Like you, I spent a lot of time trying to keep up-to-date on the hottest significant news stories. Since we free-thinking folks have to largely bypass vintage media, which have largely become a public relations arm of the Obama administration, it isn’t easy to do. There are thousands of great sites out there, any of which can have a noteworthy news story.
I don’t know about you, but I don’t have the time to check thousands of websites for breaking news.
Yes, there are some great aggregators out there: Drudge, Twitchy, etc. But all of them rely upon human editors and, most importantly, don’t give smaller blogs and websites much of their attention.
That’s why we created BadBlue News. It’s a very different type of news aggregator because it uses machine learning and automation to achieve massive scalability in assessing news sources and breaking stories. Here’s how it’s different:
1. It uses social network buzz, not a set of human editors, to determine how important a story is.
2. It levels the playing field for smaller websites and blogs by taking into account traffic patterns; that is, a story on a small blog with 15 retweets might be equivalent to a story on Fox News with 1,000 retweets. The traffic patterns and social buzz are both factored in by BadBlue to offer a much wider range of news coverage than any other aggregator.
3. It never sleeps: BadBlue runs 24×7 and never relies upon human editors making decisions.
BadBlue is growing quickly. From September 2013 to January 2014, page views grew by 20 percent with Google Analytics reporting the average time onsite is a startling 31 minutes!
In this election year, BadBlue can play an important role for advancing the conservative agenda by cutting through the media censors and offering a level playing field for websites and blogs of all sizes.
I’d love for you to come visit and, if you like it, to tell your friends, tweet about it, or like it on Facebook.
2014 will be a big year for liberty and I believe getting the word out on uncensored news stories — bypassing the state-run media — will be critical.
Doug Ross runs his own blog, which you can visit here.
Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on Tuesday said the House’s proposed $659 million spending bill to address the border crisis is effectively a sign of surrender to President Barack Obama, since it contains no language that would stop Obama from granting amnesty and work permits to millions of illegal immigrants.
Sessions has warned that reports indicate Obama is planning to take this step, and that Congress must seek to defund this possible action or watch as expensive efforts to secure the border fail under the weight of an even bigger flood of immigrants.
“Any action Congress might consider to address the current border crisis would be futile should the president go forward with these lawless actions,” Sessions said. “Congress must speak out and fight against them. It must use its spending power to stop the president’s executive amnesty.
“That the House leaders’ border package includes no language on executive actions is surrender to a lawless president,” he added. “And it is a submission to the subordination of congressional power.”
Sessions also said the bill is “unworthy of support” because it failed to tighten up rules for granting asylum to immigrants. He said that means the new immigration judges the bill would fund would end up allowing more immigrants to stay in the U.S. longer.
“It is a plan for expedited asylum, not expedited approval,” he said.
Sessions’s comments were released just a few hours after the House released a bill proposing $659 million in more funds to secure the border and process the thousands of unaccompanied minors who have crossed the U.S. border.
The House bill is a more modest attempt to resolve the problem. It only spends money in the current fiscal year, in contrast to Obama’s proposal for $3.7 billion in new funds.
Or, another way of putting it is this: the House bill is a way to make sure we lose more slowly.
Incidentally, when Obama simply legalizes 5-6 million erstwhile illegals in direct contempt of existing US law — and we’re told it is not in our interests, politically, to try to impeach him — he will have gotten what he wants, the GOP leadership and the US Chamber of Commerce will have gotten what they want, and the veneer of an adversarial two-party system will continue apace, with the GOP fundraising on something it clearly doesn’t particularly oppose, and the Dems doing the same, while claiming a moral high ground.
So the only ones screwed are we, the people. But don’t worry: once “we” take back the Senate, we’ll be screwed will a bit less thrust. And not just because McConnell is likely limp as an old green onion stalk.
For those of you who follow me on Twitter, you may have noticed a lengthy exchange I had with John Sexton of Verum Serum and AG_Conservative after the latter quipped that the DNCC fundraising apparatus should send Sarah Palin a thank you note for being able to raise so much money off of impeachment talk.
What I gleaned from the exchange that followed was this: there are those on the right who concern themselves primarily with what they call “strategy” — and in this case, view impeachment as a terrible strategy that could energize the Democrat base and foil a takeover of the Senate by the GOP (or, if you prefer, those who carry an R in front of their names, but who ran by courting Democrats and demonizing the constituency they now will claim to represent, making their affiliation more difficult to pinpoint) — and those who view impeachment not as some mechanistic act, but rather as a Constitutional imperative if in fact the case can be made that impeachable offensives have been committed. That is, while impeachment itself as a numbers game cannot happen given Reid’s control of the Senate — and so is a futile “strategy” maneuver, when viewed in that light, one that may, in fact, energize the Democrat base if it’s promoted on principle alone — the argument can (and in my opinion should) be made that those who take an oath to uphold the Constitution should be prepared to use those remedies proffered by the Constitution; more, they are in fact obligated to use such remedies, if in fact they wish to maintain the integrity of separation of powers. (Sarah Palin called into Michael Medved’s show to make her case; while Medved argued as Medved normally does, up to and including a reminder that Obama is, in fact, the first black President).
Boehner’s lawsuit is, as I’ve argued, a punt. A distraction. A joke. And while I do hope it is granted standing, there’s no reason to believe a court won’t ask the GOP House why, when it has among its own powers several checks on executive overreach, among them the power of the purse (a power Speaker Boehner preemptively surrendered), it is seeking remedy from a co-equal branch to solve what is a separation of powers dispute that the Constitution already provides remedy for?
The essential question is this: if the GOP believes that Obama is a lawless President who has committed the high crime or misdemeanor of exceeding, repeatedly and without fear of clear constitutional restraints, the proper function of the executive, and has appointed himself a second legislature, one that trumps the actual legislative bodies designed and implemented by the Constitution, then does it have an obligation to act on behalf of We, the People, whose sovereignty is being molested by the bypassing of elected representation?
This is not a simple matter of mechanistic strategy. It is a matter of Constitutional principle and the fate of the separation of powers. So while it may not prove politically expedient to do what the Constitution calls for, does that mean that not doing so is savvy politics, or an abrogation of the responsibility doled out to elected representatives under our Constitutional structure?
Many prominent Republicans who concentrate on head counts and believe control of the Senate under any circumstances (save conservatives being elected, natch) should be our primary focus choose to see impeachment as a mere political tool. Whereas others of us see impeachment as a political tool that is meant to be used when the Constitutional principles our elected officials swear to uphold come under attack.
Again, one way pragmatism can be used is in the promotion of principle as your rallying cry. The case for impeachment can be made, and it should be. This doesn’t mean it will succeed — and in fact, in the current electoral situation it almost certainly can’t. But the fact that it won’t succeed doesn’t necessitate an avoidance of the argument advancing the principles behind the attempt.
If we believe in the Constitution and wish to call ourselves conservatives, we simply must be willing to buck the popular wisdom — for instance, who cares what percentage of those polled are against impeachment? Have they had the case made to them why impeachment is being considered to begin with, and what the President’s overreach means to them as individuals going forward? — because the popular wisdom is almost always narrativized by the left and then reinforced by a timorous right who fears losing the “moderates” or undecideds.
Pale pastels or bold colors. There’s a choice to be made. So while you may be of the opinion that impeachment as a tactic is dangerous so close to an election, that’s no reason to try to minimize or dismiss those who hold an opposite view.
The truth is, the Democrats can get their base energized just as easily by calling us racists; or by raising the specter of a “war on women.” And so long as we keep allowing them to do so, they’ll find boogeyman to use against us.
Instead of running from the case for impeachment, it is just as reasonable to outline the case and then say that, from a numbers perspective — and given the lockstep nature of the Dem Senate under Reid — there is no way that impeachment can happen. But that still shouldn’t prevent the American people from hearing just what it is the Dem-led Senate is willing to say is proper Executive behavior.
The left sticks together; we eat our own. But not because our own deserve to be eaten. Rather, because those who are eaten are consumed to show deference to the left’s hold over popular opinion.
You don’t change that back consistently capitulating to it. You change that by going around their presumptions to play permanent narrative gatekeeper.
All of which was just my long run-up to this interview with Andy McCarthy on the subject:
For those of you unable to listen, the transcript can be found here.
“Connecticut Police Department Tries to Arrest One of Its Own For Brutality, State’s Attorney Says Nope, Too Complicated”
Is it possible to appreciate law enforcement while noting far too many of its members are allowed to get away with rogue behavior? Or perhaps better put, is rogue behavior itself becoming normalized within law enforcement, at least to the extent that law enforcement is able to protect its own? The Courant:
According to the arrest warrant application, Worden told [Lt. Lawrence] Curtis that he hit [suspect Mark] Maher twice in the shoulder area because he was resisting arrest and that Maher was “tensing his arm” and “clenching his fists” while Worden was patting him down on the hood of a cruiser.
Worden told Curtis that he delivered two closed fist punches aimed at Maher’s upper right arm “to disrupt the nerves and incapacitate the muscles so the arms could be controlled.” Worden said Maher was thrashing on the ground after officers took him down and that “this thrashing caused one of the punches to hit Maher in the right side of his forehead above the eye,” the application states.
The application states Curtis concluded that the video did not show Maher resisting arrest and that at one point it shows Worden, while Maher is on the ground with one arm pinned behind him, stopping to adjust the glove on his right hand before delivering two of the four punches he threw.
In her letter rejecting the arrest warrant [state's attorney Gail] Hardy said the video “depicts many moving parts where it is extremely difficult to keep up with everything that is going on with all parties.”
(h/t Reason, which notes that “Hardy was appointed state’s attorney for Hartford in 2007 after working for the state’s Division of Criminal Justice for 11 years. She is the chief law enforcement officer for the judicial district of Hartford.”)
Then, after you listen to it, pass it along. Especially to Democrats, who Levin points out elsewhere are in a Pew poll (predictably) drawing moral equivalencies between a worldwide terror movement, bent on creating a permanent Islamic Caliphate, that is being allowed to disguise itself as an underdog nationalist movement in the Palestinian territories — with the aid of our insufferably dull, incurious, or outright anti-Zionist progressive-infested media — and an actual democratic nation state that is being forced to fight a war in ways no other nation would ever have to fight a war, particularly when that war is against an enemy who in its very charter has as one of its goals the eradication of Israel and the Jews.
Such are the wages of a relativistic, anti-foundational epistemic paradigm being fed to minds prepared for such dishonest nonsense early on by the daily doses of PC “teachable moments.”
According to Mosab Hassan Yusef, son of the Hamas founder (who has since disowned him), Hamas — as many of us here understand, but as many who get their information from a tacitly anti-Semitic press mainstream press would not — cares not a whit for the Palestinian people, who it uses as part of a ploy to draw international sympathy to a local cause it isn’t actually interested in achieving. And that’s because Hamas as a movement is not a nationalist movement; it is instead an ideological, religious fundamentalist movement intent on global domination and perpetual jihad against the “unclean.”
Mosab Hassan Yusef rejected those aims and for a while joined with Israeli intelligence to prevent suicide bombings. He is now a guest in the United States, though his criticism of Obama’s attitude toward Hamas (he is careful to say he “loves Obama” but believes him mistaken, rather than intentionally malignant, on the Jewish Question) could lead to problems for him.
The fact of the matter is — and I had some “nuanced” libertarian on Twitter the other day challenging me to name one way that Obama has shown himself a Jew-hater — the State Department under Kerry, presumably with Obama’s full support, went around Israel and Egypt and tried to broker a ceasefire with the aid of Qatar and Turkey that would have prevented Israel from completing the task of destroying the tunnel system set up by Hamas to infiltrate Israeli borders and kill as many people as it can. It has also given money to Qatar and Hamas, which it continues to pretend is a legitimate governmental party; it isn’t. And the fact that the Palestinian people voted it into power just means that they are going to have to reap the consequences of their own votes.
The way to end the problems in Gaza are to allow the Israelis to level the place. To lay waste to the tunnels, to obliterate the enemy, no matter where they hide and without further risking the lives of their own soldiers needlessly in some feint to “international pressure” (itself a PC tool of anti-Zionism) until the “Palestinians” themselves recognize that electing Hamas to a governmental leadership role was a terrible mistake. That Hamas hides behind what they consider propaganda props — women, children, civilians, in schools and hospitals — is odious enough without the “westernized” media playing along in these kind of Goebbels games. Israel should, for the good of humanity itself, as Mosab Hassan Yusef argues, work to defeat Hamas; and the free world should remain steadfastly behind Israel as it does so.
Me, I say go full-on Dresden. Not because I like to see Arabs killed, as one kike-hating liberal commentator dared suggest; but rather because the way to destroy a terrorist movement is to kill all the terrorists in it and convince those they hide among (or in the case of the Palestinians in Gaza, presume to represent, whether elected or not) that having such murderous would-be TRUE colonialists in their midst will bring dire consequences.
Level the place. Salt the earth behind you. And let the craters and the barren land stand as a warning to those who for so long have relied on Israel’s restraint, itself a product of a Nazi-esque propaganda campaign imbibed and nurtured by leftwing journos.
Reports have surfaced that Obama phoned Netanyahu and, while shouting at him, demanded an immediate ceasefire, the upshot of which would have given Hamas time to regroup and perhaps stop Israel from finishing the job of clearing out the tunnel system from which Hamas was launching attacks.
What one can glean from this is twofold: first, that Obama is a better friend to the Muslim Brotherhood and its offshoots than he is to Israel; and second, that Obama’s entrenched (and bogus) belief in Israeli colonialism — a view he developed having drank from Edward Said’s poisonous tit [ed - longtime readers will recall that I often point to Said's Orientalism as the academic justification for an identity politics that disallows as legitimate criticism expressed by those not aligned with the official identity narrative] and then had reinforced by the horrific radical chic leftist “academics” like Khalidi with whom he surrounded himself — is every bit as pernicious and active as his “spiritual advisor” Reverend Wright could have ever hoped for.
It’s time for Israel to recognize that while most of the American people are behind them, many Democrats who hold an opinion are not. And so it’s time to ignore the imperial counsel of Obama and do what needs to be done to win, because Obama is the face of the New Left Democrat Party, the sixties radicals that worked to take over the “bourgeois Democratic Party” from within.
The son of Hamas’ founder has come to the conclusion that Israel has an obligation to destroy Hamas. Why is it so difficult for those of us who have never had to live as the Israelis have to reach a similar, obvious conclusion?
More, it is important to remember, as Levin repeatedly points out, that one of the most influential Muslim “civil rights” groups in the US, CAIR — unindicted co-conspirators in the Holyland Terror trial — is a creation of Hamas and is its propaganda and agitating front group in the US. That they haven’t sued him for repeatedly making this allegation publicly is itself telling, as this is a group whose litigiousness is only outdown by its phony moderation.
These facts may prove inconvenient to many on the left, or to many Democrats who rely on a leftist press to get what they may still believe to be objective news. But that doesn’t change its basic truthfulness. Hamas doesn’t care about “Palestine,” just as no anti-Israeli Arabs really ever have. Instead, they use it as a prop to keep hatred aimed at the Jews.
The rise of anti-Semitism in Europe and now here in the US is troubling. The scapegoat is once again being prepared for the slaughter. And so it is important — or rather, crucial — that people learn just who and what Hamas is; just who and what the Muslim Brotherhood is; and just what ties and alliances our own government has nurtured with these terrorists.
When Michele Bachmann among others came out and questioned the influence the Brotherhood was having on our foreign policy, she was brutalized…by Republicans, among them the ever-wrong John McCain and the ever timorous John Boehner.
What we need do is find independent journalists who can literally pull back the veil on this in-country alliance that is putting our allies in harm’s way and that Obama, by his actions, believes are justified inasmuch as they’ll “level the playing field” when it comes to regional power.
We are living with a Manchurian candidate in the Oval Office. We have a Secretary of State who was a traitor to his own military brothers. And we have a media that gives them — and the rest of the hard New Leftists controlling the Democrat party — repulsive cover.
So please: spread the interview far and wide. Let those who only get their news from the major networks hear from a man who was raised in the movement and whose father was its founder — a man who knows what Hamas is and what its goals truly are.
The truth will set us free. Which is why those who don’t much care for all the problems that arise when we allow a free people to act in their own interests are so committed to keeping the truth obfuscated.
War is hell. And it needs to feel like that for it to be effective.
My response to a (at the time) gloating liberal (who later became a fan of the site, and an Obama critic), who wrote, in reply to my insistence that Obama was not then a “good man”:
My point was about the delicious (but yet unseen by you) irony of your overheated and lofty statement about not uttering even a slightly flattering word about Obama as it speaks to something classical liberals need to put at the top of their priority list: namely, a refusal to allow that tactics of progressives to pass unchallenged or even to be celebrated. That just cracks my shit up.
To which my rejoinder was directly to the point, I think:
I never said one can’t utter flattering things about Obama. I uttered a few myself. What I said was, calling him a “good man” when he has shown himself to be the opposite [...] is dangerous. Because it wasn’t done on Obama’s behalf, first off; and second [...] it does not magically insulate us.
Even now, it has been used by lefty trolls as a wedge: they take [Obama's GOP adulator's] side for now, but the minute [these same political "pragmatists"] begin criticizing Obama’s policies, [they'll] quickly realize that the gesture bought [them] nothing but further derision. It was a sign of weakness pretending to be a show of moral strength. It was a gambit, and I think a bad one, tactically and strategically speaking.
I have not changed my opinion.
I am comfortable in my assessment for now. Obama can change and become a good man; he can distance himself from domestic terrorists and race hustlers and anti-Semites and Maoists; he can not presume to rewrite the Constitution, or use academic fraud to try to sway court decisions pertaining to fundamental rights; he can learn the role of the judiciary and promise to respect that. He can treat critical speech as critical speech, not as provocation to destroy his opponent — often by proxy.
When I see it, I’ll acknowledge it. Until then, calling him a good man is disingenuous. And I should think you’d prefer my candor over anothers calculated machinations born of a desire to have his “party” seen in a certain way by people who are politically retarded to begin with.
I want to fix the retardation; others, it seems, wish to pander to it.
So. Chickens coming home to roost, it seems. And all while I was kept from issuing widespread warnings, of which I at one point was considered more than capable.
It is what it is. Deal with it.
This is the female that is the Chosen One for the presidency in 2016?
Not a good woman.
Guess we’ll have to boycott accurate forecasting channels, too, now. To teach these deniers a lesson!
Meh. This dude is old. Never trust anybody over 30. Unless it’s all the New Leftists now in their 60s and 70s under whose rule the modern progressive movement takes its orders.
That’s different. Because some of them have earrings. Or wear ponytails. And not just the men!
Looking through my Twitter thread today I came across a Tweet by motionview that referenced this piece by Erick Erickson over at Red State. In the piece, Erick argues that Obama is not merely incompetent but malicious, and that there are consequences to rejecting the notion of American exceptionalism (either directly or through jaded academic relativism):
There is grave incompetence in the White House. But there is also a maliciousness that views the very image of the shining city on the hill a jingoist insult to the rest of the world.
Al Qaeda once sensed weakness when, during the Clinton administration, we prosecuted instead of fought. How much more weakness does ISIS sense as we retreat from the globe, dither on the world stage, and watch our President play the back nine.
It is malicious hostility toward the world order those American leaders who lived through World War II sought to create to foster stability, peace, security. Because Barack Obama and the left have no sense of history and no respect for their predecessors on the world stage, they will seek to undo without ever appreciating why it was that order came to be.
But then the body bags will be some future President’s problem.
In responding to Erickson, motionview pointed to his own comprehensive guest post from back in 2012, along with my 2009 piece for Hot Air that, though well received, was one of my last links to (or from) the erstwhile Malkin site.
All of which put me in mind of the post that launched a thousand hatreds, which I revisited today to see exactly how it has withstood the test of time. And now you can, too. “On nobility,” November 5, 2008:
Good men do bad things, and in the pursuit of ambition, they almost always do. Barack Obama is not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination.
What’s more, I think he will damage this country with bad policies. I’m not going to pretend otherwise. Inevitably, he is going to take actions that I think are disastrous, and somebody will come back and say: “Hey, Patterico! I thought you said Barack Obama was a good man!” Yes, but I never said he wasn’t going to do horrible things. It’s quite clear he will.
What’s more, there is no way in hell he is going to do away with the poisonous atmosphere in Washington, and anyone who thinks that he can is a fool. It will be amusing to watch him try.
But I make no apologies for saying he is a good man. He is my President. He is our President. And while he hasn’t always done good, I do believe he is fundamentally a good man and a patriot who wants to make this country a better place.
Precisely the kind of self-righteous civility that fried McCain. Want to be clapped on the back for your decorum? Fine. Just say so.
But let’s not pretend you are being honest or principled. Graciousness is one thing; praise is another.
This “good man” was involved in ACORN blackmail schemes. With an attempt to fraudulently undermine the Second Amendment by gaming court rulings. He got rich off of schemes that led to the mortgage crisis — then stood by and let others fix it in order to keep his hands clean during the final stages of an election. He has thrown in with race hustlers,”reformers” who believe that domestic terrorism was a valid form of expression, odious foreign potentates –
There is nothing at all noble about praising a man and a party who reviles you simply because in doing so you appear noble. Jews have tried that. And it’s often ended with skeletons and ash, or the twisted wreckage of a bus in Tel Aviv.
In this case, it will end with more McCains — and so more Obamas and Reids and Pelosis and Olbermanns.
If that’s nobility, I’m not interested. Yes, Obama is my President. But that doesn’t mean I’m forced to forget all he’s done to get there — and all that’s been done on his behalf, either by the savage supporters who went after Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin, or by the “objective media” that sold its soul for a shot at establishing the government it desired.
A good man?
A good politician, sure. A dedicated husband and father, perhaps. But a good man?
Sorry. But good men don’t lie, cheat, steal, and throw longtime supporters by the wayside just so they can rise to power — even if they’ve convinced themselves they’re doing so for some Greater Good.
Because the fact is, in this country, they’re not supposed to get to decide what that is. We are.
The rest is hubris.
update: For those coming over from some of the sites linking this piece, my follow-up post is here, and it explains in greater detail why I think Patterico’s position is not only wrong but dangerous.
And no, I don’t think Patterico in general dishonest or unprincipled. Quite the opposite, in fact. But in this instance, I believe he made a calculated and ostentatious decision to take the high road, and in doing so he forced himself to call someone a good man whom he knows to be quite the opposite (and has in fact suggested as much on a number of occasions).
In so doing, he has given cover to reprehensible behavior. If he believes such pragmatism will win elections, fine. Me, I’d rather lose the next few rounds if it means resurfacing with classical liberal principles intact and at the core of every campaign we run.
I believe it interesting to revisit this piece now because you can see in it what were clearly the beginnings of a divide in the GOP support structure. By this time, I had already appeared on NPR noting that McCain was a terrible candidate, and that if we were going to have a country run on big government narcissism, I’d rather that governing strategy be laid at the feet of the Democrats. This was before he selected Palin as his running mate — the only reason I could bring myself to vote for him, though he seemed determined to lose no matter what.
Interestingly, we didn’t learn from McCain’s defeat, and so when Romney was pushed as the candidate four years later — and I pointed out we were repeating our mistake of 2008 (though in point of fact, I did believe Romney would win, just that he was a lousy candidate, one that essentially removed ObamaCare as an issue for the GOP) — I met with another round of resistance, and saw my marginalization compounded.
Obviously, I stand by what I wrote at the time; Rick Moran penned an interesting piece on the conflict that erupted because of it, agreeing with my larger point (ironically so, because later, he ridiculed the TEA Party and gave people like me the charming Visigoth moniker) — though he chided me for presuming to see into Patterico’s soul and glean his intent.
But here’s the thing: though I was at pains to say, as I believed at the time, that this was not something either isolated to Frey or indicative of his overall character, I nevertheless was willing to argue that, based on any number of his prior posts written about Obama, he didn’t really believe what he was writing in his “good man” post — and that for reasons I’ve before and since argued, it is not only wrong but dangerous to try to play the game by left’s urgings, hence my distinguishing between graciousness and praise. There was and is no nobility in knowing the truth and pretending not to when the fate of a nation is at stake, just as ceding linguistic ground by playing in the left’s sandbox insures that we lose, even if it slows down how quickly that inevitably happens. Fundamental transformation can operate at many speeds.
The TEA Party elections of 2010 gave many of us hope; the GOP establishments actions since then, however, have turned that promise to pessimism — reaching its nadir with the McDaniel “defeat” in Mississippi that it turns out was bought with GOP establishment funds and sold with leftist race-baiting rhetoric.
We are where we are. And though I’m still being carefully bracketed by many major conservative outlets for the treason of finding fault in my own and openly discussing it, it heartens me to know that, pace allegations that the entire outlaw credo was just a cynical way to fundraise, in this piece you can clearly see in the conclusion that I’d already gone rogue — and that those who were serious about individual sovereignty and the classical liberalism upon which this country was founded had better begin standing on principle rather that being seen standing on ceremony.
Nearly 6-years later, and I have been making this same point nearly daily since: “I’d rather lose [a few] rounds if it means resurfacing with classical liberal principles intact and at the core of every campaign we run.”
The irony is, had we begun in 2008 — and allowed the momentum of 2010 to carry us — we’d already be where we need to be.
Instead, we got Romney, the party’s outward hostility toward its base, an impotent congressional leadership, and a world in chaos as the country disintegrates under our feet.
– And we’re beginning to hear the call for Romney to run again.
It was never my intention to show anyone up or to hurt his feelings: I was under the illusion, since rectified, that we as a conservative online movement were truly interested in finding ways to beat back leftism — and that a crucial part of that was going to include self-examination and a willingness to engage in intellectual discussion, the end result being a more unified party going forward.
Instead, I uncovered the politics of talking politics. And I can’t say that as a movement we’re anything but far worse off for it.
In fact, I doubt anyone will care much about this post. Despite there being a saying about history and forgetting it that seems quite apropos here, even if it’s inconvenient or impolitic to bring it up…