RedState Morning BriefingMarch 30, 2012Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
David Brock says he got famous for calling Anita Hill “a slut.”
That is his own description of how he became famous.
Compounding the irony, David Brock says Rush Limbaugh made him famous. That’s right folks, the head of Media Matters For America, on a personal quest to destroy Rush Limbaugh after spectacularly failing to do the same to Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Anita Hill, and more, actually said, “Limbaugh was making me famous for calling Anita Hill a slut.”
If you haven’t paid attention these past few months, from the Daily Caller investigation into David Brock to David Brock trying to get Rush off the air, David Brock really thinks the world revolves around David Brock. And David Brock tries to set up as much spin as he can to try to make you think the world revolves around David Brock.
In fact, the reality is David Brock has a self-inflated sense of self-worth. He surrounds himself with bodyguards convinced someone somewhere wants to do him harm while he maligns the reputations of others, dabbled in illegal drugs, seemingly suffers from some level of instability, and felt obligated to pay his ex-boyfriend $850,000.00 to keep the ex-boyfriend quiet about Media Matters.
It’s no wonder, with all the stories pouring out about how pathetic David Brock actually is, that David Brock is trying to divert attention to Rush Limbaugh. But you know what? Not only is the effort against Limbaugh failing, it is failing badly.
Consequently, Brock is shifting gears — bragging about the money he is raising, which he actually isn’t, and trying to take credit for Cumulus Media potentially replacing the Rush Limbaugh Show with the Mike Huckabee Show, which so far hasn’t panned out.
First, let’s look at the failing Limbaugh campaign.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
Charles Fried has suddenly become a very popular fellow on the Left. The former Reagan Solicitor General and Bill Weld appointee to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court is being touted by the Washington Post’s in-house left-wing activists Greg Sargent and Ezra Klein, as well as ThinkProgress and Media Matters and its frenetic professional tweeters Eric Boehlert and Oliver Willis over Professor Fried’s support for the constitutionality of Obamacare. Dahlia Lithwick went further, using Prof. Fried’s prediction of an 8-1 decision as evidence that “[t]he conservative legal elites don’t believe in the merits of this challenge”. It’s not surprising that these folks are in such a rush to get the cover of a former Reagan lawyer to restore their talking point – now in tatters after a week of serious, sober and probing questioning from the Supreme Court – that only an extremist would think there is any constitutional issue at all with Obamacare. But there are some things they’re not telling you about Charles Fried.
Now, let me preface this by saying that I have a lot of respect for Prof. Fried. He was my constitutional law professor and probably the best teacher I had in law school, a brilliant man who had taught just about every area of law under the sun and was especially talented at bringing together the strands of disparate areas of the law. I read his book about his days as the SG before I started law school, and I respected his willingness – as a guy who is not pro-life – to argue, twice, for overturning Roe v Wade. He was also the faculty adviser for the Law School Republicans, which I headed for a time. Prof. Fried has indeed been, in the past, a longstanding member of the GOP legal establishment; he testified in favor of John Roberts’ Supreme Court confirmation, and in 2006 wrote a NY Times op-ed defending his former deputy, Samuel Alito, as “not a lawless zealot but a careful lawyer with the professionalism to give legally sound but unwelcome advice” and “a person who can tell the difference between the law and his own political predilections.”
But if you think brilliant people can’t be horribly wrong, you have not spent much time studying lawyers and the law. And if you’ve been reading the left-wing activists, you might not have learned that the 76-year-old Prof. Fried has not only been a vigorous defender of Obamacare who famously testified that the federal government could mandate that you buy vegetables and join a gym, he also voted for President Obama and wrote him what amounted to a political love letter last summer, wrote a book in 2010 with his son which he characterized as showing that the Bush Administration’s anti-terrorism policies “broke the law” and were “disgusting and terrible and degrading,” and has been a vociferous critic of the Tea Party.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
Meet Jesse Lava, campaign director – campaign director – at Brave New Foundation: progressive, comedy savant, and first-time user of phones. If you’ve never heard of the man or the group, well, no surprise there. But they do exist, and they are hilarious.
Oh Jesse, you so crazy! They eat babies? YOU ARE A COMIC GENIUS! SOMEONE GET THIS MAN AN HBO SPECIAL RIGHT NOW!
The fake sincerity, the outburst of laughter releasing his obvious nervousness … you’d almost think it was a job interview or an audition or an 11 year old who just asked if your refrigerator was running. I’ll hand it to him, though; he did manage not to babble on about the Kochtopus or the Illuminati.
Tonight, Brave New Foundation is debuting a “documentary” titled Koch Brothers Exposed, which if the trailer is any indication, will consist in the main of accusations that the Kochs have lots of money, and that you should probably be upset about that. (George Soros could not be reached for comment.) You can read “sincere” Jesse discussing the premiere here. Just don’t bother trying to click on his link to the film, it doesn’t work. First day on the internet, too, one might assume.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
As a movement, we have enjoyed unparalleled growth over the past few decades, particularly, over the past few years with the advent of the Tea Party. We have more conservative thinkers, writers, talk radio hosts, and organizations than Ronald Reagan would have ever imagined. Most importantly, we have more passion and grassroots activism than ever. However, the most direct way to affect conservative change is to win elections; both primary and general. Writers, thinkers, and speakers help galvanize and unify the conservative movement, but we cannot win elections on superior ideas and arguments alone.
The seminal ingredient to electoral success has not changed; it all boils down to turning out the vote and establishing an efficient and effective ground game to connect with the most consequential voters in a given district. What has changed is electronic communication. The only way to run an effective campaign in this era of mobile devices and social media is to create the perfect synergy between the venues of communication, the voter information, and the GOTV operation.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
0 comments:
Post a Comment