Erick Erickson's Blog, page 84

Morning Briefing for December 16, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

December 16, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Perry & Bachmann in Iowa

2. National Review: "they lived long enough for us to see them become the villain."

3. Work for Obama, Get a Federal Contract, and Watch Left-Wing Pseudo-Journalists Roll Over and Purr

4. Replacement worker beaten & hospitalized, Ohio police see no connection to labor dispute

5. Corrupt Dem legislator makes racist attack on Susana Martinez

———————————————————————-

1. Perry & Bachmann in Iowa

They had to do well in Iowa and they did. Mitt Romney had a better debate performance than this past Saturday. The software upgrade must have worked. Newt Gingrich held his own.

But Michele Bachmann got to Newt. She got the better of him on the issue of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and he treated her so dismissively on the issue of abortion I expect it to really hurt him more with women.

Rick Perry has shown tremendous improvement. He got few questions, but each question he got he took the opportunity to hit a home run. His campaign has to be pleased. There is real momentum on the ground for Rick Perry. His polling has trended up and the buzz in Iowa has been growing more and more positive to him. In this, the last debate before Iowa goes to vote, Perry did everything he needed to do to be a real contender. His answers on the 10th Amendment and attacks on Obama and his call for a part time Congress resonated.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. National Review: "they lived long enough for us to see them become the villain."

One of our co-founders, Ben Domenech, produces one of the best daily reads in my inbox. It's the Transom. If you do not subscribe, you should. And if you do subscribe, today you got Ben's thoughts on the two big conservative endorsements for Mitt Romney.

I think he hits the nail on the head and it is very much worth sharing.

"The editorial is an honest expression of what National Review really believes and has for some time, and is one more yelp from the once-proud flagship publication of the right. Unfortunately, NR remains as tone deaf as it was during George W. Bush's second term, when they drifted and meandered along uncertainly. Here, their sloppiness and extreme tone play to the advantages of their targets. Had they been a bit more humble, limiting the scope of this editorial to Gingrich's flaws and holding back on the Romney affection, they might not have just handed a lovely hammer to every dismissed candidate. But that sort of perception isn't anywhere to be found in those pages. I would not be surprised even to see Gingrich cite it approvingly as proof that he's no insider, which is its own kind of disappointing hilarity. . . .

"It's a real shame, when you think what might have been over the past few years, had NR recognized the rising movement outside their traditional base which aimed to change the party and the nation – if it could have seized an opportunity to become the voice of a renewed conservatism. That hypothetical publication would've had the heft gained not through the bellowed orders of a far-off would-be commander but the power gained through trust, through recognition that they are honest brokers and courageous advocates for the cause of human liberty. Instead, as the saying goes, they lived long enough for us to see them become the villain."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Work for Obama, Get a Federal Contract, and Watch Left-Wing Pseudo-Journalists Roll Over and Purr

Solyndra, Lightsquared, and now Solayzme are all companies that are closely connected to the Obama campaign and all got government money. While the Obama Administration has been attacking Republicans as "crony capitalists" and using an army of left-wing pseudo-journalists to make the attacks, the Obama Administration has been rewarding campaign friends with government contracts.

In Barack Obama's America, he, not the marketplace, picks the winners and losers. But just how far into the government and into the Obama campaign does this crony capitalism go?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Replacement worker beaten & hospitalized, Ohio police see no connection to labor dispute

There is a labor dispute going on at a Cooper Tire plant in Findlay, Ohio. In late November, when the United Steelworkers rejected a contract offer from management, the company locked out approximately 1,000 unionized workers.

On Saturday, one of the replacement workers was beaten with something "similar to a baseball bat" and hospitalized.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Corrupt Dem legislator makes racist attack on Susana Martinez

There's an interesting scandal right now in New Mexico right now. You see, the New Mexico constitution tries to stop corruption, a real problem in the state as the Economist recently noted, by requiring that state legislators cannot draw a salary from other sources during the legislative session. But Channel KRQE has reported that there is a set of legislators who do not abide by this constitutional requirement: teachers, and in particular teachers union members. One of the state legislators has come under particular scrutiny, Rep. Cheryl Williams Stapleton, a Democrat from Albuquerque.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Paging Conservatives In Kentucky

One of the most pathetic excuses of a Republican in Congress has finally decided to go away into anonymity. Geoff Davis is retiring.

Davis famously whined to the media that those awful conservatives at Heritage Action for America and other groups were "worthless," which was more a reflection on him than them. Davis has a 63% score from Heritage Action for America.

Sure conservatives can find someone worthwhile to take that seat.

Polls and More. Same Show. New Time. #EERS

My radio show moves up to its new time today. We're going to start at 6:00 p.m. ET and go till 9pm.

Tonight we'll work through the polls, what I'm hearing on the ground, Mitt Romney's three tiered marriage plan, and local news too.

You can listen right here on the WSB live stream. The phone number, if you want to call in, is 1-800-WSB-TALK. And yes, RedState readers can call in.

Consider this an open thread.

National Review: "they lived long enough for us to see them become the villain."

One of our co-founders, Ben Domenech, produces one of the best daily reads in my inbox. It's the Transom. If you do not subscribe, you should. And if you do subscribe, today you got Ben's thoughts on the two big conservative endorsements for Mitt Romney.

I think he hits the nail on the head and it is very much worth sharing.

Today the Washington Examiner and National Review endorse Mitt Romney. The Examiner does so honestly and forthrightly – you can read their rationale here. http://vlt.tc/1k1 I disagree with them, but as I've said before, I limit my assessment of candidates to what they actually do, not what they say – others are of course free to take a different path.

But the Examiner's approach stands in stark contrast to NR. http://vlt.tc/1kb Most observers presumed the magazine would endorse Romney again – they did so in Photoshopped glory in 2008 – but instead of just doing so straight up, they wrote an editorial which is 80% reasonable if severe criticism of Newt Gingrich's candidacy and 20% insulting rant at the conservative base. The NR editors eliminate every other candidate with flippant dismissals, in the end deeming only Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum as possibilities other than Romney – two incredibly long shots with, at the moment, no realistic paths to victory. @baseballcrank: "Why NR thinks that Perry should be counted out of the field but not Santorum… indefensible."

The editorial is an honest expression of what National Review really believes and has for some time, and is one more yelp from the once-proud flagship publication of the right. Unfortunately, NR remains as tone deaf as it was during George W. Bush's second term, when they drifted and meandered along uncertainly. Here, their sloppiness and extreme tone play to the advantages of their targets. Had they been a bit more humble, limiting the scope of this editorial to Gingrich's flaws and holding back on the Romney affection, they might not have just handed a lovely hammer to every dismissed candidate. But that sort of perception isn't anywhere to be found in those pages. I would not be surprised even to see Gingrich cite it approvingly as proof that he's no insider, which is its own kind of disappointing hilarity. . . .

It's a real shame, when you think what might have been over the past few years, had NR recognized the rising movement outside their traditional base which aimed to change the party and the nation – if it could have seized an opportunity to become the voice of a renewed conservatism. That hypothetical publication would've had the heft gained not through the bellowed orders of a far-off would-be commander but the power gained through trust, through recognition that they are honest brokers and courageous advocates for the cause of human liberty. Instead, as the saying goes, they lived long enough for us to see them become the villain.

Work for Obama, Get a Federal Contract, and Watch Left-Wing Pseudo-Journalists Roll Over and Purr

Solyndra, Lightsquared, and now Solayzme are all companies that are closely connected to the Obama campaign and all got government money. While the Obama Administration has been attacking Republicans as "crony capitalists" and using an army of left-wing pseudo-journalists to make the attacks, the Obama Administration has been rewarding campaign friends with government contracts.

In Barack Obama's America, he, not the marketplace, picks the winners and losers. But just how far into the government and into the Obama campaign does this crony capitalism go?

In an email sent out by Jo Ellen Kaiser to a group of online left-wing sites, she notes that

In response to member inquires about solid advertising opportunities, The Media Consortium would like to present the opportunity to partner with IB5k Network. IB5k Network is actively seeking progressive publishing partners who accept online advertising for politically progressive candidates. We hope and expect this to be a lucrative and relevant ad stream through 2012.

IB5k's first opportunity for Media Consortium members is a great one with Obama for America. Available immediately, these static (no video or audio) digital ads ask viewers to sign up via email for Obama campaign updates. This is a short ad campaign starting immediately through the 5th of January.

The advertisement is available in in 300×250, 728 x 90 and 160 x 600 sizes. A preview of the creative is available here: http://a.ib5knetwork.com/lt/obama_tes....

We know this is a busy time of year for everyone, but we believe this is a great opportunity with which to begin a relationship with IB5k. The Obama team set the gold standard for online political campaigns in 2008, and is certain to be placing many more ads through 2012. By beginning to work with IB5k now, you will be pre-approved to run those ads!

Jo Ellen Kaiser is the Executive Director of the Media Consortium and the email she sent came from her Media Consortium email address to a google group.

The Media Consortium "is proud to partner with the We the People Campaign for Campaign Cash, a collaborative editorial effort to expose the influence of corporate money on the political process."

IB5K, LLC, the company Jo Ellen Kaiser is pushing on her email list as the Obama advertiser, is a government contractor. So the group dedicated to exposing "the influence of corporate money on the political process" is helping out a company that's a government contractor and not just any government contract, but one that got its start on Obama 2008, then got a government contract, and is now handling online advertising for Obama 2012.

But hey! If you work with IB5K now, "you will be pre-approved to run" ads for Obama 2012.

Back in November of 2010, the Wall Street Journal ran an article by Joe Walker on entrepreneurial former Obama workers. There was this interesting nugget about one of Obama's campaign workers, Joe Beckman.

Mr. Beckmann, 30, says he learned how to collaborate with a network of volunteers and supporters while working on Mr. Obama's video team. His company similarly relies on 300 freelancers— filmmakers, graphic designers and programmers—sprinkled across the country.

"It's hard when you have this many people in different time zones, to keep them all feeling connected," says Mr. Beckmann, who uses emails, personal visits and company retreats to keep his team focused on common goals. "The model for this really came from the Obama campaign."

So far, it appears to be working for Mr. Beckmann. He says he's won a government contract to provide email-related services to Hill staffers, and he's helping Mystery Guitar Man—the YouTube sensation known for quirky YouTube videos—build a monetizable website. He expects IB5k to be profitable off of $1.2 million in revenue this year.

Campaign for Obama, get a federal contract. Is it really that easy?

According to Beckmann's company website, which highlights work for Barack Obama and whose clients include the DNC, the DGA, and a host of liberal groups,

At the end of the day, our method saves you money. While members of our trust have been responsible for everything from creating initiatives at Obama for America, building 21st century cable networks from scratch, successfully bridging the gap between television and online video audiences, to developing custom-built software for Congress

I guess it really could be as easy as going to the Federal Procurement Data System, plugging in the names of all the Obama campaigners or their related businesses, and finding out who got a government contract after working for Barack Obama.

Except, for some reason, Joe Beckmann's company IB5K, which the Wall Street Journal reports has a government contract and whose website reports it is developing software for Congress, does not appear in the Federal Procurement Data System.

That brings us back to the Media Consortium, a group of left-wing pseudo-reporting sites that are going to be subsidized by the Obama campaign's campaign cash via a vendor who, were we talking about wingers, would be excoriating the crony capitalists getting government contracts after working for the winger campaign and not appearing in the federal procurement database.

And yet here they are pitching an Obama advertising company that, after one of its principle partners worked on the Obama campaign got a government contract and now is again also handling Obama campaign advertising.

Barack Obama Throws Bill Clinton Under the Bus

Historically when the left takes power in a country they begin to rewrite their history. Barack Obama, a quintessential leftist, has started doing that in the run up to his re-election. In his speech in Kansas last week, Obama claimed that at no time in our history had we ever spurred economic growth and prosperity by cutting taxes and deregulating.

He conveniently had to overlook John F. Kennedy's tax cutting in the 1960′s. But more importantly and more relevantly, he had to ignore the Reagan Revolution of the 1980′s that brought about an explosion of economic growth. As Newt Gingrich pointed out yesterday, in one month in 1983 the Reagan Recovery generated more than one million new jobs.

Barack Obama and the Left must dismiss and gloss over this point. They must fixate on income inequality. They must fixate on poverty. Never mind that all levels of society saw benefit from the Reagan Revolution. While it was not equal, the overwhelming number of Americans alive at the time saw their standard of living go up.

The left would respond by arguing that it went up too much for some and not enough for others. What they are actually saying is that they'd rather it had not gone up at all then to see some get even richer. While, as Reagan noted, the right measures the success of a welfare program by how many people are able to get off it, the left measures the success of welfare programs by how many people get on it.

And so it is that Barack Obama has to throw Bill Clinton under the bus to make his case for re-election. In an interview with WVEC-TV, Barack Obama claims he has no responsibility for the present economic mess. In addition to the rise of ATM's and the internet killing jobs, he said, "We didn't create the condition. We haven't solved it fully yet because it was three decades in the making."

Three decades back was 1981, the year Ronald Reagan came to office. And that "three decades in the making" covers Bill Clinton's term, which until yesterday had been heralded as a success by the Democrats.

But it cannot be a success to Barack Obama. It must be written out of the history books and pretended to have never happened.

Obama must do this because, as I noted, the left measures the success of government welfare programs by the number of people who are on them. The welfare rolls in this country have been growing exponentially. As Newt Gingrich called him, Barack Obama is a food stamp President and Obama is really, really proud of it. He views the social safety net as working.

But Bill Clinton did not. Clinton, to win re-election, swung right. He cut the welfare rolls and reformed welfare. The Democrats have been chomping at the bit ever since to undo those reforms and, during the two years where Obama had a Democrat controlled Congress, they succeeded in part.

It's not just that though. In addition to reforming welfare, Clinton and the GOP balanced the budget — a feat Obama has been unable to do. Bill Clinton actually cut spending to balance the budget — something Barack Obama is unwilling to do.

Confronted with expanding welfare rolls and a budget growing steadily more off kilter, Barack Obama has decided he has to blame Ronald Reagan and pretend the Reagan recovery never happened. But to pretend the Reagan recovery never happened, Obama must also pretend Bill Clinton never happened because we would have never gotten the late 90′s reforms leading to continued growth had we not had the Reagan tax cuts and deregulations serving as a foundation.

Barack Obama must pretend Ronald Reagan never happened. But to do that, he must also pretend Bill Clinton never happened.

A Chorus of Scientologists Claim Jim Jones Runs A Cult

Massachusetts with Mitt Romney as Governor became the testing ground for gay marriage, which Romney revisionists would have you believe he fought more than he actually did, and socialized medicine, which Mitt Romney is still quite proud of.

The United States with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House saw welfare reformed and the budget balanced.

Mitt Romney once said he supported abortion rights because his mother did. His wife gave money to Planned Parenthood. As Governor he made numerous pro-abortion appointments. Newt Gingrich has always been solidly on the side of life.

While I might choose to look at that record and go with Gingrich, the fine folks at National Review have endorsed Mitt Romney with a blistering broadside about Newt Gingrich for being unelectable.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he is so bad a candidate that National Review cannot even use the word endorsement in their endorsement. They describe it as "winnowing the field," but they stack the field for declaring that he and two guys barely at 2% in the national polling (Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum) are the only viable candidates.

As one of National Reviews online commenters notes:

So you eliminate all the southerners, all the evangelicals (and former ones), and the only midwesterner.

You eliminate all of Romney's rivals who poll above the margin of error and leave only him and two guys who can't crack the 2% barrier.

Then you present us with this three-card choice, casually placing the one you're subtly "forcing" on everyone in the middle. But you're not endorsing Romney.

If National Review wants to endorse or not endorse that's fine by me, but trying to sell us Romney with a non-endorsement endorsement that makes Clinton's non-denial denial about Lewinsky look honest is a bit much.

The fact is Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have huge vulnerabilities. The base is being asked to choose between two cults of personality, neither of which are actually very conservative. But for all of Gingrich's mouthiness and new-age silliness, he got a federal budget balanced and welfare reformed while Mitt Romney was out at the same time shunning Ronald Reagan and funding Planned Parenthood.

I've got huge issues with both candidates and continue to scratch my head in amazement that the top two candidates are about as conservative as some members of the old Democratic Leadership Council. But — and being real honest here — while Gingrich has vulnerabilities as to style and substance, so does Mitt.

At a time when a majority of Americans regardless of party identification are contemptuous of Wall Street, Mitt Romney the vulture capitalist will be a caricature for everything that ails America. Scores of workers laid off in a Romney led restructuring of businesses will be on TV talking about the jobs he killed and the money he made. And just as Americans start to get tired of him, the media will decide we must have a full and public airing of what Mormons actually believe and their record on race relations. When the right screams about the media never doing the same with Jeremiah Wright, they'll ignore us with the "old news" line.

It is amazing to me the GOP is headed where it is with a nominee. It is more amazing to me that so many Washington conservatives have hitched their wagon to the one guy who wholly does not fit the spirit of this election and whose governing legacy in Massachusetts is the state level equivalent of Barack Obama's federal legacy. Hell, Obama is even using some of Mitt's old appointees.

One thing is for sure today though. With Paul Ryan turning his back on his own plan it becomes harder to attack Newt Gingrich for his criticisms of the Ryan plan. With National Review going full on Team Mittens, suddenly the guy who was once Speaker of the United States House of Representatives is standing on the outside looking in at the establishment so many grassroots activists have already rejected.

Morning Briefing for December 15, 2011

RedState Morning Briefing

December 15, 2011

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Barack Obama Throws Bill Clinton Under the Bus

2. A Chorus of Scientologists Claim Jim Jones Runs A Cult

3. Taking Newt Gingrich's Ideas Seriously

4. Myths on the New Detainee Policy

5. On The Senate

———————————————————————-

1. Barack Obama Throws Bill Clinton Under the Bus

Historically when the left takes power in a country they begin to rewrite their history. Barack Obama, a quintessential leftist, has started doing that in the run up to his re-election. In his speech in Kansas last week, Obama claimed that at no time in our history had we ever spurred economic growth and prosperity by cutting taxes and deregulating.

He conveniently had to overlook John F. Kennedy's tax cutting in the 1960?s. But more importantly and more relevantly, he had to ignore the Reagan Revolution of the 1980?s that brought about an explosion of economic growth. As Newt Gingrich pointed out yesterday, in one month in 1983 the Reagan Recovery generated more than one million new jobs.

Barack Obama and the Left must dismiss and gloss over this point. They must fixate on income inequality. They must fixate on poverty. Never mind that all levels of society saw benefit from the Reagan Revolution. While it was not equal, the overwhelming number of Americans alive at the time saw their standard of living go up.

The left would respond by arguing that it went up too much for some and not enough for others. What they are actually saying is that they'd rather it had not gone up at all then to see some get even richer. While, as Reagan noted, the right measures the success of a welfare program by how many people are able to get off it, the left measures the success of welfare programs by how many people get on it.

And so it is that Barack Obama has to throw Bill Clinton under the bus to make his case for re-election. In an interview with WVEC-TV, Barack Obama claims he has no responsibility for the present economic mess. In addition to the rise of ATM's and the internet killing jobs, he said, "We didn't create the condition. We haven't solved it fully yet because it was three decades in the making."

Three decades back was 1981, the year Ronald Reagan came to office. And that "three decades in the making" covers Bill Clinton's term, which until yesterday had been heralded as a success by the Democrats.

But it cannot be a success to Barack Obama. It must be written out of the history books and pretended to have never happened.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. A Chorus of Scientologists Claim Jim Jones Runs A Cult

Massachusetts with Mitt Romney as Governor became the testing ground for gay marriage, which Romney revisionists would have you believe he fought more than he actually did, and socialized medicine, which Mitt Romney is still quite proud of.

The United States with Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House saw welfare reformed and the budget balanced.

Mitt Romney once said he supported abortion rights because his mother did. His wife gave money to Planned Parenthood. As Governor he made numerous pro-abortion appointments. Newt Gingrich has always been solidly on the side of life.

While I might choose to look at that record and go with Gingrich, the fine folks at National Review have endorsed Mitt Romney with a blistering broadside about Newt Gingrich for being unelectable.

Unfortunately for Mitt Romney, he is so bad a candidate that National Review cannot even use the word endorsement in their endorsement. They describe it as "winnowing the field," but they stack the field for declaring that he and two guys barely at 2% in the national polling (Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum) are the only viable candidates.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Taking Newt Gingrich's Ideas Seriously

Ideas don't run for president; people do. That's as true today as it was four years ago. So, it is understandable that much of the press and blog coverage of the 2012 GOP primary race has focused on the personalities, experience and record of the candidates rather than their ideas. In fact, until you know the candidates by their actions, you cannot meaningfully judge what their words will mean in practice. Mitt Romney is the prime example of this, having so inconsistent a record that it's impossible to take seriously the idea that he's guided by any sort of coherent political philosophy.

But as it happens, we do have three candidates in this race who stand for a distinctive philosophical approach to domestic policy. One of those, Ron Paul, espouses a radical constitutionalism that exists on the periphery of the conservative movement. Rick Perry, while his issue stances are more conventionally (but not always uniformly) conservative, can best be understood through the lens of his guiding principle as a Texas nationalist – a belief that a significant amount of the powers now wielded by the federal government should be returned to the states. And then there's Newt Gingrich. Newt generates so many new ideas – he develops more firmly-held political convictions before breakfast each morning than Romney's had his entire life – that it's tempting to view them as essentially random. But there is a method to the madness. Setting aside for a moment Gingrich's personal attributes, let's look at his ideas, with particular attention to two recent interviews he did – one with Ben Domenech, Brad Jackson and Francis Cianfrocca at Coffee and Markets, the other with Glenn Beck. Both provide a keen window into how Newt views domestic policy issues. In the interests of length, I'll pass over one of the three pillars of Newt's worldview (his futurism and faith in new technologies), which has been written about extensively, and focus on two others: his gradualism and his revival of what I call "Reform Conservatism."

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Myths on the New Detainee Policy

As many of you know, Congress is working to pass the National Defense Authorization Act for 2012. One of the provisions in the bill, pertaining to our terrorist detainee policy, has created a stir among Constitutionally-minded citizens.

Thank you to Red State for allowing me space to clarify what is and what is not in this provision. Sometimes when we feel strongly about an important issue, such as our liberty, the debate can be muddled by hyperbole and passion. It is my sincere hope that we can use this opportunity to give you the exact details on what this provision seeks to accomplish, so that we are not rejecting an entire defense bill –which provides pay and supplies to our troops- based on incorrect or inflated statements in the media.

Understand that I share your concerns about government intrusion on our civil liberties. I do not believe we must choose between our security and our freedom, but I am also keenly aware of the fact that we must be smart about combating terrorists like the Underwear or Times Square bomber who seek to exploit our free society in order to do us harm.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. On The Senate

According to the vote count that leaked out, Senator Roy Blunt became Senate Republican Conference Vice Chairman with 25 votes and Senator Ron Johnson lost with 22 votes.

Let me be up front that I genuinely like Roy Blunt. But I also think Senator Blunt is part of the status quo problem in Washington. My support of Ron Johnson was about Ron Johnson being a guy from a state hard for the GOP to win who has fresh, conservative ideas and isn't in Washington raiding the budget to send back home.

But such a guy is anathema to the Senate GOP leadership. Our work is not done. But there are races across the country where we can help turn the tide and get a set of Senate Republicans who will turn the tide, who will fight for fiscal sanity and a smaller Washington. The odds are in the GOP's favor to take back the Senate.

We need to increase the odds that conservatives take back the Senate GOP. It is a long fight. But here are some candidates who will help. There are links you can follow to give them money and, if you choose not to give to them, please at least consider the Senate Conservatives Fund.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Winnowing The Field, My Butt #EERS

I'm talking about National Review's endorsement of Mitt Romney tonight on the radio (which is structured as an "avoid Gingrich like the plague" column). And we'll get into more Presidential politics as well.

You can listen live at the WSB live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.

I'm on 7pm to 10pm tonight and then tomorrow move up 6pm to 9pm.

Consider this an open thread.

Please Shut Up With Your Incessant Whining

Please shut up. Just stop.

I am so damn tired of getting whining little tweets and angry emails from people because I've dared to say something they perceive as an attack on their candidate. Sometimes I get those just for — horror of horrors — pointing out their actual voting record. Yes, in fact, Mitt Romney did say he supported abortion rights by saying his mother did and yes his wife did give money to Planned Parenthood. Deal with it.

OMG THE HORROR!!!!

Shut up.

Seriously.

The supporters of the various candidates for President are under some deluded notion that the way you win a primary is to focus on the Democrat. While it is true that the candidates must focus on the Democrat, the way you actually win the primary is to also convince voters you are the best guy to beat the Democrat.

The way you accomplish that is typically to show just how seriously defective the other guys are by trolling their record and various skeletons in their closet.

You may not like it, but since the Federalists first pointed out Thomas Jefferson might have an illegitimate black child, that's kind of been the way things have worked around here.

Lately, the Romney supporters have been most unhinged. How dare I point out that Mitt Romney called himself a progressive. That must make me an anti-Mormon bigot. No, it makes me an anti-opportunist bigot. If you really think someone's dislike of Mitt Romney comes from hating Mormons, you are probably a moron.

How dare I point out that Newt Gingrich really is not the conservative so many are suddenly convinced he is!!! Well, the truth hurts.

How dare I point out Rick Perry has yet to prove he won't trip over the nearest polysyllabic world . . . errr . . . word. OMG how dare you!!!

Folks, if you cannot handle me or anyone else daring to be critical of the various candidates and you cannot handle someone discussing the various candidates' actual, factual records, you might as well go hold up in a cave somewhere until December of 2012, because your heart will not be able to take what the hell the Democrats will unleash on the chosen nominee. Nothing anyone has said so far about any of the candidates will compare to the unmitigated hell and lies the Democrats will unleash.

And if you think raising criticisms, records, and weaknesses now somehow will feed the Democrats, you are a naive fool who has never heard of opposition research. What we know, they know. What we don't use, they will.

So go put on your big boy pants, sit back, and suck it up for the next few weeks. And if you can't, please just shut up.