Support




Contact
Powered by
Movable Type

Steele Wins!
Race for the RNC Chair

Full coverage at Hot Air and Campaign Spot.

On the third fourth ballot, the vote count is:

Steele 60:
Dawson: 62
Anuzis: 31
Blackwell: 15

A Dawson victory could prove somewhat troublesome for the GOP.

If you want to watch live coverage of the potential party suicide proceedings, C-SPAN has the goods.

Update - Blackwell just conceded, endorsed Steele. Fifth round of ballots being distributed now.

Fifth Ballot Results
Steele - 79
Dawson - 69
Anuzis - 20

Anzuis Out - Endorses no one.

Ballot Six - It's Steele.

Final Vote:
Steele - 91
Dawson - 77

Posted by: Slublog at 04:13 PM



Comments

1 Of course the RNC will vote in Dawson. Why would we expect them to make any half-intelligent decisions? It'll be a good way to piss away any interest we might get for standing up to the Generational Theft Act.

Posted by: Alex at January 30, 2009 02:48 PM (2hcV2)

2 Bloody hell - Steele better win.

Posted by: IC at January 30, 2009 02:49 PM (jZNCU)

3 No. Not really. They're not really going to choose Dawson.

Seriously. No one is that stupid, right?

Right?

Posted by: . at January 30, 2009 02:49 PM (gQLr2)

4 If Katon Dawson becomes RNC chair, I'm changing my voter registration to Indep/not answered.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 30, 2009 02:50 PM (rWvvO)

5 INsane

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 02:52 PM (1hSHv)

6 The RNC is that stupid..so damn stupid...C'mon make a deal already and for the love of God, do not elect Dawson.

Posted by: IC at January 30, 2009 02:52 PM (jZNCU)

7 Charges of racism will be leveled at whoever wins. They're Republicans, and they deserve it.

Posted by: Grand Wizard Robert Byrd (D-Senate) at January 30, 2009 02:54 PM (FcR7P)

8 That was the 4th ballot, actually, wasn't it?

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at January 30, 2009 02:54 PM (Z9IOH)

9

In other news Joey the retard will be heading up Barry's middle class warfare task force.

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama signed a series of executive orders Friday that he said should "level the playing field" for labor unions in their struggles with management.

Obama also used the occasion at the White House to announce formally a new White House task force on the problems of middle-class Americans. He named Vice President Joe Biden as its chairman.

"I do not view the labor movement as part of the problem. To me, it's part of the solution," he said. "You cannot have a strong middle class without a strong labor movement."

The president and vice president said the task force will include the secretaries of commerce, education, labor, and health and human services because those Cabinet departments have the most influence on the well-being of the middle class. It also will include White House advisers on the economy, the budget and domestic policy.

 

Full blown depression here we come.

Posted by: TheQuietMan at January 30, 2009 02:54 PM (1Jaio)

10 I'll be re-registering if Dawson is elected, as well.  The fact that he's even in the running is horseshit.

Posted by: grognard at January 30, 2009 02:55 PM (5npD/)

11 A Steele victory would prove troublesome also, seeing as he's from the RINO wing of the party.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 02:56 PM (Q0o6Z)

12 So why didn't Blackwell drop out and throw his support behind Steele?

Posted by: krakatoa at January 30, 2009 02:56 PM (/FUhT)

13 Steele is not as much RINO as Colin Powell was.

Steele is not that bad of a guy. And watch Blackwell put his support behind Steele.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at January 30, 2009 02:57 PM (Z9IOH)

14 President Barack Obama signed a series of executive orders Friday that he said should "level the playing field" for labor unions in their struggles with management.

So, they'll be subject to RICO?  How about anti-trust legislation?

Posted by: AmishDude at January 30, 2009 02:57 PM (T0NGe)

15

 So why didn't Blackwell drop out and throw his support behind Steele?

Because Blackwell's a conservative?

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 02:58 PM (Q0o6Z)

16 A Steele victory would prove troublesome also, seeing as he's from the RINO wing of the party.

Preferable to handing the Democrats and the MSM a weapon like Dawson.

Posted by: Slublog at January 30, 2009 02:59 PM (qjKko)

17

watch Blackwell put his support behind Steele.

Why would he want to do that?

Steele is not as much RINO as Colin Powell was.

Have you ever heard the expression "damning with faint praise"?

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 02:59 PM (Q0o6Z)

18 If dawson wins, I will leave the republican party and we might as well embrace socialism because the republican party will be dead.

Posted by: Ginger at January 30, 2009 02:59 PM (Tsgco)

19 Those fuckers will never learn. They keep this kind of nonsense up, the GOP will stand no chance of ever regaining control of the Congress or POTUS. McCain's treachery was bad enough - this is ridiculous.

Posted by: Bruce at January 30, 2009 02:59 PM (oedyI)

20 Yes, nominate the tone-deaf paleocon for party chair, that'll just be lovely.

Thanks, RNC.

Posted by: Techie at January 30, 2009 03:00 PM (906oR)

21

Preferable to handing the Democrats and the MSM a weapon like Dawson.

What weapon? You people are pussywhipped. Just surrender already.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:01 PM (Q0o6Z)

22 I'd rather have Zo as RNC.

Posted by: Jimmy at January 30, 2009 03:01 PM (/Ft4q)

23 What weapon? You people are pussywhipped. Just surrender already.

How about a nice hearty go to hell for that one?

Posted by: Slublog at January 30, 2009 03:02 PM (qjKko)

24 This is what's wrong with the GOP. Everybody plays the game with one eye on winning the approval of the leftards in the MSM.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:03 PM (Q0o6Z)

25 It'd be over.  We'd be hand the Dems a gun and telling them to shoot us.

"So, Chairman Dawson, is there any chance perhaps you could put in a good recommendation for me at Forest Lake?"

- Obama on National TV.

Game over man, game over.

Posted by: Techie at January 30, 2009 03:03 PM (906oR)

26 This is what's wrong with the GOP. Everybody plays the game with one eye on winning the approval of the leftards in the MSM.

This isn't about winning MSM approval.  It's about standing on the principle that our leaders shouldn't be effing morons.

And I apologize for my 3:02 post.

Posted by: Slublog at January 30, 2009 03:04 PM (qjKko)

27 Fox hasa bigger screen and their about 5 - 10 sec. ahead of CSPAN.

Posted by: David in San Diego at January 30, 2009 03:04 PM (GF+6V)

28 i was under the impression that Steele was a true conservative, if he's not i'd really like to know, but i need some proof...

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 03:05 PM (IRh55)

29

It's about standing on the principle that our leaders shouldn't be effing morons.

How is Dawson a fucking moron?

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:05 PM (Q0o6Z)

30 How is Dawson a fucking moron?

Spending over a decade in a whites-only club isn't all that bright.

Posted by: Slublog at January 30, 2009 03:07 PM (qjKko)

31 And blackwell just endorsed steele.

Posted by: Slublog at January 30, 2009 03:07 PM (qjKko)

32 It beginning to look a lot like Steele.

Posted by: David in San Diego at January 30, 2009 03:08 PM (GF+6V)

33 The Republicans need to come up with some hard chargers fast or I am looking elsewhere.

Posted by: Harry at January 30, 2009 03:08 PM (RxSlU)

34 Blackwell dropped out and endorsed Steele......

Posted by: IC at January 30, 2009 03:08 PM (jZNCU)

35 Nominating Dawson is the definition of insanity.

Posted by: AmishDude at January 30, 2009 03:08 PM (T0NGe)

36

Shit, I feel like I am playing Russian Roulette.

Posted by: Ginger at January 30, 2009 03:11 PM (Tsgco)

37 "So, Chairman Dawson, is there any chance perhaps you could put in a good recommendation for me at Forest Lake?"

"They'll need to see your college transcripts, but I'm sure they'll use the same standards that got you into Harvard Law."


Posted by: AmishDude at January 30, 2009 03:11 PM (T0NGe)

38 Who the fuck is Dawson anyways? 

And who are the people voting on this?

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 03:12 PM (teb/C)

39 someone please tell me where Steele falls down as a conserv? He's had my moral support for a while now and i was hoping he could play a larger part in the party leadership but if he's pro-amnesty or some other such nonsense i want to know so that i can stop supporting him...

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 03:12 PM (IRh55)

40 All i know is that Chuck-U Schumer had his goons pry in to the credit records of Steele, so that makes it a +1 Mana in my book for Steele.

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 03:14 PM (1hSHv)

41 It's just like the Presidential primary, they all suck. Or rather, no one has broad appeal, and if someone says so, its manufactured. 

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:15 PM (tAGNb)

42 Yeah I have no idea why people are calling Steele a RINO, he is far from it.

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 03:15 PM (teb/C)

43 While Steele isn't perfect (and who is?) he's a much better choice than Dawson. For one, it immediately elminates the "You're opposed to Obama's plan to [x]? YOU RACIST!" argument from the infantile Left.

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 03:15 PM (UMwMT)

44 Just announced Duncan and Blackwell pulled out - Blackwell endorsing Steele.

Posted by: Bruce at January 30, 2009 03:16 PM (oedyI)

45 Yay! I pulling for Steele, he's pretty awesome.

Posted by: Topsecretk9 at January 30, 2009 03:16 PM (2glpe)

46 I know squat about Dawson, but this "somewhat troublesome"  story is just tiresome BS.

But I ask you, Who said this?

"I support the current system[affirmative action] and improvements to the current system, keeping in mind that while we have done very well in affirmative action at our universities across this country,"

Or who answered a quetion thusly?

Q: Do you think the time for affirmative action is past?

A: Absolutely not. We're just beginning to rediscover what we should be doing with affirmative action. Don't look at our universities. We got that. Let's look at our boardrooms, let's look at the management structure.



That would be this board's current heartthrob Michael Steele.

I'm cannot decide which I find more offensive, membership in an all-white golf club(freedom of association) or a staunch advocate of Affirmative Action(real, legal discrimination).





Posted by: Barbula at January 30, 2009 03:18 PM (UKP1H)

47 How do I insert a link correctly? I keep getting errors. I found the list with bio's of committee members...

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:18 PM (tAGNb)

48 And who are the people voting on this?

National committee members from each state.

Posted by: mesablue at January 30, 2009 03:18 PM (5yNaE)

49

"So, Chairman Dawson, is there any chance perhaps you could put in a good recommendation for me at Forest Lake?"
"Maybe after Kleagle Senator Byrd gets you back from that cross burning, Mr. President."

Posted by: andycanuck at January 30, 2009 03:20 PM (rtZbL)

50 Dammit....I was pulling for Blackwell, who it appears, is more conservative than Steele. Not feelin' any other candidate.

Posted by: Twinks at January 30, 2009 03:21 PM (KGbOi)

Posted by: Y-not at January 30, 2009 03:21 PM (aGyOp)

52 Heaven help us if Steele wins.  He's a RINO and a gun grabber.

Posted by: Thomas Jackson at January 30, 2009 03:22 PM (0Qynq)

53 Steele could bust the records issue in the Donks ass, especially with Schumer (the fucking cocksucker that he is)...Dawson is a fucking idiot for the "whites only" club issue. 

The GOP needs to get a set and beat the economy/shit sandwich over the Donks ass for the next 18 months (for House and Senate elections in '10)...Steele can be holding a grudge and be the GOP's version of Howard Dean (polarize the middle ground against the Donks) and maybe go after some of the Donk and RINO seats.  Maybe Steele will be the one to help flush some of the turds out of DC...

Posted by: Buck Naked at January 30, 2009 03:22 PM (utes0)

54

"A: Absolutely not. We're just beginning to rediscover what we should be doing with affirmative action. Don't look at our universities. We got that. Let's look at our boardrooms, let's look at the management structure."

 

this does trouble me, A.A. is an abomination of freedom, every conserv knows this instinctively... anything else?

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 03:22 PM (IRh55)

55 Sorry Kirk.
LEFT CARAT a href="http://ace.mu.nu/" RIGHT CARAT word you want to have hyperlinked LEFT CARAT /a RIGHT CARAT

Posted by: Y-not at January 30, 2009 03:23 PM (aGyOp)

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:23 PM (tAGNb)

57 Alternatively, Kirk, go to HotAir's comment section -- make your link there then paste the code for it here (that's what I do).

Posted by: Y-not at January 30, 2009 03:23 PM (aGyOp)

58 Damnit, I meant to type PARTIAL member list.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:24 PM (tAGNb)

59

gun grabber too? ..... anything to back this up?

 

 

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 03:24 PM (IRh55)

60 >> 48 >> And who are the people voting on this?
>> National committee members from each state.


This kind of explains some things.

I think it would be good to change the way that the Rep. party is run to be a bit more populist rather than such a bureaucratic process. 

We wonder how the people in charge of the Republican party can be so out of touch with the base, well, maybe it's partly because the head is elected by people who are elected by people who are appointed by people who are elected by people who are appointed.

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 03:24 PM (teb/C)

61

If it ain't broke don't fix it.  Antithesis; If it is broke, fix it and the Republican party is broke.  Ken Blackwell, throw your support behind Steele and take a secondary leadership position.  Ken, I think your great and you have already taken too many for the team but your not going to win this one anyway.  Deal and retain an influencial position. Dan Keith

Posted by: Dan at January 30, 2009 03:25 PM (ygjiI)

62 Steele does not own a gun but I have not heard him say anything to indicate that he favors gun control ala the Dems.

Posted by: IC at January 30, 2009 03:25 PM (jZNCU)

63 Youre late Dan...

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 03:26 PM (1hSHv)

64 Steele ahead by 10

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 03:28 PM (1hSHv)

65 Steele 79
Dawson 69
Whosiwhat 20 something.

Posted by: Al at January 30, 2009 03:28 PM (CyBUS)

66

How do I insert a link correctly? I keep getting errors. I found the list with bios of committee members...
First, Kirk, go to tinyurl.com and "translate" the page's URL into a tiny.url; then highlight the text in the comment you've typed that you want to have show the link, and hit the link button; when it pops up, in the long box under "Source" at the top right side (and not in the short box on the left), paste the tinyurl into it, then hit the "Insert" button at the bottom right-hand corner; then hit "OK" (or something like that) when the second pop-up appears. The linking text in your comment should look highlighted (and underlined too, IIRC) in blue. Post and it should be okay.

Posted by: andycanuck at January 30, 2009 03:28 PM (rtZbL)

67 5th round - Steele 79, Dawson 69, Anuzis 20

Posted by: buzz at January 30, 2009 03:28 PM (kwhut)

68 What did she just say the vote was?

Posted by: mesablue at January 30, 2009 03:28 PM (5yNaE)

69 Steele 79, Dawson 69, Anuzis 20

Posted by: Misplaced Texan at January 30, 2009 03:28 PM (1OiHj)

70 I don't like Steele's affirmative action stand, but whatever.  He seems like he'd be better than what we've currently got.  And he can call out Obama and not be labeled a racist.

Posted by: Lyle Lanley at January 30, 2009 03:28 PM (e3TKF)

71 sorry about the echo 

Posted by: Misplaced Texan at January 30, 2009 03:29 PM (1OiHj)

72 Time for Anuzis to pull out.

Posted by: mesablue at January 30, 2009 03:29 PM (5yNaE)

73 What I want to know is:

On what planet is 85 "a majority" of 79 + 69 + 20?

Posted by: Al at January 30, 2009 03:29 PM (CyBUS)

74 Electing members to state parties is a difficult process, let alone the national party.  A lot of people like to think political parties work as one big machine where everyone is on the same side.  This is not the case.  Frankly there are a lot of states who simply think they know better than everyone else (see VA for more) and don't play nice.  It's ungodly complicated getting everyone to work together and frankly, despite all this we are still better organized than the democrats. 

So what do you do if you are unhappy with the way things work? Well I hate to say this but getting involved in the grassroots level is the best way... if you can change or help Republican politics at the local level, you have better chance of changing things at the state level and so on and so forth.  I know a lot of people just call the RNC and complain vehemently about things they don't like, and that's just the way not to change things (see party structure argument above). 

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:31 PM (tAGNb)

75 Anuzis is out, does not say who he supports...as far as I heard anyway

Posted by: Misplaced Texan at January 30, 2009 03:31 PM (1OiHj)

76 79 + 69 + 20 = 168

168 / 2 = 84

85 = 84 (50%) + 1

Q.E.D., Moron

Posted by: David in San Diego at January 30, 2009 03:32 PM (GF+6V)

77

Anuzis 0.0

Posted by: Dean Wormer at January 30, 2009 03:32 PM (m2CN7)

78 72 Time for Anuzis to pull out.

Just did.

Posted by: Dang at January 30, 2009 03:32 PM (Y5LIx)

79

Saul Anuzis is party chair

musical chairs is fun at a party too

sitting on a unicorn horn

 

Posted by: Krazy Kat at January 30, 2009 03:33 PM (K4Zxt)

80 Started dricking too early sheesh.

Posted by: Al at January 30, 2009 03:34 PM (CyBUS)

81 On what planet is 85 "a majority" of 79 + 69 + 20?

It's really complicated. You have to use imaginary numbers...like "eleventeen".

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 30, 2009 03:35 PM (kJisp)

82

i'm willing to forgive misguidedness on most any single issue (not some, no pro-amnesty retards) but if Steele turns out to be a Republican (big gov, anti-liberty commie-wannabe) instead of a Conservative, i will hate and despise him as much as i loathed Mel Martinez.

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 03:36 PM (IRh55)

83

Whoever wins, they can't be worse than Duncan.  I hope.

Nothing against Duncan personally, but if I didn't know better I'd suspect that he's spent the last year being dead.

Can we please get rid of Tom "K-Street Project" Cole while we're at it?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 30, 2009 03:36 PM (rf03a)

84 I have no idea where that affirmative action quote came from or what the context was exactly, but I doubt that it fully describes his position on it. 

If you think that he is a RINO, then that means you have never heard the man speak.  He is a true conservative. 

I don't know if he would pass on every issue that the most picky conservative would throw out, but he is all around solid.  And true conservative principles are the core of his ideology. 

Yes, we need to get the McCain type rinos out of republican leadership positions.  But the way to do this is not by trashing every candidate who is not as fiery as Michael Savage.

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 03:37 PM (teb/C)

85 If it's Steele, and Steele is for affirmative action, will The Left love us? Screw policy, I will do anything to get approval from The Left! (and I'll be simply heartbroken if things don't turn out that way...)

Posted by: t-bird at January 30, 2009 03:37 PM (FcR7P)

86 @83 - I think Cole is already out. I understand that Mike Pence is about ready to pounce onto his seat.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at January 30, 2009 03:38 PM (Z9IOH)

87 Looks like it's down to Steele or Russian Roulette with a Glock 9mm for the GOP.


I've seen others say it, and I'll say it too - if Dawson wins, I'm changing my party affiliation to Independent.

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 03:39 PM (UMwMT)

88 What the hell do all of you have against Dawson?

Posted by: JFH at January 30, 2009 03:41 PM (x6nYY)

89 What the hell do all of you have against Dawson?


Seriously?

Posted by: . at January 30, 2009 03:43 PM (gQLr2)

90 People dislike dawson because he was a member of a de facto "Whites only" country club, and he's repeatedly said what got him interested in politics was busing aspect of segregation.  and he was against it.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:43 PM (tAGNb)

91

Why you should be worried about Steele.

http://tinyurl.com/bxwv2o

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:43 PM (cHriw)

92 JFH:

Dawson's prior memberships in country clubs and debutante coming out societies that exclude minorities. 

The optics are a disaster for the tiny momentum the GOP has now.

Posted by: G-funkadelic at January 30, 2009 03:43 PM (5r0Tz)

93 The only other things I disagreed with Steele on besides affirmative action is his being against the death penalty and his general opposition to Rumsfeld.

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 03:43 PM (m2CN7)

94 @JFH

We arent democrats, we cant excuse our members that belong to racist organizations.

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 03:44 PM (1hSHv)

95 As Lieutenant Governor, Steele chaired a 17-member task force devoted to reforming Maryland's Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), which works to provide more opportunities for minority-owned small businesses and further spur job growth and economic vitality. Steele led the way in committing almost $70 million in grants and loan guarantees to strengthen and encourage Maryland's small and minority-owned businesses.

http://www.issues2000.org/Senate/Michael_Steele.htm

As a long-time Maryland resident, I can't begin to tell you how fucked up that is.

Posted by: Barbula at January 30, 2009 03:44 PM (UKP1H)

96

he's repeatedly said what got him interested in politics was busing aspect of [de]segregation.  and he was against it.

You know, that's a good thing. You're supposed to applaud him for that, unless your name is Axelrod.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:45 PM (cHriw)

97 i don't have anything against Dawson, i don't even know who the guy is, but the whole "whites-only country-club" thing is just stupid beyond all reason, what on earth was he thinking doing such a thing? I instantly doubt his judgement.

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 03:46 PM (IRh55)

98

We arent democrats, we cant excuse our members that belong to racist organizations.

Maybe that's why the Democrats keep winning and we keep losing. But like John McIdiot, we lose with honor!

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:47 PM (cHriw)

99 The only other things I disagreed with Steele on besides affirmative action is his being against the death penalty..

Michael Steele is a devout Catholic, and the official position of the Catholic Church is against the Death Penalty.

/Catholic

//favors the death sentence

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 03:47 PM (UMwMT)

100 yeah well anyone who was against the civil rights movement in the 1960's is branded a racist.  Whether i disagree with it or not isnt the issue, its a matter of perception, and the perception of dawson is shitty. the end.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:47 PM (tAGNb)

101
Steele is fucking awful; he personifies the major problems in the RNC.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 03:48 PM (736T6)

102 @98

You may think winning is the ultimate goal, but I am done sacrificing principals just to get our guy in the big chair.

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 03:49 PM (1hSHv)

103

I think everyone needs to take a deep breath.  Here's a news flash for you:

YOU ARE A FUCKING RACIST.

Full stop.

If you elect the Southern White, you're a racist.  If you elect a black man, he's a "token", Uncle Tom, StepandFetchit house-n*gger, and you are still a fucking racist.

BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS ARE THE PARTY OF RACISM.

It has been carved in stone by the Democrats and their MSM proxies, who at least have some conviction and discipline when it comes to defining the opposition.  And according to a lot of the comments here, Republicans are content to keep reacting to Democrat moves, instead of taking the initiative.

If we're truly a color-blind meritocracy, why don't we fucking act like it and quit worrying about in which manner the MSM is going to demonize the party this week?  Because they are going to, no matter which move you make.

Top lesbian Tammy Bruce made a great point about being labeled a racist - once it happens to you, you realize that you still will draw breath, your heart will still pump, and nothing has really changed, so why worry about what idiots call you?

Get your fucking business done and if some limp-dick wants to try to label you as a racist or "meanie", stab a hole out the back of its head with your cock.

It's what Reagan would have done.

 

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 03:49 PM (bu0Ek)

104 One more reason to support Steele: The Catholic Church is getting increasingly politically active in the pro-life movement. They've even threatened to close all Catholic Hospitals if the so-called Freedom Of Choice Act is passed and requires them to perform abortions at Catholic Hospitals.


There are 64 million Catholics in this country. My fellow Catholics coming to the GOP side is a game changer.

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 03:49 PM (UMwMT)

105 88 What the hell do all of you have against Dawson?

I know nothing about the guy, so really don't have anything against him specifically.  I do have a bad feeling about him from the little I know though.  Here are 2 reasons why:

1) I don't know him.  I keep up on this stuff, and I have never heard of the guy.  In my experience this typically means that he is a professional bureaucrat and has no contact with the base.   Which means he probably doesn't understand what the conservative movement is all about.

2) Controversy over a country club.  Beyond the fact that this will add another solid race card to the Donk's hand, I'm just pretty tired of Country Club Republicans in general.  Are there really no people in flyover country who live completely normal lives that I can relate to that can be found to lead my party? 

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 03:50 PM (teb/C)

106

Naqamel at January 30, 2009 03:47 PM (UMwMT)

I don't understand what you are trying to say.  Is he for or against the death penalty?

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 03:50 PM (m2CN7)

107

yeah well anyone who was against the civil rights movement in the 1960's is branded a racist. 

Anyone who thinks that opposition to busing, which was the biggst winning issue the GOP ever had, equals "opposiiton to the civil rights movement" needs to go back to hitting the bong and shut up about politics.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:51 PM (cHriw)

108
The only conservative running was Ken Blackwell.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 03:51 PM (736T6)

109 Holy crap, people, THAT'S what you worried about.  Who gives a crap?  Are you saying that anyone that belongs to any "all white" club is a closet racist?

Posted by: JFH at January 30, 2009 03:51 PM (x6nYY)

110 Steele is fucking awful; he personifies the major problems in the RNC.

First I'd like to point out that Steele is NOT an RNC member.  Second, please inform us as to what the big problems are at the RNC.  Not that I disagree with you, I'm just intersted in people fleshing out what is wrong with the national party as a whole.

Now if you have problems with the Republican brand... that's different.  The RNC's only function is to elect Republicans to office.  The RNC does not shape policy at all, that is the function of Conservative think tanks, which have basically shit the bed recently.

So, let's flesh out the RNC's problems in one instance, and the issues we all have with the Republican party (mindset, policy issues, etc)

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 03:51 PM (tAGNb)

111

Sorry, but after hearing one too many "sermons" of Jeremiah Goddam America Wright, the issue with Dawson's private club is a tempest in a teapot.

Is Dawson more solid on spending and border security than is Steele? Is Steele a RINO? I honestly do not know. Discuss.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 03:52 PM (ujg0T)

112

dan-O at January 30, 2009 03:50 PM (teb/C)

I'm for Steele solely for political strategy purposes but I've belonged to a couple of country clubs and I'm completely normal except for frequenting AOSHQ.

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 03:52 PM (m2CN7)

113 polynikes: Steele is against the Death Penalty. So is the Catholic Church. Steele is Catholic.


I'm a Catholic, I favor the Death Penalty.

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 03:52 PM (UMwMT)

114

I am done sacrificing principals just to get our guy in the big chair.

So you will support a RINO? What exactly are those principles you are not willing to sacrifice?

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 03:53 PM (cHriw)

115

Let's not get carried away with the whole "whites only country club" thing.  From the way it's been described, I sort of doubt that there's a line of black people banging on the door trying to get membership.

As far as I know there might have been black members, but the place is so very white that they were transformed to white people by osmosis.

Poor judgement?  Maybe, but I doubt he viewed it as a racist group.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at January 30, 2009 03:53 PM (rf03a)

116

he's repeatedly said what got him interested in politics was busing aspect of [de]segregation.  and he was against it.

You know, that's a good thing. You're supposed to applaud him for that, unless your name is Axelrod.

 

Harumph!

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 03:54 PM (bu0Ek)

117 Of course, the only real conservatives (Blackwell, Anuzis) bombed.

Steele started a fucking organization with Christie Whitman for chrissake... Don't try to paint him as Fred 2.0.

Posted by: someone at January 30, 2009 03:55 PM (1wXl7)

118 My fellow Catholics coming to the GOP side is a game changer.

Because what the Party needs is a few million more socialists.

(Isn't this the flame thread? It looks like one.)

Posted by: Hc34T at January 30, 2009 03:55 PM (Hc34T)

119 Dammit.

Posted by: Hc34T at January 30, 2009 03:56 PM (Hc34T)

120

Naqamel at January 30, 2009 03:52 PM (UMwMT)

I thought that might be what you were saying.  I blame me not understanding on Pixy misa.

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 03:56 PM (m2CN7)

121

I don't like Steele's affirmative action stand, but whatever.  He seems like he'd be better than what we've currently got.  And he can call out Obama and not be labeled a racist.

Oh shit, then I have to go with Dawson. Steele is a RINO. I wanted Blackwell, but he's out.

Don't you realize that we will always be demogogued by the Demunists? Empire of Jeff has it right.

Repeat after me: "The media and the Democrat Party (but I repeat myself) will always slander me anyway." Repeat until it sinks in.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 03:56 PM (ujg0T)

122 Two words: Lee Atwater...  Who ever heard of that SC politcal operative... and they called him a racist also...

Posted by: JFH at January 30, 2009 03:56 PM (x6nYY)

123

If we're truly a color-blind meritocracy, why don't we fucking act like it and quit worrying about in which manner the MSM is going to demonize the party this week?  Because they are going to, no matter which move you make.

Top lesbian Tammy Bruce made a great point about being labeled a racist - once it happens to you, you realize that you still will draw breath, your heart will still pump, and nothing has really changed, so why worry about what idiots call you?

Get your fucking business done and if some limp-dick wants to try to label you as a racist or "meanie", stab a hole out the back of its head

with your cock.

It's what Reagan would have done.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 03:49 PM (bu0Ek)

Just thought this needed being posted again.  I  might have worded it differently but agree totally with it.  And everytime I tell you white people this, I get a bunch of cretins who don't bother to read and go all "black chick criticizing white people=she's calling us racist!"  No I'm telling you so-called fearful Caucasians to man up.

And they say we're inferior.

Posted by: baldilocks at January 30, 2009 03:57 PM (SDAu2)

124

one reason we should all take a chill-pill:

Sarah Palin '12

(and if she turns out not to be a real conservative, i will be making an appointment with a doctor.... Dr. Kavorkian)

 

 

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 03:57 PM (IRh55)

125

Anyone who thinks that opposition to busing, which was the biggst winning issue the GOP ever had, equals "opposiiton to the civil rights movement" needs to go back to hitting the bong and shut up about politics.

Bingo! Two rules of politics:

1. If you oppose the Commiecrat social(ist) engineering, they will race-bait you.

2. Repeat Rule #1

Repeat after me: "The media and the Democrat Party (but I repeat myself) will always slander me anyway." Repeat until it sinks in.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 03:58 PM (ujg0T)

126 Are you saying that anyone that belongs to any "all white" club is a closet racist?

If you're gonna be in a knife fight, you don't hand your opponent a Ka-Bar to replace his Swiss Army knife.

I don't doubt his judgment for belonging to a whites-only country club (freedom of association). I doubt his judgment because he knew his history, he knows that the Dems will castigate the GOP as a whole for it, and yet he still decided to run for RNC Chair.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at January 30, 2009 03:59 PM (kJisp)

127

Get your fucking business done and if some limp-dick wants to try to label you as a racist or "meanie", stab a hole out the back of its head with your cock.

It's what Reagan would have done.

 

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 03:49 PM (bu0Ek)

threadwinnar.

Posted by: ol-dirty-/b/tard at January 30, 2009 03:59 PM (IoUF1)

128

One more reason to support Steele: The Catholic Church is getting increasingly politically active in the pro-life movement. They've even threatened to close all Catholic Hospitals if the so-called Freedom Of Choice Act is passed and requires them to perform abortions at Catholic Hospitals.


There are 64 million Catholics in this country. My fellow Catholics coming to the GOP side is a game changer

I give you, Kerry, the Kennedys and Gulianni.  All Catholics.  All in the Pro-Choice crowd.  Typically by offering up some BS about how they are personally against abortion but know not all the people they represent are so won't vote the way they personally believe.

Posted by: buzzion at January 30, 2009 04:00 PM (Lrsi6)

129 @114

How about equality of man?

And if Steele is a RINO, how much of a RINO is he compared to McCain? Anything less is called a small step to the right, and that is fine by me. I can argue policy with a RINO, but I cant talk some one out of thinking their race is superior.

And even if the Country Club wasnt exactly overloaded with minority applicants, a rule is a rule is a rule.

I didnt believe Obama when he said he didnt know Wright was racist, I dont believe this guy when he says he didnt know his club was racist.

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 04:00 PM (1hSHv)

130 Fair enough. Point is well taken.  However, lets not discount the fact that there will be a lot of papers that put a ridiculous headline like "RNC Appoints Racist to Chairman Position".  I realize they will always slander us but at a time when party ID is ridiculously low, when we face all these other problems, is that what we really need to get started off right? I mean, hell I'm for whoever does the best job, but I can't get past the perception issue.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:00 PM (tAGNb)

131
First I'd like to point out that Steele is NOT an RNC member.  Second, please inform us as to what the big problems are at the RNC. please inform us as to what the big problems are at the RNC.

Steele will not attack the Democrats or Obama on their fraud, lying, and corruption.

Steele will call for unity and bipartisanhip.

Steele is against domestic oil exploration.

Steele is against border security.

Steele is against Voter ID.

Steele is for amnesty for illegals.

Steele is for pandering to illegals.

The RNC is heading in the wrong direction on every single Conservative issue and Michael Steele will be more than eager to drive the party off the cliff.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 04:01 PM (736T6)

132 No I'm telling you so-called fearful Caucasians to man up.

And they say we're inferior.

Harumph!

It's the White Man's Burden, baldilocks - comparitively tiny genitals.  Thanks for the spine-stiffener.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 04:01 PM (bu0Ek)

133 I give you, Kerry, the Kennedys and Gulianni. All Catholics. All in the Pro-Choice crowd. Typically by offering up some BS about how they are personally against abortion but know not all the people they represent are so won't vote the way they personally believe.


And not a one of those 3 are supposed to receive Communion. The Church has strongly condemned being a Catholic and being Pro-Infanticide.

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 04:01 PM (UMwMT)

134 My understanding is that the "Whites Only" policy dates back to more than two or three decades. But even before Dawson joined, Black people have been playing at the club and using the facilities. There simply was no push to change the policy because the bulk of the membership were kids when the policy was established and so were not aware of it, and given the area's demographics, Black prospective members must have been rare.

In other words, Dawson is getting a bum rap.

That said, GO STEELE!!!

Posted by: Martin Knight at January 30, 2009 04:02 PM (KkX+f)

135 >> and the official position of the Catholic Church is against the Death Penalty.

This is not true.  The Catechism does not call the death penalty "intrinsically evil" (as it does, for example, abortion).  That means that under any given conditions, abortion is wrong.  This is not the case for the death penalty. 

There are cases where the Catechism argues that the death penalty could be morally justifiable.  For example, the execution of Saddam Hussein was one of those.  That is one of those cases where his death took away the drive for many Baathists to continue to riot and murder to try to get their man back in power.  They can't, he's dead.

That said, I think most Catholic theologians would argue that the way the death penalty is used here in the US is not in line with the Church. 

But the point is, they would argue this.  They could not outright claim it as a statement of fact like they can with abortion.

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 04:02 PM (teb/C)

136 This is for the RNC chairmanship not the President. I want someone who can administer, get the vote out and put a face on the party that may attract others.  I'll take a RINO who can do that over someone that agrees with me 100% on policy that will have trouble doing that.

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 04:03 PM (m2CN7)

137 Come on, Steele.

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2009 04:03 PM (Uds7u)

138

baldilocks has it. They will *always* fabricate dirt. It's what they do. Just do what is honest and right and be prepared to be smeared. Based upon Steele's actions and track record with Christine Todd Whitman, I have to go with Dawson.

Repeat after me: "The media and the Democrat Party (but I repeat myself) will always slander me anyway." Repeat until it sinks in.

 

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 04:03 PM (ujg0T)

139 Yeah!

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2009 04:04 PM (Uds7u)

140 And steele won

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:04 PM (tAGNb)

141 Its Steele.

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 04:04 PM (1hSHv)

142 Yes.

Posted by: mesablue at January 30, 2009 04:04 PM (5yNaE)

143 Steele 91

Dawson 77


STEELE WINS

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 04:04 PM (UMwMT)

144 Well, hope lives, I guess.

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2009 04:04 PM (Uds7u)

145 Yes! Steele got it!

Posted by: Road King at January 30, 2009 04:04 PM (hphNR)

146 Isn't Maryland a ridiculously liberal state?

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2009 04:06 PM (Uds7u)

147
I'll take a RINO who can do that over someone that agrees with me 100% on policy that will have trouble doing that.


Way to have faith in your core conservative values, ploynikes. In other words, you're saying we need to shmooz the American people to come to our side because Conservatism kinda stinks.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 04:06 PM (736T6)

148

I'll take a RINO who can do that over someone that agrees with me 100% on policy that will have trouble doing that.

Key question: but CAN he do that?

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 04:08 PM (ujg0T)

149 Darling,

Steele likes Palin, Steele is willing to work for Palin.

That alone gives me much more hope than Katon Dawson.

Palin is our future. Embrace it.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at January 30, 2009 04:08 PM (Z9IOH)

150 AWESOME!!!


Rino Power! Hell yes!!


I love being a member of the Democrat-Lite Party.

Now that we have a black guy on our side we are totally going to be able to kick some ass at this identity politics game.

Sweeeeeet.

Posted by: Typical Stupid Ass Republican at January 30, 2009 04:09 PM (kre5q)

151 Here's a twist - If Steele weren't black, he never would have been on the radar screen outside of Maryland, nor heard from past his fizzled-out political career.

But leave it to the squish's in the GOP to push him forward, vainly hoping for MSM and Democratic approval.

Baldilocks is right - you peeps need to man up.

Posted by: Barbula at January 30, 2009 04:09 PM (UKP1H)

152

Fair enough. Point is well taken.  However, lets not discount the fact that there will be a lot of papers that put a ridiculous headline like "RNC Appoints Racist to Chairman Position".  I realize they will always slander us but at a time when party ID is ridiculously low, when we face all these other problems, is that what we really need to get started off right? I mean, hell I'm for whoever does the best job, but I can't get past the perception issue.

The problem, Kirk is the way you think our message should be promulgated.  The conventional wisdom is that you must woo the MSM into projecting you in a favorable light. 

Not. Fucking. Possible.

You HAVE to be your own spokesman.  That was the genius of Reagan. The media and the Democratic party in his day were every bit as adversarial as they are now, but he went over, around and through the gatekeepers to define himself and the party.

And he didn't have the advantages of alternative media outlets like the party is continually NOT taking advantage of today.  He had vision, principles, conviction, and guts.  And as Gunny Hartmann says, "Guts is enough."

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 04:09 PM (bu0Ek)

153

i'm pretty close to changing my mind on this, i came here hoping Steele would win, now i'm not so sure, i agree with the posters who are pointing out that conservatives will NEVER get a fair shake in the MSM, we will always be greedy racists, clinging to our guns and religion, but i still can't support Dawson because: 1. horrible judgement in being a part of "whites-only" anything, 2. who the hell is this guy and what has he done to earn my support?

Palin/DeMint 2012!

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 04:10 PM (IRh55)

154 Eh, don't care that much except for the fact that so many on this thread were playing the part of an immature brat who wanted to take their ball and go home if they didn't get their way.

Posted by: JFH at January 30, 2009 04:10 PM (x6nYY)

155

 In other words, you're saying we need to shmooz the American people to come to our side because Conservatism kinda stinks.

Yeah that's exactly what  I said brainiac.  Your guy lost. I guess we'll have to hear your usual continuous whine like every other  subject.

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 04:10 PM (m2CN7)

156 "Palin is our future. Embrace it."


Permanent minority is your future. And you've already embraced it.

Posted by: Typical Stupid Ass Republican at January 30, 2009 04:11 PM (kre5q)

157 @131
A simple google search reveals your full of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhvRQyRdVEI

http://tiny.cc/moU8X


http://tiny.cc/28hgl

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 04:12 PM (1hSHv)

158 Steele likes Palin, Steele is willing to work for Palin.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^


Palin 2012, motherfuckers.

Posted by: Naqamel at January 30, 2009 04:13 PM (UMwMT)

159

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 03:52 PM (m2CN7)

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that people who have country club cards are bad republicans.  I play golf myself.

Like I said, I don't know anything about him, so it's possible that he could be wonderful.

I'm just saying I have a really bad feeling about him.

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 04:13 PM (teb/C)

160 We should run Alen Keyes for President in the next election. He's black, so he should be a shoe in right?


Posted by: Typical Stupid Ass Republican at January 30, 2009 04:13 PM (kre5q)

161 The problem, Kirk is the way you think our message should be promulgated.

I honestly don't know how we should frame our message.  I'm not disagreeing with you, I just think we can't over look everything and forge ahead as if all is well.

Honestly, I think our path back to victory lies in laying off Obama and going after the numerous asshats in Congress.  We've gotten off to a good start in that respect.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:13 PM (tAGNb)

162 Sure, Steele may not be on the radar if he wasn't black, but this is a necessary move. 

If Dawson had won, the MSM would have actually depicted us as neo-fascists, as if they haven't already. 

Steele isn't a pure conservative, but he is no RINO.

Posted by: Richard at January 30, 2009 04:14 PM (Uds7u)

163 Thank God.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 30, 2009 04:14 PM (rWvvO)

164
Steele likes Palin, Steele is willing to work for Palin.


Steele is full of shit. Steele is no different than McCain's campaign people, and Steele has no love for Sarah Palin's conservatism.

Palin is our future. Embrace it.

Great. Way to put our future in someone who can't outsmart Katie Fucking Couric in an interview.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 04:14 PM (736T6)

165
Your guy lost.

My guy?

They all sucked. Ken Blackwell was least sucky, but all the candidates sucked.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 04:16 PM (736T6)

166 I love Steele so I'm happy to see he won.

Posted by: Tee866 at January 30, 2009 04:16 PM (zSzrz)

167 I must say that while I probably disagree with Darling on a fair number of things, I admire the passion.

And guys, Palin isn't going to get the nod, no front runner ever does in this modern media age. 

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:16 PM (tAGNb)

168

Aside from his political celebrity — and knack for being a good talking head — there’s little else about the man that would make him a good chairman. While much has been written about his candidacy and the reasons conservatives should be skeptical, time is running out to convince the 168 members of the RNC they should steer clear of him. Here’s why:

Steele boasts that his chairmanship of GOPAC qualifies him to run the RNC. He cites GOPAC’s work to elect Republicans as good preparation. So how did GOPAC fare under Steele’s leadership? During the 2008 cycle, GOPAC gave 11 candidates seeking U.S. House seats nearly $20,000. Six won and five lost. (See my update, “The Tale of Two GOPACs.”)

Among GOPAC’s expenditures in 2008 was $5,000 to Steele for Maryland, even though Steele wasn’t on the ballot. The money probably went to pay off Steele’s 2006 campaign debt. It also happened to be the third largest expenditure for GOPAC, raising questions about the organization’s priorities under his leadership.

Money has been a problem for Steele in the past. Jennifer Skalka of National Journal’s Hotline reported that when Steele’s consulting business struggled financially, two banks threatened to place liens on his house. Although Steele cleared his debts, these financial issues are factors that must be considered for anyone seeking the RNC chairmanship.

Steele’s well-documented role with the Republican Leadership Council and association with co-founder Christie Todd Whitman is perhaps the most egregious political error he’s made. Any conservative who partners with the liberal Whitman must be viewed skeptically. Steele claims he was trying to broaden the party’s base by appealing to moderates. “We have to elect moderates in the party,” he told CBN’s David Brody.

One of those moderates Steele supported was former Rep. Wayne Gilchrist, a classic RINO if there ever was one. Gilchrist faced a primary challenge from conservative Andy Harris, a Maryland state senator with strong backing from the Club for Growth. It didn’t matter to Steele. He threw his support to Gilchrist. Harris went on to win the GOP primary, prompting Gilchrist to turn on the GOP and endorse Harris’ Democrat opponent.

Is this the type of judgment we could expect from Steele at the RNC? The answer is yes. How do we know? As Matt Lewis reported, Steele has tapped Blaise Hazelwood to run his RNC race, meaning there’s a good chance she would follow him to the RNC if he is elected. During the disastrous 2006 election cycle, it was Hazelwood who ran media and political operations for the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Recall that the NRSC lost six seats that cycle and, as a result, the Republican majority in the Senate. Under Hazelwood’s direction, the NRSC spent $1.2 million in the GOP primary to save traitorous Lincoln Chafee from a challenge by conservative Steve Laffey.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 04:16 PM (cHriw)

169

Dude, it's because all is NOT well that we have to kick some ass and take names.

And lay off Obama?  Are you nuts?  He has made himself the standard bearer for liberalism in this country!  He's simplified the ideological battle!

You can't go after the "asshats" in Congress because nobody knows or cares who they are.  Obama is the figurehead and all the hopes of liberals rest on his narrow bitch shoulders.

And I'm gonna be sawing away at his hamstrings like a fucking lumberjack these next four years. 

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 04:17 PM (bu0Ek)

170

If  Gabe liked Steele, doesn't that tell you all you need to know?

No offense to Gabe, but he's a pro-war lefty. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 04:18 PM (cHriw)

171

Although Steele cleared his debts, these financial issues are factors that must be considered for anyone seeking the RNC chairmanship.

Burn him at the stake, he cleared his debts!

That puts question to the whole hit piece article.

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 04:20 PM (m2CN7)

172 2010 is what matters before 2012.  It makes no sense to completely go after a guy who isn't up for election for four years. 

I'm not saying to lay off him completely, I'm just saying making him the primary source of attack while he sits on a 65% approval rating for the next 10 months is naive.  He'll come back down to earth, but it's going to take some time.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:21 PM (tAGNb)

173

I don't know anything about Dawson, but I'm getting leery of assuming the worst about someone based on what the MSM tells me.  Saying a club has no black members is different than saying that a club has denied membership to blacks- that they have intentionally discriminated.  If there are stories showing that the club discriminates, beyond a covenant from the 1940s, then that's another issue.

The demographics in this country aren't uniform- there are parts that are overwhelmingly white and parts that are overwhelmingly black.  There's a country club near me, in a predominantly white county that went for Obama, that probably has no black members.  Should I assume they're all racists there?

Posted by: Matt at January 30, 2009 04:22 PM (ecpMe)

174

My guy?

They all sucked. Ken Blackwell was least sucky, but all the candidates sucked.

From your posting It seemed like your guy was anyone but Steele.

Posted by: polynikes at January 30, 2009 04:22 PM (m2CN7)

175 Shame on you, Martin Knight. You've gone native from hanging out at Redstate.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 04:23 PM (cHriw)

176  No offense to Gabe, but he's a pro-war lefty. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I spent the last year and a half writing here and you still can't accurately describe my politics.  Yep, you're a moron.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at January 30, 2009 04:24 PM (rWvvO)

177 @168
You really going to post an article laying the blame for the 06 elections on Steele!?!?!?? wow...

fuck, why am I even defending this guy?

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 04:24 PM (1hSHv)

178

That puts question to the whole hit piece article.

Only to a retarded douchbag like you. Isn't there a dick somewhere you should be sucking?

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 04:25 PM (cHriw)

179
I was going to say the same thing, Gabe Malor.

Your endorsement of Steele pretty much made my case; Steele is a weak-ass Conservative. Sorry, man.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 04:25 PM (736T6)

180

2010 is what matters before 2012.  It makes no sense to completely go after a guy who isn't up for election for four years. 

I'm not saying to lay off him completely, I'm just saying making him the primary source of attack while he sits on a 65% approval rating for the next 10 months is naive.  He'll come back down to earth, but it's going to take some time.

Which strategy was employed by Republicans to get elected in 94?  Going after Clinton or going after Congress?  Employ that strategy.

And it doesn't make any sense to lay off him because of a high approval, even if its just a little.  Criticizing and pointing out the problems he has is the way to chip away at that approval rating.

Posted by: buzzion at January 30, 2009 04:26 PM (Lrsi6)

181 Darling,

Can;'t wait to see you fall at the end of my gatling gun when the civil war comes around.

Posted by: Pipe Barackage at January 30, 2009 04:26 PM (Z9IOH)

182

I spent the last year and a half writing here and you still can't accurately describe my politics. 

I accurately described your politics.

Posted by: flenser at January 30, 2009 04:27 PM (cHriw)

183 Steelers win!

Posted by: gmsc at January 30, 2009 04:28 PM (AMrHH)

184 Only to a retarded douchbag like you. Isn't there a dick somewhere you should be sucking?

Can;'t wait to see you fall at the end of my gatling gun when the civil war comes around.

Boy, this escalated quickly... I mean, it really got out of hand fast!

Posted by: Ron Burgundy at January 30, 2009 04:28 PM (qjKko)

185
Yes, that's right, numbnuts, I'm your enemy.

And this is why we lose at the polls...

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 04:28 PM (736T6)

186

Which strategy was employed by Republicans to get elected in 94?  Going after Clinton or going after Congress?  Employ that strategy.

Then go after both, but go after Congress more. Outrage with a lot of entrenched Demunist congresscritters led to the Great Upchuck of 1994.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 04:29 PM (ujg0T)

187 Okay, I hear what you are saying, but what about the question of what makes more sense: go after the guy who has the 65% approval rating (obama) or the guys with a less than 20% approval rating (congress).

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:29 PM (tAGNb)

188 "154 Eh, don't care that much except for the fact that so many on this thread were playing the part of an immature brat who wanted to take their ball and go home if they didn't get their way."

Ding Ding Ding!!!

Give the man a Cohiba!



Posted by: Barbula at January 30, 2009 04:30 PM (UKP1H)

189 Look, ill concede that Steele may be a RINO, but he's a RINO that is pro domestic drilling, anti-amnesty, and pro-border security.

For fucks sake, compared to the guy we elected for our presidential campaign, Steele is a fucking blood sucking right winger.

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 04:31 PM (1hSHv)

190 I'm curious, do the Dims have this much of in-fighting on their blogs?

Posted by: IC at January 30, 2009 04:32 PM (jZNCU)

191

You can't go after the "asshats" in Congress because nobody knows or cares who they are.  Obama is the figurehead and all the hopes of liberals rest on his narrow bitch shoulders.

Au contraire. The RNC could just run excerpts of Pelosi speaking on C-Span in a continuous loop and that would make a pretty good case for a Congressional Enema in 2010.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 04:33 PM (ujg0T)

192 Steele scares sh*t out of the Washington Post.  Good enough for me.

Posted by: Big Mike at January 30, 2009 04:33 PM (4x8W0)

193 Anyone that thinks conservatives march in lockstep should read this shit.
The Libs rip hell out of each other too but not when the time comes to vote,we best keep that in mind.....

Posted by: steevy at January 30, 2009 04:34 PM (8Zpb/)

194
Look, ill concede that Steele may be a RINO, but he's a RINO that is pro domestic drilling, anti-amnesty, and pro-border security.


No, you've got it all backwards. Steele is exactly like McCain on everything.

WTF, do I live in an alternate universe, or something?

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 04:35 PM (736T6)

195 >> 190 I'm curious, do the Dims have this much of in-fighting on their blogs?

Actually it's really only a couple trolls that say dumb things like "omg he's against drilling!!"  This is the guys whose speech popularized "Drill baby drill!"  So they can be safely ignored. 

Other than that, it is just good discussion

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 04:35 PM (teb/C)

196 The question isn't whether Steele is ideologically pure, like say, Haley Barbour, it's whether he will be an effective advocate for conservativism and a counter to the three-headed-dimwitted monster currently running Washington. My bet is that he will be. Frankly, if Mike Duncan wasn't such an idiot, there's a decent chance the GOP would have held many seats and retained the White House. But when 57 percent of Barry supporters think the Republicans are still running the Congress with a 9-percent approval rating, you know the RNC has UTTERLY failed.

Posted by: Fresh Air at January 30, 2009 04:36 PM (DmkGY)

197 Steele's personal positions on things matter much much less than whether he can raise money and look good on TV effectively battling the media with our talking points.  Can he help elect Republicans? We shall see.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:36 PM (tAGNb)

198 My fellow Catholics coming to the GOP side is a game changer.

Well let's hope so because if Catholics continue to support the Party of Abortion then  Catholicism is empty religion kept alive by a hollow ritual and their righteous no longer holds meaning.

Are a few measly pieces of silver so important to the Catholic religion it is willing to betray its most fundamental tenets in order to get the dirty money.

Posted by: syn at January 30, 2009 04:37 PM (ASzue)

199 New ballgame, Kirk. They're all one collective Borg-hive now. That's how they got Urkel X elected in the first place, by building up this cult of personality around him.

Obama IS the Democrat party, now. I think the pressure needs to stay on him, because regardless of who authors an idea, he'll pass it off as his own, because his ego demands the focus stay on him.

The only time he's going to acknowledge his teammates is when he rips them off like a defective circuit board to toss them under that gigantic bus that follows him around. That's where we'll have the opportunity to pick up seats.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 04:37 PM (bu0Ek)

200 @194 Darling

Unfortunately I posted articles and videos to support my views @157
and you just said a couple things and wanted everyone to take it at face value.

Posted by: RiteWingFascist at January 30, 2009 04:38 PM (1hSHv)

201

Okay, I hear what you are saying, but what about the question of what makes more sense: go after the guy who has the 65% approval rating (obama) or the guys with a less than 20% approval rating (congress).

Well in one case you have a single individual to attack.  In the other you have a single entity made up of many individuals.  And within that entity while it obviously has a low approval as a whole, you're in the situation of the classic phrase "I hate all (insert group here) except mine."  So while people hate congress they're still likely inclined to reelect their own congressman.

You're better off choosing a smaller number of targets for concentrated attack, like Obama.  And with Congress it wouldn't be to attack Congress but someone like Pelosi, and indicating that if you hate her to get her out of power the dems have to lose power.

Posted by: buzzion at January 30, 2009 04:39 PM (Lrsi6)

202

FFS, you people need an enema.  At least Steele has a pulse, which is more than we can say for the outgoing chairman.

Dawson sounds like the real deal philosophically, but the whole country club (whites only or not) deal just pretty much would make the guy a fucking anvil. 

To sum it up, I was pretty much anybody-but-Duncan, and I got my wish.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 30, 2009 04:40 PM (wgLRl)

203 My fellow Catholics coming to the GOP side is a game changer.

Well let's hope so because if Catholics continue to support the Party of Abortion then Catholicism is empty religion kept alive by a hollow ritual and their righteous no longer holds meaning.

Are a few measly pieces of silver so important to the Catholic religion it is willing to betray its most fundamental tenets in order to get the dirty money.
Posted by: syn at January 30, 2009 04:37 PM (ASzue)


You could have just said, "I don't know anything about Catholicism. Ignorant blather to follow."

It would have been shorter.

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at January 30, 2009 04:40 PM (bu0Ek)

204 You attack the big guy not the swarm of congresscritters.

Posted by: steevy at January 30, 2009 04:40 PM (8Zpb/)

205 Is anyone else watching CSPAN? A caller just called Barack Obama the greatest American President of all time.  He's been President 10 days.

Posted by: Kirk at January 30, 2009 04:40 PM (tAGNb)

206

re: #168

if this is true (and i will be checking) then Steele is no conservative, god damn it! i am so sick of dem-lites calling themselves conservatives, a conservative is a conservative is a conservative, you either are one or your not, if your not don't try to tell me you are, it only pisses me off.

but conservs can not give ammuntion to our opponents.

neither Steele or Dawson are good choices for me, but what does the RNC chairman do? to raise money is the main duty of that position, based on that i will not kick up too much fuss over Steele.

as for 2012, if Palin or some other true conservative does not get the nod, i will boycott that election too

 

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 04:42 PM (IRh55)

207 Blackwell conceding is also great news for Ohio. Now Blackwell can run for Voinovich's seat.......we're hoping Kasich will unseat Strickland when the time comes......

Posted by: krukke1 at January 30, 2009 04:44 PM (GMn5O)

208 Whatever...

Posted by: Mr. Pissed at January 30, 2009 04:46 PM (KZKfb)

209 Now all we need is Ted Nugent  to get elected NRA president and we'll be set.

Posted by: A. Weasel at January 30, 2009 05:07 PM (bqcfE)

210 Here we go again...Infighting like a bunch of alley cats & wondering why people can't take us seriously...



Posted by: '80sBaby at January 30, 2009 05:09 PM (a1BsN)

211 I have never heard Steele speak... but somebody tell me, the first Dem that calls him a "house n-word", will he rip their head off and piss into the hole?  I'm hoping for change here.

Posted by: Obama at January 30, 2009 05:13 PM (8V5Ut)

212 210 We are not serious people.  We are morons. 

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at January 30, 2009 05:13 PM (wgLRl)

213 Out, out, damn sockpuppet!

Posted by: sherlock at January 30, 2009 05:14 PM (8V5Ut)

214 I heard Ted Nugent speak at the Safari Cub annual meeting one year - very loud and opinionated but quite funny. Certainly not PC at all!

Posted by: IC at January 30, 2009 05:18 PM (jZNCU)

215 flenser ... Do I know you? And why the heck should I care what you think?
And please, does anyone really believe that TSAR (a moby if there ever was one) is a Republican who actually would be happy with anyone that got picked?

Posted by: Martin Knight at January 30, 2009 05:20 PM (KkX+f)

216 "Steele led the way in committing almost $70 million in grants and loan guarantees to strengthen and encourage Maryland's small and minority-owned businesses."

OMG.  Maryland is one of the worst states to do business because of all that MBE/DBE crap.  Ugh!

 

Posted by: cassandra at January 30, 2009 05:24 PM (GdalM)

217 I'm late to the party but I just have to say, you're nuts if you think it's no big deal that Dawson belonged to a club that excluded blacks. Putting that guy at the head of the party would be so mind numbingly dumb that one can only imagine it was engineered by Howard Dean or David Axlerod.

And no, it's not a question of 'giving in' to liberals...it's just  fucking wrong to give a place of honor to someone who is comfortable excluding people based on race from their little club.  Sure Dawson and his friends have a right to let whomever they want in their club, just as I have a right not to associate with them based on that action.

The idea that this guy almost became the face of the Republican Party beggars belief.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 05:27 PM (hlYel)

218 And btw- I'm not saying Dawson is a racist. He may very well be a fine fellow but membership in that club was terrible judgment and it does say something very unfaltering about him.

And yes, perceptions matter. Having him as chairman would have been disastrous and rightly so.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 05:31 PM (hlYel)

219 the first Dem that calls him a "house n-word", .....already happening @ KOS/Huffpo

Posted by: t at January 30, 2009 05:32 PM (xSPT9)

220 Google Oreo cookies and Steele.

Now, I vigorously disagree with Steele regarding AA/quotas/minority set-asides. But he was treated disgracefully by the ultra-liberal powers that be in Maryland, and I can sort of admire his self-control much more than I would have had if it happened to me.

By the way, what is the current GOP's plank regarding AA/quotas/minority set-asides? Have they conceded the issue in the name of "compassionate conservatism"?
Steele will have responsibility for developing and promoting the GOP platform.

Posted by: Barbula at January 30, 2009 05:39 PM (UKP1H)

221 Steele lost his senate race to an inferior candidate and now promises to do the same for Republican candidates. The "Big Tent" door swings both ways. As NE moderates are invited in; we social conservatives will exit out.

Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 05:40 PM (NLtVk)

Posted by: Barbula at January 30, 2009 05:44 PM (UKP1H)

223 Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 05:40 PM (NLtVk)

If you got your wish, you'd never see a Republican President, there'd never be more than 100 Repubicans in the House and probably 35 in the Senate.

Is that what you want?

America's system is requires large, broad based coalitions. It's not a parliamentary system where a small, pure party can over leverage itself into a power sharing agreement (see the ultra-orthodox parties in Israel for an example of punching above your weight in that kind of system).

Meanwhile back here in America...be careful what you wish for.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 05:46 PM (hlYel)

224

Republicans lose because they are scared pussies.  See above.  Why vote for a puss?

Posted by: R. Ziskey at January 30, 2009 05:48 PM (LlaBi)

225 Some people confuse name calling with a winning strategy. See above.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 05:54 PM (hlYel)

226 DrewM. at January 30, 2009 05:46 PM (hlYel)

------------------------

Yea, I've heard this non sense before and for decades. Before Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. Wrong then. Wrong now.

The simple facts are:

1) We ran a moderate in 2008. How many NE states did McCain carry?
2)  An inordinate number of conservatives didn't vote at all in 2008. Wonder why?
3) We are not Germany where large coalitions are required. What we need do is stand for something, strengthen (not dilute) our brand, and differentiate ourselves from Brand X.


Moreover, before you describe what we must do, answer the question: How much of the 2008 election outcome was based on the incumbent party being in office during the widely characterized "worst economic crisis in history?"

The "Big Tent" door swings both ways. Go ahead, invite the NE moderates just don't expect the same base to rely on.


Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 05:55 PM (NLtVk)

227

 

re #221

you are so right, sir

moderates are great, but they will come along on their own, moderates generally aren't the kind of ppl who will make cold calls. knock on doors, or stick around to clean up once the speech-a-ifing is over, what has lost the GOP the last two elections is loss of conservative enthusiasum, due to the party abandoning conservative principles, the answer is simple; go back to conservative principles, re-invigorate the base and the fence-squatters (moderates) will go to us, excluding conservs in order to include moderates is a losing game, the last two elections prove it

 

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 05:56 PM (IRh55)

228

DrewM,

I think you have stolen my heart. Having someone who belonged to a "whites only" club at the helm of the RNC would spell disaster for the Republican party. The dems and the msm would have a feast day on this. It would be like handing your enemy a loaded gun and telling them to take their best shot.

Posted by: Ginger at January 30, 2009 06:00 PM (Tsgco)

229 I love Steele and he is so not a RINO. Maybe you should learn a little about him before just throwing the term around the way that some of you do.

Posted by: TMQ at January 30, 2009 06:01 PM (aMu45)

230

Sorry Drew and Ginger, but the Left invents, nay fabricates, tempests in teapots just to get you to react. And how do you react? Often by going RINO wobbly.

Dawson wasn't my first choice, but Steele has way too much RINO wobbly in him. That said, he's won, and I will urge him not to go RINO wobbly.

Repeat after me: "The media and the Democrat Party (but I repeat myself) will always slander me anyway." Repeat until it sinks in.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 06:05 PM (ujg0T)

231 Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 05:55 PM (NLtVk)

When did I say run a moderate? I'm all for running as conservative a candidate as we can get who will win. The fact is that candidate will not win with only social conservative voters. It's simple math. Any candidate, conservative or otherwise has to win people beyond their base.

Are you denying this simple and undeniable fact?

The reason Republicans lost in '08 were fairly simple...Since 1948 one party has won 3 straight presidential terms once (Bush 41 following Reagan and that was more about Reagan than Bush). Look at 2000, at the height of peace and prosperity, Gore couldn't do it. He should have won in a blow out.

Obama was right, people want 'change' after 8 years, they almost always do. Add to that a weak Republican candidate, Bush fatigue and the faltering economy and that was all there was to it. Could a great Republican/conservative have won? Maybe but it would have been extraordinary.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 06:05 PM (hlYel)

232 TMQ: I hope you are right. The Affirmative Racism thing makes me pause.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 06:07 PM (ujg0T)

233

I love Steele and he is so not a RINO. Maybe you should learn a little about him before just throwing the term around the way that some of you do.

I've heard Steele's positions described in diametrically opposite terms in this thread so somebody here is lying.  Or talking out of their ass.

Posted by: Eleven at January 30, 2009 06:07 PM (NeqJy)

234 He is eminently more qualified and holds a much more impressive resume than both Palin and Obama combined [not that that is much of a feat, but he's the real deal]. No affirmative going on. Believe me, I'm the first to throw that around when it's deserved.


Posted by: TMQ at January 30, 2009 06:10 PM (aMu45)

235 Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 06:05 PM (ujg0T)

That's crazy on two levels...

First, it's wrong. If I had a friend who belonged to a club that specifically excluded blacks or others on race, I'd reevaluate my friendship with them. It's that simple.

Second, just because Democrats complain about something isn't prima facie evidence that's it wrong. Some times even they are right. In this case they would be.

Do you think it's morally acceptable to belong to a club that by charter excludes people based on race? Not that there aren't any black members but that the by-laws exclude them.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 06:10 PM (hlYel)

236 DrewM. at January 30, 2009 06:05 PM (hlYel)

---------------------------------------

Show me the math. I remain unconvinced as do many. "Are you denying this simple and undeniable fact?" Yea, right. Facts require compelling evidence, got some?

And, you're answer as to why we lost the last election with one of the most moderate of candidates is? How many NE moderates did McCain pull?

So, you are suggesting the "3 straight wins" theory exceeds the very obvious economic "crisis of a lifetime" while under a sitting Republican president? Maybe if you subscribe to the Enquirer.

Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 06:12 PM (NLtVk)

237

Do you think it's morally acceptable to belong to a club that by charter excludes people based on race? Not that there aren't any black members but that the by-laws exclude them.

That's just it. I'd like some confirmation first. All of this had the rumor mill going, but no confirmation. If it were a Lloyd Bentsen situation, that would be something, then again, look how Lloyd got a pass on that.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 06:13 PM (ujg0T)

238

Dawson shot himself in the foot, no matter how conservative he is, MSNBC et al. will roast him alive over the country club thing, we're better off with Steele winning this postition only because the left willhave less ammo to shot him with, i am willing to play this game when it comes to installing a RNC Chair, but i am not willing to play this game when the time comes to nominate a canidate for POTUS.

Posted by: shoey at January 30, 2009 06:16 PM (IRh55)

239
Michael Steele went on television in 2006 and called all of us who were in favor of building a border fence nativists and xenophobes and said that we do not represent the values of the Republican party.

Fuck him.

Posted by: Darling at January 30, 2009 06:16 PM (736T6)

240 Heh, kos from dailykos actually made a kind of funny joke:

>> So yet again, the black man kept Dawson down.

You have to admit, it's kind of funny.

The point though is that they had a ton of ammunition ready to attack republicans with if Dawson was chosen.  Will they still attack Steele?  Of course, that's what they do.  And dailykos will still call Republicans racist because that is the caricature that they have built up. 

But reasonable people (aka., not dailykos people) will look and say, hey, those republicans just chose a black dude to run their party.  That means they are probably not racist.

I guarantee you that dailykos has major blue balls right now that Dawson was not elected.

Posted by: dan-O at January 30, 2009 06:19 PM (teb/C)

241 Show me the math.
Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 06:12 PM (NLtVk)

Assume for the moment that your base (none of those pesky RINOs from the Northeast) is represented by the states your presidential candidate won. McCain won 21 states. Assume for a moment that you win all those House districts...you get about 118.

Of course that's never going to be perfect in terms of all House districts going to one party in a state but that's about the size of your base, maybe a little bigger. Even if we up it from 100 to 150/175, that's no where near a majority. If you want to control the Congress you have to do it with more than Eric Cantors and Jeff Sessions of the world.

Am I wrong about that?

Ideological purity is a guarantee of permanent minority status.

So, you are suggesting the "3 straight wins" theory exceeds the very obvious economic "crisis of a lifetime" while under a sitting Republican
president?


I'm saying that no matter who we nominated, even if times were good, we would have been facing an uphill climb. Are you saying that's not true?  If you are, tell me about your memories of the Gore administration.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 07:18 PM (hlYel)

242 Show me the math.
Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 06:12 PM (NLtVk)

Assume for the moment that your base (none of those pesky RINOs from the Northeast) is represented by the states your presidential candidate won. McCain won 21 states. Assume for a moment that you win all those House districts...you get about 118.

Of course that's never going to be perfect in terms of all House districts going to one party in a state but that's about the size of your base, maybe a little bigger. Even if we up it from 100 to 150/175, that's no where near a majority. If you want to control the Congress you have to do it with more than Eric Cantors and Jeff Sessions of the world.

Am I wrong about that?

Ideological purity is a guarantee of permanent minority status.

So, you are suggesting the "3 straight wins" theory exceeds the very obvious economic "crisis of a lifetime" while under a sitting Republican
president?


I'm saying that no matter who we nominated, even if times were good, we would have been facing an uphill climb. Are you saying that's not true?  If you are, tell me about your memories of the Gore administration.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 07:18 PM (hlYel)

243

Geez, there really wasn't any other choice than Steele.  Duncan was worthless, he's proven that.  Dawson...has more problems than making us look like a bunch of racists.  Anuzis couldn't even get his own state together much less a national arena.  Blackwell has baggage with ethics from Ohio.

Look, the head of the Party is the face of the party, he's supposed to help create enthusiasm and votes and encourage good candidates....and that's all.  He isn't there to please everyone in the Party, that's not his job.  He can't change the policies and the base .  So we don't need to agree with him on everything.  What we need is someone who can get out there,  be intelligent, be personable, be a good speaker, and get people interested in the Party.  It's up to the rest of us to decide in what direction that may be by supporting candidates that have our same values.  Having seen and heard Steele, I think he will make a good leader, and create interest in the Party.  Now let's make his job easier by finding and supporting Conservative candidates.

Posted by: Deanna at January 30, 2009 07:22 PM (VwlgE)

244 hahahhahha, this is great news! for john mccain!

http://tinyurl.com/brzvcy

Posted by: kjsf at January 30, 2009 07:32 PM (6L2y+)

245 Hear what douchenozzle Wolf Blitzer said about the Steele election already?We aren't going to win over CNN and the rest unless we all become dhimmicrats.Steele is great in front of the cameras,super articulate definately helpful to the cause.Can he raise money and get the brand out there in a big way?Maybe but it isn't just on him.We need all the R's help on this,the stimjob bill is the first battle and we are off to a good start.

Posted by: steevy at January 30, 2009 07:43 PM (7oM3D)

246 DrewM, I completely agree with every point you've made. Thank you for speaking common sense!!!!

Posted by: TMQ at January 30, 2009 07:48 PM (aMu45)

247 I think you have stolen my heart.

Ginger,

Thanks...now to work on some of those other more fun body parts you're always talking about!

Too soon?


(I keed, I keed. I know Ginger is maried to a rock star airline pilot and I can only fly small Cesenas. Speaking of which, any chance he can hook me up with a hawt flight attendent?)

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 08:01 PM (hlYel)

248 DrewM. at January 30, 2009 07:18 PM (hlYel)

--------------------------------------------

"Big Tent" v. Leaky Bucket

Again, McCain was the NE moderates wet dream as a Republican. How many NE states did he win? For many, McCain was hard to distinguish from Obama on major issues, yet he failed to pull any NE states.

This ideological purity is complete lunacy. No one is suggesting that, you simply take it to an extreme in an attempt to make your false choice. In fact, the phrase social conservatism means different things to different people.

Many of you "Big Tent' types think that the imaginary tent is only additive. The illogical theory goes, (1) we have our base, so (2) lets just add some NE mods and we will be a majority. This is total bull shit.

The tent door swings both ways. You dilute the brand and you lose some of your base.The "Big Tent" is in actuality a leaky bucket. And, what's to say the squishy NE mods are going to move to the Republican ticket?

I recall Nancy Pelosi & Co. on a quest for the value voters after 2000 and 2004 cycles. In fact, donks have been chasing social conservates over the past two presidential election cycles. What the GOP is so eager to take for granted or cast aside would make good fodder for the DNC.

For the third time, you failed to provide me with a legitimate answer to the question: To what extent did the "economic crisis of our lifetime" under and presiding Republican president impact the 2008 outcome.

You gave me the 3 in a row theory, which is fun but hardly compelling. Yet if you are unwilling to acknowledge the impact of the economy, which was the #1 issue on voters minds based on exit polls, you lack credibility.


Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 08:28 PM (NLtVk)

249 Monkey see, monkey do. Now Repiglicans can pretend they aren't racist fucksticks.

Do they really think that this is somehow going to endear them to a group of people they've neglected the entire history of their party, and has never, ever stood up for? Good luck.

This is absolutely no different than picking Sarah Palin on the POTUS ticket. Trying to openly pander to a group of people whose interests they have absolutely no intention of representing.

Posted by: Rus at January 30, 2009 08:37 PM (BkTzm)

250 Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV.

I never said the economy wasn't an important or even most important issue. I'm saying the deck was stacked against any Republican before the economy tanked in the fall. Why is that so confusing to you?

I hate to break this to you but you may want to look at a map from last year. McCain lost Virginia, North Carolina and Florida (to name just a few former red states) not just the northeast. He was a fucking horrible candidate, running in a terrible environment.

Again, you want some sort of pure conservative party. If you get your way, you will be in the minority. Forever.

I think Cantor and Sessions are about as good as it gets for conservatives. Would you agree? Here's the thing, you seem hell bent on ignoring...there aren't 218 congressional districts that would elect someone like Cantor, nor are there 26 states that will send a guy like Sessions to the Senate.

So, if you want those two or people like them to chair committees and have real influence on legislation, you are going to need Congressmen and Senators from places outside of where your base is and who may not be ideal conservatives.

How is this even remotely debatable?

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 08:39 PM (hlYel)

251

Blackwell conceding is also great news for Ohio. Now Blackwell can run for Voinovich's seat.......we're hoping Kasich will unseat Strickland when the time comes......

Say it again! Voinovich needs to go, Blackwell would be an excellent replacement. I have it on good authority that Kasich is done with politics and is enjoying life as it is. I agree tho, I wish he'd get back into the game.

Here's hoping!

Posted by: Che Gueverra at January 30, 2009 08:40 PM (hKtiw)

252 Rus, 90 percent of blacks voted for Obama. Who are the racists?

Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 08:40 PM (NLtVk)

253 Rus, what would the narrative be if 90 percent of whites had voted for McCain?

Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 08:41 PM (NLtVk)

254 Tammy Bruce is a Lesbo?

Posted by: Jubal Anderson Early at January 30, 2009 08:41 PM (krKUp)

255 Damn. #251 was me.

Posted by: ErikW at January 30, 2009 08:42 PM (hKtiw)

256 Now Repiglicans can pretend they aren't racist fucksticks.

Do they really think that this is somehow going to endear them to a group of people they've neglected the entire history of their party, and has never, ever stood up for?

Or alternatively, standing up against something as ugly as racial discrimination is the right thing to do, even if it doesn't ever win you a single vote.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 08:42 PM (hlYel)

257 Do they really think that this is somehow going to endear them to a group of people they've neglected the entire history of their party, and has never, ever stood up for?

Since that whole freeing-the-slaves and passing-the-civil-rights-act thing didn't do it, the third time will be the charm.



 

Our trolls are fucking morons, and not the good kind either.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 08:43 PM (PD1tk)

258 DrewM. at January 30, 2009 08:39 PM (hlYel)

-----------------

I ask the same about you?

You continue to confuse cause and effect, a common albeit illogical mental trap.

Are you suggesting that even if (1) Bush's approval ratings were 90% like just after 9/11, and (2) the economy was basking in double digit growth, that (3) no GOP candidate could have possibly won because it would have been 3 in a row? Highly unlikely.

It is unconvincing that voters go to the polls saying "wait, this would be 3 in a row, I can't vote for that."

It is convincing that voters went to the polls saying 1) Bush is a bum with 23 percent or less approval rating, 2) the economy has catered with you conceivable answer to resolving the "crisis of a lifetime" by Bush or McCain.

What I am suggesting is that the micro analysis of districts and such are a terrific waste of time. The macro (as aforementioned) factors prevailed in the 2008 election.

No one knows with certitude what would have happened at the districts or national levels had the macro factors been positive. Perhaps Hopium and Changium would not have been so intoxicating.

Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 08:52 PM (NLtVk)

259 If I remember correctly, LBJ passed the civil rights legislation, and he was....a....Democrat

Posted by: Rus at January 30, 2009 08:54 PM (BkTzm)

260 Read a fucking history book, Toby.

Posted by: Rus at January 30, 2009 08:56 PM (BkTzm)

261 Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 08:52 PM (NLtVk)

No one is consciously thinking "no to 3 in a row", it's simply  the environment. People get tired of the same. BTW-the situation you describe was in effect the environment Gore was running in 2000. He should have cruised to election but there's always fatigue and baggage from an 8 year presidency.

Listen, I get you are unpersuaded that 3 terms is a high hurdel for any party at any time. Forget it. Ignore it. Let it go. Please.

Now, address my more important point...how do you get 218 Eric Cantors and 51 (or 60) Jeff Sessions? How do you ever get a working congressional majority if you demand ideological purity from elected Republicans?

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 08:59 PM (hlYel)

262 "Or alternatively, standing up against something as ugly as racial discrimination is the right thing to do, even if it doesn't ever win you a single vote."

You mean like LBJ did, even though he knew it would cost him the South? Forever? But he did it anyway because it was the right thing to do?

The fact that this is the first major step for the GOP in terms of racial inclusion speaks for itself. It's 2000 and fucking 9, for Christ's sake. And don't give me Colin Powell. The man abandoned his party. Your party.

Posted by: Rus at January 30, 2009 09:00 PM (BkTzm)

263 DrewM. at January 30, 2009 08:39 PM (hlYel)

--------------------------------------------------

What were the issues most important to voters in selecting a president (200:

1. Economy - 57%
2. War in Iraq -13%
3. Health care - 13%
4. Terrorism - 10%
5. Illegal Immigration - 5%

You know, I just don't see any social conservative issues on the list.

Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 09:00 PM (NLtVk)

264 I just saw a bunch of pregnant moonbats blathering on about the evilness of Steele. He must be doing something right. Congrats, man.


Posted by: Amanda at January 30, 2009 09:05 PM (SXosX)

265 Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 08:52 PM (NLtVk)

For like the 3rd time, I agree that the economy was a major, if not in fact the major issue, last year. You can keep arguing the economy was important, perhaps at some point you'll notice I'm not disagreeing with you.

Here's where we disagree, you said you don't want NE republicans in the party.

As NE moderates are invited in; we social conservatives will exit out.

I'm still waiting for you to explain to me how you ever win a presidential election and get majorities in Congress without people who aren't solid conservatives.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 09:08 PM (hlYel)

266

5. Illegal Immigration - 5%

You know, I just don't see any social conservative issues on the list.

???????

Posted by: Curmudgeon at January 30, 2009 09:20 PM (kP7wk)

267 Read a fucking history book, Toby.

Who filibustered it?  Democrats.  Vastly higher proportions of Republicans voted for it than Democrats, the Party of the Confederacy, the Klan, and Jim Crow.

Kiss my ass moron.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 09:22 PM (PD1tk)

268 Republicans:  the party of Lincoln, Douglas, and Martin Luther King.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 09:25 PM (PD1tk)

269 Democrats:  the party of George Wallace, Bull Connor, and Lester Maddox.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 09:27 PM (PD1tk)

270 DrewM. at January 30, 2009 09:08 PM (hlYel)

-------------------------

Point of Inquiry: How do you get NE Republicans if they don't vote Republican?  (mind boggles)

If they voted Republican in 2008 , what's the issue?

As I see it, there are two points of contention:

1) The "Big Tent" versus leaky bucket theories. You and Steele being of the "Big Tent" variety. Me being of the leaky bucket variety.

2) Micro versus Macro factors and their relative impacts. You being of the count the districts world. Me being of the macro issues determining eventual districts outcomes.

Based upon numbers 1 and 2 as stated, and realizing that the social conservative issues en masse carried no sway in the last election (see CNN voter issues above), it would seem very evident that to win a presidential election and get majorities in Congress is to be right on the issues. Right on the economy (check), right on the War in Iraq (check), and thus and so.

Now the more curious discussion, if I may say so, is what is the utility of for Democrats for having Blue Dogs pending 2010 election in Congress (ref: the 11 donks who voted against the Porkulus Plan)? Similarly, what is the utility for Republicans to have O. Snowe in the Senate?  She more willing to vote with Democrats than Republicans.

 

Posted by: Sebastian B. O. Bunionstow IV. at January 30, 2009 09:30 PM (NLtVk)

271 Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill

Proposed by Representative L.C. Dyer (R-MO), the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was an attempt to reduce or end completely the extremely high number of lynchings occurring in the United States since the end of World War I. President Warren G. Harding (R) announced his support for the bill during a speaking engagement in Birmingham, Alabama. Although the bill passed the House of Representatives in 1922, it was defeated in the Senate due to a filibuster. The bill would have made lynching a felony and prescribed punishments for it

[]...

On June 132005, in an unprecedented resolution, the Senate formally apologized for its failure to enact this and other anti-lynching bills.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 09:42 PM (PD1tk)

272 Steele is nothing but a well known bureaucrat: that is his new job, and all he has to do is carry the water for the party and leave the making policy and winning national offices to others. His gig is to be a palatable face to the nation, not the MSM which didn't, doesn't, and won't ever, give a crap about any of us mouthbreathing conservatives, regardless of color of degree of  rightward tilt...

Any tilt away from the Socialism they admire earns their scorn, always has and always will. So,you put someone in place who can be a good  bureaucrat, give speeches, raise money and be palatable. Period. He's elected to nothing on the political side, has no voting population to please except us in the party and on the right, and should do a passable job. That's all he has to do. His personal take on things will be said behind closed  doors and if he seems too stupid to do the job, he can be recalled like any other guy elected to a PRIVATE organization.

In other words, he can be fired. Unlike being elected to public orifice, where he can stay as long as he can lie well enough to fool his electorate.
That said, we're AoS'ers are probably amongst the most strident and stringent conservatives in the blogosphere, as well as the most profane.We set high standards, and most public personalities fail our tests. That's life.

And as an aside, I care less about Gabe's politics or orientation, but I say he's a straight up FREAK. Why?

The dude runs. Exercises. Like, healthy and stuff. That is outside of the accepted and honored exertion of hobo hunting and deserves alienation and discrimination of the worst sort.

No Valu-Rite for you, my health crazed friend. None.
Rot in Hell Los Angeles. You health freak you. Bet you even watch your carbs intake. What's this country coming to?

Posted by: Enter sandman at January 30, 2009 09:45 PM (zxaA2)

273

So if Steel e doesn't have a conservative set, we have to help him grow a pair.  Republicans don't win without conservatives, period.  They get no money without walking the walk and talking the talk.  I think Americans are starting to understand that Government isn't going to spend us out of this economic hole.  Our job is to explain that fact to the people.  Just maybe they will realize the fat cat corporations they have been bitching about are where THE JOBS ARE ASSHOLES!  That just like the middle class Wallstreet types are losing their shirts just like them, even if they are silk shirts. 

When Reagan was elected things were worse and I don't need to remind you folks how much worse.  Reagan didn't try to solve it with more goverment.  He said government was the problem.  He didn't remind us every day of how bad things were but how great we are and the the best years are ahead of us.  The big O tells us we are in deep shit, its gonna get worse unless government spends us into the poorhouse and even if it get better its going to be a long time coming.  Reagan called us the "Shinning City on a hill; A beacon to the world."  This shithead thinks running around the world telling them we dictate to everyone and apologizing will help. This dumbass and the MSM will run us done and apologize for the air we breath and in doing so retard the recovery. 

I, for one, think the people on the right, if they weren't already aware, will be first to see him for the fraud he is.  Shortly thereafter, the middle will get sick his over exposure, being poor and reality will begin to dawn on them.  The left will not get it for as least as long as it took them to figure out Carter was is and has continued to be a total cluster fuck.

If Steele is a RINO, we push him.  If he doesn't get in line we push him out the door.  We are set for a comeback in 2010 and I don't want any RINO to fuck that up.  The elected conservatives are pretty sick of losing seats and are spontaneously growing stones.  I plan to be on them like stink on shit. 

 

Posted by: Dan at January 30, 2009 09:51 PM (ygjiI)

274 what is the utility for Republicans to have O. Snowe in the Senate?  She more willing to vote with Democrats than Republicans.

For at least the 5th time...if you want real conservatives in Congress to have any power you need to be in the majority. Are you seriously arguing that you can have working congressional majorities with only solidly red state conservatives?

You can't.

Snowe is useful because with her (and her annoying crap as well) you get Thad Cochran as Chair of Senate Appropriations and not Daniel Inoye. With Snowe and some other squishy Republicans you get David Vitter, Jeff Sessions, John Cornyn chairing committies and sub-committies and not Ted Kennedy, John Kerry and Russ Feingold.

Look at where the Republicans lost seats and therefore the majorities in the last few years. Here's a hint, it's not because Texas is sending fewer Republicans to the House, it's because NY, PA, CT, MN, MI, IL, CA are now sending fewer. Noe Congressmen from those states won't be as conservative as ones from Alabama or Arizona or whatever deep red state you want to name but without them you don't get a majority.

This isn't my opinion mind you...it's simply what's happened since 1994.

Posted by: DrewM. at January 30, 2009 09:51 PM (hlYel)

275 From Wiki

On the House side:

The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963, and was then referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely. It was at this point that President Kennedy was assassinated. The new president, Lyndon Johnson, utilized his experience in legislative politics and the bully pulpit he wielded as president in support of the bill.

[...]

The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964 and the "Southern Bloc" of southern Senators led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage. Said Russell "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."[5]


Votes for the 1964 Civil Rights Act by Party

The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%)Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)

The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21   (69%-31%)Republican Party: 27-6   (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91   (63%-37%)Republican Party: 136-35   (80%-20%)

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 09:51 PM (PD1tk)

276 and yes, that fucking moron forced me to do the research he should have done before typing his fucking lame ass talking points.

Feh.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 10:00 PM (PD1tk)

277 If your plan is to become a majority Republican Party by appealing to Northeast moderates (and whatever conservatives there are left up there) then I'm afraid you are in for a monumental disappointment. The Northeast is solidly Democrat, and no amount of McCains or Guilianis is ever going to make them vote GOP nationally.

It's a hard truth, but the NE is a lost cause. I believe I have seen the last NE state vote GOP(NH,2000) in a Prez election in my lifetime(fifty).

The task of the GOP is to figure out how, if possible, they can win without the NE. Daunting task, considering the electoral college realities.

But they aren't going to do it by alienating their considerable and loyal conservative base while chasing after moderate ghosts.

Posted by: Barbula at January 30, 2009 10:17 PM (UKP1H)

278 and of course the 1964 Civil Rights Act was proceeded by

The Civil Rights Act of 1960 was a United States federal law that established federal inspection of local voter registration polls and introduced penalties for anyone who obstructed someone's attempt to register to vote or actually vote.

The Senate's debate over the passage of this bill actually started on February 29, 1960. However, a group of 18 Southern Democrats divided into three teams of six in order to be able to create a continuous filibuster wherein each member would only have to speak for four hours every three days. This system resulted in the longest filibuster in history, lasting over 43 hours from February 29 to March 2. On the morning of March 2nd, only a fifteen-minute break was allowed before the Senate sat for another 82 hours. By the time the 24-hour sessions were called off by majority leader Lyndon Johnson, the Senate had sat for 125 hours and 31 minutes minus a fifteen-minute break.

The act was signed into law by President Dwight Eisenhower on May 6, 1960.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 10:23 PM (PD1tk)

279 which was proceeded by

The goal of the 1957 Civil Rights Act was to ensure that all African Americans could exercise their right to vote. By 1957, only about 20% of African Americans had registered to vote. The Democratic Senate leader, Lyndon Baines Johnson, realized that the bill and its journey through Congress could tear apart his party made up of anti-civil rights and pro-civil rights members. Johnson sent the bill to the judiciary committee led by Senator James Eastland, an anti-civil rights senator from Mississippi. Eastland changed and altered the bill almost beyond recognition after the very public outburst by Senator Richard Russell from Georgia who claimed that it was an example of the Federal government wanting to impose its laws on states. Johnson sought recognition from the civil rights advocates for passing the bill while also receiving recognition from the mostly southern anti-civil rights Democrats for "killing the bill."

Because of Democratic opposition and amendment of The Civil Rights Act of 1957, it was largely ineffective in its enforcement and its scope. Statistical history notes that by 1960, slightly fewer blacks were voting in the South than had been in 1956.

Posted by: toby928 at January 30, 2009 10:25 PM (PD1tk)

Posted by: htrhgh at February 02, 2009 09:22 PM (zCAjn)

Posted by: 货架、" rel="nofollow">仓储笼 at March 08, 2009 07:16 AM (n1XSH)

Posted by: retailike111 at October 16, 2009 08:55 AM (VnGnq)

Posted by: hair straighteners at October 24, 2009 07:46 AM (9oMrs)

Posted by: ugg boots at October 27, 2009 06:25 AM (Am8nx)

Posted by: australia ugg at October 27, 2009 09:26 AM (c6EK2)

286

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing

/>


business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at October 30, 2009 08:21 AM (LACJ9)

Posted by: airforceoneshop at November 03, 2009 01:24 PM (LHCCE)

Posted by: fdsfds at November 06, 2009 10:11 PM (ZxjpI)

289 Come to our website for shopping with high quality and best service! There have new products,MBT M. Walk
and MBT Lami,Welcome everybody to buy it.

Posted by: mbt shoes at November 08, 2009 08:07 AM (QhfLM)

Posted by: ugg boots at November 12, 2009 12:50 AM (IeIJx)

291 Supra FootwearThe supra shoe is comfortable and can wear all day.
supra ShoesThe bestsupra.com seems to be from strong material, and have many seems all over. They are really beautifull.
Supra Skytopbestsupra.com offer Great quality shoe for a reasonable price.
Supra 2009Comfort

Posted by: ryiu at November 12, 2009 09:12 PM (9dQ8A)

292 nike dunk sb

Do anything needed to support an idea, a good idea usually brings good results, doing


business is like that.http://www.dunksky.com/.This site has always been on

Posted by: nike dunk sb at November 14, 2009 12:10 AM (APB+g)

293 buy [url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-coquette-casual-shoes-c-22]ugg rainier[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]buy ugg[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg usa[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]discount ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-short-c-1]ugg 5825[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-sundance-c-5]ugg sundance[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg shoes[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]cheap ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-tall-c-3]ugg 5815[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg sale[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg uk[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-knightsbridge-c-27]ugg knightsbridge[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]womens ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg boots[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/]ugg australia[/url]
[url=http://www.reviewups.com/ugg-classic-cardy-c-2]ugg 5819[/url]from usa

Posted by: cheap at November 14, 2009 04:14 AM (s7MB5)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 06:08 AM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 17, 2009 08:51 PM (xpuiO)

Posted by: replica watches at November 18, 2009 03:32 AM (C/zDM)

297 UGG BOOTS

Posted by: UGG BOOTS at November 19, 2009 06:28 AM (n0jE1)

Posted by: mbtshoesbuy at November 23, 2009 01:05 AM (bNNim)

299 None of us are born with a set of shoes mbt shoes on our feet, but they are infinitely important to our wellbeing. Even though the commercial shoe http://www.mbter.com industry didn't get underway during the beginnings of civilization, man is believed to have constructed footwear mbt shoes 40,000 years ago. So the question isn't whether you should buy a pair of shoes... it's how should you go about buying them!
When you're shoe shopping, the task can seem overwhelming and frustrating. You just want to try on a few pairs of shoes and then get out of the store. But the reality is that you should pick out a pair of shoes mbt shoes with a lot more care than other items of your wardrobe. After all, the health of your feet are at stake!

Posted by: pigeu at November 23, 2009 09:54 PM (1aNEH)

300 The proper function of man is to live, but not to exist.ugg classic cardyConquer fear of death and you are put into possession of your life. ugg classic tallThere is a time to speak and a time to be silent. ugg knightsbridgefree shippingmbt cheap
mbt sale
mbt uk
mbt shoes cheap
MBT M.Walk

Posted by: reviewups at November 26, 2009 11:53 PM (xUZwC)

301 hot news for brand shoes online store ,do you want to win more discount ?and popular for younger,and nike air maxwith top quality A ,come on all air max shoes with lowest price for highest quality !

Posted by: nike air max at December 01, 2009 08:24 PM (OKj2x)

302 The cheap ugg boots sale for women are stylish, they are comfortable and what¡¯s more, they keep your feet. theres a pair of fellow sufferers,ugg australia uk to complement your personal preferences, why do we not take the traditional high discount ugg boots on salefor cold winter?
As a matter of fact, with the passing time, the love for ugg usa is increasing among girls in this modern world. The growing demand for these womens ugg made the manufacturers UGG Boots Sale to revamp the looks of these boots with different hues.come our website and buy a pair of ugg uk.UGG Classic Cardy are popular as shoes for cowboys. The SHOES close the whole parts of the foot. The ugg cardy are important to protect your feet from any dangerous things during your walking activities. There are many oatmeal ugg available in the Market and if you are interested to get one you can directly go to the store that sells it.

Posted by: reviewups at December 03, 2009 03:39 AM (OKj2x)

Posted by: replica watches at December 04, 2009 09:49 AM (bsW/x)

304 Today ugg boots online have become a phenomenon.Every winter,the ugg classic crochet are one of the hottest goods in the market all over the world.So now don't be hesitation,own a pair of ugg usa immediately.

Posted by: ugg boots sale at December 09, 2009 02:34 PM (I3/dZ)

Posted by: Lacoste shoes at December 12, 2009 02:26 PM (/3s/N)

306 The womens mbt Tembea is a new generation lace-up with Dual Board construction and a striking style that pays tribute to the classic sneaker. It packs in all the mbt lami shoes benefits with a fresh look and feel, striking the perfect balance between health benefits ... The discount mbt Shuguli GTX is a is a sleek and stylish professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering full waterproofing from GORE-TEX. These are especially effective for those who have to stand or walk for long periods of time ...
The mbt shoes Fanaka GTX is a sporty but rugged styled shoe that combines fashionable, casual design with all the health benefits associated with the sporting style discount mbt shoes. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods ... The black mbt Bia is a classic, professional shoe ideal for work and more formal occasions whilst delivering all the health benefits from MBT design. These are especially effective for ladies who have to stand or walk for long periods of time during work ...

Posted by: gfdg at December 14, 2009 02:53 PM (iV/dV)

Posted by: replica watches at December 19, 2009 08:15 AM (wd3Wb)

Posted by: nikemax at December 20, 2009 01:34 AM (g3/iU)

Posted by: nike air max 360 shoes at December 22, 2009 12:31 PM (xnxK1)

310 thank you very much,your article write very nice and usefull,i'm so like that i will recommend the article to my friends.Meanwhile,the nike air max sell in our air max store,if you like nike air max,you can view the beautifull womens air max in our website,thank you again.
http://www.shoe-wholesale.com/

Posted by: nike air max at December 23, 2009 12:35 PM (3i5cr)

Posted by: GHD at January 02, 2010 04:25 AM (8u0Dq)

Posted by: ugg shoes|timberland uk|ugg boots|87415555.com.cn at January 06, 2010 08:56 AM (qzq48)

313 Un total de once comunidades autnomas estn este jueves en alerta naranja Christmas gift ugg tall boots (riesgo importante) por nevadas y bajan las temperaturas en toda Espa09a, segn la Agencia Estatal de Meteorologa (AEMET). En concreto, se Christmas gift ugg napoule sandal trata de Aragn, Cantabria, Castilla-La Mancha, Catalu09a, Christmas gift timberland classic boots Madrid, Navarra, Comunidad Valenciana, Galicia, Pas Vasco, Asturias y Murcia. La cota de nieve bajar a menos de 200 metros en el CantbricoLa Pennsula Ibrica est bajo dos borrascas y un anticicln que crearn un pasillo que permitir el paso de una corriente de aire muy fro, como la que est provocando un temporal de fro glaciar en Europa, aunque es esperan que el fro que suframos no sea tan intenso como en otros pases. An as, se espera que las bajas temperaturas se mantengan hasta el domingo. La cota de nieve baja en el Cantbrico a menos de 200 metros

Posted by: El temporal de fr¨ªo y nieve pone en alerta a once comunidades aut¨®nomas ugg boots|ugg uk|timberlan at January 08, 2010 11:37 AM (tWrEP)

Posted by: air max shoes at January 28, 2010 01:35 AM (JOSIc)

315

The H4 replica watches took replica watches Harrison a massive 13 years to replica watches construct-but this was only the end of a lifetime's work. His genius was clear from the very beginning. Unfortunately many astronomers such as Nevil Maskelyne were convinced that a mechanical solution replica watches would not work and that only astronomy could solve the replica watches longitude problem. The fact that Harrison was from a working class family and had little replica watches formal education probably didn't help his prospects.Solving the longitude problem through horology meant designing a timepiece that could work accurately at sea. When you watch consider the rolling waves, changes in replica watches temperature and generally adverse replica watches conditions the dificulty of this task becomes apparent.The H1 was completed in 1735 and proved replica successful at sea. However the Board of Longitude demanded a full a transatlantic wholesale watch voyage. They gave Harrison a grant of 500 pounds with which he began work on the H2 watches.

Posted by: replica watches at January 30, 2010 11:03 PM (Ddc+V)

Posted by: airmax at January 31, 2010 11:32 AM (3vSvS)

317 Certainly watches are Replica Watches used to help people record rolex Watches time, but rolex watches nowadays its functions have enlarged. Replica watches are now tag heuer Watches not only objects that tag heuer watches can tell you what time it is, they are also a status symbol. You should not feel strange when you find someone wearing a watch on his wrist, but use the cell phone to tell time. In that situation, the watch is just showing its luxurious function cartier watches. It is normal and cartier watches perhaps also happens to you. .If asked that among the watches of various brands, which one can suit your taste? There is no doubt that most people will choose Rolex. Whichever social class you are in, it is naturally Rolex was known breitling Watches and cherished breitling watches for a long time. However, the elements do not usually enter the market alone, always come with the price tag up to the hand. For this reason, many people, especially men, their dreams of luxury Rolex watches are buried in omega Watches his heart omega watches. What should I do? Rolex watches are simply stunning worn by the rich and famous, right? No, this world is not the world's richest men, is the world of each. All are equal before the search of luxury and be men's watches respected. Within men's watches, the law, when consumers are in the market, women's watches they should women's watches receive the same treatment. This is the real reason why replica Rolex watches are ladies watches ladies watches more welcome than Rolex. Because in this world are not difficult to understand that the rich are much less than people with low income, you agree with me? You are forced to nod and say with certainty that is the reality. These low-income people do not have enough money to save every month. They can not afford such luxury Rolex watches

Posted by: replica watches at February 04, 2010 03:56 AM (YOuVm)

Posted by: may at February 06, 2010 01:36 PM (Eu9Vs)

319 Factors Replica Watches About The Rolex replica watches Oyster The Oyster is so closely get in touch with Rolex, and it is inevitably that some people think these are the only Replica watches Rolex manufacture. Others suppose that there is a single Oyster watch. But as a matter of fact, the name Oyster does not actually meant for a rolex Watches particular watch you can buy rolex watches or even to a series but to a type of case that available in some of the Rolex ranges. History The Oyster case was first released in 1926. The objective was to protect the workings of the watch from dust and moisture. Early watches were far from waterproof. The Oyster tag heuer Watchescase was an tag heuer watches innovative design to eliminate these problems. It had a new double locking crown that screwed into place. It has been compared to the hatch on a submarine. Like a submarine, the Oyster case was waterproof. In 1927 Mercedes Gleitze swam the English breitling Watches Channel breitling watches . Before she set off she was presented with a Rolex Oyster. When she arrived, the watch was still working perfectly. The resulting publicity gave the new case a massive boost. Why is it called Oyster? Legend has it that Hans cartier Watches Wilsdorf cartier watches, who invented the Oyster, chose the name because the new case reminded him of the difficulty he had experienced prising open oysters at dinner. Since then the Oyster has further, particularly advanced. Many Oyster watches today are omega Watches perpetual-self-winding, in other omega watches words, it does not require to expose the mechanism to the outside world in order to wind it. The Osyter Perpetual is one of the toughest, most durable, most reliable watches (under truly adverse conditions). It is probably the best mechanical watch money can buy.

Posted by: replica watches at February 07, 2010 05:41 AM (TUJDt)






Processing 0.12, elapsed 0.1447 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0304 seconds, 328 records returned.
Page size 234 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat