Filed under: Republicans , Social Security , Conservatives , 2012 Elections She kicked off her campaign for one of state’s four U.S. House seats on Wednesday with a video of her seated at a kitchen table and lamenting the national debt.
Filed under: Republicans , Religion , Woman Up , Culture , Tea Party , Barack Obama , 2012 Elections The defeated Nevada Senate candidate is making the rounds in key primary states, such as South Carolina, but insists she doesn’t have national ambitions in 2012.
Filed under: Woman Up All three have been traveling to Iowa recently. So are these three the best potential women candidates Republicans can come up with?
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here .] First, there is Eric Fuller and his comments to Democracy Now . Basically he said things like this : “It looks like Palin, Beck, Sharron Angle and the rest got their first target,” Eric Fuller, a former campaigner for Ariz. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, told Democracy Now. “Their wish for Second Amendment activism has been fulfilled.” But I want you to watch the original video, and listen carefully. It’s risible in many ways, but notice what he doesn’t say. He doesn’t say he presently blames Palin, Beck, and so on for the attack. He is saying he did Saturday night. And of course that was the same night that Sheriff Nifong Dupnick was making his own intemperate remarks. So is it reasonable for the Mr. Fuller to have believed law enforcement on that issue on that night ? Of course it is. But you never hear them ask the obvious follow up question: do you still feel this way? And if you look at the rest of the report, created today, it is obvious that these people are completely dishonest. They have deliberately skewed every other piece of evidence to indict the right wing, leaving out every piece of evidence that might exonerate their targets. Why should we think they presented this man’s entire statement? For all we know, he might have said this, “yeah, I was really mad that night at the Tea Party and all that. And now I am angry at Dipshit Dupnick for putting out that kind of wild speculation. I feel manipulated.” Now that the story has gone halfway around the world, who knows how he might amend that statement? And even if Fuller still feels this way, unless he can present facts to back up his claim, it is just his opinion, no more informed by fact than the opinion of your average 9-11 Truther (Pat Buchanan proves that even a broken clock is right two times a day, here ). Maybe he heard the killer shout something relevant as he fired, but in that interview, he didn’t mention it. So in the absence of him being privy to some piece of evidence the rest of us are not, there is no reason to think that just because he got shot he has a special line on the killer’s motivations. Still I am not going to beat up the man if he repeats the blood libel. He was shot and he is allowed to be angry, even irrationally so. But we don’t have to credit his opinion, either. But I don’t want to leave you annoyed as you go into the weekend, so let me share this video with you as well. Pat Caddell tells us what he really thinks about Paul Krugman: The word bleeped out is “asshole.” Hat tip: the Daily Caller . [Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
See more here:
Two Videos to Watch; Eric Fuller’s Edited Hyperbole and Pat Caddell Calls Krugman an Asshole
Instead of making a bunch of predictions for New Years, I like the idea of opinion-mongers taking the time to admit the predictions they got wrong in the past year. 1. The 2010 elections will be good for Republicans in Massachusetts. For years, I’ve paid attention to Republicans with little hope in my home state. I wrote a column about Jim Ogonowski’s Senate campaign, the year he failed to even qualify for the Republican primary ballot. I followed up with a piece on the guy who eventually got the GOP nod to run against John Kerry. I even penned an NRO column with a headline referring to an upset — about Bay State Republican candidate who ended up losing by 40 points. (The rest of the column holds up pretty well, though.) This year, I was convinced Massachusetts Republicans would be able to follow up on the January success of Scott Brown. To a certain extent, they did — they increased their numbers in the state legislature, won seats on the governor’s council, and ran more competitive congressional and statewide candidates than they had since 1994. But I thought at least one of those congressional or statewide candidates would actually win. None did. Massachusetts remains the single most frustrating place in the country outside D.C. to be a Republican. 2. Every Tea Party-aligned conservative Senate candidate who won the Republican primary would win the general, except for Christine O’Donnell — and even she would break 40 percent of the vote. Well, O’Donnell did break 40 percent of the vote (barely). But while Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Toomey, and Ron Johnson won, Sharron Angle and Ken Buck also lost. Which brings me to: 3. Harry Reid can’t win reelection. My view was that Reid’s numbers, generally stuck around the mid-40s and never breaking 50 percent, were too enduringly awful for him to win another term no mmatter how badly his Republican challenger campaigned. I thought the only exception would be a None of the Above vote (allowable in Nevada) larger than any in history. Well, Reid won reelection without that. I know a lot of readers are skeptical that Reid won fair and square, but his margin of victory is outside the margin of shenanigans. 4. Christine O’Donnell is a no-hoper in the primary. I wasn’t confident enough in that one to make the prediction publicly, but I did dissuade an intern from writing a piece that took her ability to beat Mike Castle seriously. Oops! Though in my defense, it was before she caught on with conservatives nationally — the prerequisite for a successful Tea Party challenge this year. 5. Dino Rossi. Yeah, I believed those late polls that he was pulling away. Nope. I’m sure there are others, but these are the ones I got wrong off the top of my head.
More here:
The "W" in W. James Antle III Stands for "Wrong"
