Civil Discourse, Nazis, Glam GOP Women, Bloggers, Tea Parties, and 24 Hours of News


You know all those “glam” women the tea party men try to promote, like Bachmann, Palin, O’Donnell?  Can an unattractive Republican woman get a break?  The Pink Flamingo doubts it.  Fact is, these people are so infatuated with their school boy crushes on these woman, that they can do anything to hurt the GOP, and they will be defended.

We have a problem in this nation.  It isn’t about conservative v. liberal, Democrat v. Republican, but civil discourse.  Rush Limbaugh says civil discourse is akin to censorship.  Rush Limbaugh has lost it.

So has everyone else.

The real problem was when the far right decided they needed to act like the far left.  It just doesn’t work.

For Michele Bachmann it is all about her, all about the power.

Conservative Home

Once again the media is promoting the tea parties and how they are hurting the GOP. Guess what, The Pink Flamingo thinks they are hurting the GOP. There is this delusion that the tea party is going to get more Republicans elected. I guess the people promoting this aren’t aware that Jim DeMint cost us the US Senate with his promotion of unelectable candidates.

“…Two of the most-respected and longest-serving Republican senators are in serious risk of losing their party nominations. One of the best names in conservative politics, at least before losing reelection in 2006, is being trash-talked by the base as he launches his comeback bid. And tea party favorite Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., is poking his nose in Texas—home state of National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Cornyn….Make no mistake—the impact of the tea party was a net positive for Republicans in 2010, infusing the party with badly needed energy. But the movement lacked pragmatism that likely cost the party several high-profile Senate races, including the seat of the Senate majority leader…… “

Are we living on the same planet? The Tea Party cost the GOP the Senate. It is that plain and simple.

The Pink Flamingo thinks that tea party “patriotic” politicians are doing their utmost to promote themselves, while the far right is promoting the idea that the tea parties are growing in strength. If this is true, why is there what appears to be the beginning of a feud between Rush and David Frum?

Could it be that NORMAL Republicans are finally starting to fight back?

What about the fact that Michele Bachmann’s little tea party response on Tuesday night was NOTHING but a venue to promote Michele Bachmann? The Far Right thinks it was wonderful, but then again, they think the tea parties are great.

Looks like she did not impress the Minnesota tea party “patriots”.

“…“There’s a difference between having Main Street Republicans in competitive districts that can appeal to swing voters, and just having Republicans in areas that [naturally] appeal to Republicans,” said Davis. “It’s the margin of victory – and it’s the difference between being able to pass things and not pass things.”

Of course, the fact that the Main Street Partnership did not increase in size proportional to the broader Republican caucus says something about the nature of Republican gains. But the Tea Party movement doesn’t discourage Davis – who said that governance would moderate their views.

“From a Republican perspective, [the tea party] is an important part of the coalition that they’re putting together. It’s a bit different from the ‘establishment’ coalition some of us have come out of… but governance is a tough business, and they get exposed to that pretty quick,” said Davis.

The increase in the size of the Main Street Partnership should come as encouraging news for moderate Republicans – many of whom have been wondering whether others like them exist, given the tea party climate of the day….”

The Cato Institute, on their blog, can’t understand why what few Tea Partiers there are in New Mexico aren’t impressed with Gary Johnson. Maybe the Cato Institute minions ought to realize that here in NM, while Gary Johnson was considered an honest governor, people did not take him seriously.

“…Alex Pareene of Salon makes some fair points in his posting, “Tea Partiers don’t actually care about ‘liberty.’” It’s disappointing to hear that New Mexico Tea Partiers booed Gary Johnson’s support for legalizing marijuana. And it’s true that a new poll shows Tea Partiers pretty strongly against marriage equality. But the poll does show them just a smidgen more supportive than either conservatives or Republicans. And other polls (click “Social Issues” on the left) have shown somewhat more support among self-identified Tea Party supporters, or a clear division between libertarian-minded and culturally conservative Tea Partiers. In general, Tea Party activists — organizers and people who attend events — seem somewhat more libertarian than people who simply tell pollsters they consider themselves to be members or supporters of the Tea Party movement….”

Rush Limbaugh thinks that civility is censorship. What we need is more civility, not less.  Civility is related to manners.  In fact, it matters not what someone does to a liberal, as long as they are a liberal!

“…In sociology, manners are the unenforced standards of conduct which demonstrate that a person is proper, polite, and refined. They are like laws in that they codify or set a standard for human behavior, but they are unlike laws in that there is no formal system for punishing transgressions, other than social disapproval. They are a kind of norm. What is considered “mannerly” is highly susceptible to change with time, geographical location, social stratum, occasion, and other factors. That manners matter is evidenced by the fact that large books have been written on the subject, advice columns frequently deal with questions of mannerly behavior, and that schools have existed for the sole purpose of teaching manners. A lady is a term frequently used for a woman who follows proper manners; the term gentleman is used as a male counterpart; though these terms are also often used for members of a particular social class….”

“…Politeness is best expressed as the practical application of good manners or etiquette. It is a culturally defined phenomenon, and therefore what is considered polite in one culture can sometimes be quite rude or simply eccentric in another cultural context.

While the goal of politeness is to make all of the parties relaxed and comfortable with one another, these culturally defined standards at times may be manipulated to inflict shame on a designated party.

The British social anthropologists Penelope Brown and Stephen Levinson identified two kinds of politeness, deriving from Erving Goffman’s concept of face:

Negative politeness: Making a request less infringing, such as “If you don’t mind…” or “If it isn’t too much trouble…”; respects a person’s right to act freely. In other words, deference. There is a greater use of indirect speech acts.

Positive politeness: Seeks to establish a positive relationship between parties; respects a person’s need to be liked and understood. Direct speech acts, swearing and flouting Grice’s maxims can be considered aspects of positive politeness because: they show an awareness that the relationship is strong enough to cope with what would normally be considered impolite (in the popular understanding of the term); they articulate an awareness of the other person’s values, which fulfills the person’s desire to be accepted.

Some cultures seem to prefer one of these kinds of politeness over the other. In this way politeness is culturally-bound….”


Michelle Bachmann is going to deliver a Tea Party version of a State of the Union Address.  It’s a little arrogant, don’t you think?

A Politics & Morality Pxychology Blog

If hotel owners refuse to allow gays to stay, why should they allow unmarried couples?

Pat Dollard

Then there is the infamous Glenn Beck Shoot Me in The Head clip.  Yes, he did say it.  We have a problem seemingly “intelligent” people can’t tell the difference between news and a hack after money.

Rush is disgusting with is “ruling class” mantra.  What’s next – guillotines for those of us who reject his “country person” stupidity?

“...RUSH: What did I tell you, cut 16? You’ve got to hear this.  This is ruling class member David Frum who… (sigh) What would be the most descriptive and honest way to describe David Frum? David Frum remains a guest on Democrat talk shows because he wrote a phrase for a George Bush speech during the first term.  It is said that David Frum came up with the slogan “axis of evil.”  So David Frum wrote three words, and for that he has guest emeritus status.  Well, that plus he frequently rips conservatives.  He’s from the “Reagan is over” crowd, the “era of Reagan is over” crowd. …hat, by the way, in tone is the “new civility.”  That is ruling class-speak.  But what he’s saying here is that establishment Republicans, if Palin’s anywhere near the presidential candidacy — if she’s anywhere near this run — that that’s just too divisive to try to beat Obama in 2012.  They may as well just cede the presidential election in 2012 and try to pick up a few Senate seats, is what the erudite and brilliant ruling class (I don’t know if he’s a member or wannabe) David Frum suggests.  It’s just gonna be too volatile. Beating Obama, especially if Palin’s around, is not possible.”…In other words: “The Republican leadership, we gotta great chance to pick up Senate seats, not so much the presidency. Let’s not even focus on that. We’ll just cede that.”  Now, I don’t know that that’s true.  I don’t know that that’s the establishment Republican view, but this is what the exalted, celebrated, erudite, ruling class member, David Frum, says.  Just FYI…”

The Right Scoop

“Christians” are boycotting CPAC because of gays.  That is quite Christian of them.

Allahpundit wrote:

“…If you missed Ed’s chat with David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union (which runs CPAC), about this year’s boycott, read it now. More than one justification has been offered by boycotters for staying away, but chiefly it’s a protest of the gay conservative group GOProud being included as a participating organization. What’s intriguing about this particular intraparty split is that it doesn’t fall neatly along traditional “true conservative”/RINO lines. For instance, not only is grassroots rock star Andrew Breitbart promising to throw a party for gay conservatives (“The first annual Roy Cohn CPAC Breitbart Homocon Welcoming 80′s Extravaganza”), he’s just joined GOProud’s advisory council. And plenty of big-name social cons are still planning to intend, among them Rick Santorum(!). So essentially, it looks like three things will come out of this: (1) More pointed jokes at DeMint’s expense by GOProud’s founder; (2) a campily fun theme party with DJ Breitbart at the turntable; and (3) some indirect hype for the Values Voter Summit (which, coincidentally, is organized by one of the boycotting groups, the Family Research Council) as the only conference that truly represents social conservatives. Good enough?…”

The Daily Paul
The Right Scoop

Dana Milbank is declaring February a Palin Free Zone.


“…while Bachmann is a genius at rallying the troops—and convincing them to give her their money—she’s never displayed the slightest skill at (or interest in) turning her small-government rhetoric into a reality by, say, proposing or passing significant legislation. In many ways, that makes her the emblematic politician for our niche-media age. When success is measured by the intensity of your following as opposed to its size—and when Twitter, Facebook, and Fox News let politicians easily reach their most intense audiences with incendiary soundbites—it’s no wonder so many of them wind up serving less as actual legislators than as conduits for a message….”

Can we get off this stupid birth certificate thing.  It is idiotic.  It makes the far right look like they have way way way too much time on their hands.  It is one of the very few times I have agreed with Robert Gibbs.


5 thoughts on “Civil Discourse, Nazis, Glam GOP Women, Bloggers, Tea Parties, and 24 Hours of News

  1. For 2012 the Tea Party is going after Richard Lugar, Orrin Hatch, and Olympia Snowe. They don’t like bipartisanship and their organizers are planning to challenge some of the longest serving republicans. I wish they would leave the GOP alone and form their own party. They have their own ideas about who is conservative. The thing is I don’t like their definition of conservative and I resent them dictating to me about who is conservative and who isn’t. About those glamourous dames….women who are too concerned with the outside, don’t have much on the inside.

  2. Well done. There’s a lot in this post that I need to think on. Right off the bat, your question “can an unattractive GOP woman get a break?” is a good one. I can’t answer that for the other gender, but for me the answer is absolutely yes, and that the biggest part of my attraction to anyone is what is in his/her mind and heart. But when I think about how conservatives treated the glamour-challenged Meg Whitman versus how they treated the uber-moronic but cute Chrissy O’Donnell… well, it doesn’t say much for conservative integrity.

    Now to be really catty and adolescent, the idea that so-called conservative male icons like Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, Beck, seem to control which “conservative” women are physically acceptable… well there is more than a drop of irony there — when the combined “hotness” of these four toads on a one to ten scale is about 2.6.

    I think your question: “Are normal Republicans starting to fight back?” is also a good one. My answer (as a semi-normal Pubbie) is: I’m dropping out… but taking a peek every once in awhile just to enjoy the show and meet the freak of the week.

  3. Go back and read the list of comments from yesterday. You should find them on the front page under recent comments. Read how vile this one guy was. I had to edit his filthy language. Just the perfect libertarian!


  4. I think some of these men are so immature and so geeky that they get all caught up in their Farrah Fawcett moment, get crushes on these women – just completely immature. I can think of no other logical answer for this constant harping on the glam women of the tea party.


  5. The problem with Libertarians is that their principles does NOT include loyalty or honesty.

    Look at Ron Paul. He’s a Libertarian; everyone knows he’s one. Yet he PRETENDS to be a Republican.

    Jose Maria: there is a good reason that Losertarians don’t create/join their own party…they KNOW that they won’t get elected if they are truthful. They know that they hurt Republicans by pretending to be their base, but that’s what they want to do. INSANELY, they think that if they destroy the GOP, out of their ashes will arise Losertarians!

    They get totally unhinged when I tell them to PLEASE create/join a party they CAN believe in with candidates that they CAN support…that it’s just not healthy for them to “hold their nose” and vote against their principles. Because they know, really, that their numbers are less than 3% and if they were truthful about the party they belong to, they would become irrelevant.

Comments are closed.