I've made it to the initial round for favorite progressive blogger in the Air America Cruise Contest. I have to stay in the Top 5 before the second voting round begins, so your vote is appreciated! First voting round:
The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
The backstabbing continues, as Mitt Romney appeared on CNN's State of the Union and commented on Time Magazine's inclusion of Sarah Palin on its list of "The World's Most Influential People." Party chair Rush Limbaugh also made the list, btw.
As Jed said, "It's like watching Ken attack Barbie for being plastic." Watch it below the fold.
No lie. Boy this party is in more trouble than I thought. Now that the bloom is off of the Sarah Palin rose, apparently GOP movers and shakers are ready to gamble on the governor of Louisiana. Must be that whole diversity thing nagging at them. Sorry pals, he's still a fundie.
Like the president-elect, Gov. Bobby Jindal of Louisiana is young (37), accomplished (a Rhodes scholar) and, as the son of Indian immigrants, someone familiar with breaking racial and cultural barriers. He came to Iowa to deliver a pair of speeches, and his mere presence ignited talk that the 2012 presidential campaign has begun here, if coyly. Already, a fierce fight is looming between him and other Republicans -- former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who arrived in Iowa a couple of days before him, and Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who is said to be coming at some point -- for the hearts of social conservatives.
..."The Republicans really have no choice except to look at some people more youthful if they want to have a better chance of winning," said Betty E. Johnson, an independent and the wife of a Cedar Rapids pastor, who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 but who went for Obama over 72-year-old John McCain. "I liked Obama's energy and hope. I don't know, but maybe a younger person would give Republicans a feeling of more energy, openness."
Exactly -- a feeling of more openness. It takes more than being born in the last half of the century to actually project a nod to diversity and openness, but whatever, the GOP is all about imagery and imagination rather than reality. Look at the sea of pale old folks who attended its convention. But I guess fronting is about as good as the Republicans can do.
....Meanwhile, others around the country were talking him up. No less an aspiring kingmaker than Steve Schmidt, the chief strategist of McCain's failed presidential bid, sees Jindal as the Republican Party's destiny. "The question is not whether he'll be president, but when he'll be president, because he will be elected someday." The anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist believes, too, that Jindal is a certainty to occupy the White House, and conservative talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh has described him as "the next Ronald Reagan."
..."If anything, McCain's candidacy suggests that age is not always a positive -- and sometimes is a negative," Norquist says. "As Republicans, you have a real problem now with younger voters and immigrants. If you were going to central casting for a candidate to deal with all that, who do you have? Jindal. He is young, and he looks young. . . . He's a great communicator. And his record is that he's sharp and quick with policy."
Jindal supporters regularly evoke the Reagan parallel, fueled by a confidence that their hero's brand of social and fiscal conservatism, coupled with his sunny folksiness on the stump, can rekindle the Reagan flame.
Wait -- Reagan!? I thought that Sarah Palin was the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan, according to his son Michael:
Wednesday night I watched the Republican National Convention on television and there, before my very eyes, I saw my Dad reborn; only this time he's a she...Welcome back, Dad, even if you're wearing a dress and bearing children this time around.
Anyway, this bit of business below the fold is the nugget to pay attention to...
Love or hate California's Proposition 8, one fact-based thing we can take away from the campaign is that the First Presidency (the Prophet and his two counselors) of the Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter Day Saints (the Mormons) told their church membership to "do all [they] can to support the proposed constitutional amendment." There is now precedence for the LDS' prophet to tell its members how to vote on very public, controversial issues.
So, if Mitt Romney were to become the Republican Nominee for President in 2012, could the political activism by the Mormon Church hierarchy become be an issue of higher order than the John F. Kennedy/Pope issue of 1960? I tend to think so.
The key role played by the LDS Church in passing California's gay marriage ban could have long-lasting consequences - good and bad - for the future of the nation's highest-profile Mormon politician: Mitt Romney.
The LDS effort could give Romney a crucial boost among evangelicals who wield great power in choosing the Republican presidential nominee. But it might leave the former Massachusetts governor an even tougher slog among a broader electorate.
"What the LDS Church just did in California and elsewhere, should help [Romney] because it sends a signal to evangelical Protestants that while we differ religiously, politically we are first cousins," says Charles Dunn, dean of the School of Government at Regent University, founded by evangelical leader Pat Robertson...
Further into the article though, Burr quotes University of Iowa communications professor Bruce Gronbeck, who pointed out that the LDS Church's involvement in Prop 8 Politics may...
...make some independents wary of voting for a Mormon candidate, he says, and stoke more fears of how much power the church has over its faithful members.
So if one is a conservative, evangelical Christian, are you more happy that a Mormon candidate's church is on your side of the issue on same-gender marriage, or are you more worried about how the LDS Prophet may tell an elected Mormon officeholder how to speak out and vote on other issues besides same-gender marriage?
That LDS Prophet brought the politics of the Mormon Church to the forefront this last election. Since many conservative Christian voters consider Mormonism to be a cult, I tend to believe that any Mormon presidential candidate will have a leg down due to worries about what the LDS Prophet may tell a Mormon candidate what to say and do -- the Prop 8 stand by the LDS First Presidency demonstrates it's possible.
And wow, conservatives are discussing 2012 really early, aren't they? President-elect Obama hasn't even taken office yet.
You'd think that the Thrilla from Wasilla's promotion by the right wing for a 2012 run would manifest itself in a ton of favorable comments about Palin at the Republican Governors Association (RGA) convention. Based on some of the interviews of her peers, not so much. (Think Progress):
CNN: So let me ask you point blank, governor. Is she the future of the party?
MARK SANFORD (SC): I don't think I'd define it that way. [11/13/08]
TIM PAWLENTY (MN): She [Palin] is going to be one of the voices that will help lead the party for months and years to come, clearly. ... I also think it is too early to be talking about 2012. My goodness, we just had an election. People are sick of that. [MSNBC, 11/12/08]
FOX: What do you think her future is?
HALEY BARBOUR (MS): Well, I think the future she's talking about is 2009 and 2010. [11/13/08]
MATT BLUNT (MO): I think Republican governors were surprised when she [Palin] was selected, but at the same time they were impressed. ... There are a lot of great candidates out there for 2012. I don't think the American people want to - want to hear much about that at this point.[Fox News, 11/13/08]
MSNBC: So broad hints there from Palin again today with reporters, certainly with Matt Lauer. Is that the solution?
JON HUNTSMAN (UT): The solutions are going to be many-fold. You can't look to one personality in particular. [11/12/08]
Please keep pushing her for 2012! Connie Mackey at the Family Research Council makes every excuse in the book for Palin. This is delusional - her problem was her handlers, not the straw in her noggin:
I knew from my own campaign experience what can happen when "the contractors" move in. I watched in fear that she would lose her natural ability to communicate with people.
Unfortunately, I saw it begin to happen when her handlers put her on tv with one of the most partisan women on the television screen, Katie Couric. Did these contractors/handlers think that could possibly go well?Why was she not introduced to the national media via Laura Ingraham or even Greta Van Susteren? What were they thinking? And, about those clothes her handlers thought she needed? She got rid of those along with the handlers. And by the way,where was the defense of her on the trooper charge? Those faceless would-be bureaucrats had not a clue nor the inclination to help her.
I am encouraged about her future even more as a result of her shedding these contracting parasites.She regained her folksy true grit, put on her jeans and fought the good fight for the Republicans. David Brooks, David Frum and others can gag all they want, but she is the future of the Republican party.
Boy, did he pick a real backstabber as his running mate. In her zeal to distance herself from John McCain as he begins to smell like week-old trash in 100 degree heat, Bible Spice, in an interview with Elizabeth Vargas for ABC, basically shouted out she's in the race for 2012. Talk about bad form - they haven't lost yet. I'm sure all the downticket Republicans have agita tonight.
And the McCain peeps were rendered speechless when asked to comment. Here's how it was covered on CNN:
Wolf Blitzer: And this just coming into the "Situation Room," the Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin now speaking out openly about her intentions in 2012 if, if she and John McCain were to lose this contest next Tuesday. In an interview with ABC News, Sarah Palin is now saying, she would be interested in remaining a serious national political figure, going ahead to 2012. She was asked what happens in 2012 if you lose on Tuesday, would you simply go back to Alaska?
Elizabeth Vargas of ABC News asked her and Palin said this, and I will read it to you verbatim according to an ABC News transcript: "Absolutely not," Sarah Palin says. "I think that, if I were to give up and wave a white flag of surrender against some of the political shots that we've taken, that ... that would ... bring this whole ... I'm not doin' this for naught," and that is a direct quote from Sarah Palin. Clearly, leaving open the possibility that she would be interested in leading the Republican Party in 2012 if she and John McCain were to lose this presidential contest right now. Let's go to Dana Bash. She has been covering the McCain campaign reaction from the rather blunt statement from Sarah Palin that she would in fact be interested in leading the Republican Party going forward after Tuesday if they lose?
Dana Bash: I just got off of the phone, Wolf, with a senior McCain adviser and I read this person the quote and I think it is fair to say that this person was speechless. There was a long pause and I just heard a "huh" on the other end of the phone. This is certainly not a surprise to anybody who has watched Sarah Palin that she is interested in potentially future national runs, and she is being urged to by a lot of people inside of the Republican Party if they do lose, but it is an "if" and people inside of the McCain campaign do not want any discussion that has an "if" in front of it six days before the election, they don't want any discussion at all, any kind of hypothetical talk about running for the next time around. So certainly, this is not at least initially being received well inside of the McCain campaign.
Wolf Blitzer: I am not surprised, not surprised at all. It is one of those "wow, she is talking about 2012 if we lose," that is not supposed to be something that you say. You are supposed to say, "well, I'm not looking ahead, I'm not looking ahead only to Tuesday," and those are the talking points she's supposed to be saying, but she is obviously blunt and she is looking ahead if something were to happen on Tuesday that she wouldn't be happy with.
Does Rudy Giuliani know something we don't know about the results on November 4? He's starting his campaign -- even asking for contributions -- before Grampy Insane goes down in defeat. Via Political Base, a screen cap in case the JoinRudy2012.com hacks take it offline:
It's an update of the JoinRudy2008 site, which you can see when you click on the privacy link. And here's the contact page, also still under the 2008 domain:
Please direct any questions or comments to:
Rudy Giuliani Presidential Committee, Inc.
295 Greenwich St, #371
New York, NY 10007
212-835-9449
webteam@joinrudy2008.com For media inquiries please call:
646-943-7890
