Apparently, Mitt Romney and his surrogates want you to know that you should not vote your conscience or your principles this primary election. You should vote for Mitt Romney, instead. That is the message from Romney surrogate State Senator Gary Lambert in New Hampshire, anyway.

“This is not about picking your favorite, it’s not about picking someone you like. It’s not about picking someone even with your own beliefs and principles. This is about picking a person that can beat Barack Obama, period,” Lambert said at the Nashua New Hampshire Republican City Committee meeting on Friday.

We shouldn’t be voting for candidates with whom we agree on the issues? We shouldn’t be picking our “favorite”? What about principle? What about important policy issues? Aw, fergit it all. Never mind Romney’s long liberal political record. Never mind his near daily flip flops on the issues. Never mind his disdain for Reagan and the Tea Party movement. Never mind his claim that he’ really a “progressive” politician. Just vote Mitt, you dolts!

So, what exactly do we need all these messy darn elections for in the first place, then? If big chiefs like Lambert have already decided for us who is the guy why do we need to bother voting at all, eh? We have the big thinkers and genius politicos like Lambert to do the thinking for us, after all. We should just sit back and let the elites like Lambert run our lives for us because, heck, we all is jess tooo stoopit ta do it fer r-selves.

New Hampshire State Senator Gary Lambert is the kind of east coast, establishment, Rockefeller Republican that rank and file Republicans hate, and for good reason. He is an arrogant cuss that imagines you should shut up and do what he says. And he says shut up and vote for Mitt.

Lambert, who recently announced he will not be running for reelection, did not help Mitt Romney’s reputation at all here. Romney is desperate to reach rank-and-file voters but this is not helping him do that. Romney has softened his button-down image by appearing frequently without a suit jacket, he’s allowed his usually well coiffed hair to get mussed, and he’s tried to appear more like an every man. But his reputation as the candidate being forced on the GOP by establishment minders has not been erased. Lambert brought it all roaring right back to the fore with his poorly worded attempt to come to Romney’s support.

CNS News got the scoop:

Gary Lambert is the worst example of the sort of arrogant GOP elites. These are the kind of people that the Party would be well advised to keep in the background, far, far away from microphones. Better yet, let’s just not elect these sort of ignoratti to office in the first place.

(ABC News) On the eve of the Iowa caucuses, the Republican National Committee is touting an expansive new video database that party operatives say is their most potent weapon for attacking President Obama in 2012.

The electronic catalogue, which RNC officials describe as “The Book,” is a searchable trove of “every utterance” from Obama – including hundreds of pages of quotes, video clips and data points documenting the entirety of the president’s first term. (snip)

The RNC will debut a compilation of Obama clips from the newly polished video library in a TV ad to run across Iowa on Tuesday. The montage is expected to show “promises” Obama delivered in Iowa in 2008 contrasted with economic and other data on the reality now.

One example from the RNC’s trove: Obama’s 2009 comment that the Recovery Act would help bring 2 million Americans out of poverty. The file cites census data suggesting more than 6 million Americans joined the ranks of the poor since 2009, instead. (snip)

Republican strategists say juxtaposing Obama’s words with data on the economy, health care costs and other issues will be the most potent mechanism for winning over crucial independent voters who may like Obama personally but are skeptical about his policies.

Obviously, Team Obama and the Dems will fight back, and will also do what the GOP is reluctant to do to Obama, namely, attack him personally. Something that is already happening against Mitt Romney. Of course, Obama has no new ideas, and his old ones have failed spectacularly.

Of course, this sent some liberals around the bend, and trotting out their old “but, things were worse than we thought, and the mean old Republicans blocked everything Obama tried to do!” memes, such as Greg Sergent

Of course, Obama had barely been sworn into office before the national Republican leadership mounted a concerted and determined effort to prevent any of Obama’s solutions to our severe national problems from passing, even as they openly declared they were doing so only to destroy him politically. Republicans have admitted on the record that deliberately denying Obama any bipartisan support for, well, anything at all was absolutely crucial to prevent voters from concluding that Obama had successfully forged ideological common ground over the way out of the myriad disasters Obama inherited from them.

Of course the GOP tried to stop the idiotic policies, but, being they were the minority party, were only slightly successful, Greg. Remember Obama’s signature economic policy, the Stimulus? Almost a trillion dollars of wasted money which accomplished nothing, unless studying shrimp on treadmills is considered a wise use of taxpayer funds.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach.

If nothing else has proven that Republican National Committee Chair Michael Steele is not in tune with the GOP today, his recent statements on the Tea Party movement should serve as exhibit number one.

Showing that he has no clue the effect that the Tea Party movement had on the 2010 elections, in a five-page memo to committee members last week, Steele said that the GOP saved the day by stopping Tea Partiers from going third party in 2010.

Daily Caller excerpted Steele’s comments on Nov. 20. “The RNC,” Steele told the members, “welcomed the energy and limited government principles of Tea Party voters and grassroots conservatives, and worked hard to ensure that their views found expression within the Republican party, and not in a potentially ruinous third-party movement.”

Given the shambles the party was in at the end of 2008, circumstances were ripe for a new party to emerge. Encouraging those millions of disaffected conservative voters to become active Republicans was at the center of the RNC’s turnout strategy.

Steele is trying to spin the situation and make it seem as if his efforts and that of the national party corralled the Tea Party movement and led the Tea Partiers to an electoral victory. Nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, it was the ‘tuther way ’round, Mr. Steele. It was the Tea Partiers that forced the GOP to take notice, to heed policy ideas, and to glom onto Tea Party support to win in 2010.

Despite all the jaw-jaw about “the Tea Party” being a third party, there was essentially no way at all that such a thing was “ripe” to emerge in 2010. After all, the Tea Party isn’t a “the” it is a “they.” For Steele to imagine that the Tea Party movement is some sort of single, national organization ready to launch a third party simply shows he has no clue what it is.

The Tea Party movement is only a general idea, not a single entity. There are thousands of different Tea Party groups across the country and few are working one with the other. Sure there are various national Tea Party groups out there but the truth is, despite all the sound and fury of some of them, none of them can claim to be “the” leader of much of anything at this point.

Tea Party groups are way, way too disparate right now to be anything like a third party. “The Tea Party” is a club to which no one belongs. There is the St. Louis Tea Party that is not the Chicago Tea Party that is not the Fort Lauderdale Tea Party, but there is no “the” Tea Party.

Furthermore there is no Tea Party leader on a national scale today. The closest anyone has to point to as a Tea Party leader is Michelle Bachman and/or Sarah Palin, but neither claims the mantle comfortably.

The Tea Party is not like any other American political movement. In the past we had Reagan Clubs, or Goldwater Clubs, or further back the Log Cabin and Hard Cider supporters. Even the GOP itself started almost solely as an anti-slavery movement. But each of those movements was top down. These past movements were groups of powerbrokers coalesced around a single issue or personality, organized on a national scale with key local players signed up for political gains.

On the other hand, the Tea Party sprang up from the grassroots and is not controlled by the top in a way that could easily find them fielding candidates in an organized and controlled manner like past movements. Few Tea Party folks had any connection to local politics and no experience in campaigns. So, in truth Steele and the national GOP had no role in stopping any third party Tea Party effort because there is no third party effort for them to have stopped.

Could the Tea Party become a third party? There’s no reason it can’t. But there is every reason it couldn’t have as early as the 2010 midterms.

Then there is the matter of who-led-who.

The Tea Party came roaring into these midterms completely sideswiping the establishment GOP. In many cases Tea Party-esque candidates (candidates whether actually supported by, or inspired by, Tea Party groups and/or principles) surged into the primary field beating out the party preferred candidates. It happened all across the country. Even in blue, blue Illinois where many feel that the GOP is merely a less powerful arm of the Democrats, Tea Party guys and outsiders beat state party-sponsored candidates.

Just to name a few in Illinois Joe Walsh of the 8th District, Randy Hultgren of the 14th, Bob Dold of the 10th all beat out the establishment’s picks for those offices. And each won the election after their surprising primary wins, too. Not that all three of these were Tea Party guys, but the point is that the establishment lost their control in each case. It wasn’t just Illinois, either. The establishment also lost control of their own electorate and party in Nevada and Delaware, even as those races were ultimately won by Democrats. The fact is the GOP establishment was found wanting by its own primary voters. It happened in New York, Delaware, Colorado, and most other states.

This election cycle was begun with the GOP powerbrokers haughtily discounting any Tea Party-inspired candidate and (as usual) any other GOP contender not approved of by the GOP establishment. In many cases that establishment found itself racing to catch up to what the voters wanted and being out campaigned by relative novices that DID have their finger on the pulse of the electorate.

The Republican Party establishment was unprepared for what they encountered and one can almost say that the GOP was just as trounced as the Democrats in 2010. Almost.

The final analysis shows that Michael Steele’s bravado claiming that he and the national party somehow brought the Tea Party to heel and graciously allowed them into the party is stuff and nonsense. Maybe Steele is just trying to put a brave face on this whole thing but if he truly thinks that he and the national party achieved this great victory despite the Tea Party movement, he has truly revealed how out of touch he is with what just happened.

Interest groups are spending five times as much on the 2010 congressional elections as they did on the last midterms, and they are more secretive than ever about where that money is coming from.

The $80 million spent so far by groups outside the Democratic and Republican parties dwarfs the $16 million spent at this point for the 2006 midterms. In that election, the vast majority of money – more than 90 percent – was disclosed along with donors’ identities. This year, that figure has fallen to less than half of the total, according to data analyzed by The Washington Post.

The trends amount to a spending frenzy conducted largely in the shadows.

Funny how the big players in the media weren’t so concerned back in 2006, when the money was pouring in from liberal groups, a good chunk funded by George Soros. Nor were they concerned about donations from the shadows in 2008, when Mickey Mouse and the Dallas Cowboys players where sending in donations under $200. Remember, Obama refused to release a list of donors, and it was shown plenty were coming from overseas, in violation of election law. But, hey, that all doesn’t matter because

The bulk of the money is being spent by conservatives, who have swamped their Democratic-aligned competition by 7 to 1 in recent weeks. The wave of spending is made possible in part by a series of Supreme Court rulings unleashing the ability of corporations and interest groups to spend money on politics. Conservative operatives also say they are riding the support of donors upset with Democratic policies they perceive as anti-business.

Ah. So that is what the problem is: Conservatives beating Liberals at this game, despite

While the interest-group money has primarily helped Republicans, Democrats have proved better at raising money for the party itself and for individual candidates. Those donations must, by law, come from individuals and are limited in size. Much of the interest-group spending, by contrast, has been based on large contributions from well-heeled donors and corporations.

Conservatives are not giving to the national party itself, we are giving to the state groups, the individual candidates, and the interest groups.

Of course, Citizens United v. FEC is mentioned. Yes, liberals are still all wound up about that ruling, which upheld the 1st Amendment, and allowed conservative interest groups to compete, and, quite frankly, knock the snot out of liberal interest groups this cycle. Is it any wonder that businesses and business leaders want to give to the Republican side, considering how hard the Democrats are working to destroy the private sector?

Also mentioned are several of the conservative groups which have become EVIL in the eyes of liberals. Interestingly, these are the same groups that Max Baucus is concerned about, and may investigate. I wonder if he will investigate the churches involved with the One Nation fiasco? Anyhow, also mentioned is the 60 Plus Association, which has worked hard against ObamaCare. No mention about the large amounts of money that the federal government is spending to push ObamaCare.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach. Re-Change 2010!

One of the interesting things of this election cycle has been to see what sore losers RINOS and country club Republicans are becoming. Since the Tea Party Movement has been throwing establishment GOPers out right and left (or maybe that’s left and left) some of them have responded with petulance instead of accepting the will of the voters.

In fact we’ve been seeing quite a few little tantrums thrown by the RINO set as voters have been turning against them.

Recall that “Benedict” Arlen Specter had to jump parties because Republican Pat Toomey was encroaching on the privilege that Specter assumed he’d earned. Once it became clear that Toomey was the GOP choice, Specter petulantly snubbed him and no support was forthcoming from supposedly life-long Republican Specter.

In New York’s 23rd we saw a back room deal set Dede Scozzafava up to become the candidate for the GOP nod for Congress there. But the Republican voters had another idea and gave their votes to independent conservative Doug Hoffman instead. Who did “Republican” Scozzafava endorse after the dust settled? She endorsed the Democrat. Temper, temper, little RINO.

A look down in Florida will remind us of Charlie Crist’s flip flopping and struggling campaign. The supposedly Republican Crist was so mad at Tea Party supported Marco Rubio that Crist ended up not supporting what the voters clearly wanted. He decided to thumb his nose at them by running for Senate as an “independent.” A little tantrum that is making him look like a fool if his low, low poll ratings can be believed.

Then over in Delaware, RINO Republican Mike Castle lost to Tea Party insurgent Christine O’Donnell losing his long-held seat in Congress. Is Castle being the bigger man, accepting the voter’s choice, and supporting his party? Uh, nope. Castle is sulking and reusing to endorse the flag bearer for his own party. Let’s throw a pity party for Mikey.

And now in Alaska loser Lisa Murkowski is on the outs with her own voters who picked Tea Party backed Joe Miller. Is she retiring gracefully and sticking with her party like a loyal member should? No siree, Murkowski is launching an ill-advised write-in candidacy for herself. One wonders if like a ten-year-old child she told her staff that she was going to hold her breath until she got her seat back.

Pile on top of that an establishment creature like Karl Rove who is apoplectic that voters in Delaware refused to back RINO Castle, a candidate that Rove worked to get reelected. Is Rove backing the party choice? Apparently not. He’s running the RINO path and constantly doubling and re-doubling down on his loud criticism of the party nominee simply because she isn’t establishment enough to suit him.

And then we have the idiotic move by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. On the very night that O’Donnell won her nomination to Congress, the NRSC petulantly announced that it wouldn’t give her a penny. The backlash was immediate and the very next morning the NRSC reversed itself and sullenly gave O’Donnell its support.

What are we seeing here? Do we see this sort of nonsense on the Democrat side? Do they constantly run as “independents” or refuse to support their party when they lose? Not so much. But here are these RINOS so furious that the voters have turned them out that they are willing to allow the Democrats to win, they are all fired up to act the spoiler, just so that the person that is clearly the choice of Republican voters will lose.

Are all these temper tantrums really all an effort to support the “most electable candidate,” i.e. the RINO? Or is this a RINO protection racket we are seeing? All I know is that in many cases this year the voters are speaking for the Tea Party-styled candidates, those candidates that stand for real conservative values. Yet the country club set, the RINO faction is standing in the way of the will of the voters.

I’ll only mention later in passing just how much respect I normally have for Charles Krauthammer. For now, there’s just too much antipathy brewing within (if you catch my tea allusion). While right on the Right almost all the time, Dr. K has been too elitist by half on the Tea Party/Christine O’Donnell issue this week.

On Fox News as well as in his highly influential Friday Washington Post column, Dr. K’s resentment about the “Tea Party” victory of Christine O’Donnell over establishment RINO Mike Castle has been palpable. He and other conservative elites yap on and on about “The Bill Buckley Rule” — support the most conservative candidate who is electable — completely missing the point about O’Donnell’s opponent, the popular, electable, but decidedly un-conservative Castle.

While Dr. K and cronies were willing to accept Republican Lite as an acceptable status quo rather than confront it as a decades-old destructive political force to eschew, Mike Castle, in their view the lesser of two evils, was apparently comforted in his loss by phone calls from Sen. Harry Reid and Veep Joe Biden, two pillars of conservatism. Um, hello? As a corollary of the Rush LImbaugh Rule — support the most conservative candidate — one must ask whether it is better to have a GOP-majority Senate full of Mike Castles, or better instead to fight the good conservative fight, even if as an underdog.

Foes of conservatism in the liberal progressive establishment are mostly stepping back and letting the right eat their own on this one. In fact, of the three opinion columns in the WaPo today commenting on O’Donnell’s victory as the GOP candidate for Biden’s Delaware Senate seat, only knee-jerk Obama apologist Eugene Robinson actually had something positive to write about her:

O’Donnell is poised and telegenic, with a sparkle that her Democratic opponent, Chris Coons, will be hard-pressed to match. She has mastered what should be called the Sarah Palin Affect — the perkiness, the folksiness, the religiosity, the occasional flash of bared fangs — and she performs it well.

While Republican pooh-bahs in Washington and Wilmington argue over whether to pour any real money into the race — or just give it up as lost — O’Donnell will be showered with campaign cash from Tea Party groups and supporters across the country. If Democrats mount an energetic campaign, and generate some enthusiasm among the party faithful, they can beat her. If they don’t, she might prevail.

Head games, to try and rally the progressive left for at least one possible victory in November? Of course. Mr. Robinson may be an Obot zombie, but he’s no fool. Still, the contrast on the editorial page was stark.

As for the other two WaPo columns today that considered the Castle vs. O’Donnell primary upset: you would think that Krauthammer and his somewhat-non-leftist WaPo colleague, former Bush speech writer Michael Gerson, would at least try to look for some silver lining in what they otherwise believe is the utter fall of GOP civilization as we knew it: the success of a true conservative senatorial candidate in troubling times.

But no. Dr. K, whom I deeply respect as one of the most foresightful, cunning, and witty of conservative thinkers, instead prefers to fire pot shots at the O’Donnell-enabling Tea Party movement such as this:

Tuesday in Delaware was a bad day not only for Republicans but also for conservatives. Tea Partyer Christine O’Donnell scored a stunning victory over establishment Republican Mike Castle. Stunning but pyrrhic. The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama’s social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda.

And there was this, from Gerson, who preferred in his collum to dig up dirt on O’Donnell and then belittle grassroots conservative activists, thus:

But it is also possible that the Tea Party will define the hated “establishment” not just as moderate Republicans such as Mike Castle of Delaware but also as moderate conservatives of every stripe. Many Tea Party activists espouse a “constitutionalism” that amounts to an extreme libertarianism. Their goal is not just deficit reduction but the dismantling of the modern state. And they may prove harder to tame than some imagine.

And that would be a bad thing, Mr. Gerson? If one considers that “the modern state” has been co-opted by progressives from both parties, who consider the United States Constitution as an impediment rather than a cherished gift from our Founding Fathers, then maybe it does deserve some dismantling. Would Mike Castle really have voted to repeal ObamaCare, the culmination of — and the single most destructive aspect of — the progressive “modern state”? He had already promised his support on Cap and Trade, the economy killer, based on a hoax, that would be the final nail in the coffin of American capitalism and the ultimate victory for European-style progressivism on these shores. Barack Obama’s ascendancy as the Evil Emperor of Progressivism* would be complete, even with a loss in 2012.

“But it’s over, over, over,” whimper the conservative intelligentsia. There’s little hope for a Republican majority in the Senate now. All due to those meddling, high-school educated, Tea Party troglodytes, messing around with politics and other elitist things that they simply can’t understand without that silky sheen of postgraduate education to decorate their resumés.

Krauthammer scolds Sen. Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin for their “11th-hour” endorsements of O’Donnell, challenging them to now go to Delaware and “get her elected to the Senate.” Well, their job would be a whole lot easier if aloof, know-it-all conservative columnists like Dr. K weren’t blowing off about her as being un-electable, much to the benefit of her opposition. Is not the most destructive enemy the one from within?

Krauthammer claims that he wants to be proven wrong come November, that he really wants the GOP to have that 51st Senate seat. What will he actually do about it, besides denigrate candidate O’Donnell and the wisdom of those who backed her? He might discuss, for starters, Harry Reid’s embracing of O’Donnell’s Democrat challenger Chris Coons as his cuddly pet. Or, perhaps the illustrious Dr. K could remind America and Delaware that a concerted effort to energize conservatives and independents could block a Coons victory, sending Reid back to minority leader status (if he himself is not finished off in November by another Tea Party-backed candidate).

As a survivor against difficult odds himself, I was disappointed that Krauthammer chose to vacate the notion of Hope for Change and instead pine for the status quo — blaming the Tea Party in the process. That kinda misses the whole point of the Tea Party Revolution, good doctor, with all due respect.

*UPDATE: Courtesy of Moonbattery, yet more proof of the Obama regime’s destructive aims.

People who don’t like vanilla ice cream don’t want “Vanilla Bean” or “French Vanilla” or “Etruscan Vanilla” or “Vanilla Lite”; if they want ice cream at all, what they want is something completely different: Maybe chocolate or maybe not, but definitely NOT any kind of vanilla.

The same thing applies to politics, too: When people are upset with, or distrustful of, or even outright scared of the Democrat party and are voicing their feelings openly and joining “Tea Parties” and gathering in their tens or hundreds of thousands to protest the Democrats’ intended “fundamental transformation’ of this country, what Republicans need to offer them is something completely different — definitely NOT “Democrat Lite.”

Republican leaders, though, don’t seem to have figured that out yet, and, perhaps in hopes of “broadening their tent” and appealing to the greatest possible number of voters they keep on pushing more and more to the center, where, to continue the metaphor, the ice cream has no flavor at all.

In fact, if voters want Democrat candidates or Democrat policies, they’re smart enough to know that they should vote Democrat and get the real thing, instead of some “me too” ersatz Democrat wannabe. And if voters DON’T want what the Democrats have to offer, why on earth would any sane Republican ever even consider offering them just another version of the very same thing that they’ve already clearly and obviously rejected?

When people don’t want “vanilla”, the smart thing to offer is “chocolate”, and the more chocolaty, the better: That way those who hate “vanilla” have an alternative and those who want “chocolate” get exactly what they want. It’s even good for those who don’t like either one: At least if there’s a real choice, they can pick the one they dislike less, instead of having to choose from two of the same thing.

Creating real choices is easy: All you have to do is the opposite of what the other guys are doing. It’s just like chocolate and vanilla; if they’re for big government, you can be for small; if they want more taxes, you push for less; if they want socialism, you can, and should advocate a return to the capitalism that made ours the greatest economy in the world.

Doing it is really just as easy as saying it, but – at least until the Tea Parties – the great majority of Republican Party leaders wouldn’t even say it. Maybe, since the great debacle of 2006, they’ve been so cowed by Democrat successes at the voting booth and by the gushy sentimentality of the “nanny-state” liberals that they’re afraid that voicing real Republican principles will sound “too Republican” and turn people against them.

That’s not only a capitulation to Progressive idiocy, but it also indicates a total failure to understand that this is a “center-right” country, with by far the largest single bloc of voters regarding themselves as “conservative” (Gallup poll June 25, 2010), whether or not they identify with the Republican Party.

There can be no doubt that the American people are fed up with Obama and the Democrats, and that November, 2010 can be the time for a major Republican resurgence. There is considerable doubt, though, that the leadership of the Republican Party will be smart enough, savvy enough, or perhaps willing enough to abandon its progressive, spendthrift, “the-government-knows-all-and-the-Party-knows-best” attitude and, by offering a real alternative to the Democrat takeover already well in process, capitalize on the growing conservative sentiments of the American people to seize the great victory that can so easily be available.

In August 1968, at the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago, in one of the very most famous televised political exchanges in American history, Gore Vidal called his arch-nemesis William F. Buckley a “pro-crypto- Nazi” He later explained that this was just a temporary verbal flailing about while he searched for the temporarily lost (brain frozen) word “fascist” to nail Buckley with. Even so, the meaning was still there: He was saying that Buckley, while not really a Nazi, was sort of thinking and acting like one.

We’ve already seen examples of the Republican Party working in the primaries to support middle-of-the-road “pro-crypto-Democrats” over true conservatives. If we are to win back our Congress in 2010 and our Country in 2012, Republican leaders have to learn that when the American people say that they want something different, it’s because they want something that really IS different.

It’s not possible to be too chocolaty; it’s not possible to be too conservative; and at least in 2010 and 2012, it’s not possible to be too Republican.

– END –

C.L. Bryant is a Runaway Slave.

Former NAACP leader and self-professed “Democratic Radical,” C.L. escaped from the bondage of Progressivism and the shackles of entitlements to secure the blessings of liberty guaranteed by our founding document, the US Constitution.

Follow C.L. as he traces the footsteps of runaway slaves through the Underground Railroad. He travels into the heart of Black communities across the US, from the slave ports of New Orleans to Chicago’s Cabrini Green to Martin Luther King’s birthplace, Atlanta, on to Jefferson’s Monticello; the film explores how 95% support of the Democratic Party has impacted the Black community.

This powerful film is in production but needs further funding to make it a reality. Donate now – through FreedomWorks.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele is putting some political distance between the national Republican Party and Arizona Republicans who enacted a tough immigration-enforcement law earlier this year.

“Let’s be clear. The actions of one state’s governor is not a reflection of an entire country, nor is it a reflection of an entire political party,” the outspoken RNC chairman told an interviewer from Univision, the highly rated Spanish-language cable TV network.

“The governor and the people of Arizona made a decision that they thought was in their best interest. And that’s the beauty of a republic. That’s who we are.”

OK, not all Republicans and Conservatives are pro-Arizona law, especially among the political class. But, hey, Mike, 59% of Americans favor an Arizona like law in their State, and “Eighty-five percent (85%) of Republicans and 70% of voters not affiliated with either major party favor passage of an Arizona-like law in their state.” Perhaps that should tell you something, Mike. Instead of pandering to a section of the population that supports lawlessness (not too mention part of that section that is not eligible to vote, since they are not US citizens and cannot vote, whether here legally or illegally), Mike could have stood up in favor of The Law. Perhaps this might be one of the reasons the RNC only has $5 million heading into the mid-terms. Republican voters are sending their money to the State parties and directly to the candidates.

“We hope, now that this debate is in full bloom, level heads will prevail and that we’ll reach a common sense solution with regards to immigration,” Steele said.

Sounds like comprehensive immigration reform, also known as “amnesty,” eh? Perhaps you should think deeply on which Party you are supposed to be representing, Mike.

“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 helping those who want to assimilate into the way of life of America,” he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer in April.

And this is the problem with many in the political class, high up in the GOP: they are more concerned with creating new voters by pandering and patronizing, rather than sticking to the guns and positions held by a majority of actual GOP voters.

Crossed at Pirate’s Cove. Follow me on Twitter @WilliamTeach

The extremist, left-wing site Talking Points Memo (better known as TPM) thought it had a zinger of a story about the “RNC’s 2012 convention logo.” The logo, TPM crows, seems to have *GASP* a Muslim minaret in it. TPM even helpfully added a copy of the logo with a nice red arrow to the “minaret” image to help its readers determine which graphic element was the minaret (as seen to your right).

What is the subliminal message, TPM wonders? What nefarious motives could the GOP possibly have to include a Muslim icon in their logo? What is going on here TPM demands to know!

And don’t you know, this could be big news among the racists of the GOP who hate all Muslims and want them bombed out of existence, right? TPM dearly hopes that this minaret gaffe will blow up and cause a nuclear meltdown among the hatemongers of the GOP.

The apparent minaret in the logo was first pointed out by DemConWatch. And there may be those who wonder how some of the more anti-mosque elements of the GOP might react to such an architectural inclusion.

Yes, going to “DemConWatch” for serious news is always a fine idea, we all know. After all, in its story DemConWatch features distinctly news-like rhetoric such as: “Will Teabaggers be offended by the minaret in the 2012 RNC logo?” See how measured and serious they are?

So, why has the GOP stuck a mosque in it’s logo? Well, let’s lay out reality for the truth deprived folks of TPM, shall we?

Number one, the minaret image is part of Tampa Bay’s skyline. The building that the logo invokes is that of the old Tampa Bay Hotel, now owned by the University of Tampa. The building has been part of the Tampa skyline since the 1920s and is a well-known visual aspect of the city.

And number two on top of that, this logo that TPM reported as the “RNC’s 2012 Convention logo” is not the RNC’s 2012 Convention logo at all. It is the logo designed by the non-profit agency created by the City of Tampa Bay to raise funds for the upcoming convention. The RNC had precisely zip to do with the logo.

Ah, but let’s not let truth get in the way of the left’s crap-stirring lies, shall we?

(H/T William Teach)