner said during a press briefing on election day procedures for Ohio, again expected to be a closely watched state in the presidential election.

Ah, an excellent defense: “hey, I lied to the court.”

Earlier this month, Brunner told The Plain Dealer that a cursory review by her staff had found about 200,000 discrepancies in the newly filed or revised registrations since Jan. 1. That does not mean each was a case of fraud, but could mean someone incorrectly jotted down a driver’s license or Social Security digit on the applications.

But the Ohio Republican Party suggested that some of those cases could amount to voter fraud and that Brunner, as the state’s top elections officer, was obligated to double-check the information. Brunner argued that federal rules only require the state to have a system in place for double-checking registrations but do not require her to make the checks.

Since she’s claiming her system can’t do that, she’s saying that she’s violated Federal Law.

Take her to court, convict her, and put her in jail.

Comments on Ta-Nehisi Coates Blog

Ta-Nehisi Coates has an imbecilic post up where she(?) opines on how Obama’s attack against McCain for the Keating 5 is good, and much more “substantive” than the attacks about Ayers and Wright. The commenters are even more idiotic. I’ve added two comments. Given that comment moderation appears to be turned on, I’m saving these here, too.

Part of me thinks it’s stronger than the Wright/Ayers stuff because it’s a personal attack with substance and policy behind it.

Gosh, the US is involved in a Global War on Terror, and Obama got his political start with the help of an unrepentant anti-American terrorist. Nope, no policy or substance there!

Gee, Obama’s running on his “judgment”, and he spent 20 years in a church run by a delusional (the US Government created AIDS) anti-America (“God damn America”) bigot (Black liberation Theology). Nope, nothing of substance there!

<i>It’s about time Obama dropped the Keating Five on McCain. McCain took bribes. (Some call them “campaign contributions”</i>

You people are so funny. Obama was the #2 recipient of bribes, I mean campaign contributions, from Fannie and Freddie, not 20 years ago, but in the last 4, and you want to be talking about companies bribing Senators to get protection from regulators?

Bring it on!

News intimidation attempt by Obama Lawyer

I’m shocked, shocked, to discover that Obama has thugs working for him as lawyers.

The Polestra University newspaper had the bad taste to break news about out of state Obama campaign workers violating the law by voting for Obama in Ohio instead of (or in addition to?) voting for him in their home states, and, even worse, to follow up on the story. What does the Obama Campaign do? They send a lawyer after the student journalists.

From: Rosenberg, Thomas
Date: Sun, Oct 26, 2008 at 2:32 PM
Subject: At least in today’s blog you spelled my last name right
To: tiffany

In other words, I am going to read what you write and watch what you say. Hopefully you will be fair and impartial as you told me you would be.

Thomas L. Rosenberg
Roetzel & Andress, LPA

Columbus, OH 43215
trosenberg@ralaw.com

As Jammie Wearing Fool points out, this guy is a jerk, and he needs to be stomped.  An apology isn’t enough.  Fired by the Obama campaign would be a nice start, if such thuggishness weren’t already established as SOP for the campaign.

Hot Air has a nice collection of links to articles about the thuggishness of the Obama Campaign.

The true, proper, punishment for this is for Obama to lose.

What Obama wants to bring to the US

Ezra Levant has been fighting with the Canadian “Human Rights” Commissions for a while. Given that Senator Obama wants his political opponents investigated for “hate speech ” for campaigning against him, (“Today’s outrageous letter to Attorney General Mukasey and Special Prosecutor Dannehy at the Justice Department asking for a special prosecutor to investigate Senator McCain and Governor Palin’s public statements about ACORN’s record of fraudulent voter registrations (including in this week’s Presidential debate) is absurd”) you can be pretty sure that he’s like to bring such monstrosities to the US. So it’s a good idea to keep track of what they’re doing.

The latest with Ezra is that they edited his legal defense before sending it to the Court.

But here’s where Dagenais becomes a symbol of everything that’s wrong with the CHRC and its censorship fetish: she blacked out portions of my defence before passing it on to the commissioners. Seriously — she censored what I wrote in my own defence, before she passed it along to the people who will sit in judgment of me. She’s only allowing me to say things in my defence that she approves in advance. Look at the version of my letter she’s passing on: several of my arguments are blacked out. You can read the full, uncensored version here (.pdf version here).

So, you can fight that later, or you can vote against Obama now. Your choice.

Yes, Senator McCain Feingold sucks on free speech, too. But not as bad as Obama.

Manifesto of the “Won’t be Silenced” Majority

An excellent collection of links about Obama.

Everynone should watch this

The video that explains why Ayers matters.

Obama Protecting America

Via Sobek Pundit I came across this video of The One yelling at an old woman in Iowa who was asking him a question have national security:

Obama ends it by saying

don’t think that I care any less than Rudy Giuliani or Mitt Romney about keeping my daughters from being blown up.

Senator Obama, I don’t believe that you care any less about protecting your daughters, the ones you send to a $20,000 / year private school (while opposing vouchers that would allow poor people to send their daughters to private schools (be they less glamorous than yours)).

Protecting our daughters, sons, siblings, spouses, parents, friends, etc., OTOH, is not something I think you care all that much about.

Because if you did, you wouldn’t have advocated and pushed for American defeat in Iraq, you wouldn’t associate with a known and unrepentant terrorist like William Ayers, and you wouldn’t be an opponent of ballistic missile defense.

AS President, I’m sure your daughters would be safe. It’s just the rest of us who need to worry.

Obama’s Sex Ed Adventure

This started out life as a comment over at Megan’s place, after she whined about McCain’s “Obama Sex Education” ad. (I note with amusement that rather than being posted, “Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.” Given that there’s no real logging in, my guess is it’s a size issue.)

If you haven’t read Jim Geraghty’s two defenses of the McCain Ad, as well as Byron York’s you should.  Both provide solid background that the MSM has left out.  Commenter “glasnost” attempts to strike back here, mainly by quoting ABC. Too bad ABC’s full of crap.

My comment to “glasnost”:

You know, I just figured out why this is such a winning issue for McCain, and why it so completely torques you “Coastal Elite” types.”

The Obama defense is “look, you’re being unreasonable. Of course we’re not going to take advantage of ambiguous language in order to do insane things (like teach about sex to Kindergarteners) in the classroom.” And the response from the McCain camp, and from the sane part of America, is “the Hell you aren’t. You have in the past, you will in the future, so we’re not going to let you screw up our kids education now.” The fact that most Americans just don’t trust you really pisses you off. “Who do those hicks think they are, not trusting me?” Answer: they’re “What’s Wrong with Kansas.” They’re the people whose votes decide elections. And they don’t trust you because people like you have been coarsening our culture for the last 40 years, and they think that makes the country worse off.

I ran across this article School sex club run by small boys, says Brisbane dad, and thought “I wonder what the teachers at that school would claim is ‘age appropriate sex education’? Would I really want to give them a blank check like that, and find out what they’ll do with it?”

No, I wouldn’t. And neither would most other people.

But Barack Obama voted to do just that, on a “straight party line vote.”
So, glasnost, excellent try, but you fail.

What I quoted from Geraghty:

it’s clear that one of its key purposes was to change existing law that said “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades 6 through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention, transmission and spread of AIDS” to “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV.”
[Bold mine]

From the large pile of drivel that [glasnost] pasted in:
The word “comprehensive” appears just once in the bill as applied to kindergartners, it the section saying that “Each class or course in comprehensive sex education offered in any of grades K through 12 shall include instruction on the prevention of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention, transmission and spread of HIV” — in other words, the word was focused on pre-existing classes that may exist.
[Bold mine]

False. If they were just going to leave it at the pre-existing classes, they wouldn’t have needed to change the law.

And, in fact, once they started to catch grief over the law, “one of the bill’s original sponsors, State Sen. Carol Ronen, apparently rethought the age issue and introduced an amendment to shift it back to grade 6.”

So yes, it was an issue, and a legitimate one.

So what does “comprehensive sex education” mean in terms of kindergartners?

“It means teaching kids about families,” McDowell says.

Ah, so Obama was trying to bring “Heather Has Two Mommies” to IL Kindergarteners? If you think that’s a defense, go right ahead.

“No reasonable person would believe we’re talking about teaching kindergartners about sexual intercourse,” McDowell says. “I don’t think Sen. McCain believes that.”

If you’re teaching about AIDS and HIV prevention to K – 12, you’re as a minimum opening the door to be teaching about sex K – 12. If that’s not what you want to do, then write the law so it doesn’t do that.

This kind of thing is why Democrats lose elections, and why you deserve to lose them. This bill was about the Left attacking the rest of society in the Culture War. “We know the proper way to think, and we’re going to force it on you hicks.” Which is why it also changed (emphasis mine in both)

All public elementary, junior high, and senior high 20 school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual –intercourse shall emphasize that abstinence is the expected norm in that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the only protection that is 100% effective against unwanted teen pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS)

to

All public elementary, junior high, and senior high school classes that teach sex education and discuss sexual activity or behavior shall emphasize that abstinence is an effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and HIV when transmitted sexually.

This bill was boilerplate Leftist Culture War material. Obama voted for it on a straight party line vote. Why?

Because Obama is a Democrat Party hack. He’s not thoughtful, he’s not nuanced, he’s just another left-wing drone, this one with a pretty face and the ability to give a good speech (so long as it’s fed to him from the Teleprompter).

And he’s going to lose. He’s going to lose because the American people aren’t stupid, and are figuring him out, he’s going to lose because McCain is just a better campaigner than Obama, and he’s going to lose because McCain’s VP choice was a thousand times better than Obama’s.

Sarah Palin, PTA Mom

In this Presidential campaign, we have the team that cares about the poor and middle class, and then we have the candidate who supports the powerful in their fight against the powerless.

First: the decent human beings:

John McCain supports vouchers so that poor people can send their children to decent schools, rather than the crappy inner city public schools.

Sarah Palin is a “PTA Mom“, and sends her kids to public schools that she’s fought to make better.

Now, the scum of the Earth:

Barack Obama opposes vouchers for poor and middle class families, while sending his children to private schools with tuitions in the $20,000 / year range (although, if you consider this a “defense”, he may only be paying 1/2 that).  You see, public schools are “good enough” for the losers he wants to “take care of” as President, but they’re not good enough for his children.

I suppose that, like Jim Lindgren, you could be happy that he loves his children enough to want to get them a good education.

I, other the other hand, am not impressed.  He’s not running for “World’s Best Dad” (and if he is, he’s failed for other reasons), he’s running for President of the United States.  If he gave a damn about the people of America, he would favor all of them, not just the rich, getting good educations.  But favoring that would put him in conflict with the Teacher’s Unions.

And when choosing between helping all Americans, or helping the Special Interests, Obama choose the Special Interests.

Because Obama, and the Democrats, only believe in “choice” when it involves avoiding taking responsibility for your actions.

Chasing after those “Coastal Elites” like a crack adict seeking his fix

Over in the post the I will not let die, someone calling himself “Bragan” decided to demonstrate just how separated “liberals” are from logic:

Greg, nobody is trying to deprive you of your hunting rifle. Hell, I don’t even want to deprive you of your hand gun if you want to carry it around with you so you can fend off the bad guys like Dirty Harry. But what I would like to do is make it more difficult for the bad guys — and let’s recognize that emotion can very often make a normally “good” person do very bad things — to possess a hand gun, through licensing, registration and greater penalties for illegal possession (and certainly there is no legitimate justificaiton for owning an assault rifle).

I responded:

Bragan,

Anyone trying to restrict ammunition sales, or make it more expensive, is attacking my ability to hunt. Since my hunting rifle is an “assault rifle”, your desire to ban those is most certainly a desire to deprive me of my hunting rifle.

But, of course, the core of the matter is this:

But what I would like to do is make it more difficult for the bad guys — and let’s recognize that emotion can very often make a normally “good” person do very bad things — to possess a hand gun, through licensing, registration and greater penalties for illegal possession

The only rational way to read that is that you want to disarm everyone, since even “normally good people” can be “bad guys”, and you want to keep the “bad guys” away from guns.

Note that what you don’t want to do is actually punish the bad guys when they commit a crime. Nope, you want to engage in “prior restraint”, and keep “them” from having weapons in the first place. (After all, once they do commit a crime, then they’re “poor, misunderstood people who aren’t responsible for what they’ve done.” Yes, I’m extrapolating that part from other fruitcakes in your left-wing coalition. Deal.)

IOW, no sale.

More fun with the “Coastal Elites”

My last post involved making fun of an idiotic comment on Megan McArdle’s post on “Coastal Elite Privilege. I wrote a comment there that I want to repeat here, because it nailed just the epitome of cluelessness.

“Well, what?” wrote:

And saying that “your right to own a gun won’t matter when you don’t have enough money to feed your children” isn’t condescending. It’s just true. Starving populations are singularly unconcerned with matters of civil justice.

Not only is it condescending, it’s false, and stupid.

My right to own a gun, and hunt, may very well be the difference between my children starving, and me being able to feed them food I’ve hunted.

My right to own a gun, and shoot anyone who tries to rob me, may be the difference between my food /rent money being stolen, and not.

One of the actions Governor Palin took was to extend the hunting season for returning members of the the Alaska National Guard, so they could get in more hunting time to feed their children.

You really do have to be stupid to be a “liberal”, don’t you?

Mocking the “Coastal Elite”

My last post was about a great comment on Megan McArdle’s post on “Coastal Elite Privilege.

I mentioned that she got a large number of comments from clueless “liberals” that prove her point. I’m going to make fun of this one, by a twit who calls himself “rush”.

BUT — that’s no excuse for them to continually vote against their interests. The politics of the coastal states is in line with the needs of working people in this country.

Um, no. “The politics of the coastal states” is in line with the desires of the coastal states residents. You have chosen to “give” the “working people in this country” things that you think they should want, and that you have decided should be more valuable to them than what you’re demanding from them.

They disagree. If they didn’t disagree, they wouldn’t be voting Republican. So, who’s the idiot? Them, for disagreeing with you? Or you, for being unwilling to change your offer to one they’d be willing to accept?

I understand their pain and can relate to it. Elitism in any form is bad and we need to unite as a nation.

Blah, blah, blah. Whine, bullshit, pile of crap. If you actually understood their pain, you wouldn’t go out of your way to inflict it.

But we can’t constantly back down from what we believe.

They (the “Kansas” / “flyover country” voters), can and should back down from what they believe, because they’re just dumb hicks who don’t understand the world around them. We coastal elites, with our superior understanding of the world, OTOH, we can’t back down.

Sorry, but gun control and abortion rights are important issues.

and therefore you dumb hicks need to give up your opinions on them and accept ours.

Not because we are elitists but because we see street violence and teenage mothers struggling around us. That’s a fact.

Two thoughts here. First: Wow, you’ve got all that gun control and abortion, yet still you have “street violence and teenage mothers.” Could it possibly be that gun control and abortion aren’t the answer? Naw. You can’t actually think about the issues, that’s a violation of your religion.

Gee, could it possibly be that Federalism would allow you to ban guns in your areas, while leaving our guns alone? Yes, it might have. Too bad you guys decided that the way to advance your unpopular agenda was to use left-wing “Justices” to override and rewrite the Constitution, and destroy that whole Federalism thing.

Second: Notice how the “elitists” “see” these things that the rest of us are just too blind to see, or too stupid to understand. Isn’t it kind of them to share their “wisdom” with us?

I am soooooo irritated this morning. The cynical politics of the right and how it might work again. I don’t have an answer to it. The pig lipstick comment taken out of context.
WAKE UP AMERICA.

Hey “rush”, you might want to check out this post by Megan on willful blindness, esp. if you really do think Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment is merely being “taken out of context.” Because there’s no way Obama really is that dumb.

But if he is that dumb, then there’s no way he has the “judgment” to be President.

And then you might try “waking up” yourself. The non-coastal non-elites disagree with you, as is their right. Your total unwillingness to acknowledge their right to disagree with you is what marks you as an elitist prick. The contempt inherent in your assumption of superiority is why your side keeps losing election. The only thing keeping you in the game is the fact that the MSM is so far in the tank for you that they’ve had to grow gills to survive. But the internet is destroying the value of that.

You are a sad, pathetic joke. I’m soooooo happy that you’re on the other team.