-
Sanford Resurrected in Carolina
April 3, 2013 | 140 comments
-
Bostic and Sanford Battle in Charleston
March 29, 2013 | 16 comments
-
South Carolina Showdown
March 26, 2013 | 39 comments
-
The Liberal Media Lie About CPAC
March 18, 2013 | 35 comments
-
The Hottest Ticket in Town
March 14, 2013 | 28 comments
Campaign Crawlers
‘Out in Force’ in Pennsylvania
Republicans push hard to capture Murtha’s seat.
Debbie Lee came all the way from Arizona to campaign for Tim Burns. She was “deployed” to western Pennsylvania on behalf of Moving America Forward, a pro-military organization “committed to supporting America’s efforts to defeat terrorism,” and she brought with her a $5,000 check for the Burns campaign from the group’s political action committee.
Lee is a “Gold Star Mother” whose son, a Navy SEAL, was killed in a 2006 firefight in Iraq. She praised Burns as “a candidate who understands and will uphold the Constitution and who recognizes the sacrifices our troops make.”
In the battle for Pennsylvania’s 12th District, Lee is one member of a veritable of army of volunteers fighting to elect a Republican to the seat held for more than three decades by the late Democrat John Murtha. For weeks, volunteers have stuffed envelopes, manned phone banks and walked precincts, and today they’ll make the final push to get their voters to the polls in a special election that many observers are calling a crucial test of whether the GOP can win back the House of Representatives in November.
On the eve of this key election, only one man was willing to predict the final result. “I can assure you, we’re going to have a victory tomorrow,” Burns said in an interview on Sean Hannity’s Fox News program Monday night.
There have been only four public polls in the campaign, three of which showed narrow leads for the Republican candidate. The final poll showed Burns ahead by only a single percentage point, meaning that no GOP votes can be taken for granted. While there are encouraging signs for Republicans — 63 percent of 12th District voters have a negative opinion of Nancy Pelosi and 55 percent disapprove of President Obama — a victory for Burns would still be a major upset, given that registered Democrats outnumber Republicans 2-to-1 in the district.
Beyond strictly local disadvantages for the GOP, there’s also the woe-struck record of the National Republican Campaign Committee, which in the past two years lost 10 consecutive House special elections. That streak technically ended last week in Georgia’s 9th District, although a runoff will be required to determine which of two GOP candidates will fill the seat vacated by the resignation of Republican Rep. Nathan Deal. Electing a Republican in Murtha’s old district is a far more formidable task and Monday it seemed as if the NRCC was being taunted by its counterpart, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The DCCC put out a press release emphasizing PA-12 as a “must-win” for the GOP.
The Democratic press release quoted such sources as veteran election analyst Charlie Cook — “Republicans have no excuse to lose this race” — and the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza, who said Republicans “have to prove they can emerge victorious in seats like this one…to make a reasonable case that the majority is in play this fall.” Perhaps the DCCC was playing the expectations game to deflect attention from the upcoming special election in Hawaii, where the presence of two Democrats on the ballot all but guarantees a win for Republican Charles Djou. However, that press release may also have been a signal of Democratic confidence that they can win a close contest on what is, after all, their home turf.
Such confidence could scarcely be inspired by the Democratic candidate, former Murtha staffer Mark Critz, a bland bureaucrat who has tried to portray himself as a moderate. In March, when the Democrats’ health-care bill was pending in Congress, Critz refused to say whether he was for or against it. Once the bill passed, Critz said he opposed it, but wouldn’t vote to repeal it. That kind of have-it-both-ways centrism may explain a general lack of enthusiasm among Democratic voters in the 12th District — the most recent poll showing Burns with a 22-point advantage among voters who described themselves as “excited” about the election.
Excitement among Republican voters is obviously good news for Burns, but it may not be enough to overcome heavier turnout among Democrats drawn to Tuesday’s Senate primary showdown between party-switching Sen. Arlen Specter and Rep. Joe Sestak. How many registered Democrats in PA-12 will cast their votes for either of those Senate candidates and then vote for the GOP candidate in the House special election? The answer to that question could be critical for Burns’ chances of victory, and there’s another question that is perhaps even more troubling: What about Bill Russell?
A retired Marine officer, Russell moved to Pennsylvania with the specific purpose of challenging Murtha in the 2008 election after the Democrat had accused Marines in Iraq of killing civilians in cold blood. Russell lost by 15 points, but was aiming for a rematch this year until Murtha’s death in February ended that possibility. When Republicans gathered in March to choose their candidate for the special election, they picked Burns, a successful businessman who had entered the GOP primary last year after becoming active in the Tea Party movement. Yet Russell hasn’t ended his campaign for the Republican primary nomination, which will be listed separately on the Tuesday ballot. More to the point, Russell has refused to endorse Burns in the special election and Russell’s campaign staffers have called Burns an “opportunist.”
The Burns campaign has sought to avoid official comment on the potential problems posed by Russell’s continued candidacy. Some Republicans in the district, however, privately worry that if Russell’s embittered supporters refuse to vote for Burns in the special election, the loss of a few hundred GOP votes might provide the winning margin for Critz. And while Burns is almost certain to win the Republican primary nomination, he would face an even greater challenge if November brings a rematch with an incumbent Critz.
Such calculations become moot if Burns beats Critz today, and in the final days leading up to the election, the Burns campaign has repeated the slogan “Vote Twice for Tim on Tuesday” to remind Republicans to pick him in both the special election and the primary. And legions of conservative activists from around the country have descended on the 12th District to help spread that message.
“Our volunteers are out in force, in the rain, knocking on doors for Tim,” Burns outreach coordinator Angela Lash said Monday afternoon.
It is that army of volunteers whose tireless efforts will determine whether Republicans celebrate a victory in Pennsylvania tonight.
About the Author
Robert Stacy McCain is co-author (with Lynn Vincent) of Donkey Cons: Sex, Crime, and Corruption in the Democratic Party (Nelson Current). He blogs at The Other McCain.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (58) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Robert Stacy McCain
More Articles From Campaign Crawlers
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/05/18/out-in-force-in-pennsylvania
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Carol| 5.18.10 @ 6:43AM
I beg you Pennsylvanians - go to the polls (tell the New Black Panthers to go to hell) and vote for Burns!
Burns was on Hannity last night and they talked about Critz. Critz is a plant for Obummer's organization and will say anything to take the seat. DO NOT FALL FOR SMOOTH TALKING DEMOCRATS. THEY ARE ALL CERTIFIED LIARS.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.18.10 @ 7:35AM
You've convinced me.
Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 5:16PM
Oh, and what do you say to Rep. Mark Souder, who preaches abstinence and in the meantime is Shtupping his staffer? And, Democrats lie? This guy is a liar, a cheat and sure ain't alone in the Republican party.
Nick| 5.18.10 @ 5:51PM
You have stupidly claimed that John Marshall was the FIRST chief justice of the Supreme Court. Your knowledge of history and the Constitution stinks, PurpleJackass.
You also used the word "precedence", when you meant "precedents", twit.
You have claimed, falsely, that President Bush was in office for TEN months when the attacks of September 11th, 2001, occured.
You also didn't know that Virginia governors cannot run for a second consecutive term. Nor, did you check your own misspelling of "hypocrite", as you berated someone else for misspelling "hypocrisy", thus making you a hypocrite.
You are an ignorant fool.
How many times can you stand to be embarrassed like this?
How can you keep coming back here, just to be repeatedly exposed as an ignorant nimrod?
I feel like George Kennedy, in "Cool Hand Luke", telling Paul Newman to "stay down!"
JmsA| 5.19.10 @ 11:39PM
That's all you got, purpleturd? Don't forget Eric Massa--oh, that's right, he and his indiscretions were just swept under the rug by the lamestream media and Pelosi and company. 11/02/2010
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 1:31AM
You mean like Mark Souder's Republican friends are doing now? Massa resigned, and your point is?
JmsA| 5.20.10 @ 9:30AM
Massa resigned, and so did Souder, immediately after the news of his affair broke. And no matter how you spin it, though Souder's behavior was very inappropriate, and yes hypocritical, it was not as long-lived and sordid as that of Massa's, who by the way took a bit longer to resign--possibly hoping to get the benefit of the doubt as Barney Frank did from the democrats. If only he hadn't voted against Obamacare.
And by the way, just in case you missed it, and mind you, I'm not celebrating it, just mentioning it vis-a-vis your sugar plums comments: Jobless claims were just reported as 471,000; that is, 30, 000 more than predicted. Did you get the other job statistics I previously provided for you? Here are some polling statistics from Rasmussen Reports. Presidential Approval Index rating: Minus 19%; 49% percent believe the deficit to be Bush's fault (that ought to make you happy). Don't worry, though, Obama is catching up at 43%. Funny, don't you think it's an amazing coincidence that only those democrats from heavily democrat precints, who avoid Obama's personal campaign help seem to do well? Man, if Critz hadn't a (D) after his name, you'd probably be calling him an extremist right wing nutjob. I'd say the bloom if off the One's rose, wouldn't you agree? 11/02/2010
JmsA| 5.20.10 @ 10:31AM
Oh, Purpleturd,
Here's another sugar plum for you: Dow down 281 points, per jobs report of 471,000 jobless claims, 30, 000 more than anticipated. Sugar plums alright. Are you tuned in yet? Calderon is going to address congress, and no doubt bash our country's laws, which he did yesterday along with the One. That's going to help quite a bit, don't you think? Also just in: A study has just shown that TSA's measures to spot terrorists, such as those guys you in Gitmo which you so vehemently defend--are not working. And the hits keep on coming! As always, 11/02/2010
Stephie| 5.18.10 @ 6:56AM
Here's to hoping the ignorant masses that usually stay home during special and midterm elections, STAY HOME. Hopefully Conservatives know the seriousness of these elections and will get out to the polls. Obummer already has his healthcaretakeover and doesn't seem to be out campaigning or could it be he is the touch of death for dems running for office and they have asked him NOT to come! Excuse me, he is indeed out campaigning at University graduations. What a ruthless ,selfcentered and narcissistic creep.
Tim*| 5.18.10 @ 7:21AM
We ,Tea Party Rebels Are Tanned,Rested & Ready For Today's Vote.
We support Tim Burns in Western Pennsylvania's 12 District Special Election and Pat Toomey Statewide in The Republican Primary.
Meanwhile ,in their Primary ,The Democrats are fractured over RINO Turncoat , Obama Endorsed Specter and The Formerly Canned Little Admiral Sestak .
A Fun Time Will Be Had By All.
Dan D| 5.18.10 @ 9:31AM
Tim Burns retains one key advantage over Bill Russell in the district. He was a Johnstown native who built his business in Washington county, so he has deep roots in the district. That is an important consideration in that area, Bill Russell will never be perceived as "one of our own" in the same way. With this particular population and culture, it matters.
Ken (Old Texican)| 5.18.10 @ 9:35AM
Say a short prayer, folks, and VOTE SMART!
Sharon| 5.18.10 @ 10:26AM
Exciting times! Looking forward to some great news this evening. Thanks to all on the ground in PA12.
ggoblue| 5.18.10 @ 10:41AM
it appears to be raining in much of pennsylvania today which can only help....the conservatives will walk thru a blizzard to vote this year!
Tim*| 5.18.10 @ 11:26AM
Yup , it's raining in Pennsylvania and that bodes well for Tim Burns in The 12th District & Bad for Specter in Philadelphia ,where they are already lean on "Walkin' Around Money " and won't get out the black vote.
Tony in Central PA| 5.18.10 @ 12:21PM
PA Democrats in rural areas, and even Pittsburgh to some extent, are a bit different from Democrats in most of the nation. They tend to be more socially conservative. I'm not sure if this will make a difference in the race for the 12th district, but it will make a difference in the next Presidential election.
As far as Sestak versus Specter, I'm actually favoring Specter because I think he doesn't stand a chance against any Republican in November. Sestak is an unknown who doesn't appear to know much about anything based on what I have heard coming out of his mouth on local talk radio. He's just the kind of guy the DNC can get behind.
Tim*| 5.18.10 @ 3:01PM
The RINO Traitor Specter opened the door about The Little Admiral hiding his military Record.
Admiral Mullen,then Chief Of Naval Operations unceremoniously fired The Little Nasty Weasel's Keister And then Sestak resigned from The Navy.
Bring The Little Admiral On .
Pat Toomey Will Mop The Deck With His Face.
TheTea Party Rebellion Escalates.
Alan Brooks| 5.18.10 @ 5:43PM
Good, because the fighting builds up the economy so Obama can be re-elected. Politics doesn't mean anything anymore--
I just don't want another second rate GOP president.
JimE| 5.18.10 @ 7:09PM
AL,
You are an idiot of epic proportions.
JmsA| 5.19.10 @ 11:28PM
"Good, because the fighting builds up the economy so Obama can be re-elected." Is that all you got? Talk about groping in the dark.
"I just don't want another second rate GOP president." And the One is first rate, right? In a leftist lunatic's eye he is. Check his approval ratings lately? Critz, ran to the right of Burns in a district where democrats outnumber republicans 2 to 1, and most importantly didn't have the One campaign for him--don't you find that sort of telling? Talk about counting one's chickens before hatching. We'll see come 11/02/2010.
Nancy| 5.20.10 @ 2:42PM
A third stringer would be better than 4 more years of Obama.
wouldee5150| 5.18.10 @ 7:05PM
Last I checked, Stuart Smalley was the latest greatest Marxist tool to win, and it took ACORN stuffing absentee ballots to pull it off. lol.
I like the ring given the 'vote twice for tim' theme.
Still, the libtards will stay home this year. They are too embarrassed to put up a real fight.
But that means we must work tirelessly through 2012 and beyond. We have a generation's worth of damage to fix.
Tim*| 5.18.10 @ 10:37PM
Down Goes The RINO Turncoat Specter !
AP just called It For The Little Admiral , Sestak.
Now Real Conservative Pat Toomey gets to jettison Sestak , like then Chief Of Naval Operations Admiral Mullen did.
"Of significant interest is that Admiral Mullen fired Sestak on the very first day Mullen started in his new post.
According to the Navy Times --- a reputable source --- the reason cited for Sestak’s dismissal was that he created a “poor command climate.” The publication went on to state, “Sestak was then shuffled into lower-profile desk jobs before he retired in January 2006 as a two-star admiral.”
In fact, many press reports quote another admiral familiar with Sestak as calling his leadership style “tyrannical,” and one in which he commanded “…by intimidation and fear "
Now,quit hidin' Your Military Records Sestak.
Show Us The Records !
Show Us The Records !
Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 10:55PM
Hmmm, an Admiral for the Democrats, a war hero, against a has-been on the Republican side. I stick with the Admiral ..
Oh, and another sugar plum you missed....
Democrat Mark Critz has defeated Republican whats-his-name for the CONSERVATIVE PA-12 seat. HA! Guess the people ain't listening to you, are they? You betcha!
See, my little timmies, elections have consequences, and the Democrats have pulled out the ONLY real election tonite. 1 more Democratic House seat is saved or created - kind of like the jobs that stopped being lost after Obama became President, and are now being gained ... the engine is pulling and will pull the Democrats to victory, despite what you all are selling .. silly, reactionary, tired and worn Newt Gingrich policies that won't work anymore. The Reagan revolution is dead, buried with him, and the Progress of America can now continue... Have a nice day! I sure will ... hahahahahaha.
Tim*| 5.18.10 @ 11:18PM
Duuuhhh !
Apparently , Mr. Purpleypuss didn't get the memo.
This was a Special Election for the remaining time on Murtha's seat ,until November 2nd.
Tim Burns now gets a rematch with Mark Critz on November 2nd minus an intra-party fight against Bill Russell .
Tim Burns won that Republican Primary today .
Now, Go Take Your Medication And Lie Down.
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 1:22AM
Really? i didn't know that ... if there's a rematch, I reckon I should be shaking ... the people voted and will vote again in November ... if you didn't win now, you sure ain't gonna when more people come out to vote, and your Republican Party hacks know it.
Watch how much $$$ they pour into Tim Burns this time around ... follow the money - you'll know where they think they can win. They were "Burned" once - they're not likely to do it again.
JmsA| 5.19.10 @ 11:46PM
As I previously replied to the other leftist resident genius, Al Brooks--, Critz ran to the extreme right, against Obamacare, the stimulus, and in a pro-life and pro-gun stance. Heck, if he weren't a democrat, you'd be calling him a right wing extremist nut, in a district where democrats outnumber republicans 2 to 1, no less, and the One was nowhere to be seen during the campaign. Yeah, go ahead and whoop it up! We'll see you on 11/02/2010.
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 1:26AM
Obama had nothing to do with this election, as you rightly state. The people voted for their local choice, and that isn't likely to change in
John - TMF| 5.18.10 @ 11:10PM
Meanwhile, back in western Pencil-hockey... The reason for this article just evaporated like a milk spill in a hot summer parking lot; ugly and smelly.
It should be a real note of caution to those of us on the Right.
1. Never, ever underestimate the power of the Democrat Machine in the North East. Murtha won this district handily for years despite ABSCAM, bribery, pork barrel projects, sweetheart deals... you name it. He even won it by a large margin after basically calling his constituents dumb red-necks. Guess he knew his voters, didn't he?
2. When push came to shove, intra-party politics will poison the well as much as inter-party contests. There are floating rumors that many potential GOP voters stayed home to vote for another candidate (name escapes me at the moment) in the primary for the November election. It would have been impossible to nominate him later if Burns had won. There is no proof of that BTW... just a suspicion.
3. This will be played like a magic gong. The Dems are already hanging up this one as evidence that the anti-Democrat tide is turning, and that the Tea Party Movement is a failing limp joke (I don't belive that... they do so don't get all commenty about that...)
This Democrat Machine win will be spun like a Whizzer, and sound just as annoying...
4. Last.... Be careful when you choose a peg on which to hang your hat. The Northeast US is largely lost to Conservatives. We might pick up a few seats hear and there... and even win a good row once or twice in a blue moon. But basically Yankees are slaves to the Democrat Party, and will vote for their Purveyors of Public Pork early and often.
All in all some good news (Bye-bye Arlen...door, meet butt... )... some odd news... some bad news.. and what amounts to an inch or so in the right direction.
Cheers...
The Mighty Fahvaag
fred120| 5.18.10 @ 11:12PM
Purplegay,
You're not as bright as you think......The area Murtha was in was 2-1 democrats over republicans.........that is not a sign of anything.
I have been setting back and reading allot of your tripe........and that is exactly what it is. The founding fathers dealt with people like you(they called them Tores"(look it up).......you claim all thse jobs are being created..............where? What is the unemployment rate in your state? Because there are no states that are doing any hiring. Govt!!! Now they are hiring(like we need more idiots). But what does that create? You are obviously a brain dead obama-bot Zombie......good luck in Nov, Your going to need it.
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 1:30AM
Did you miss that little sugar plum where 290,000 jobs were created in April, in PRIVATE industry? Hmmm? As soon as Obama took office the downward spiral in jobs started to ameliorate, and now has come right back to a little more than break even. The economy is improving, slowly, but you can't stop it, and that will make all the difference in Nov, and esp in 2012. You have no other argument that any sane person could agree with, the Reagan revolution is dead - we're broke, deregulated to our detriment and can't cut taxes anymore... what else you got?
JmsA| 5.20.10 @ 2:24AM
Purpleturd, here are a few statistical FACTS for you to ponder vis-a-vis your sugar plums, from the St. Louis Fed/FRED, USGOVT and USGOOD series:
Year with most government jobs: 2009
Year with most total non-farm jobs: 2007
Year with most goods producing jobs: 1979
Most recent year with as few goods-producing jobs as 2010: 1950
Percentage of all non-farm jobs that are government jobs in 2010: 17.3%
Percentage that is durable goods manufacturing, construction, or natural resources and mining: 10.3%
I know, I know, it's all Bush's fault; but wait, there's more:
"And today, I'm happy to report that we received some very encouraging news... I should also note that the unemployment rate ticked up slightly from 9.7 to 9.9 [percent]." President Obama, May 7, 2010. Somehow I don't think the unemployed have such a rosy outlook as the O's or yours for that matter.
Unemployed More Than 6 Months
Source: St. Louis Fed/FRED.
Hoven's Index for May 11, 2010
Median length of unemployment:
January 2009: 10.6 weeks
April 2010: 21.6 weeks (That's 15 months after O's inaguration, by the way.)
May 1983 (highest prior to April 2009, that's two years after Reagan took over from Jimmy Carter's mess): 12.3 weeks
Oh, Yeah: Little sugar plums alright.
Purpleguy| 5.18.10 @ 11:58PM
Ahh, but I am, well read, well informed, which I can see you don't claim...
But now, let's downplay the 2nd most important race in the country.... After Rand Paul, who by the way, got less votes than either Democrat in the KY primary, PA-12 was an all out turnout by the Republicans and they LOST 52%-45% ... quite a big loss, don't you think? Nah, not a sign of anything ... no excitement or energy on the Democratic side, right? Hahahahaha ...
Okay - now for your stupidity - "The founding fathers dealt with people like you(they called them Tores"(look it up)." - The Tories were the loyalists, loyal to the King. Who lost the Revolutionary War? The King, the Loyalists (=the Tories) and the Conservatives... sorry, but the truth hurts. Look THAT up ... You'd like to believe there is a direct line from the Founders to your Conservative principle bs, but there isn't ... The Founders were Deists, not Christian ... they were wealthy landowners, not the average person ... they were Progressives and Liberal minded - Tell me that the Rights of Man and the Bill of Rights are Conservative documents in 1776 - go ahead ... but these were men of the Enlightenment, and men of science (Benjamin Franklin), who believed in Individual liberty, not allegiance to the State(=King), which the Tories/Conservatives believed in and lost. The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, a progressive liberal, and who helped write the Bill of Rights. And, don't forget about the radical liberal, Thomas Paine of Common Sense. Oh, and let's not forget the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, You don't seriously believe they were Conservatives do you ? hahahahaha ... History teaches that progress continues, conservatism is a backlash, but always dies in the end ... because it isn't good for the people, just the elite.
Thomas Jefferson, argued that a Bill of Rights would not and should not be interpreted as exhaustive; i.e., that these rights were examples of important rights that people had, but that people had other rights as well. People in this school of thought were confident that the judiciary would interpret these rights in an expansive fashion. The matter was further clarified by the Ninth Amendment. And, so they have ... so much for your much ballyhooed Activist Judges ... The Founders expected them to continue to enumerate the rights of the people...
Enjoy the election results - I know I sure do ... hehe.
Interested Conservative| 5.19.10 @ 12:49AM
That's a very interesting interpretation of colonial/revolutionary history.
Was HUD mentioned in the Rights of Man?
JmsA| 5.20.10 @ 1:54AM
"Was HUD mentioned in the Rights of Man?" No it wasn't, but it won't dissuade him from claiming it was.
Interested Conservative| 5.19.10 @ 12:52AM
PS - you also understand that the current POTUS is the first individual born as a British subject elected president in 150 or so years?
As you say, you could look that up!
Purpleguy| 5.19.10 @ 10:28PM
Huh? Oh, I get it - Kenya, in Africa, British colony, Obama born, oh yeah - I think I heard that one on Glenn Beck. "Genius has it's limits, while stupidity does not" Albert Einstein
Funny how the real America swore him in as President, treat him as President, and the World treats him as President. But in your world he's an alien - I mean British subject. How's that working for ya in the lunatic fringe?
JmsA| 5.20.10 @ 1:42AM
Purpleturd,
"Funny how the real America swore him in as President, treat him as President, and the World treats him as President." Especially when he goes around bowing to everyone. That's truly presidential, alright.
Please check out this video of the First Lady. At about 48 seconds into it, she mentions Barack's home country, and it ain't the U.S. she mentions. Enjoy: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i.....46&c=1
As always, 11/02/2010
PS: I don't believe Glenn Beck had anything to do with this video.
FTM| 5.19.10 @ 3:49AM
Hi Purpleguy,
I have read the "Rights of Man," "Common Sense" and everything else that Payne Wrote. I've also read the Constitution and "The Federalist Papers." I kinda-sorta agree with your assessment that the founders equate more or less with todays progressives. I personally would consider them to be as you say, "Enlightened" rebels. Maybe iconoclasts.
I also read Plato's, "Republic" and know all about the "Noble Lie" so don't go there.
As an aside you ought to read "the Republic," as a start, it's one book that will lead you to begin to realize just how badly you've been misled.
Ahem...
In light of the founders advocacy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and so fourth how do you reconcile the modern progressive defacto dismissal of the constitution in favor of UN treaties and the like? We have a commander in Chief that refuses to prove that he is native born although his competitor in fact did just that. We have sitting "Progressive US Supreme Court Justices that believe that foreign legal opinion should be considered in rendering US legal interpretations of the US Constitution. (What foreign opinion? perhaps North Korea or Iran or Sudan)
Did you know that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that he testified before a congressional committee and proved that he was an American c itizen? (Not to say that McCain would have been a superior president) President Obama told the same committee that his nativity was none of their business and got away with it.
How do you reconcile the anti-Americ antics of the ACLU, a most "Progressive" organization, in light of the constitution and the Bill of Rights? We have a supreme court candidate that seems to be in favor of abridging freedom of speech in some circumstances. How can that be?
OK, based on the assumption that the founders were "Progressives" then why is it that todays "Progressives" act in a fashion that is contrary to what the founding progressives stood for? Why is it that todays progressives seem to be hell-bent-determined to undo everything that is American?
I have to totally disagree with your basic premise. based on the assumption that yesterdays progressives were indeed progressives by comparison todays progressives are an out of control rabble that want to make up the rules as they go along, best case. Worst case just another collection of Chicago political thugs.
Purpleguy| 5.19.10 @ 11:02PM
Where to begin? I'll just say, the "noble lie" does not work in the end, nor would it work once the people understand their power and how to use it.
"how do you reconcile the modern progressive defacto dismissal of the constitution in favor of UN treaties and the like?" - What evidence of this exists? Where is this even addressed with regard to the Constitution? Treaties are promulgated by the Executive, but ratified by the Senate ... no more, no less.
"We have sitting "Progressive US Supreme Court Justices that believe that foreign legal opinion should be considered in rendering US legal interpretations of the US Constitution." - The United States Supreme Court has made references to foreign law since the earliest days of the Republic. During the tenure of Chief Justice John Marshall, the Court was often called on to interpret treaties and weigh controversies involving ships on the high seas, and the Justices frequently cited the laws of other nations in their decisions. More recently, in 2003, Justice Anthony Kennedy, hardly a "Progressive" drew on several foreign sources in the context of a majority opinion in one of the Court’s most important cases in recent years. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court ruled, six to three, that states could not criminalize sodomy between consenting adult homosexuals, thus overturning a seventeen-year-old precedent on the subject, Bowers v. Hardwick. So much for that red herring.
"Did you know that McCain was born in the Panama Canal Zone and that he testified before a congressional committee and proved that he was an American citizen" - That's funny, you should cite the Panama Canal Zone, which has never been a state, as is Hawaii, but a protectorate at best, leased from a foreign land, who's land belonged first to Colombia, then to Panama, and is now back to Panama as Panamanian sovereign territory. Would you consider someone born at Guantanamo eligible to be President?
"How do you reconcile the anti-Americ antics of the ACLU, a most "Progressive" organization, in light of the constitution and the Bill of Rights? We have a supreme court candidate that seems to be in favor of abridging freedom of speech in some circumstances. " - you have to explain these things; you act as though these are just truisms, when there is no basis in fact - unless you can provide them.
"OK, based on the assumption that the founders were "Progressives" then why is it that todays "Progressives" act in a fashion that is contrary to what the founding progressives stood for? Why is it that todays progressives seem to be hell-bent-determined to undo everything that is American? " - "I don't agree with your premise that progressives are hell bent to undo everything that is American" - Are you trying to tell me that engaging in Wars around the World the Founders would condone? Conservatives do. Good Grief, even George Washington warned us against foreign entanglements. Moreover, even the Founders never expected the country to stay the same. That's why they gave us the Amendment process, and Thomas Jefferson himself said the Constitution should be reviewed every 19 years... Why 19 years? Beats me, but the point is they expected change. So harking back to all values and principles of a bygone era would not be what the Founders expected. They expected we would Amend the Constitution, and so we have. They expected that the Judiciary would continue to enumerate the rights of the people over time as the need arose, and so they have. Activist Judges is what they expected, over the objections of Alexander Hamilton, who didn't want the Bill of Rights, having feared they would be used to limit the rights of the people to just those enumerated in the Bill of Rights (Federalist Papers). He lost the argument, but in reality that is EXACTLY what the Conservative argument is always about - the Bill of Rights is it, no more rights - but that is wrong from the Founders' preponderant point of view. Progressives believe in forming a "more Perfect Union", constantly evolving toward an ideal, the American Dream. Not subscribing to the Rand Paul argument that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 he would not be in favor of today.
Your last paragraph doesn't need countering, it's simply your opinion, which you have a right to, but I totally disagree, but that's no surprise.
Progressives love this country just as much as you do. But can you name me 3 Conservative ideas over 200 years that made life worth living better in this country? I can name you a dozen Progressive ideas that have. Since this country was founded for the people, by the people and of the people, what helps the people is what is best. That is the true test of any movement and it's staying power. The people will not be defeated.
FTM| 5.19.10 @ 4:25AM
As an aside since you mentioned Payne, "the Rights of Man" are very clear, I get to own property and enjoy the fruits of my labor and intellect. According to Payne as long as what I do has no negitive impact on the activities of another then what I do is my business. Yesterdays Progressive.
Versus todays Progressive where we get this idea that it is incumbent upon society to redistribute wealth. Meaning I get up in the morning and go to work and the a collection of armed hoodlums with badges and guns come and redistribute my wealth, every two weeks on Friday. Take my money that I earned from me under threat of violence and give it to some slob that not only never has worked but has no intention of ever working.
You ought to sit down and read Payne man, really.
JmsA| 5.20.10 @ 1:26AM
"Ahh, but I am, well read, well informed, which I can see you don't claim..." Just because you're a braggard and a legend in your own mind, doesn't mean we're all so afflicted, OK, purpleturd?
Amazing! Though you claim to be so well read, you missed that which is most basic as set forth by the Founders...INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM and its defense come what may. The Constitution, irrespective of what the One claims, is not about negative rights, but to protect the individual citizen from abuse from the government. Your revisionist version of history is false. Your neat little sleight of words or cheap backdoor rhetorical trick of trying to bestow an imprimatur on today's so called progressives by referring to the Founders as such, couldn't be more false. The Founders did not intend to infringe personal freedom, which is what today's progressives have and continue to strive for. See, it is all very simple. And I didn't even have brag about what I've read. 11/02/2010
Purpleguy| 5.20.10 @ 11:32AM
Today's Progressives have more in common with Libertarians than they do with Conservatives. I'm sure you will agree that Libertarians are closer to the Founders than any Conservative is.
Surely you don't think the Conservative agenda precludes controlling people with the Government, do you? Can you say Terry Schaivo?
Tim*| 5.19.10 @ 12:26AM
However,Mr.Purplepuss , your rump is screwed on backwards .
We ,Tea Party Rebels Are The Rebels & You Be Wit Da King Obama.
Aaaaand , Nah , only three Founding Fathers were Deistic .
And they were equivocal on the matter.
There were 88 Anglicans/Episcopalians , 30 Presbyterians , 27 Congregationalists , 7 Quakers , 6 Dutch Reformed/German Reformed , 5 Lutherans , 3 Catholics , 3 Huguenots , 3 Lutherans , 3 Unitarians , 2 Methodists ,And 1 Calvinist .
Now , go lay down.
Tripp| 5.19.10 @ 12:32AM
For someone who's so well read, you should know better than to equate classical liberalism with progressivism- two very distinct and differing political philosophies. Modern conservatism bears only slight resemblance to the Tory conservatism of old, which was more focused on maintaining control of the aristocracy and royal hierarchy- it is suspicious of entrenched power but equally reticent to advocate for rapid change- our Framers soberly considered these factors as most classical liberals do and decided on establishing a nation conceived in a new concept of liberty bound by subservience to the rule of law- something utterly absent in the progressive project. Read on, Purpleguy, but pay attention when you do this time.
JmsA| 5.20.10 @ 1:31AM
Well put, Tripp. Unfortunately though, well beyond the comprehending abilities of the purpleturd's revisionist mind.
Interested Conservative| 5.19.10 @ 12:46AM
It's a curious loss, and more curious are the KY dem. primary results, exceeding the GOP overall vote count.
Still in all, this is about the 4th or 5th most likely flip seat in Pa., and still in play in Nov.. I wonder how the pros analyze the effect of the Pa. senate primary on the local turnout here.
Another item is how this was not particularly a tea party race. The Hoffman race in NY was much more to that effect.
Finally, it will be interesting if Gov Daniels calls a special election to replace Rep. Souder. That would not so subtly stick it to NY stalling away on the Massa replacement. Regardless of the spin, the democrats are playing serious defense.
The most intriguing thing may be that the NE GOP may be resurgent even without tea party or conservative involvement. Another few gaffes like Blumenthal's and the GOP won't really need the tea party in purplier New England districts.
jaggok| 5.19.10 @ 12:47PM
So you Teabag Nazis lost Murtha's district. Keep running against the incumbent Republicans and you will just help the Dems keep control.
SKIPPY| 5.21.10 @ 4:38AM
You dudes not geting the point here becuz John Murthas seet in congress is stayin with the Demdacrats and Mr Crist is our man there. He is a good demdacrat an will keep the seet whin he run aganst the Burns dude sumtime in the Fall I think. Dudes love the demdacrats an are going keep the congress an Nacie Pussy and Mr. Reed am reely goin to fix you gize so there! Dude-racism is goin down this election...
fdk| 7.1.10 @ 3:42AM
beijing massage