From HuffPo:

Rachel Maddow: Romney Has ‘Issues Of Patriotism’ Due To Offshore Accounts

Now pay attention carefully. Maddow went after John Mica about Mitt Romney’s offshore accounts:

Rachel Maddow grilled Florida Congressman John Mica about whether Mitt Romney’s personal finances and work at Bain Capital were “unpatriotic” on Tuesday night.

and this one especially

Before the polls closed in the Florida primary, Maddow put Romney supporter Mica in the hot seat about another controversial aspect of Romney’s finances: his offshore accounts. She asked if he thought that the candidate’s holdings in “notorious tax havens” raised “issues of patriotism.”

Now let’s note that Maddow is specific- having offshore accounts is “unpatriotic.” It’s in the title.

OK, now who else has had offshore accounts?

1. John Kerry

Democrats were pushing for tax reform in 1984, and Lieutenant Governor John F. Kerry, candidate for US Senate, had some ideas.

“You need a major overhaul of the tax structure,” Kerry told a panel of reporters on a May 6 broadcast of WBZ-TV (Channel 4). “You need to close crazy loopholes that are non-productive.”

Though he did not share it at the time, Kerry had recently learned a costly lesson about loopholes in the tax code.

Weeks before that interview, Kerry, by his own account now, had jettisoned an investment of between $25,000 and $30,000 in an exotic tax shelter after his accountant questioned its legitimacy. In an interview with the Globe, Kerry acknowledged that fear of political embarrassment was a factor in his decision to swallow the loss.

Until now, Kerry has never disclosed details of this tax shelter, which utilized offshore companies registered in the Cayman Islands and a “straddle” scheme of forward contracts to buy and sell commodities, apparently worth up to $238,527.

2. Apple Computer

Apple (AAPL) has accumulated a whopping $54 billion of its $82 billion offshore. More startling, the company’s foreign coffers are increasing three times faster than its U.S. cash, and the trend is accelerating rather than plateauing. While nowhere near starving for capital, Apple’s growth potential is more constrained here than offshore simply because capital production is more efficient overseas. Apple’s wiser using pre-U.S. tax foreign money to make an investment than using its American cash. For example, it’s far easier for Apple to swallow ARM Holdings (ARMH) than Broadcom (BRCM) although both have similar market capitalizations.

3. Microsoft

Microsoft (MSFT) is even more lopsided in its cash position: $51 billion of its $57 billion in cash resides frustratingly offshore. In its 10K, the company explains its options to complete significant acquisitions or share repurchases: costly tax repatriations, debt or equity offerings. So far, Microsoft has not touched its foreign cash, opting to borrow $11 billion to fund its discretionary needs. The $51 billion sits tantalizing out of reach without incurring additional taxes. Microsoft may find itself struggling to increase its dividend without either borrowing money or accessing this offshore capital.

4. Cisco

Reportedly, when President Obama asked John Chambers how to jump start the economy, Cisco’s CEO suggested a tax repatriation holiday on overseas profits.

Indeed, for Cisco (CSCO), overseas cash is a big deal. Cisco holds a greater share of its money overseas than either Apple or Microsoft: $40.6 billion of its $44.6 billion cash.

Cisco has been quickly accumulating foreign capital: Since 2005, off-shore cash has risen almost four fold. Cisco’s approach to its foreign largesse: Hands off. The company meets its financial needs by borrowing money. In 2005, Cisco had no debt. Since, debt has increased to $16 billion. Cisco is a multibillionaire abroad, but here at home, it’s hungry for capital.

According to Maddow, John Kerry and these corporations are “unpatriotic.”

Not content to limit how big a fool she is, Maddow goes on to pound Romney for his taxes

Romney’s career and wealth, of course, have both been hot button issues in the campaign. The candidate released his 2010 tax return after much criticism about his reluctance to do so. The return revealed that he earned $21.7 million in 2010, and paid a lower tax rate than someone who earns $50,000 a year.

John Kerry paid a lower rate then Romney the year he ran for President.

What’s ever funnier is watching the creatures over at HuffPo twisting themselves in knots trying to assert that it’s different when these things are done by someone other than a Republican.

logic63

“we are talking about romney here. Kerry is old news and that was up to you to yell if you were opposed to him. Did you?”

htowncarrie

“Well, John Kerry didn’t become president and neither should Mitt.

LiberalDemIda

“Uh…is John Kerry running for president? No? Go play outside.”

If it wasn’t wrong for Kerry, it is not wrong for Romney either.

This really is hysterical. Once again it proves my axiom that liberals have zero long term memory. And they’re not very much for principle either.

Just as we get some bad news via Romney supporter Matt Drudge:

We get some good news for a real conservative:

After a furious backlash from West’s backers over a redistricting plan that would imperil his 2012 prospects, the tea party favorite got a political gift Tuesday: the opportunity to run for a nearby seat — one much more favorable to his prospects.

Under the state’s proposed redistricting plan, drawn by Republican state lawmakers, West’s current district would become much more hostile territory. The freshman congressman will instead run for a South Florida seat, whose current occupant, GOP Rep. Tom Rooney, announced on Tuesday that he would vacate the district and run nearby.

The switch comes after a wave of conservative outrage at the proposed redistricting plan, with some accusing Republicans in the state Legislature of trying to push West, a bombastic freshman who has clashed with the party’s leadership, out of Congress…

…With the state nearing a conclusion on line-drawing, House GOP leaders grew increasingly concerned in recent days over West’s political outlook. Officials at the National Republican Congressional Committee urged West and Rooney, who occupy neighboring seats, to work together to craft a plan that would help them both.

West’s move will dramatically improve his reelection prospects. National Democrats had placed the freshman high on their target list and two Democrats, construction company executive Patrick Murphy and former West Palm Beach Mayor Lois Frankel, had launched well-funded campaigns to take him on.

It’s an open question who Democrats will now recruit to run against West. David Lutrin, a South Florida progressive activist who pondered a congressional bid in 2006, is considered a possible contender.

Taking on the freshman will not be an easy task, however. West has emerged as one of the most prolific fundraisers in the House. In 2011, he raised $5.9 million – an astonishing number for a first-year member.

Great news!

This comes on the heels of some manufactured outrage from the liberals over these words from Mr. West:

“Take your message of equality of achievement, take your message of economic dependency, take your message of enslaving the entrepreneurial will and spirit of the American people somewhere else. You can take it to Europe, you can take it to the bottom of the sea, you can take it to the North Pole, but get the hell out of the United States of America,”

Amazing how the left seemed to have missed the TAKE YOUR MESSAGE part of the speech and instead twisted his words to mean he was telling liberals to get out of the USA. Well, not so amazing really. That’s what they do. That’s what our media does. And then they jump in moronic glee because West tells them exactly that. He didn’t tell anyone to leave. He told them to take their MESSAGE somewhere else.

Gotta agree with Greg Gutfield here:

During the break I made a list of outspoken black liberals, Al Sharpton, Louie Farrakhan, Black Panthers, Eldridge Cleaver, Jesse Jackson, Angela Davis, Cornell West, Public Enemy, Eric Dyson…in our culture we celebrate outspoken black leftists so now you have one American provocative black conservative and you liberals whine…I wanna see more Allen West. He’s not the first one but he’s the beginning and it’s refreshing to see a black conservative.

I want to see more Allen West’s myself.

"Does it show?"

flack

1    [flak]
noun Sometimes Disparaging .
1.
press agent.
2.
publicity.

verb (used without object)
3.
to serve as a press agent or publicist: to flack for a new rock group.

verb (used with object)
4.
to promote; publicize: to flack a new record.

CNN Turns Blind Eye To Obama-Alinsky Ties

Journalism: As the president launches his re-election bid by striking a more centrist tone, the partisan press is helping him whitewash his radical past. Teamwork or not, it’ll be hard to bleach.

Exhibit A is CNN’s Soledad O’Brien. Earlier this week, she hosted a segment that tried to de-link Obama from Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky. The late Alinsky is the father of community organizing and the author of the far-left bible “Rules for Radicals.”

O’Brien opened her piece by scolding GOP front-runner Newt Gingrich for warning Obama “will represent Saul Alinsky (and) European socialism” in a second term. “President Obama has never said that he was influenced by Alinsky,” O’Brien insisted.

Duh. Uh, Soledad? Hello? Obama TAUGHT Alinsky principles.

Of course he hasn’t. He’s not stupid enough to publicly link himself to a socialist. But the record is clear that he was in fact influenced by Alinsky, if only CNN’s “journalists” would do their homework. Allow us to do it for them:

• Obama first learned Alinsky’s rules in the 1980s, when Alinskyite radicals with the Chicago-based Alinsky group Gamaliel Foundation recruited, hired, trained and paid him as a community organizer in South Side Chicago. (Gamaliel’s website expressly states it grew out of the Alinsky movement.)

• In 1988, Obama even wrote a chapter for the book “After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois,” in which he lamented organizers’ “lack of power” in implementing change.

• Gamaliel board member John McKnight, a hard-core student of Alinsky, penned a letter for Obama to help him get into Harvard Law School.

• Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky’s Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes.
mp3Subscribe to the IBD Editorials Podcast

• In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics.

• Obama also taught Alinsky’s “Power Analysis” methods at the University of Chicago.

• During the presidential campaign, Obama hired one of his Gamaliel mentors, Mike Kruglik, to train young campaign workers in Alinsky tactics at “Camp Obama,” a school set up at Obama headquarters in Chicago. The tactics helped Obama capture the youth vote like no other president before him.

• Power would no longer be an issue, as Obama infiltrated the highest echelon of the political establishment — the White House — fulfilling Alinsky’s vision of a new “vanguard” of coat-and-tie radicals who “work inside the system” to change the system.

• After the election, his other Gamaliel mentor, Jerry Kellman (who hired him and whose identity Obama disguised in his memoir), helped the Obama administration establish Organizing for America, which mobilizes young supporters to agitate for Obama’s legislative agenda using “Rules for Radicals.”

Saul Alinsky’s son says his dad would be proud of Obama

“Obama learned his lesson well,” said David Alinsky, son of the late socialist. “I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing.”

She even tried to tie Alinsky to the Tea Party.

IBD was way too kind to O’Brien.

Is she really this clueless? Or is she covering for Obama? Either way, it does not reflect well on a journalist of her stature and influence.

O’Brien is not a journalist. She is a flack.

If Ann Coulter’s frantic unhinged rants on Bill O’Reilly’s and Sean Hannity’s show are any indication of Team Romney’s current mood and moral, Florida is Mitt Romney’s Alamo.

From Matt Drudge, who apparently has ties to Romney advisor Matt Rhoades, to the National Review and all the lesser imps in between, it is apparent Romney is sounding the bugle and rallying the troops to man the walls for a last stand in Florida. Why else would some of the greatest conservative names and publications write blistering articles about Newt Gingrich they know themselves to be filled with half truths and childish innuendo? What is it these parties stand to lose that has them alienating the conservative base, their followers, and their subscribers.

Examples are everywhere and plentiful. This one is from Ann Coulters latest ode to Mitt Romney titled “Re-Elect Obama: Vote Newt!”

“This is the sort of circular reasoning one normally associates with Democrats, people whom small-town pharmacists refer to as “drug seekers” and Ron Paul supporters.”

If I did not know any better I would have gotten the impression that Ann Coulter was calling Gingrich supporters drug addicts. I can only assume Ann Coulter is officially declaring her retirement after this primary if Romney is not the nominee. No one would make such idiotic comments about potential buyers of her books if she intended on writing one in the future. My advice to Ms. Coulter is to take a look in the mirror and You Tube her latest appearances before she starts labeling others “drug seekers”.

Matt Drudge has used the powerful Drudge Report with banner headlines attacking Newt Gingrich for days now. Blogs like Power Line and Hot Air run constant anti-Gingrich pro-Romney articles daily. One gets the impression that upon reading these blogs that a disclaimer of “My name is Mitt Romney. I not only approve of this message, I paid for it.” should be written in italics at the bottom of the page. To be sure the anti-whoever pro-Romney bent on these blogs has been going on for a while now. But since Newt Gingrich took down South Carolina, they have ramped up efforts to discredit him to such a furious clip that it is almost hard to keep up on why one should be hating Gingrich. Ethics charges, in which Gingrich was cleared of, crowd control at debates, to bringing up his and his wifes hair, nothing is off limits anymore. Soon we will see chickens, ducks, and sheep being catapulted over the walls of one of these debates Monty Python’s “Holy Grail” style trying to keep Gingrich and the audience out. Its like a high school hazing complete with adolescent antics, name calling, hormonal rage, and less planning. Credibility now seems to be an afterthought to these people.

The only explanation I can come up with is that Florida truly is Mitt Romney’s Alamo. Everything hinges on him winning Florida and his followers are treating it as such. Romney may continue if he loses, desperately hoping that Newt Gingrich will explode, which is another argument against Newt Gingrich I have yet to see an example of, but for the most part the Republican Establishment will themselves be moving on to their own Anyone-But-Romney candidate. The signs are already there that this is underway and Mitch Daniels seems to be plan B. What happens to Romney’s band of loyal pundits is any ones guess. I would recommend a nice long vacation, maybe some counseling. Some I fear will be wearing white sleeveless jackets in padded rooms while they are “away” trying to sort things out.

We will know soon enough.

We’ve all heard the story “The boy who cried wolf” about the boy who falsely cried out so often that when the wolf finally appeared none of the townsfolk came to his assistance because they assumed he was once again lying. The same thing has been happening in the United States with the charge of racism. The problem is, when the word racism is used so often by so many people in such patently absurd contexts the charge and the word cease to have any value.

Of course, what many people often refer to as racism is in reality racial discrimination, and in most cases the activity charged as racism is neither.

Racism is a belief in an inherent difference in the cognitive and physical abilities of members of different groups based on race, which manifest themselves in social and economic achievement. Such differences are usually organized in hierarchical manner putting the proponent of the theory’s race in the superior position.

Racial discrimination is the treatment or making a distinction, gift or punishment for or against, a person or group based on the race to which that person or persons belong rather than on individual / group merit.

The dilution of the charge of racism has been going on in the United States for decades. The housing crisis that brought about the economic meltdown in which we find ourselves today was the direct result of federal regulations intended to counteract false claims of racist / discriminatory practices on the part of mortgage lenders.

More recently the cries of racism have been thrown around like rice at a wedding since Barack Obama became a candidate for President. From individuals to Tea Party activists to radio talk show hosts, every disagreement with the policies of Barack Obama is at some point reduced to the simple charge of racism. It does not even appear as if race itself is a defense against such claims as can be seen by the denunciations of Herman Cain.

Is it possible that by 2012 the overuse of the charge of racism has finally contributed to its own demise? Perhaps two absurd events from last week will be a sign of the false charge’s swan song.

The first comes from Dallas and has to do with Microsoft’s purported “Avoid the Ghetto” app for smartphones – a name suggested by critics rather than the company. The app, which is said to use crime statistic data, is supposed to offer drivers and pedestrians the opportunity to set routes to their destination that avoid high crime areas.

Dallas NAACP President Juanita Wallace seems to be unhappy about the as of yet unavailable product: “It’s almost like gerrymandering,” she said. “It’s stereotyping for sure and without a doubt; I can’t emphasize enough, it’s discriminatory.” However, the app will not label communities based on race. It is not going to tell users to avoid minorities or minority communities. It is is rather simply going to inform users about neighborhoods where a high number of crimes have been reported and offer them alternative routes to getting to their destinations. Certainly James Cooper and James Kouzaris could have used it.

Whatever the demographics of the neighborhoods drivers or pedestrians avoid as a result of Microsoft’s app, claims of racism or racial discrimination are absurd. Crime is crime, regardless of who perpetrates it. Indeed, it is President Wallace who has suggested the connection between crime and minority communities, not Microsoft.

The second story comes from Burlington, Vermont. At a time when consumers are put off by many bank’s limited hours and increasingly automated services, TD Bank sees an opportunity to distinguish itself from its competitors by opening for business every day other than Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter Sunday and New Years Day. In the highly competitive marketplace the bank is seeking to succeed by providing more services to attract more customers. The result? The branch in Burlington, Vermont was picketed for being open and serving its customers on the MLK holiday. Protesters printed flyers suggesting the bank was racist: “Dear TD Bank, you are defying the King holiday. Shame, Shame, Shame. This is a racist act. Shame, Shame, Shame.”

In what universe is a company seeking to provide its clients – all clients, regardless of race – with better service acting in a racist, or more accurately, a racially discriminatory manner? Only in a leftist, victim mentality universe fueled by the Democratic Party.

As we approach the battle for the White House those of us who disagree with the policies of President Obama should be prepared to be labeled racists for virtually every utterance. Of course it is possible that the false charge of racism has jumped the shark and will finally be disregarded by citizens as just another Democratic tool of intimidation and slander. Possible, but unfortunately… unlikely.

I’m afraid it’s more likely to be another Hollywood creation, Freddy from the Friday the 13th franchise that more accurately characterizes the future of the false charge of racism. Even when it is so widely seen as debased and hollow, when it should be dead after so many false utterances, the charge of racism is likely to once again be an instrument of the left with which it seeks to intimidate conservatives and distract voters from the abject failure of decades of Democratic policies – whose victims are both black and white. That’s unfortunate because real examples of racism and racial discrimination do indeed exist, but because the left has purloined the charge for its insidious ends those real examples are far less likely to be taken seriously. And for that we are less well off.

We all knew this was coming but I have to agree with his indignation….the very first question?

He makes wonderful points while kicking some ass and then completely denies the allegation of the open marriage.

He also released his tax returns in a not too subtle dig at Mitt.

We all knew Newt was going down without a fight.

Meanwhile Santorum handled this question quite well, and it was pretty damn funny

Click here to view the embedded video.

UPDATE

Great post on Newt:

…CNN’s John King opened the Charleston debate with a direct question to Gingrich about his past. “Do you want to take a moment to address that?” King asked.

“No, but I will,” Gingrich replied. And he wound up his ire and spent the next few minutes pulverizing the media for digging into his past on the eve of the South Carolina primary. When King tried to deflect Gingrich’s wrath back off onto ABC, Gingrich would have none of it: King has brought up the issue in the debate, after all. King looked visibly cowed.

In the hotel bar in Charleston, SC where I ended up watching the debate, cheers went up to match the standing ovation Gingrich earned from the live audience. The other candidates all found themselves, rather than criticizing Gingrich’s past infidelity, piling onto his attack on the media.

…Newt Gingrich was not my preferred candidate, and still isn’t. But in these debates he has proven that Republicans love a fighter. We are tired of a biased media belittling us and denigrating, even undermining, us. We are tired of an ignorant media inflating nonsense and avoiding asking the other side the tough questions Republicans deal with every day. Like a Civil War general once accused of letting his personal problems get in the way of doing his duty, we may not be able to spare Newt Gingrich. He isn’t perfect, far from it. But he fights.

UPDATE

Good breakdown of the debate:

1. Romney can’t answer questions about his tax returns at all.

2. He’s terrible at it and he needs to get better, quickly.

3. John King trying to use Romney’s father as a precedent on the tax return issue was dumb.

4. Romney referred to “RomneyCare” tonight. I think that was a first, and not a good first for him.

5. He also made some sort of reference to coming from the “streets of America.” Romney is a fine man, but if there’s anyone less “street” than Mitt Romney I don’t know who it could be. If he’s street than I’m the shock collar for a vicious Mexican drug gang.

6. Newt’s opening answer was very strong and will be replayed a lot. But I thought it was overstated and as he kept going it became clear he was trying to squelch the issue rather than express his true rage. When he was all lovey-dovey with John King after the debate, it underscored that it was as much performance as anything else.

7. Ron Paul had some of his best moments of any debate. I really liked his answer on free trade. The problem, of course, is that he’s a theoretical free trader and an operational protectionist.

8. I was less impressed than most with Santorum tonight than a lot of folks seem to have been. But I still think he did very well, all things considered.

10. Santorum’s best moment came when he threaded the needle on immigration, sounding both tough and compassionate.

11. He also had the most dramatic moment dropping the House banking scandal bomb on Newt.

12. It is simply amazing that it took all this time (is this the 17th debate?) for anyone to really deliver a serious and cogent attack on RomneyCare.

The media’s long knives are out once again, and apparently it’s causing a war inside the network:

According to a breaking headline on Drudge Report, Marianne Gingrich — ex-wife of GOP candidate Newt Gingrich — dropped what sources claim is a game-changing bombshell about the former House Speaker — one that could “end” her ex-husband’s career. The interview, conducted last week by Brian Ross, is now causing major waves at the network, according to sources.

According to these sources, a “civil war” has since exploded at ABC on exactly when the confession will air.

The war behind the scenes? Some in the newsroom think it would be unethical to run this story before the SC primary.

I don’t believe it for a minute. This was leaked for a reason and that reason is to ensure the most liberal Republican gets the nomination….and then they go after him.

The MSM is fully behind Obama, fully behind the Democrat party. We all know what would happen if some kind of scandalous information came out about Obama. There wouldn’t be a “civil war” in the newsroom….it would just go away.

Civil war my ass.

A knowledgeable ABC source tells me it seems likely that the Marianne interview will run tomorrow.

Must of been a short civil war…

Shocking!

As for the “bombshell” itself, Allah has some guesses on what it might be. If he’s right then it’s nothing we haven’t all heard about Newt already.

UPDATE

Letter from Newt’s daughters to ABC

The failure of a marriage is a terrible and emotional experience for everyone involved. Anyone who has had that experience understands it is a personal tragedy filled with regrets, and sometimes differing memories of events.

UPDATE

Like I said, “civil war” my ass. Now they are going to try and directly affect the debate:

ABC spokesman confirms: Marianne Gingrich interview WILL air Thur on “Nightline.” Excerpts to be released earlier, i.e. before CNN debate.

The “it’s racist” attacks for the 2012 election have begun….

Ok, I lie…they began awhile ago but here is the latest example, this time from tingles:

Chris Matthews says the way Newt Gingrich pronounced moderator Juan Williams’ name at last night’s debate was a racially charged moment. Matthews, who would later sum this up as a “dog whistle,” made his case that this is racist because some people will “clearly hear” it while others “don’t want to hear it.”

So let me get this straight. Those who WANT to hear racism will “clearly hear” it. Everyone else is just…just….just RACIST dammit! How dare you boo clear race-baiting! All you Republicans are racist so just admit it and get it over with.

Sigh….

Just a few days ago we get one MSNBC dummy claiming Romney is racist for helping someone out. Now we get tingles claiming Newt is racist for calling someone by their name.

This is all they have, and it’s pathetic.

A few months prior to the 2008 election my friend The Destroyer of Colons asked me, “When Bush is gone, who are liberals going to hate?” He was only half joking. “Not to worry,” I assured him with a smile, “liberals can always find someone to designate as an object of their hatred.”

When I was in high school the priest who was teaching our Senior year psychology class had us write an essay based on the quote, “If God did not exist man would have to create him.” This was many years ago, but I recall my conclusion being something to the effect of saying that given mankind’s emotional and psychological needs if God did not exist we would have to create some divine being to believe in to give our lives greater meaning.

This was actually a blog post I was kicking around last year, looking back on 2008 when the focus of the left’s anger was directed toward Sarah Palin. It was almost surreal watching the hateful delight they took in watching our press journalistically rape her family while these same “professionals” ignored trivial matters like the horrifically flawed economic policies or lack of experience and questionable past of one party’s actual presidential candidate. Personally I’m not a big Palin fan – I see her as someone with very real flaws to go with some very real accomplishments, but the way she enunciates just grates on me (sorry, that’s just me). Then again, at least I generally agree with the substance of what she’s saying and if her speaking manner is fingernails on a blackboard to me hearing her talk is probably a tabasco sauce enema to leftists. For that matter, the fact that the very mention of her name can send most leftists into a seething, purple-faced rage will always earn her a place in my heart. Not to mention this past summer’s bus tour when the same press who had so much fun dumpster diving through her and her family’s lives were now crying that she was treating them like paparazzi – that was a thing of beauty.

Getting back on topic, it seems that no matter what the time is, the left has to have someone as their focus as their anger. Even in those early days of the Obama presidency when all was right in the world their focus went toward Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck – reliable standbys. And then came the Tea Party. If you missed it the first time, check out my two part posting illustrating the left’s anger toward the Tea Party as told through the five stages of death and dying.

The left threw out every bit of hateful invective that they had in their arsenal. The Tea Party was labeled astroturfers, racists, seditionists, idiots, rubes, and terrorists. Their crowning slur came when none of these charges stuck and the left threw to the most disrespectful, malevolent smear they could find toward the Tea Party – they compared the Tea Party to leftists.

Another interesting case study in leftist anger is the comic strip Doonesbury. While I once enjoyed it as an actual comic, over the last decade it’s morphed into a sounding board for the angry and bitter leftist, Garry Trudeau. From 2000 – 2008 his range of topics could be summed up as:

• Hatred for George Bush
• Hatred for Fox News
• Hatred for George Bush
• Hatred for Schwarzenegger
• Hatred for George Bush

And of course, during the 2008 presidential campaign Sarah Palin joined this crowd. Mix in some patronizing, if not outright disdain for the military, and that pretty much sums up every comic not involving the personal lives of the characters, although these themes are generally woven in as well. One would expect that with a president as spectacularly inept as President Obama, Trudeau would have a field day. So naturally his strips have become focused on hated for Palin, Donald Trump, the Tea Party, and of course sympathy for the OWSers and their distaste for… prosperity?

After following the progression of Bush-Chaney-Palin-Limbaugh- Beck-Tea Partiers-The Un-Romney of the Month, we find ourselves at Tim Tebow. For those of you unfamiliar Tim Tebow is a pro football player, and is currently the starting quarterback for the Denver Broncos. He has gained fame for his erratic style of play, leading his team to several improbable come-from behind wins. That made him famous in the sports world, but what took him beyond was his religion. To build on Dr. John’s analysis, Tebow became famous for combining his unusual talents with his spiritual beliefs. Tim Tebow is a devout Christian, and is quite public about it. “Tebowing”, the act of kneeling and bowing one’s head in prayer with fingertips on your forehead has become a national sensation in itself. He gained some notoriety for painting scripture verses in his eye black while playing college ball at the University of Florida. Tebow also caused a minor uproar during last year’s Super Bowl when he starred in an ad for a Pro-Life group, telling about how his mother had an at risk pregnancy where abortion was recommended, and how happy Tim Tebow and his mother were that she chose to have him. This created a bit of controversy, but no more than if a tasteful Pro-Choice ad had aired during the Super Bowl starring a famous female athlete. An example off of the top of my head would be if a top track star mentioned how getting pregnant in high school would have cost her a college scholarship and ensured a life in the impoverished place where she grew up. An ad like that would have gotten some criticism on the right, and would probably have blown over as quickly as Tebow’s ad did.

But then Tebow did the unforgivable – he became a famous Christian who is open about his faith. With the Denver Broncos’ poor play early on in the 2011 season Tim Tebow, who opened the season at #3 on the Broncos’ depth chart at Quarterback, was now the starter. And he started winning. And winning. And winning ugly. The team adjusted its offense to make the best use of Tebow’s athleticism and, let’s face it, terrible passing accuracy. Tebow had this strange habit of playing badly for three quarters and then pulling out an almost miraculous victory. I saw one person nickname Tebow “Uncle Miltie”, based on an NSFW-ish story about the late comedian Milton Berle that ends with the punch line, “just enough to win.”

The end of regular season’s performance (losses) by Tebow and the Broncos have bought Tebowmania back to Earth, but during his ascent and decline and once again ascent in his playoff win over the Steelers we’ve seen no shortage of venom from the left directed at this young man. David Schuster, the always reliably unhinged Bill Maher, even one of the more rational leftists in Bill Press all took their turns attacking Tebow. Heck, even The Nation, not exactly known as a sports publication, had to write several articles on the quarterback that the left loves to hate.

Why all of this hatred for someone who has done nothing wrong, or broken any laws? For that matter, while some may find his openness about his faith obnoxious, Tebow isn’t out trying to beat everyone he meets over the head with a Bible and preaching conversion. You know what else he isn’t doing? He’s not doing drugs. He’s not driving drunk. He’s not participating in dog fighting rings. He’s not bringing guns into nightclubs. He’s not fathering children out of wedlock to several different mothers. And he’s not murdering anyone. Granted, the matelote in each of the scenarios I just mentioned have gotten varying degrees of scorn for their actions, but none that were so ideologically centered. So why do leftists give the athletes in the categories I just mentioned a pass while directing so much venom at one man who most people would actually be happy to see their sister or daughter dating? It’s the same reason the left has so much hatred for the likes of Sarah Palin or the Tea Party.

They have to. Leftist policy just doesn’t work in the real world – look at Communism in Soviet Russia, Europe’s socialistic gradual death spiral (and that’s despite the US subsidizing their national defense) or or that matter, look no further than the White House. When Oregon was considering an Obamacare/Romneycare-esque health care mandate The Destroyer of Colons mused, “I hope that this bill passes, just so we can show leftists once and for all that government run health care doesn’t work.” I just shook my head and responded, “That won’t happen. Leftist policies never fail because they are bad ideas, only because greedy individuals refuse to throw enough money at their bad ideas.”

This is what leads to the Left’s permanent state of anger. When your bad ideas don’t work you can either reflect on them and learn from it, or you can cling to your bad ideas and be angry because nobody gets your genius. Without introspection as an option, a target must be found – hence the left’s continuous rotating figurehead as the object of their anger.

Even worse is how badly it is often misdirected. Look at the OWS’ers and their anger at… something. Granted, most of the movement is made up of Unionistas, career grievance mongers (Code Pink, ACORN, etc), students who have no idea what the real world is like, and criminals. These are all traditional Democrat-leaning groups, but at some point one would think that the Obama-rose-colored glasses have to come off and the realization has to set in that the president and Congress are the reason our economy is flagging. Maybe people who demonize profitability and threaten to punish the prosperity that leads to job creation are why companies are afraid to hire. On a personal level, maybe their facial piercings, lack of personal hygiene, and sense of entitlement are why nobody wants to hire them for any of the ever-scarcer job openings. Sorry, but the 12-16 years spent getting gold stars and being told you’re special for just showing up are over.

Again, rather than look at the causes of their unhappiness it is easier for the left to lash out in unthinking rage. The worst example that would actually be comical if it weren’t so disgusting was the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords. So blinded by their hatred for Sarah Palin were the leftists that they had to manufacture an excuse to pretend that she was somehow responsible for the shooting. To make matters worse, when she called them on their idiocy, they double downed on stupid and got even angrier at her simply for pointing out the error of their ways. And the sad part is the lefties started shrieking about how classless and stupid Palin was for doing so, when the place they should have been looking was the mirror.

This is not to say that all leftists are constantly out looking for someone to hate to fill the void in their lives. I understand that the tone of this post is a lot more accusatory than what I usually write but, as I dispel my own straw man a better question does come from it. Why does there always seem to be someone in the news who is the object of leftist anger, and why is it so viscous?

So where will Tebow go? Maybe he fizzles out by losing to the New England Patriots this weekend as badly as he did a few weeks ago, or maybe he goes on to win the Super Bowl.

"Only Tim Tebow can save us now!"

My favorite take on Tebow came in ESPN columnist DJ Gallo’s weekly satire of Peter King’s "Monday Morning Quarterback." In this week’s "The Hangover" Gallo speculates as to where Tebow may be in twelve years:

"Will a wholesome, handsome ex-football star who can draw the religious vote and appeal to the tens of millions of Oprah-loving pop psychologists win 51 percent of the vote in the 2024 presidential election? No, he will win 91 percent of the vote in the 2024 presidential election. The 9 percent who don’t vote for him will just be hard-core Raiders, Chargers, Chiefs, Alabama, LSU, Georgia and Ron Paul fans."

Tebow for President in 2024!

I’m kidding, of course. The only person to get Brother Bob’s coveted endorsement for president is none other than the great Stannis Baratheon.

But until then we have Tim Tebow.

“A Big Win for Romney in Iowa” Karl Rove

“Romney’s huge win” Dick Morris

“A big win for Romney” Carter Eskew

“Media Downplay Big Win For Romney In Iowa” Editorial, Investors Business Daily

Come on man? Investors Business Daily too?

The first three headlines I expected. If there were to be a vote on who would be the face next to the entry for “Republican Establishment” in Merriam and Webster’s dictionary 2012 Edition it would be Karl Rove. Dick Morris is the “Smeagol” of Washington D.C. political pollsters and insiders. One never knows if he is being serious or just trying to get headlines to regain his “precious”, relevancy. Walter Eskew works for the Washington Post, that in itself is enough damning evidence but lord knows Jennifer Rubin could have had a gun to the back of his head as well. The one that surprised me is the usually sane Investors Business Daily editorial. Et tu IBD? Et tu?

Let us get down to the bottom of this pom-pom waiving for Mitt Romney. The “Republican Establishment” knows the support for Mitt Romney is weak and tenuous at best. They need this to be a “Big Win” for Romney not because Iowa is important, hell none of the votes actually count from Tuesday, they are non-binding. They are really setting up the win in New Hampshire to be more significant than that will actually be as well. Everyone knows Romney will win New Hampshire. Why do you think everyone from K street lobbyist to National Review has been planning road trips to Manchester. That’s when they all declare that Romney is officially inevitable. A massive wave of Romney love sweeping across the nation and all other primaries are foolish to ride against the Romney tide.

It is in fact the only strategy that can work for candidate Romney. No matter how long they stand beside him looking into the mirror repeating reaffirming phrase to themselves he is still only going to be Mr. 25%. They know this so the plan all along has been to basically wear the conservative base down till they throw up their hands and say “Screw it!”, just give up, and commit themselves once again to dragging their unenthusiastic butts down to the polls pulling the lever for a person they do not believe in hoping that next time they get someone they can be enthusiastic about.

The one thing these Ivy League political savants have not seemed to put into this equation is that the conservative base is teetering on the edge of saying “Screw You!” And either continuing to drop in behind the latest Anyone But Romney du jour, going third party, or in the end just staying home. Does the Republican Establishment even care?

I don’t think they do.

Number of years campaigning in Iowa: 5

Cost per vote: $126.00+

Percentage of vote gained: 25%

Number of votes acquired in year 2012 over 2008: -6

Image of Dick Morris looking up Karl Roves skirt while doing Statue of Liberty position………

Disgustingly priceless.