Monday, August 25, 2008

The modern Democrats believe in free speech like……….


……… their Granddaddies believed in racial equality.

Damascus Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, John Kerry, between comparisons of GI Joe to Genghis Khan, and, of course the most liberal Senator of all-Barack Hussein Obama-are apoplectic that the privacy and speech rights of terrorists might be violated. When it comes to American political speech, the liberal concern for individual rights disappears faster than creases on Joe Biden's face however.

Late last week
we commented on the American Issues Project (a national 501(c)(4) of which Iowa’s own Ed Failor Jr. is a director) published a hard hitting ad that documents Barack Obama’s lifetime relationships with the most radical of American political thought, including his relationship with William Ayres, a domestic terrorist who tried to bomb the Pentagon (like some other better funded and considerably more committed foreign terrorists of greater repute).

Rather than counter the ad, or even dispute it’s well documented allegations, which we conservatives call “debate” in the market place of ideas, Obama has done what liberals do, and simply tried to suppress the speech. Obama is
attempting to criminalize the AIP ad and prosecute its creators.

The liberals are the same people who seek a return of outright government regulation of all political speech (the “Fairness Doctrine”) and the intimidation of any dissenting thought by, literally,
hiring litigants.

There is a reason to fear the liberal thought police. If Obama is willing to run to the DoJ to intimidate political adversaries while he’s merely a candidate can the reader imagine what he would do if he was actually running the DoJ?

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Evolving Iowa Republican party leaves no room for moderates
StoryDiscussionFont Size: Default font size Larger font size By Charlotte Eby | Thursday, August 21, 2008 7:43 PM CDT | (31) comments
The big tent that had once been the Iowa GOP is now shrinking, leaving little room for moderates who once felt they had a place in the party.

Several signs point to the exile of party moderates here in Iowa, as Republicans try to rebuild their ranks after substantial losses in 2006.

First came the ousting of two prominent Republicans who will represent the state party at the national level.

Iowa Christian Alliance President Steve Scheffler and Iowa Right to Life Executive Director Kim Lehman staged a successful campaign to defeat party insider Steve Roberts and State Rep. Sandy Greiner for spots on the Republican National Committee.

Prominent moderate Republicans, including former Iowa governor Robert Ray and former Lt. Gov. Joy Corning, have expressed their concern about their party’s direction.

Corning said the shift to the right has been disheartening to traditional centrist Republicans, some of whom have left the party.

“I think there are moderate Republicans who feel like they have no place to go,” she said.

Another sign of the uneasiness of moderate Republicans was the decision by former GOP Congressman Jim Leach to endorse Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential contest.

Leach’s endorsement won’t win him any friends in his party.

State Sen. David Hartsuch, a Bettendorf Republican who is running for Leach’s longtime First District congressional seat this year, lashed out at Leach and other party moderates during a speech at the Iowa State Fair earlier this month.

Hartsuch earned his seat in the Iowa Senate by knocking off longtime state legislator Maggie Tinsman, known for her moderate record.

Hartsuch’s take on Leach and Tinsman?

“They were not Republicans to begin with; they’re not Republicans now,” he said.

Those are harsh words directed at fellow party members who have together spent decades in public life.

And it’s the kind of anger party loyalists direct at each other as they search for a life raft.

Tinsman said she’s sick about the direction of the party.

“I think if we’re going to be a major party, we have to indeed have a bigger tent,” Tinsman said.

In 2006, Iowa Republicans saw Democrats win control of the Iowa Legislature, the governor’s mansion as well as pick up two seats in Iowa’s congressional delegation.

They might do well to learn from Statehouse Democrats who have toned down their rhetoric and opened up the door of their tent to pro-business candidates and social conservatives.

In contrast, leadership roles in the Iowa GOP have been a revolving door as members look for someone to help lead them out of the dark.

Democrats know what it’s like to be out of favor with voters. Only a few short years ago they went through a period of soul-searching as Republicans dominated the Iowa Legislature and the state’s Congressional delegation.

Their blueprint for a comeback was a shift to the middle, not a shift to the far extreme of the party.

Iowa Republicans haven’t figured that out yet. They’re losing people who might typically be their allies — voters who want lower taxes, smart spending and policies that support business, or who can’t tolerate the party’s stances against abortion and gay rights.

Moderates are hoping it won’t take another landslide loss like 2006 for the GOP to learn those lessons.

Charlotte Eby can be contacted at (515) 243-0138 or chareby@aol.com.


I think this article is worthy of discussion. Good points.

RF said...

The article posted by anon is much more interesting and worthy of discussion than Sporer’s sad, 1000-times-recycled post about the lefty radicals. I know we are entering the final stretch in the election and blind partisanship is obviously taking over all official party mouthpieces, but does Sporer really want to get into a discussion about DoJ and its politicization? The only reason your average voter is not on top of things about the current administration’s DoJ antics is the fact that there is complete outrage-fatigue after 8 years of W.

But I do appreciate Sporer’s more reasonable insider insights. It would be great to hear his take on Biden or some speculation on the McCain VP prospects.

Anonymous said...

Well said Charlotte- we need to come together on those things we agree on and disagree with the opposition on. This probably is between 75- 90% of the issues.
Continuing to focus on the 10-25% of the issues we disagree within the party is self-destructive- Conservatives loose and Liberal win as we infight.
What is the purpose of a political party? To elect those that MOST closely represent our conservative values - both social and fiscal.
If we use litmus tests that mandatorily exclude others that may still agree with us 75% of the time then we will become a secondary party. This is why like it or not both major parties to remain so must be to some extent a "big tent party" .
Off shoot parties limiting their appeal to single issues or demanding some type of litmus test such as the Green Party and perhaps the Libertarian Party are doomed to remain single digit parties nationally.
I like many hate the idea that I can not find a perfect candidate. A candidate that represents exactly my feelings- probably does not exist- but then again even if there was such a candidate it is either naive or arrogant of me to think others would feel the same way. So realistically then I must choose the one that I most closely identify with across the board. At times this means I must decide on the "lesser" of two evils. Does this mean I am selling out? Tough question - especially when the issues may be in the social area. However I think the bigger sellout is by those that somehow think their duty is not to live a real world and are willing to flush 75% of their agreements down the drain to try and show some type of personal statement. A statement they are free to make but they must also understand that it only is heard by a few and ultimately leads to those they disagree with on 75- 90% of the issues only solidifying their power. If they want to make a statement that will have true impact on the system then they must work within a party to effect and elect those that most closely represent them- even if at times it means holding their nose or supporting someone that they may disagree with on a stongly held core belief.
Our oppostion is mainly a party of many small special interest groups that understands the need in voting against the oppostion is as important at times as voting for someone that you support perhaps only marginally.
The margin of victory in most elections in this country is razor thin- the difference being in turning out those that most closely resemble your values. When we spend time fighting and demonizing our own side rather than accepting the few differences and focusing that rath toward those that we truely disagree with across the broad board then we are only ultimately hurting our future. When we decide that we will take our ball and go home because we do not get to pitch or be captain then it is our team- our friends and in the end our total values that loose.
Andy Cable

Anonymous said...

Looks like swiftboating may be played out, Sporer. Apparently no one is taking your bait. When those swiftboaters went after Kerry, people thought they actually knew him. Now that the same crew is after Obama, it's more obvious that the smear is the goal, no matter who the candidate is.

I followed your link to the Politico story. It sounds to me like Bauer is correct: it is a slime attack and it is not an issue ad.

And I don't see what the photo has to do with Obama.

Spotlight

Anonymous said...

Swiftboating, interesting term. Apparently it means smearing Democrats with the truth. Anytime you truthfully point out their hypocrisy, lies or corruption it is now “Swiftboating.” I guess it is the new charge to added to the arsenal of racist, bigot, homophobe, misogamist, Nazi, etc.

Hurling insults certainly beats trying to defend against the charges. I notice they never tried to show that the swifties were telling lies, that would have shut them up forever. Instead they just screamed that the charges were unfair and a smear. Never mind that they were TRUE!

When we accept the idea that telling the truth about the left is unacceptable we might as well just go home and let them run our lives with no further protest.

Anonymous said...

two lies that d's continue to spew and hurl.

1) George Bush did NOT steal the election. Even the NY Times said so. He won, fair and square even after 75 or so news organizations actually really counted the ballots. George Bush WON!

stop that lie

2) The swiftboaters were telling the truth about Kerry. They had facts that Kerry never challenged because he couldn't.

Why didn't he release his records? Why didn't the Million dollars offered for one bit of evidence that they were lying never get paid out?

Because they didn't lie.

Also, Bush did NOT lie about the war. Geezez that one is tired out.

Bush is not stupid - we have the facts of his IQ and GPA. We also have Gores and Kerry's. They are stupid.

Reagan was not stupid.

Why do d's always lie about the truth?

Anonymous said...

"Why do d's always lie about the truth?"

Simple, the truth does not serve their purpose.

chet not stupid says "we appreciate your committment to literascly" at the literacy confab said...

It's clear. D's are stupid. Stupid is as stupid does.

Ruth W. said...

Im a Republican, but this anti-liberal militant stance really turns me off.

It really became too much when we had the shootings in Tenn. and in Arkansas. People who said they where "killing liberals" and also with Fox News commentators saying they would like to "Bomb Obama" if they could.

I agree the tent is getting smaller here in the GOP. I believe I will look into what the Dems are saying, they may raise taxes but they arent crazed militants who wish to demonize fellow Americans... Its sad.

Ken asks Obama about his $300K Rezko kickback said...

Ruth,

Conservatives are not terrorists so please keep things in perspective. By the way, did you see how lefties assaulted the FOX crew at the convention? They also shouted "Kill Michelle Malkin."

I don't believe you are Republican.

Live Free said...

enough kooks on both sides - I agree don't think you are Republican to start with-

Anonymous said...

She's a Republican just like Jim Leach was a Republican. Adios!

Anonymous said...

She's a Republican just like Jim Leach was a Republican. Adios!

Anonymous said...

Dave Hartsuch is running for Jim Leach's seat? Who knew?

Somebody better tell Mariannette. She's running for it, too.

Get a grip Charlotte. You don't know the lay of the land quite as well as you think you do.!!

The Real Sporer said...

Ruth W

Whatever do you mean by anti-liberal stance?

Since at least 1977 the Republican Party is the conservative party in the United States, just like the Conservative and Unionist Party is the conservative party in the UK, or, with a degree of irony befitting our friends from Down Under, the Liberal Party of Australia is the conservative party in Australia. We exist to promote conservative ideas and to oppose liberal ideas.

I watch a lot of Fox. I haven’t seen any Fox commentator say they’d like to bomb Obama and frankly don’t believe that happened. As for some nutbag in Tennessee or Arkansas saying they’d like to shoot liberals, I very much doubt if they were particularly active Republicans and they certainly weren't speaking for the Party. We don’t advocate violence against our domestic ideological adversaries.

As Chairman, I expelled the only person I have ever expelled from the Central Committee for advocating killing abortion doctors. Moreover, it is routine for Democrats to wish for the assassination of Pres. Bush and VP Cheney as did my own daughter’s geography professor just four months ago. I am happy to report that the Bear staged a little walk out on that one.

Demonize fellow Americans? How dare you. Al Gore said George W. Bush betrayed America and Howard Dean spread the rumor that 9.11 was an inside job. That’s nothing compared to the routine accusations of lying about Iraq and the commission of genocide and lesser war crimes by this Administration and Republicans more generally. What was it that Konye West said about the President who has saved more black lives through his completely unreported Africa agenda than any man history? Oh, yes “George Bush hates black people”.

Of course, Konye was speaking as a part of what has become the most vile urban myth in American history-that the Republican Party and all Republicans are racists. Yes, Ruth, Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and Wooodrow Wilson and George Wallace were Democrats. So was Jim Crow.

Hopefully you will look a little harder and think on a broader scale before you desert the GOP.

Ruth W said...

Here is your bomber clip

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjYpkvcmog0

As for the other things you said, I concede. You are perfectly in the right, except when you post such things about Democrats wanting censorship, with acknowledging the god awful patriot act that our own party has made that infringes on the first amendment and goes against everything that Republicans stand for.

If your memory serves you only from the 1860's to the 1960's you would have a valid arguement, but the Republican Party of Regan is non-existant. So is the Party of Lincoln, The Party of Eisenhauer and yes, even the party of Nixon, whom all are miles better than this watered down conservative party of Bush.

I also do not deserved to be talked to in such a manner. You alienate anyone who doesnt think like you and soon you be alone.

The Real Sporer said...

Ruth W

With what part of the “watered down” conservative agenda do you disagree?

I presume the Patriot Act, since that was the only specific issue you mentioned. So that we might engage in reasoned discourse please tell me how you think the Patriot Act (a) impairs legitimate and recognized speech rights; (b) how that impairment is more serious than the wholesale regulation of political speech that in entailed by the cunningly named “Fairness Doctrine”?

With respect to the civil rights issue, again, please explain how the modern Republican agenda of racial neutrality in all things government is deficient?

Finally, I certainly regret anything that you took personally or found offensive in my argument, that was most certainly not my intent. Please, let us reason further. My point was not to offend you but to engage you in debate thereby causing you to question some of the beliefs you advocated by demonstrating errors in your reasoning. I am attacking your arguments, not you.

Anonymous said...

Aside from “The Fairness Doctrine” and the McCain Feingold bill exactly what censorship is there? Exactly who is not allowed to say or write pretty much whatever they want? The censorship under Woodrow Wilson and FDR was severe as were the police state measures taken for security purposes. The current measures are very mild compared to what those two great Democrats imposed, plus they are set to expire and must be specifically reauthorized.

Ken asks Obama why he's afraid of free speech... said...

Obama's plans for America? Where have we seen this list before?


Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

Abolition of all right of inheritance.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools.

Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Mr. Sporer, however you did not say anything about the threat on United States Senator Obama's life by a Fox News contributor.

I would like to know what you think about it

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:03,

Give us the facts behind your accusation.

Ken asks will Obama ever debate McCain? Minus a script! said...

I am curious too. Can Anon 3:03 back up the accusation that FOX NEWS is involved with a threat on Senator Obama?

Chirp, chirp, chirp....

Anonymous said...

Heres your proof, chirp chirp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T5eDDL1WuM

Anonymous said...

Heres your proof, chirp chirp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T5eDDL1WuM

Labels

Amazon Bookstore