I Love Ann Coulter Even When She Is Wrong

Ann Coulter is wrong about Newt Gingrich. She is wrong about Mitt Romney. She is wrong about President Obama. Since the election race began, Ann Coulter has been wrong about near everything having to do with the GOP race in 2012. Yet, she’s still smarter than near everyone out there. I love Ann Coulter, even when she’s wrong.

Gingrich won the South Carolina primary by 13% over Romney. In vote total, that is 75,874 more votes for Gingrich. In context, Gingrich beat Romney by a vote total only 2000 less than Rep. Ron Paul got overall. On FOX and Friends on Sunday, Coulter responded to the victory by Gingrich in the South Carolina by admonishing the voters:

Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall…We saw it in the debates when Gingrich would say things that didn’t really make sense. That is what you usually associate with Democrats, which I described in my last book, ‘Demonic,’ how mobs behave.

Coulter commenting negatively on snotty remarks is like Bill Maher commenting negatively on snotty remarks. The bigger, more accurate story is that Gingrich’s remarks were not snotty, they were accurate. South Carolina agreed that it was wrong of CNN’s John King to start a debate with so-called scandal described by Gingrich’s ex-wife Marianne Gingrich. The applause that Gingrich got Thursday night in Charleston is about a disgust for sensationalism over content. In exit polling, women voted overwhelmingly for Gingrich. If that trend follows in Florida, then it can be clearly said that female primary voters don’t care about Gingrich’s bedroom.

Coulter is wrong about the idea of electability. Legal Insurrection made this point about Coulter’s thoughts just last year: (emphasis mine)

In February 2011 she told us at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) that Romney was a certain loser against Obama, now she tells us he will win. Her excuse was that she was“sick” at CPAC. She also played the birther card on the Tea Party in making the case for Romney. Inexcusable and unforgivable. Coulter’s endorsement of Romney does not a case for Romney make.

The idea of Romney electability of Obama is a myth. It is pushed by Romney supporters with tremendous passion and desire for it to be truth, but it is not. Proof shows just the opposite, as Romney lost in Iowa and South Carolina. The “inevitable” front runner is 1 for 3. Good in baseball, less good in politics. On my radio show, and in interviews across the country, I have stated that Obama can’t win re-election. Any of the men on stage right now will win over Obama.

In South Carolina, both Sen. Rick Santorum and political analyst Dick Morris made sure to stop by the Blogger Bash after their back to back appearances on Hannity Friday night. In front of a gathering of bloggers and radio hosts, Morris made the same point; Obama won’t we re-election. He went so far as to say that Republicans will win 40 states in the general election with any candidate (sans Rep. Ron Paul.)

Coulter might still be feeling scorned by her one true love, Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, who decided not to run for President. While questions about his conservatism persist, people love Christie’s tone, mannerisms, and attitude. They love that he’s no nonsense, that he takes on all comers. They salivate for those videos where people try to challenge him. They watch them in their entirety…waiting eagerly for the eventual smack down. Then, they cheer wildly, and share the videos on Twitter and Facebook and G+, in emails and at computer work stations. People like honesty, and respond to those who act firmly in the face of usually unanswered leftist assaults.

Coulter followed Christie in backing Romney. Romney, however, has none of these qualities. He has responded to one questioner on the concept of Capitalism with some aplomb. Otherwise, he comes off as quasi-hysterical. When he took on Gov. Rick Perry (in a conversation about hiring illegals) about who had the right to speak at the moment, his voice was not that of a man in control, but rather a scorned child who wanted her oompa-loompa now! When on FOX with Bret Baier, he called the interview absurd. Just take a look at him answering questions about when he will release his tax returns. He mumbles, he bumbles, he takes offense. Only when trounced by Gingrich does he set a firm date for their release.

Trounced, it must be said, by a man who takes on all comers, who is willing to take on the media, who isn’t afraid of a heckler. Trounced by a man who has people salivating over his debate performances. They watch them in their entirety…waiting eagerly for the eventual smackdown. Then, they cheer wildly. It’s not that they agree with Gingrich on everything, or agree with every political or personal decision he has ever made. They like someone who fights to win. They like Christie. They like Gingrich. They LOVE Ann Coulter! They would like Romney if he did the same. So far, he doesn’t.

Ann Coulter will continue to dominate big think, and will continue to do us proud when it comes to taking on nonsensical leftist talking points. She will eviscerate those who haven’t done their research. She will do it with a smile, with a historical understanding about America, its culture and its values. When she does, we will watch and cheer wildly.

I love this woman. She’s just wrong about the 2012 race.

I’m live in Iowa, and I hope you’ll join us for our LIVE CAUCUS COVERAGE starting Sunday, January 1st at 8pm EST/5pm PST. Just CLICK HERE to see the show!

Joining me will be Craig Robinson, editor and publisher of The Iowa Republican.com. Also, we’ll have political analysts from all around the country, and in-studio guests as well.

Tonight, our guests include Robert Stacy McCain and James Poulos.

On my radio show, a caller recently commented on the “inevitability” of Gov. Mitt Romney with an astute observation – who’s getting all the endorsements?  He had a point.  Former Senator and Presidential candidate Bob Dole (R-KS), Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC), Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), former Vice President Dan Quayle and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), amongst others, have endorsed Romney’s candidacy, not Perry.

It begs a question – why would three prominent bloggers be going the other way?  In the most recent Gallup poll, Romney was at 24% (just behind Newt Gingrich at 26%) while Perry was tied with Rep. Michele Bachmann at 7%.  At Public Policy Polling, Romney is at 22%, Perry is at 6%.  The most recent Rasmussen poll in Iowa has Romney in the lead at 23%, with Perry at 10%.

Certainly, Flynn, McLaughlin and Ace can read polls.  And certainly, Flynn, McLaughlin and Ace know the story on Perry – great at retail politics, but those debate performances can not be over looked.  Perry took it on the chin regarding his decision to “force” HPV inoculations on young girls. His line about not having a “heart” regarding immigration still has conservatives in a state of apoplectic shock.  His fading in the latter parts of debates brought fear to the base, and his 53 seconds of torture was quite literally torture for those watching, and fodder for the Obama camp in a general.

But when BigGovenment.com, RedState and Ace Of Spades HQ speak, people listen.  Flynn, McLaughlin and Ace are not reactionary men, which can not be said for those politicos who back expediency and opportunity over conviction and substance.  On BigGovernment.com, Flynn accepts the flubs of Perry, but comes back to what he views as most important – his record:

Rick Perry is the only candidate with a successful record of governing. That and, more importantly, what he has accomplished in governing make him the clear choice for President

Flynn is also clear to point out that his endorsement isn’t anti- Romney/Gingrich, it’s pro-Perry:

This isn’t simply an endorsement against Gingrich and Romney; it is an endorsement FOR Rick Perry. Perry is the longest serving governor in Texas history, a state with a long-standing tradition of voting incumbents out of office…. He has cut taxes by billions. He has rejected federal dollars when he thought the feds where overstepping their authority….he spearheaded a landmark medical malpractice reform which reversed the exodus of doctors out of the state and is steadily improving the health care market in Texas.

At RedState, McLaughlin has a more direct approach in his article, “Don’t Settle: Rick Perry for President.”  While not a site endorsement, McLaughlin’s article is undersigned by a slew of Red State.com contributors.  His case is simple; if you are a conservative, you are voting for Rick Perry:

Perry is the most reliable conservative in the race. He has made his share of missteps over 25 years in public life, as have all the candidates, but…Perry hasn’t zigzagged or flip-flopped his way through his career, and he’s not overtaken by a new enthusiasm every week. Neither flights of fancy nor bipartisan consensus for its own sake are in his nature. His long record in office, and his base of support, place him well to the right of Mitt Romney and – on the great issues of the day – to the right of Newt Gingrich as well. Judging the men just by their records, Perry can be counted on to govern to the right of either.

McLaughlin also takes on the obvious fault in a Perry campaign to date – ‘poor’ debate skills:

…debating skill takes on outsize importance in the primaries, when candidates have to stand out on a stage crowded with 7 or 8 people who all agree with each other 80-90% of the time. All Rick Perry needs to do is step onstage and everyone will know how he’s different from Barack Obama.

While one can argue the importance of debate performance in a Presidential contest, (just ask Nixon about Kennedy) we’re not talking about flop sweat and shifty eyes with Perry.  And I would say with conviction that McLaughlin is not making a race analysis here.  Rather, the demeanor, attitude and general principles of Perry will be understood.  And that understanding will, in the view of McLaughlin and his other RedState contributors, lead to votes and victory.

Ace gives a compelling endorsement, focused first on the issue of character:

First, biographical and character details….a certain type of candidate tends to prevail in elections, and that type of candidate tends to have a positive narrative in biographical and characterological traits….Rick Perry did not marry his high school sweetheart. He married his gradeschool sweetheart. He has never been divorced…Those who discount the importance of that, especially to women voters, are making an error, I think.

Then, focusing on actual experience:

America, and especially the Republican party, has long favored elevating governors to the presidency. Governors are, after all, the presidents of single states. They have nearly the exact same duties and functions (including even maintaining and controlling the state national guards). They have similar executive powers and set the agendas for their respective legislatures. In the case of border states such as Texas, they even require some foreign policy making duties….So Rick Perry cannot handle high executive office?  Then how is it he’s been doing just that for 11 years?

Ace ends by using the leftist characterization of Perry against them, and reminding all of us – in a tongue-in-cheek way – that, in government, less is more:

I do know Perry’s Core Four…Keep taxes as low as possible…Keep the regulatory climate “fair and predictable”…Start producing energy here in America…Make Washington, D.C. as “inconsequential to your lives as possible,”…

Those are the four things Perry seems committed too. Those are the four ideas he has.  Perhaps he’s not smart enough to have more ideas than that. Which is fine with me. I don’t want a President with many more ideas than that.

That’s how we got here, after all.

Flynn, McLaughlin and Ace are making the case for winning.  They are saying that Conservatism wins elections, and Perry is the best choice for those who believe in the better America.  The politicos are saying that winning elections wins elections, and Romney is the best choice to win against Obama.

As the race moves forward, with the Iowa Caucuses only two weeks away, a true divide has taken place. In its camps are the old and new guard – the elected officials and entrenched politicians with millions of dollars and high-level connections, and the new faces of new media with millions of followers and a high trust factor.

Who will win sway with the voters?

While Cain has stated that he would no longer address the issue, the latest charges from Bialek, flanked by celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, have forced his hand, and forced this latest press conference. Here are my first thoughts:

Cain appears on camera with a lawyer, Lin Wood, who takes the podium first. If Herman Cain is trying to show America that he is taking these charges “head on,” he has started on the wrong foot, using a lawyer to protect him. Yes, private citizen Cain is more than entitled to lawyer up, and he is right to seek legal counsel. But this is a press conference to show America that Herman Cain can take on all comers, all “liars” as he has called them. Cain showed up with a human shield. In my view, not a position of strength. Wood has called on the American people to show Cain “fairness.” It is Cain’s job to tell us what happened, and show his strength.  Having your lawyer tell us to be fair is not strong.

Cain takes the podium, and makes mention that he will be reading from notes – something he never does. He also wants to make the strong point that he is taking his message directly to the American people, not through a third party. (This is not necessarily true, considering Wood just left the podium.)

Cain denies the allegation. He claims, clearly, that he did not recognize the woman, nor her name. He is emphatic about this.

The charges, and the accusations, I absolutely reject. They simply did not happen.

And, in a blink of an eye, he pivots into his stump speech.  He starts talking about how the American people are tired of politicians.  He continues that he – nor the American people – won’t allow politics to shake him.  He is also clear that he is not giving up his run for President.

I will not be deterred by false, anonymous, incorrect allegations.

Cain continues on this theme, stating that we can not allow dishonesty to “distract us.”  He also states how tough it has been over the past two weeks.  But, he is ready to do what is tough, and knows that “we will get through this.”

Cain is now discussing the Democrat machine in America.  Cain is going to have to explain this, considering that he has come out on several occasions saying that the Rick Perry camp made the initial leak to Politico, and has considered a lawsuit against Politico.

Cain also invoked his wife, saying that she saw the press conference of Bialek, and that she didn’t think her statement could be accurate.  He also says that his family should be left out of this, and the media should not go after his family. Cain talks about his reputation, and how it took 40 years to build – citing the work he has done with business and employees.

I will vigourosly defend my reputation.

He is now repeating his original statement, that he has “never acted inappropriately” and that what Bialek is suggesting is false.  Cain then opened up the conference to question, and, after the first question from a CBS reporter, states that he would take a lie detector test.  Remember that, because that may be the next big thing.  Will Cain take the test, or won’t he?  In my opinion, that was a huge mistake.

As for the press conference, he did not leave himself any wiggle room.  He has left himself no out of any kind if further charges – with substantiated proof – should come to light.  This entire press conference would have been much better if Cain hadn’t let the lawyer start, and I won’t back away from the fact that it showed weakness.

Cain was, throughout, cool, calm and collected.  As his supporters will say, “Presidential.”  However, what Cain has done is perhaps not what he hoped.  His desire (or so I presume) was to put this behind him, and to show that he is able to take on all comers.  While he clearly, and without any hysterics or over-the-top rhetoric denied the charges, he somewhat laid down the gauntlet – begging people (without necessarily saying so) to prove him wrong.  I’m reminded of Gary Hart….maybe that’s just me.

I look forward to your thoughts about the press conference in the comments.

USA Weekend Gives Liberal Celebs a Pass

Over the past month, the Los Angeles Times has started delivering the Sunday circulars to my doorstep, along with every other doorstep in the neighborhood.

While I’m not sure of an official reason, one could posit that subscriptions to the Time are so far down that they must meet their obligations to advertisers and get the glossy fliers out to a certain amount of people. Whatever the reason, along with the fliers for the big box stores was an edition of USA Weekend.  On top, it read Los Angeles Times | Times Select.

In it was the typical Hollywood news (‘Justified’ is being renewed!), some consumer report-type articles, and a big feature on kids being healthy and happy. Also mixed in were two stories of less than 500 words each. One was meant as an homage to leftist dogma, the other a flat-out lie.

First, the dogma showed up in a 150+ word article about actor Ian Somerhalder. The actor plays Damon on CW’s ‘The Vampire Diaries’ (before this, he played Boone on ‘Lost’). In the piece, they talk about him being a heartthrob, about how down home he is, as he comes from Louisiana. They even mention he was teased as a child. His football teammates at his Catholic high school dubbed him a “pretty boy” because of his career as a model. All of this set up showing Somerhalder as a regular guy to get to the hit, when he proclaims that he is an “environmentalist,” stating:

We humans are like cancers: We multiply and take, take, take. Now I want to give, give, give.

An article that was quick to point out his TV cred, as well as the near 1 million Twitter followers he has, is highlighting his environmentalism  - where he calls human beings “cancer.”  Is USA Weekend aware of how dangerous this kind of talk is?

The last person to talk of human beings this way was James Lee, also an avowed environmentalist, who tried to take hostages at the Discovery building in Silver Spring, MD.  Along with planting bombs on himself, and around the building, he had a list of demands for Discovery channel, which included:

The Discovery Channel and it’s affiliate channels MUST have daily television programs….where solutions to save the planet would be done…. Focus must be given on how people can live WITHOUT giving birth to more filthy human children since those new additions continue pollution and are pollution. All programs on Discovery Health-TLC must stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions.

“Parasitic human infants.”  ”Cancers.”  This is who USA Weekend wants our kids to look up to and follow on Twitter.

The second article focused around actor Kal Penn, who can be seen in the third installment of the Harold and Kumar films, ‘A Very Harold and Kumar 3D Christmas’ starting Nov. 4th. Penn is also noted for leaving Hollywood during a stint on the popular Fox drama ‘House.’ Penn’s character was killed off (via suicide) so that the actor could go to work for the Obama administration in the Office of Public Engagement in 2009. In 2011, Penn was back in Hollywood making his third movie in the stoner comedy series. Asked about his return to filmmaking, Penn said:

It’s sort of like the yin and the yang. What I love about D.C. is the intellectual focus, and what I love about L.A. is the creative focus. It’s nice to be back and working the other part of your brain.

I don’t know Penn, but as an outsider looking in I don’t buy this response. Penn believed so much in Obama that he campaigned for him and gave up a starring role on one of the highest rated shows on TV at the time to work for him. Less than two years later, he returns to Hollywood to pick up his movie career.

What happened to serving the people? Or, more to the point, what happened to serving Obama? Or buying into the Obama thesis – that the private sector is bad? Was no thought given to the words of the First Lady, who chastised Americans for engaging the private sector, telling them to make less money working in the public sector for the good of their nation?

Penn’s return to Hollywood isn’t about being creative; it’s about the money. The creative side of the brain can be expanded anywhere. He could paint. He could write in a journal. He could be a mime on the weekends, entertaining crowds of people on the National Mall. But he chose to return to Hollywood to make a living.

There is nothing – NOTHING – wrong with that. But it’s the lack of honesty and transparency that makes the USA Weekend piece so off-putting. His choice to return to a million-dollar career was not mentioned, just his desire to return to “creativity.”

After these two articles, it’s no wonder the LA Times is dropping circulars on my doorstep each Sunday without me having to subscribe.

OWS supporters are doing a poor job of convincing me that they’re not anti-Semites

In a Wednesday appearance on the Russia Today television network, I discussed the violent confrontations between police officers and Occupy Wall Street protesters earlier this week in Oakland, California. I made it clear that I don’t condone police brutality. In fact, I am vehemently opposed to an oppressive police state. I also explained that though I disagree with the protesters’ radical agenda, I agree that cronyism is a real problem. Government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers on Wall Street, Main Street or any other street.

The segment lasted for the better part of 20 minutes. I had a spirited but friendly back-and-forth with my fellow panelist, OWS supporter Charlie McGrath. We agreed that there is no such thing as “too big to fail.” We agreed that violent rhetoric won’t help Occupy Wall Street get its message across (I still question what OWS’s message is, but certainly large-scale skirmishes with Occupiers hurling paint at police punctuated by tear gas being used on the protesters won’t make the message any clearer.) McGrath and I also agreed that it was strange that the show’s host kept showing clips of Rage Against the Machine guitarist Tom Morello at OWS rallies and asking us to comment on what he was saying.

Despite all these areas of agreement, the OWS-supporting viewers weren’t satisfied. In fact, many were furious. While a few supported my being on the show, the majority focused on my contention that many Occupiers are anti-Semites. Note: I have not edited the below comments from the Russia Today YouTube channel.

One commenter, “largegrainofsalt,” asserted that the fact that the protesters have observed Jewish holidays proves that they aren’t anti-Semitic:

tony wasn’t just an ass, he was demonstrably wrong. the protests are not in any way anti-semetic. several of the larger protest held events for a jewish holiday recently.

His comment was surrounded by others that undermine his thesis:

Tony Katz? What kind of surname is Katz? Another Jew-Zionist pig!!!!! This should speak volumes of what his message and hidden intent is: to protect the criminal dirt-bag jew element who have been ruining the world for decades. — waddietwo

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/ows-supporters-are-doing-a-poor-job-of-convincing-me-that-theyre-not-anti-semites/#ixzz1c8kw3DoE

Big Peace Outhinks Think Progress, Sen. McCain on Libya, Sharia

At the end of August, the great minds at Think Progress were horrified at the prospect that Libya, if Gadhafi lost power, would end up being an Islamist nation utilizing Sharia Law as the foundation for its political and legal system.  More to the point, Think Progress was feigning horror at those on the political right who referenced a blog from The Heritage Foundation that highlighted a draft constitution, and made the case for this possibility.  From the blog: (emphasis mine)

Much of the document describes political institutions that will sound familiar to citizens of Western liberal democracies, including rule of law, freedom of speech and religious practice, and a multi-party electoral system.

But despite the Lockean tenor of much of the constitution, the inescapable clause lies right in Part 1, Article 1: “Islam is the Religion of the State, and the principal source of legislation is Islamic Jurisprudence (Sharia).”Under this constitution, in other words, Islam is law. That makes other phrases such as “there shall be no crime or penalty except by virtue of the law” and “Judges shall be independent, subject to no other authority but law and conscience” a bit more ominous.

Think Progress thought this was such a good way to go after the political right (in attempt to demonize them as scare-mongers and anti-Muslim) that they made a video attacking FOX News reporting the draft constitution, and highlighting Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) as the voice of reason:

embedded by Embedded Video

YouTube Direkt

The clip involves numerous interviews on FOX programs, where McCain spends time praising the interim government, including a statement that these are people “…he knows well.”  In one segment during an interview with Steve Doocy on FOX AND FRIENDS, McCain sounded very sure about the situation with the Constitution in Libya:

Doocy: They can be talking about Sharia Law as the basis of their new constitution, and so what we might wind up with over there is something closer to a radical islamic government.  And that’s not what we want.

McCain: Well, first of all, that’s not going to happen, and this business

Doocy: I hope you’re right.

McCain: about a constitution, I mean Sharia Law.  They made a statement last March where  they specifically stated that it is their mission that the rights of women and the equality of women are insured.

Two days after the Heritage blog came out, BigPeace.com contributor Clare Lopez stated: (emphasis mine)

By dealing preferentially with the Muslim Brotherhood and other shariah-adherents in both Egypt and Syria, U.S. leadership is enabling the substitution of secular tyranny with Islamic tyranny in both places.  If the U.S. does the same thing in Libya and fails to provide strong, visible support to the genuine democrats, liberals, and reformers that do still exist in Libya, the outcome there will not be the one dreamy-eyed groupies of the Arab Spring envisioned, butanother new regime, founded on Islamic law, that is hostile to American interests and those of our remaining friends and allies

And just days after the killing of Gadhafi by rebel forces, reports have surfaced that, indeed, Libya will use Sharia Law as its foundation.  As reported by The Times of India:

Islamic sharia law will prevail in Libya and any existing laws that contradict this will be repealed, National Transitional Council leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil said on Monday.  ”As an Islamic country, we have adopted Sharia as the principal law….As an example is the law on divorce and marriage … This law is contrary to Sharia and it has been scrapped.”

For those keeping score: +1 for FOX News, +1 for BigPeace.com, -1 for Sen. McCain, -1 for Think Progress.  The big losers, however, are the people of Libya who will now go from bad to unthinkably worse.  -2 for President Obama, for leading from behind, and, as Lopez described, for failing to provide the “strong, visible support” needed to bring about a better result for the Libyans, and the world.

Tea Party and OWS — No Comparison

Steve Annear has an article on Metro.US about the new safety team circulating the Tent City Square, a.k.a. Occupy Boston, a satellite of the original Occupy Wall Street. According to Annear, a team of eight people – armed with neon vests and walkie-talkies – patrol the make-shift town to keep the “residents” safe.
Why is this necessary?  According to the article:

On the heels of an incident last Sunday night, when a heroin addict allegedly pulled a knife on protesters and urinated on a tent….One guard donning a neon vest, who declined to give his name, said they are trying to keep the peace by “rounding up junkies and trying to kick them out,” adding that the so-called junkies have continually been a problem.

I have organized, hosted and spoken at Tea Party events around the country, and we never – ever! – have had to organize a safety team.  Tea Party participants, who’ve gathered in cities and towns all across the country, have never had to worry about their safety from within the movement – - only from without. (see: SEIU) Never once has there been a report of a “heroin addict” urinating on tents….then again, there have been no tents!  After each event, Tea Partiers return to their families, work/job search, school, etc. Heroin addicts don’t seem to be attracted to the Tea Party. And we make sure to have our rallies near public restrooms (usually associated with the properly-permitted spaces) or provide port-o-potties.

There is a difference in the participants, because there is a difference in the cause. The Tea Party is based on what I call “The Four Basics” – - The Constitution, Capitalism, Fiscal Responsibility and Smaller Government.  In a broader sense, it is based on shared ideals for the country. The Tea Party advocates smaller, leaner, more pragmatic government; equality of opportunity. We do, all of us in the Tea Party, “…hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

People are made equal.  What they do with their lives is up to them!  The Occupiers are promoting anti-Semitism, the return of the guillotine (while “maybe” a joke at first, many think it is a good idea, and that I should be under it!), a hodge-podge of hate, vitriol and false truths.

The people of OWS don’t look to the future, to a better America, to a free and prosperous people unencumbered by government overreach to pursue their dreams, wants and desires.  OWS is long removed from its proposed (legitimate?) objective – exposing and objecting to the federal government picking winners and losers on Wall Street and the too-close relationship often engaged between – and is now focused on, well, nothing. They are promoting Communism, a failed system of failed people predicated on a impossible, inchoate proposition that all people can be forced into equality.

The Tea Party promotes a better future, based on the prodigy of our Founding Fathers.  OWS promotes lies, based on the abject failure of the Marxist thesis. Their once (potentially?) worthwhile message has been, unfortunately, hijacked by proud socialists and Marxists, the Democratic party, the unions, and a smattering of Hollywood – the latter three all hoping that OWS can be the Left’s version of the Tea Party, thus giving them something positive to look to in this upcoming election season.

The article continued, with one of the “guards” explaining the situation:

“People wander in here high and drunk and try and get in tents…You’re always going to have drunk a—holes, wherever you go,” he said. “The safety team is pretty efficient. It’s not like this is a junkie haven.”

The reality is, you don’t have drunk “a—holes” wherever you go.  It actually depends on where you go. The Tea Party went towards a more prosperous America, rooted in the Constitution that allows people to live to the moment of their happiness.  OWS went towards “eat the rich,” urinating on tents, threatening reporters, blaming the Jews and sexual harassment.

There is no comparison.

Gingrich and Santorum, and then The Losers

After watching the GOP debate in Las Vegas, only one thing is for sure – Mitt Romney is fallible. Everything else is up in the air. So, here now is my ranking of the winners and losers in this debate. Trust me, I know that half of you will disagree, half of you will agree and the other half will do both. Here it goes:

1 – Newt Gingrich.  Now, Michelle Malkin may unfollow me on Twitter after this ranking (I really hope she doesn’t, I’m a huge fan!), but Gingrich’s superior performance in tonight’s debate is undeniable. He kept the focus on Obama. He refused to participate in the in-fighting. He scored points on  all the issues – Latinos in the US, nuclear waste, Obamacare.  Yes, he took a hit from Romney about his one-time support for an individual mandate – which should be framed in the context of opposing Hillary care in the 90′s – but it won’t be enough to derail his victory.  Gingrich took a pro-American stance, sounded like a commander-in-chief, and will have former Perry supporters looking his way.

2 – Rick Santorum.  Turns out not taking hits can make you a winner (just look at Romney over the past few debates.)  I don’t give Rick a chance to win the primary nomination, but he is one great scrapper!  He was consistent on his push for American Exceptionalism and in his belief in G-d and the family.  He was also fearless, whether taking on Romney, Cain, Paul, Perry or Bachmann.  We are not ranking who will be the nominee, we are ranking who won the debate.  Santorum came in second.

3 – Ron Paul.  Again, it’s about the debate.  And much of this debate continued the theme of the Bloomberg debate.  As Ed Morrissey commented via Twitter, “Fascinating — we’re more than an hour in, and we’re still talking about economics after the econ debate.”  That worked in Paul’s favor, where his comments on the Fed, government spending, healthcare and even foreign aid were well received by the audience. Unfortunately, Paul pushed memes that don’t connect, and lead people down a path of conspiracy theory – including the calling of America an “empire.” This is Paul’s last shot at the presidency, and he is in it till the end. He will always hit strong on the debate; he will always fall flat on foreign policy.

4 – Tie. Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, Herman Cain.  It’s not possibly for me to say which one did worse, and each had his moments.  Romney proved he can be provoked.  He proved that he can get scrappy.  He proved that he can get in the Gingrich-esqe zinger (especially when he talked about Perry having a tough time in debates lately.)  But he didn’t act like a president.  His scolding didn’t come across as leadership. He allowed himself to be dragged into every two-bit schoolyard brawl. He has been masterful at being above the fray.  That ended tonight…and ended ugly.

Perry had energy and vitality tonight.  He was awake, ready to rumble. He came out swinging. However, if the bar for being successful in a debate is staying awake, the bar hasn’t gotten too far off the floor.  Perry did not bring new ideas to America. He reached for his energy plan and then struggled to clearly explain it. His supporters admit he might not be the best debater.  This is an understatment; you don’t have to be a great debater to be able to deliver your practiced speech about energy independence in the United States. Perry only gave reasons for his supporters to look at Cain or Gingrich.

As for Cain, he was winning this debate.  Yes, he was forced to defend his plan for the first 15 minutes of the debate, but it was HIS plan!  Cain was smart, he was aware, he was clear-thinking.  The reiteration of his comments on Occupy Wall Street worked well for Cain.  It strengthened his base.  Then he was asked about negotiating with terrorists, and his words on Gitmo detainees.  And as I tweeted during the debate, “Cain gets one foreign policy question, and stumbles….stunning.”  Cain needed to be strong on foreign policy to guarantee himself front runner status.  Instead, after the debate, he was quoted as saying, “…mea culpa…my bad.  Y’all got that?  I misspoke.  I don’t want to negotiate with terrorists.”  And that’s how quickly you go from winning to losing a debate….and perhaps an election.

7 – Michelle Bachmann.  Bachmann simply doesn’t want to win.  Anyone who wanted to win would not engage the American public the way she does.  She had the right answers on the border, on taxation, on American Exceptionalism.  Then she did the most unseemly thing possible – she spoke to “moms.” It was like watching a Lifetime movie.  I kept looking for Meredith Baxter in the wings, ready to confront Michelle on a long lost love. Bachmann has all of the tools, but none of the instincts for presidential politics.  Whatever she accomplished during the debate was mitigated by her shameless pandering to women.

OCCUPY WALL STREET GETS “MAN” LOVE

The anti-war protests of the 60′s, which gave birth to the hippie movement, taught future generations of protesters the concept of the enemy as “The Man.” The Man, in general, is the person, group of people or entity with power – economic, political, or both. The protesters are the people, angry with the power entity for corrupt, dangerous, or disingenuous or otherwise disagreeable behavior.

So, when Occupy Wall Street – and their blind allegiance minions – took to the streets in New York, they merely filled in the blanks in the protest template. Like a game of Mad Libs, the veracity of their statements was irrelevant. They (the people) were opposed to the crooked dealings between Wall Street (banking industry) and Government (see Republicans, because when the OWS crowd realizes that Obama is just a shill for Wall Street they will crap their pants, not police cars!)

They are protesting the bailouts, the way Wall Street puts profits ahead of people (a still unprovable thesis) and how they manipulate money to keep rich people rich and poor people poor (a still unprovable thesis.)

Protesting bank bailouts is fine. It is also smart. Most Americans view bailouts in general unfavorably. Why is it that government is in the game of picking winners and losers? So-called “winners” aren’t always – or ever – the most solvent, smartest, best-for-the-people investments; just look at Solyndra! The free market should be the only factor to determine whether a business succeeds or fails – not government. Government involvement in these decisions is just wrong. This is the Tea Party thesis, and has been advocated by the millions of Tea Party members across the nation for over two years.

Who is backing Occupy Wall Street? We’ve seen the outpouring of support from Leftist Hollywood -Michael Moore , Roseanne Barr, Susan Sarandon have all shown their love for the movement. A basic Google search of “hollywood supports occupy wall street” brings an article that has even moreHollywood people – Mark Ruffalo, Tim Robbins, Yoko Ono, Penn Bagdley, Alec Baldwin and music mogul Russell Simmons – supporting the cause of viciously attacks on those who work on Wall Street (and increasingly, Main Street) by those who don’t work at all. (The very next article highlighted that George Clooney also supports OWS, just proving that there is no lack of star-power support.)

Who else supports OWS? Democrats who desperately want to be integral to the movement. Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently stated, “Well,I support the message to the establishment – whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest – that change has to happen.” She also stated, “God bless them….it’s young….it’s spontaneous.” Rep. John Lewis (D-GA) supports the OWS crowd(even though he was not allowed to speak at a OWS rally in Atlanta).

The DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) has a petition on its website trying to get 100,000 people to agree with OWS. It has even sent out Tweets about it.

President Obama has voiced – clearly – his support for OWS, stating:

“The protesters are giving voice to a more broad-based frustration about how our financial system works…”

Support of Hollywood? Support of leaders in Washington? Support of the Democratic Party? Support of the President? That is The Man – and The Man loves Occupy Wall Street! The protesters aren’t fighting The Man (or the system,) they are legitimizing it. They are allowing themselves to be co-opted by the forces that make, in their eyes, too many decisions. The controlling forces of Hollywood and government – both of whom are financed by the banking industry! – are now working hard to control Occupy Wall Street, and OWS is more than happy to let them in (with the notable exception of Rep. Lewis….racism, anyone?)

While the protesters in Manhattan, Los Angeles and other cities may think they are fighting The Man, the truth is they are in love with The Man, and The Man is in love with them. Their protest isn’t a protest, then, but rather a needed vehicle of the Democrat party and the Progressive movement to bring some excitement to a political party and a political ideology that has been cast aside by Americans in the run up to the 2012 elections. Maybe one day they’ll realize this, and then be able to answer the question – why are you here?

Until then, the protesters and The Man are in mad crazy love. They are registered at the local Apple store, because some corporations are still ok by (most of) them. A wedding date hasn’t been confirmed.