Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Republican Politics’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 23, 2010

I think a great big congratulations is in order for Charles Djou, don’t you?

If you are not familiar with the name just yet, you probably will be in short order. He has just won the special election for Hawaii’s First Congressional Seat – Barack Obama’s childhood district.

And why, you may ask, is that a big deal? Why is this relevant?

Because Djou is a Republican … and he’s the first Republican to hold that seat since Pat Saiki left office twenty years ago.

From Hawaii News Now:

The Honolulu City Councilmember grabbed 39% of the vote. State Senate president Colleen Hanabusa came in second with 30% of the vote. Former US Representative Ed Case came in third, gathering 27% the vote.

“This is a momentous day. We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the ex-governors. We have sent a message to the national Democrats. We have sent a message to the machine. We have told them, that we will not stand idly by as our great nation is burdened by too much taxes and too much wasteful spending” said Representative-elect Djou in front of hundreds of supporters at Republican headquarters in Honolulu.

Lefties, of course, will be quick to remind you that Democrat support is not waning. Rather – to quote Ian Faith from the film Spinal Tap – it is simply becoming “more selective.”

And for those negative nellies out there, don’t be discouraged by those who say that come November, Djou doesn’t stand a chance against whatever Democrat comes along in the general election. Don’t be put off by the entire “Democrat in-fighting” rhetoric.

Djou will be the incumbent, will attract independents (especially many who went for Ed Case), and will have raised a lot of money by then.

He does stand a chance in November.

Have faith.

This isn’t  just a symbolic win.

Rather, it may very well prove to be a prophetic one.


Posted in Education, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 17, 2010

First of all, the H/T goes to the great Ace of Spades blog for bringing this to my attention.

Second, if I didn’t have four different projects in the works, a client list that is non-transferable, and a slew of obligations that preclude me from doing so, I would grab all of my stuff, throw it in a drawstring Hefty bag and make my way down to Alabama and find a place to live, just so I could vote for this guy.

I can guarantee the word “metrosexual” has never been applied to Dale Peterson, Republican candidate for Alabama Agriculture Commissioner.

As Drew M. at the AoS blog says: “Best Political Ad Ever.”

Yes, he used the word “illegal.”

Yes, he brandished a rifle in the ad.

Yes, he even scared the living daylights out of the trees.

The moment Mr. Peterson slung his firearm over his right shoulder, that was it for me. I was on the phone to U-Haul.

Luckily, the wife reeled me back in before I gave my two week notice.

wordpress statistics

Posted in politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 5, 2010

There have been a good number of conservative pundits and analysts who have made no bones about the fact that, from a political standpoint, they believe the new Arizona illegal alien law could be trouble for the Republican Party. Concerns range from forever losing the Hispanic vote to diverting attention away from the daily-disaster that is the Obama administration. Good folks on the right worry that a golden opportunity to cause serious political damage to the flailing Dems could be lost if the GOP comes across as too hard-nosed, unwelcoming and uncompassionate on this issue.


This is not your Dad’s immigration debate.

The state of Arizona has changed the rules of the game in a profound – and what I believe will be a most effective – way. In my humblest of opinions, as I have written on several occasions, Arizona’s new focus on enforcing already existing immigration laws will demonstrate that this the best way to deter illegals from coming into the United States today. States that follow Arizona’s lead will see not only a decrease in incoming illegals, but will cause many illegals to emigrate elsewhere or self-deport.

This, of course, does not negate the necessity of a fence along the border. I am a huge proponent of “sealing” the border in whatever way is necessary to protect the United States.

However, deterrence is the key. There can be no doubt about it. The word is out that Arizona is unfriendly to illegals … as it should be.

Not Hispanics. Illegals.

For those on the right who are voicing concerns that the Arizona immigration law could backfire on them, they might find some political comfort in knowing that the issue is actually a winner with Americans – despite mainstream media reports to the contrary.

Jonathon Martin at Politico writes:

The new hard-line Arizona immigration law that has sparked talk of boycotts and caused leading Republicans to fret about the party’s frayed relationship with Hispanic voters may indeed pose a long-term threat to the GOP’s prospects.

But in the here and now — and in many of the most competitive races that will determine control of Congress — the law appears to be a poison-tipped arrow in the Republican quiver.

New polling indicates broad public support for the measure and illustrates the peril embattled Democrats could face this November over the issue.

In the South and Midwest, where some of the most competitive congressional races will be fought, popular sentiment is overwhelmingly in favor of the controversial new law.

According to a New York Times/CBS poll released Monday, 69 percent of respondents from the South said that the law is either “about right” or does not go “far enough” and 66 percent from the Midwest said the same. Opinion is more divided in the Northeast and West, but nationwide, 60 percent of respondents said the Arizona measure is about right or doesn’t go far enough.

Expectedly, Republicans tend to favor the Arizona law while Democrats generally oppose it.

Independents side with Republicans on this one.

In short, Republicans side with the law.

Democrats side with undocumented liberals who are pouring over the border.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, illegal immigration, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 30, 2010

Okay, enough is enough.

I’ve long since exhausted my reserve of tolerance for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. I’ve already gone into tolerance debt regarding the man and his weak-minded, poorly-articulated, do-nothing leadership of a party that should be running for an easy touchdown with a ball long ago fumbled by flailing Obamacrats.

I am no longer willing to dig into my “benefit of the doubt” bag.

I am tired of Michael Steele’s act.

It’s bad enough that in the past he has succumbed to breaking out the race card on behalf of his party. It’s embarrassing that he feels white Republicans are afraid of him. It’s sad that he could not stand up to D. L. Hughley’s assertion that the Republican National Convention was reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

(Is there anything liberals disagree with that does not resemble Nazi Germany?)

Apparently, Michael Steele cannot – or will not – make the very real distinction between immigrants and illegal aliens. It’s the same thinking that keeps the Left from being able to differentiate between health care and health insurance.

On CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the exchange, in part, went like this:

BLITZER: As you know, the former Florida governor, Jeb Bush – Marco Rubio is running for the US Senate from Florida, another Republican – they’re among an increasing chorus of Republicans thinking, “Well, maybe the Arizona law is a mistake.” What does Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland say about that?

STEELE: (laughs) Well, Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, understands that the realities right now for the country, as reflected in Arizona and elsewhere, is that we, as a people, have to come to grips with this issue of immigration. We can no longer use it as a political football. We must keep in mind the families that are impacted by the lack of decision in this area. And the leadership has to confront what has always been the growing chorus of concern for the American people: this deal with border security and control. Let’s put that house in order and rest takes care of itself.

Someone really ought to inform the RNC Chair that this is not – repeat not – about immigration. 

Overwhelmingly, Americans welcome immigration. We are pro-immigration. The nation was built on immigration. We recognize that America is strongest when the best and brightest from all over the world come here to pursue the American dream … legally.

This is about illegal aliens.

The key word here is “illegal.”

It’s simple stuff, really.

BLITZER: But you know there are some Republican strategists – Karl Rove, among others – who are worried. This is going to alienate Hispanic voters. The Republican Party needs these people.

STEELE: I think Karl Rove is exactly right about that. And we need, as a party, to be mindful that our prior actions in this area – and certainly our rhetoric in this area – has not been the most welcoming and the most supportive of those who want to assimilate to the way of life of America …

First of all, why are Hispanics going to be automatically alienated? Are all Hispanics inherently in favor of “illegal immigration?” Are they so shallow of a group, with no sense of right and wrong – so incapable of thinking independently – that they will reflexively vote Democrat because a Republican governor is finally deciding to uphold and enforce already existing laws in Arizona? If Mexico were populated with fair-skinned Swedes, would they react differently?

Second, what “rhetoric” by Republicans is Michael Steel talking about? What “prior actions” is he referring to? At last look, Democrats – including the President himself – are the ones constantly infusing race, gender, class and ethnicity into every situation, not Republicans.

Let me be clear. The passage of the law in Arizona has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with anything other than the legality of someone’s presence in the country, period.

To be “welcoming” does not mean one turns a blind eye to the law. To be “supportive” does not mean we appease those who should not be here at the expense of those who are.

The question is … why are Hispanics so overwhelmingly “in the bag” for Democrats and gutless Republicans on this particular issue? Isn’t that the real question here? Isn’t that more important than asking why there are so many whites at the Tea Parties?

Think about it.

If the Tea Party movement really was race-based, as libs contend, how can there are so many whites on the Left making no sense? If the country south of America was filled with blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians, and they were crossing into the country illegally, would white America look away? Are white drug overlords more tolerable than Hispanic ones? Would the murder of an Arizona rancher by a white man been more acceptable had the illegal alien been Caucasian?

Fair questions, no?

wordpress statistics

Posted in illegal immigration, Racism, Republican Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 23, 2010

I’ve made no secret of the fact that I am not a fan of Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

Personally, I’m sure he’s the bees knees – beer worthy, shooting hoops, sharing onion rings, whatever.

But in a political light, don’t expect to see a framed photograph of him on anyone’s “Republican Wall of Honor” any time soon; don’t expect his likeness to be done up in a t-shirt or knapsack; and don’t expect to see him win any “Leadership” medals.

So there.

In his vivaciously lackluster performance as RNC Chief, he would have to dazzle me until I was rendered unconscious and drooling like Chris Dodd at a TGI Fridays in order to work his way up to “less-than-mediocre” on my score card. And, as difficult as this will be for some to believe, and as much as I hate to disappoint my regular audience of assorted leftists, it has nothing to do with his skin color.

He’s been a failure … and frankly, somewhat of an embarrassment.

For instance, I didn’t particularly take too well to the suggestion that some of us white Republicans are afraid of him because he’s black. I assure you, there are plenty of other reasons to be “afraid” of him as head of the RNC. The word “incompetence” comes to mind.

It gave me no warm and fuzzy feeling deep inside when Mr. Steele, Chairman of the bloody RNC, said he didn’t think Republicans could win this November.

That’s some kind of leader, isn’t it?

Stand back. Watch him work.

How about a little positive thinking, Mike? How about a touch of confidence? How about a little smack talk? Dems are reeling right now. Now’s not the time to put on your namby-pamby act.

I felt like throwing one of my penguin-head, fake-marble bookends through the television when he refused to take on talk show host D. L. Hughley for comparing the Republican Convention to Nazi Germany. That should have, at the very least, had Steele asking Hughley an equally ludicrous question about the Democrat convention looking like an inner-city welfare office.

The latest notch on his elephant pole of accomplishments involves how he is spending donor contributions to the Republican Party.

Jeane Cummings of Politico writes:

Republican National Chairman Michael Steele is spending twice as much as his recent predecessors on private planes and paying more for limousines, catering and flowers – expenses that are infuriating the party’s major donors who say Republicans need every penny they can get for the fight to win back Congress.

Most recently, donors grumbled when Steele hired renowned chef Wolfgang Puck’s local crew to cater the RNC’s Christmas party inside the trendy Newseum on Pennsylvania Avenue, and then moved its annual winter meeting from Washington to Hawaii.

For some major GOP donors, both decisions were symbolic of the kind of wasteful spending habits they claim has become endemic to his tenure at the RNC. When Ken Mehlman served as the committee chairman during the critical 2006 midterm elections, the holiday party was held in a headquarters conference room and Chic-fil-A was the caterer.

I like Chic-fil-A, incidentally.

To be fair, according to Louis M. Pope, Chairman of the RNC’s Budget Committee, the upscale events that have some GOP doners angry are all profitable.

Still, the elephants are losing big money donors.

Disclosure reports document the exodus of prominent donors who have decided to shift their giving to other party committees. In 2005, the RNC raised $46 million from donors who gave more than $250 and $55 million from small donors. In 2009, Steele’s RNC brought in just $24 million — nearly half as much — from big donors and $58 million from small donors.

When Steele took over the chairmanship last winter, he inherited a $23 million surplus. Since then, the former Maryland lieutenant governor has raised $10 million less than the party collected in 2005 and has spent $10 million more. By the end of 2009, the committee’s surplus had shrunk to $8.4 million, according to campaign finance reports.

So, in one year, the GOP surplus has withered by almost $15 million.


I’m not a fool.

I understand when you are behind and outnumbered and in the minority, it obviously becomes necessary to spend cash to “get the word out.” Effective fundraising does cost money.

However, it becomes more difficult to place your faith in a leader who criticizes his opponents for careless spending when he uses party donations on high-end chefs, private jets and private consultants.

Just sayin’.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2010

No, that sound you heard was not another tongue-clacking liberal demonstrating why leadership needs to be left to the adults.

It was simply Michael Steele … again.

With every ounce of due respect I can muster, this man’s act is painfully tired.

It’s time to pull out a “farewell to thee” out of petty cash.

I’m sure he’s a wonderfully personable guy – the kind you’d like to hang out with while watching the game, or share a platter of cocktail franks with – but so is the guy who replaced my shocks. That doesn’t mean he is qualified to be the head a political party.

I hate to be the one to break it to Mr. Steele, but it is not advantageous or strategically sound for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee to sound like a typical, non-substantive liberal whinycrat.

I’m out on a limb, I know.

Not that I have ever found him particularly motivating or very effective at his job. I don’t really care for the way he’s “led” the Republican Party – especially during this time of across-the-board Democrat implosion and plummeting poll numbers.

As the Obamacracy continues to sputter, you’d think one would realize, at least in theory, that the door is wide open for the GOP.

This should be the time when a real party leader steps in and makes things happen for the party. This should be a time when a real leader picks up the ball and marches it down the field – especially when the opposition’s defense is non-existent. Outside of a two-thousand foot tall, two-million watt neon sign outside of RNC Headquarters flashing, “Hey, Republicans, This Is Your Shot!” I’m not sure how much more obvious it can be.

Unfortunately, Steele has fallen far short.

One minute he’s convinced Republicans can’t win in November, the next minute he’s saying they can – maybe, sort of.

You may recall that, according to Steele, white Republicans are afraid of him. You may also recall his inability – or reluctance – to respond when D. L. Hughley said the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany. Steele sat there like a soggy Wheat Thin and let it go.

Of course, Steele, by his own admission, never ever plays the race card.

On that point, he‘s absolutely right … except, of course, when he plays the race card.

Greg Sargent at the Plum Line blog writes:

It’s been awhile since Michael Steele has landed himself in the news, but this might stir things up again: In a new interview, Steele bluntly suggests criticism of his tenure — and all the media coverage it’s garnered — may be motivated by racism.

The story, called “Up in the Air,” is in the February issue of Washingtonian magazine, and it isn’t online yet, but here’s the key passage, buried way at the end of the piece, on page 96 of the mag:

Steele acknowledges that at times he has a tendency to take things too far. “And I get checked on that, just as when I was a young boy and I pushed the envelope too far and my Mama was there to check me.”

But there’s an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: “I don’t see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?”

The larger context of the story is the tension created by the fact that Steele continues to take constant criticism, despite the GOP’s undeniable gains and the likelihood of more advances in the future.

There are two ways of reading Steele’s stab at an explanation: Either Steele is suggesting the media gives more ink to the RNC’s inner workings because a black man is chairman, or he’s suggesting that fellow Republicans are leaking damaging info about the RNC because a black man is chairman.
Either way, it seems at odds with his claim back in November that he doesn’t “play the race card” or “play the race game.”

On one hand, I agree whole-heartedly with the assertion that liberals are far more obsessed with race than conservatives. It is demonstrably so. And perhaps there is some truth in the notion that the left-leaning mainstream media pays a little extra attention to Steele because he’s black. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit. The media is always looking to pounce on right-leaning blacks for any sign that their “blackness” is inauthentic.

But Steele has been such a stunning disappointment to conservatives, and has shoved his foot in his mouth so many times, my initial reaction to all of this is to tell him (respectfully) to shut up, step aside, and allow a real leader to step in.

Incompetence is color blind.

Many of us on the right are disgruntled with him because he is bad. Not black.

Besides, Mr. Steele leaves himself open to easy pot shots. If criticisms of him are based on his color, as he suggests, Steele loses a whole lot of credibility when he says that criticisms of Barack Obama are not.

It makes our side look like Democrats.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Racism, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009

Martin and Steele

Roland Martin and Michael Steele

There’s no question about it; when anyone in the public eye (particularly politics) decides they’re going to take a page from the “Idiot’s Guide to Being a Monumental Idiot” and break out the brutally tattered but always readily available race card, I’m all over it. I’ve littered this blog with endless examples of liberals (and other children) making melanin an issue of absurd importance. From Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson to Maureen Dowd and Paul Krugman, when someone goes racial, I make mention of it. As a conservative, if there is anything less significant to me in the grand scheme of things than the color of someone’s skin, I’ve yet to find it.

The grooming habits of eleventh century Byzantines hold more relevance for me.

Thus, in the name of intellectual honesty (and fairness), when someone on “my side” of the aisle says asinine things – particularly when it comes to matters of race – I am obliged to shine a light on it and crack some GOP skulls.

Enter the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele – who apparently believes that white Republicans are afraid of blacks. Or afraid of him, specifically.

He said so while speaking with Roland Martin on TV One’s Washington Watch over the weekend.

Here was the exchange:

Martin: But your candidates got to talk to them. One of the criticisms I’ve always had is Republicans — white Republicans — have been scared of black folks.

Steele: You’re absolutely right. I mean I’ve been in the room and they’ve been scared of me. I’m like, “I’m on your side,” you know, so I can imagine going out there and talking to someone like you, you know, who [says] “I’ll listen.” And they’re like “Well.” You know, let me tell you. You saw in Christie and you saw in McDonnell a door open because they went in and engaged. McDonnell was very deliberate about spending…

Martin: Right.

Steele: I mean, Sheila Johnson was on his team. I mean, that was a big deal. That’s because he engaged her and she helped navigate him through that relationship.

Enlightening – in a narcissistic, unproductive, neanderthal sort of way.

So, if I’m to understand … Michael Steel has actually been in the room with “them?”

And he knows “they’ve” been scared of him?

How exactly could he tell?

They were already white, so what other indications were there?

Did they walk on the other side of the room when they saw him coming?

Most importantly, how on God’s green earth is it good for the Republican Party to have its own chairman dump on his fellow party members the moment he hits a forum hosted by a liberal’s liberal like Roland Martin? Why would he so effortlessly throw members of his own team under the bus? Because the “shoot-your-own-when-in-the-enemy-is-looking” approach worked so well for John McCain? Because making liberals salivate by feeding their archaic perceptions of Republicans helps the party grow?

Mr. Steele, I can assure you … neither I nor my fellow conservatives are “afraid” of you because you’re black. Or because we may be white. Or because you sounded almost tweenish with your multiple use of the word “like.”

What we are afraid of is you may not be the right man for this job. Period.

Bad move, Michael.

Dumb move, Steele.

wordpress statistics

Posted in politics, Racism, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , , | 5 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2009


If tugging on Superman’s cape and spitting into the wind are no-nos, then messing around with Rush Limbaugh – while donning the apocryphal moniker of conservative – is sheer blockheadedness. Time and time again, counterfeit conservatism is reconstituted in the columns and commentaries of convoluted right-leaning hyper-intellectuals – David Brooks, Ross Douthat and Chris Buckley come to mind – while attempting to reinvent the movement in order to set themselves apart from the pack.

All the while, conservatives such as me are derided and repudiated as being too narrow-minded, out-of-touch and parochial.

Reconstructing conservatism into a more media-friendly animal, i.e. making it palatable to the Left, while infusing it with an Upper West Side sensibility, complete with nuance and compromised core values, is the goal of these new rightists – and be damned those still clinging to the dinosaur that is musty old one-dimensional Reagan conservatism.

And if the transformation (or rebirth) can be accomplished by going after the most well-known conservative of them all, Rush Limbaugh, it’s bound to garner some extra invites to the best social functions on the East Coast.

Granted, Rush Limbaugh needs no one – least of all me, an unknown, small-potatoes blogger fortunate to scratch out a few hundred hits a day – to defend him or come to his rescue. If there is anyone in the Land of Conservatism who has weathered more storms and has withstood more personal attacks from the outraged cackling masses on the left (and now, some on the right), it is he. Indeed, if anyone can stand up for himself, it is El Rushbo.

Rather, I’d like to take a moment and comment on a much talked about column published on Monday by faux conservative, David Frum.

In taking the position that left versus right has ostensibly boils down to Barack Obama versus Rush Limbaugh, Frum sounds as if he has gotten dibs on rubbing talcum powder on the feet of President Obama after a bath. He gushes like a grandmother lavishing praise on a horrible kindergarten drawing, showering The One with effusive acclaim for his grace and elegance, calling him “soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims.” (Kind of like Senator John Kerry always invoking his service in Vietnam every thirteen seconds).

Summoning my own intellectual Dramamine to keep me from losing my dinner, Frum salivates, “This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.”

Yes, Mr. Frum, it was incredibly “disciplined” of the leader of the free world to publicly call for Americans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh – a man who has quite literally built his success through dedication and hard work, living the American dream – wasn’t it? How astutely presidential of Obama to attack a successful private citizen.

And you’re right, David (if I may call you that) … it was equally “responsible” of the Chief Executive of the United States to say that “catastrophic” results were in store for the country should his stimulus pig-meat spending bill not pass in Congress as soon as humanly possible. It’s a good thing he waited four days to sign it into law.

Such leadership.

Incidentally, Mr. Frum, Obama’s devotion as a father and a husband has absolutely nothing to do with the job he is doing as President.

Still, your adoration of him is admirable.

Mr. Frum, if you need a moment, there are paper towels in the back by the radiator.

In commenting on Rush Limbaugh, whose speech at CPAC on Saturday was as energizing and substantive as any given by any conservative in a long time, Frum decides that personal attacks are the way to dissuade Republicans from hoisting the leadership banner atop Fort Limbaugh.

As if taking dictation from Rahm Emmanuel, Frum writes:

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

When will the little pups realize that no matter how much they yap at the back door or pee on the porch, they’ll never be able to belly up to the bowl and eat with the big dogs?

Frum’s obnoxious elitism – drawn from the liberal’s operational manual – is surpassed only by his contemptibility. While he cavalierly dismisses Obama’s cigarette sneaking as a mere occasional vice, he dispenses a whole lot of fat-catism on Limbaugh for his love of cigars. While Obama’s drug use in his youth is roundly discarded, Limbaugh’s long since conquered bout with pill dependency is exploited. To Frum, Obama is an Adonis who is physically “honed,” while Rush’s “personal bulk” somehow puts a blight on conservatism.

Yes, that’s what the new conservatism is apparently all about – fostering classism, mocking personal triumphs, and scorning appearance.

How petty, Frum. How pompus. How liberal.

And what exactly did Mr. Frum find “rancorous” about Limbaugh’s speech? Was it the idea that Limbuagh wants every American to succeed? That he doesn’t see Americans as victims but as individuals? That it is the individual, and not government, that has made America the greatest nation that has ever existed? These are core conservative principles that have been starving for eloquent and energized articulation for quite some time.

Rush did just that on Saturday.

There was not an electron of hatred or acrimony in his presentation. There wasn’t a scintilla of anger or bitterness therein. Instead, Limbaugh conveyed his awe and love of this country and its citizenry. What he did for those enthusiastic CPACers was inspire and encourage them. He reaffirmed the foundation of the movement. He did not attampt to redefine conservatism as the Frums of the world do. Limbaugh’s was a call to reclaim conservatism and bring it back to its roots.

The funny thing is … while talking heads on both sides of the aisle stumble about trying to develop their “Rush is now the ‘De Facto’ Leader of the Republicans” angle, Limbuagh trudges forward as he has, unchanged, since the day he first entered talk radio – when AM radio was about carrot cake recipies and the golden EIB microphone was still aluminum. He advances and advocates the same brand of conservatism he has since Day One. Two decades in the national spotlight has not changed where he is coming from nor where he would like to see this country go. David Frum, et al, portray Limbaugh as some sort of emerging leader, but Rush is simply doing what he has always done – namely defending the institutions, traditions and values of the United States.

Frum finished up this way:

Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise.

The “enterprise?”

Like “Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic Party in the 1980s?”

Jackson is a race-baiting, corporation strong-arming extortionist whose Sesame Street-like rhyming schemes and cartoonish cadences are as coherent as Barney Frank on peanut butter. This sounds like David Frum attempting to be the “smartest guy in the room,” as Rush often says, with an analogy that could use some cerebral Cialis.

Going after Rush Limbaugh is not a particularly shrewd strategy. It hasn’t proven successful for those who have attempted it. Safe to say, it probably won’t be a winner in the future.

Limbuagh has, for years, been at the forefront of the conservative movement in this country. That the most prominent conservative in America is not a politician, but a radio entertainer, speaks volumes about where the Republican Party is right now (and has been for some time).

The irony here is that if the Republican Party actually listened to Rush Limbaugh, they might win something.

Posted in Conservatism, politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2009


As disappointing as Governor Bobby Jindal was last evening in his response to President Obama’s non-State of the Union address, I harbor as much disappointment in myself for expecting too much.

From the moment Jindal began speaking, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was sitting on a thumbtack or if someone was applying a nutcracker to his pinky toe – particularly at the beginning of his talk. The lighting and the background were, at best, unflattering, and his delivery was as smooth as large curd cottage cheese. It pains me to say this because I am a huge fan of Governor Jindal. (This past summer, for example, while working at a well-known broadcasting outlet, I was impressed to see how Jindal handled the hurricane emergencies that wreaked havoc in his state (Louisiana). He was strong, decisive, unwavering. He was a leader. Unfortunately, that Bobby was MIA last evening).

Since last night’s talk, the adjective truck has been heavy with words like “cardboard,” “awful,” “akward” and “wooden” to describe the Governor’s performance. Throw in “lackluster,” “boring,” “unimpressive” and “flat” and we’ve almost got enough for a baseball team.

In a perfect world, “substance over style” would have rendered Barack Obama a poll worker instead of an election winner – but that’s not how it works in the real world, sadly. Indeed, much of what Jindal said last evening was spot on. He is, indeed, a good conservative who normally comes across much better than a slab of gefilte fish on a paper plate. Unfortunately, if opportunities such as this – with the world watching – are squandered, especially following an Obama-teleprompter spectacular as we saw last night, Jindal will quickly see his star begin to lose some of its luster.

First off, it was painfully ineffective – and frankly weak – to have an Obama congratulatory love fest as part of the Republican response more than five weeks into Obama’s term. Obama-mania already leaks from every orifice in this country. The last thing that I, as a conservative, need to hear again are blithering accolades for a President who just signed into law the largest slab of pig-meat in human history. The honeymoon is over. The real world has arrived.

Second, anyone who is going to go up against The Messiah will need to be at least as effective at speaking to the people, not at them. Governor Jindal was less than personable when it was his time to shine on the national stage.

Some comments on Jindal’s performance from the great Free website include:

– I’ve read about Jindal for months now, but this is the first speech I’ve seen him make. An unmitigated disaster. People who say “What about the substance, he had that” can pat themselves on the back for being about substance if they want, that’s not the issue. If no one listens to you, it doesn’t matter what you say. -Darkwolf377

– I have no idea what Jindal was rambling on about. That was bad. -Rodney Dangerfield

– There was no problem with the message. Jindal is a true Republican, not a RINO. The problem was the presentation which looked totally amateur. Also, Jindal seemed “handled” the same problem that Palin ran into last fall, despite the fact that she’s the most genuine conservative libertarian republican we’ve seen in years. -libertarian9

– Jindal’s speech was a stinker. To begin with, I’m sick of hearing republicans going on and on about how the election of 0bama was so so historic. Jindal’s delivery was poor, and his attempts at personalizing stories kind of fell flat. I’ve heard him speak before, he’s a smart guy, but he’s very dull. If he were to get the nomination in 2012 he’d draw McCain size crowds, maybe a bit bigger. Bored, unenthusiastic crowds don’t volunteer, don’t donate, and sometimes don’t even vote. –Euram

For my money, this certainly doesn’t disqualify Governor Jindal from any future considerations for national office. I believe with every fiber of my being that he is a good conservative and, most important, a very good man. If the Governor Jindal who led Louisiana during the summertime hurricane emergencies ever shows his head at the national level – and with a bit more seasoning – he will be a force to be reckoned with.

I mean that.

This morning, however, I have a bit of a pasty taste in my mouth looking back at Jindal’s appearance – or as one Freeper put it: “The man had all the interest of a cold mashed potato sandwich. With out salt.”

This forgettable performance by Jindal happened early enough in the Obamacratic regime to be rendered ultimately meaningless down the road – that is, if the Governor learns to how bring his “A-game” to the national stage.

In other news, the President spoke about stuff, hope, whatever, blah, blah …

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »