Star One Smart Blog's

Along the way, the movement has picked up some of the worst excesses of modern American culture: a narcissistic sense of victimization, an egomaniacal belief in one’s own rightness and purity, a willingness to distort the truth so that every conflict becomes a contest of pure good versus pure evil. *

In other words, David, you believe that the Tea Party is forcing Republicans to behave and become exactly as has the far-left, progressive, Republic-destroying Democrats have behaved for the past 20 years, a force Right to counter the force with which you are aligned: malicious and destructive Left.

Exactly as we have needed to do, to counter the massive 'Progressive' shift leftwards. We didn't need to run Bob Dole, you blue-blooded elitist beltway Republicans. We didn't need to run squishy John McCain. Squishy men can't stop the evil that progressives are directing against this Republic.

We haven't found a way to counter the looter - moocher 'Community Organizer' thrust that Obama brings to the table; the attempt to 'buy' votes by making promises to give envious and Constitution-unaware 'Americans' Other People's Money. The basest of attractions to attract the lowest form of voter. As Ben Franklin said, we would survive as a Republic until someone figured out how to vote themselves monies from the Federal Treasury. I doubt he imagined that an entire political party would take that low road; but then, Franklin didn't get to read Marx.

I'd imagine that if the founding fathers knew of the philosophies coming our way, of the Communist - Socialist forces that are at the eating away the heart of the Democrat party, with their Unions and their envy and their race - class warfare machinations that drive the unthinking to vote Democrat, that they would have kept wording in the Constitution giving the vote only to property owners that have to think before they vote for these looter politicians who are draining the treasury.

Thank God for the Tea Party. If they can't correct this far-left drift, then this nation - Republic is doomed.

---

Christine O'Donnell represents a strong win for the Tea Partyers, at the expense of Republican Party blue-bloods. The RINO went down; Christine now faces a far-lefty Democrat. I like her chances, even in diminutive Delaware, a state that hasn't seen this much attention since DuPont invented nylons.

Dan Collins asks, "Is a Democrat really better than a RINO?" and answers his own question thusly...

Does voting for the more conservative candidate in the primary mean the seat will go blue? Absolutely not, and I’m not suggesting conservatives should endorse moderate Republicans out of political expediency. I do, however, think it’s naïve and dangerous to prefer a true blue Democrat to a moderate Republican (RINO). The last few elections have seen several RINOs swept from office; but a few more RINOs might have prevented HCR from passing.

I completely disagree. A RINO who has achieved an election win with an (R) next to his or her name is a liar first and, having won with that (R) label, should be expected to meet a minimum standard of Republican Party loyalty. What good is the (R) label if your chosen representative is a RINO whose votes are for the opposition?

Yes, I’d rather have a Democrat in office than a RINO. At least it’s honesty, pure and simple; I know what to expect and exactly where I stand, and I won’t feel a sense of betrayal when the idiot RINO's vote is incorrect.

Count me standing with Mark Levin, who is steadfast and staunchest Conservative, who did oppose the blue-blooded weak-tea sipper Republicans who ruined two presidential elections by nominating and running Bob Dole and John McCain.

Let's hope these RINO Republicans are feeling worried and fragile tonight, as they should. 

---

The New York Times has an editorial up today that's impressive for it's clarity and honesty; and for once, even if they are trying to underhandedly bash Rush Limbaugh, they only succeed in getting things right.

Asks Zev Chafets, who has a book in the works "Rush Limbaugh, An Army of One", 'How and why are conservative Republicans doing so well right now?' Aside from the wake-up call of doom that the election of an unbelievably far-left President announced, that fateful election awakened many good people who would like to see this great nation continue to succeed; for that to happen, the policies of Barack Obama must be thwarted at every opportunity. The party of NO, indeed. And yes, Obama's policy initiatives must fail for this nation to survive.

Zef Chafets at the NYT...

The Limbaugh Victory
...

But the most obvious explanation is the one that’s been conspicuously absent from the gusher of analysis. Republican success in 2010 can be boiled down to two words: Rush Limbaugh.

Mr. Limbaugh has played an important role in elections going back to 1994, when he commanded the air war in the Republican Congressional victory. This time, however, he is more than simply the mouthpiece of the party. He is the brains and the spirit behind its resurgence.

How did this happen? The Obama victory in 2008 left Republicans dazed, demoralized and leaderless. Less than six weeks after the inauguration, in a nationally televised keynote address to the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, Mr. Limbaugh stepped into the void with a raucous denunciation of the new president’s agenda and a strategic plan based on his belief that real conservatism wins every time. He reiterated his famous call for Mr. Obama to fail and urged the party faithful to ignore the siren song of bipartisanship and moderation and stay true to the principles of Ronald Reagan.

Democrats responded by branding Mr. Limbaugh — whom they considered self-evidently unattractive — as the leader of the opposition. The day after the conservative conference, Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, went on “Face the Nation” and described Mr. Limbaugh as the “voice and the intellectual force and energy” of the G.O.P.

...

[Limbaugh's] strategy was simple. With Democrats controlling Congress, Mr. Limbaugh saw that there was no way to stop the president’s agenda. He dismissed the moderates’ notion that compromising with the president would make Republicans look good to independents. Instead he decreed that the Republicans must become the party of no, and force Democratic candidates — especially centrists — to go into 2010 with sole responsibility for the Obama program and the state of the economy. And that is what has happened.

Mr. Limbaugh was not just the architect of this plan, he was (and continues to be) its enforcer. Dissenters like Arlen Specter, whom Mr. Limbaugh disparaged as a “Republican in Name Only,” found themselves unelectable in the party primaries. Moderates like Michael Steele, the party chairman, were slapped down for suggesting cooperation with the administration. When Representative Phil Gingrey of Georgia had the temerity to suggest that Mr. Limbaugh was too uncompromising, he was met with public outrage and forced into an humiliating apology.

When the Tea Party movement emerged, Mr. Limbaugh welcomed it. The movement’s causes — fighting against health care reform, reducing the size and cost of government, opposing the Democrats’ putative desire to remake America in the image of European social democracies — were straight Limbaughism. A very high proportion of the Tea Partiers listen to Mr. Limbaugh. Sarah Palin’s biggest current applause line — Republicans are not just the party of no, but the party of hell no — came courtesy of Mr. Limbaugh.

...

Rush Limbaugh came along after the age of Ronald Reagan. He has never really had a Republican presidential candidate to his ideological satisfaction. But if the party sweeps this November under the banner of Real Conservatism, Mr. Obama will find himself facing two years of “no” in Washington and, very likely, a Limbaugh-approved opponent in 2012.

If that happens, if we succeed in pushing back against this far-Left assault on American (and it must succeed for this nation as we knew it to survive) then Rush should get a Congressional Medal of Freedom. Because Rush Limbaugh, alone at times, has stood up against the far-Left Social Democrats, and given hope and direction to the people of this nation who deserve better than what some of the weak-spined Republicans in leadership roles (those who would 'just get along' while the country burns) have provided.

Video and movie by Jeremy Hoop (where you can download the song for free, and read the lyrics).

This one is going viral, so you might as well watch it here.

Oh, and let me congratulate that lefty Democrat fellow Sestak for kicking Arlen Specter to the curb. Five terms and done. Good riddance, Speculum old buddy. Sestak, you're up for November. Get ready.

And I'm hearing of a "Randslide" in Kentucky. The Tea Party candidate did whip the Establishment Republican; that's some good news.

Shiver, bitches. Shiver.

---

A bit of good news on a slow news day...the Charleston County GOP has censured Lindsey Graham.

Senator Lindsey Graham didn't just sneak over the line and dart back, he's a serial RINO who supported TARP, the envirowhacko-enabling Cap and Trade; he positioned himself on the wrong side of the illegal immigration debate (for which he was censured by the Greenville GOP in 2007).

Here's the full text of the Charleston GOP censure...

Whereas, U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and John Kerry (MA) have called for a bipartisan bill dealing with “climate change” via a “Cap & Trade” energy bill;

Whereas, the basis of Cap & Trade – global warming caused by carbon emissions – is still in doubt as evidenced by the past decade of cooling temperatures;

Whereas, the people of South Carolina can ill afford the job-killing Cap & Trade bill’s ripple effects on our state’s economy and on personal energy bills;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham supported TARP and has shown a willingness to discuss nationalizing U.S. banking institutions;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has shown a condescending attitude toward his constituents by calling them “bigots” when they oppose his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated on many occasions that his primary concern is to “be relevant”;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham continues to hold the Republican Party hostage and undermines Republican leadership and party solidarity for his own benefit by joining the “Gang of 10″ and the “Gang of 14″;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham – in the name of bipartisanship – continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.

Therefore, let it be resolved: The Charleston County Republican Party Executive Committee respectfully requests, with sincere sadness that the South Carolina Republican Party withdraw their resolution commending U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and that the Charleston Country Republican Party censure U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of Charleston County SC, such as: passing a “Cap & Trade” energy bill, bailing out banks, and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.

There is a line between what is today's far-left Democrat party and 'normal' Democrats (now Independents). What seems like center to Lindsey Graham is actually much farther left than he realizes.

We do need a strong force to counteract the new, CHANGE-oriented Obama Democrats. Moving to the left to become 'bipartisan' is just that: moving too far to the left.

This censure is well-timed. Of course Lindsey Graham will ignore it. But come re-election time, his primary fight might be a bit more interesting.

---

"Big" Republicans, the 'official' GOP, will definitely have a nice hand-print on their faces when this election is over. The GOP deserves this slap in the face, from the budding Conservative Party; a well-deserved slap to the likes of David Frum and Meghan McCain; Olympia Snowe and even Newt Gingrich: those who drift too far left (Frum and his ilk, both McCains, and those two lobsterpot bimbos from Maine), and blindly support the Party First and abandon their principles (that would be you, Newt).

Surprisingly, David Hoffman can win this hotly contested race.

Sure he can. Yes, he can! There's massive momentum on his side: ringing endorsements from Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Fred Thompson, Steve Forbes, and other Conservatives.

From the New York Post...

Doug Hoffman for Congress

New York's 23rd Congressional District lies near Canada, far to the north -- but next week's special election merits attention throughout the state.

That's because the Republican candidate in that race, Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava, is the product of an obscenely corrupt political bargain by GOP bosses that sells out their party -- and New Yorkers generally.

Because of that, and because so many of her positions ill-serve the interests of New York and the nation, The Post today endorses businessman Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party nominee.

No, Republicans needn't toe the conservative line without any deviation. Moderate GOPers like Rudy Giuliani have managed to stray on some issues without wholly betraying their party.

But a Republican should adhere to certain minimum GOP principles. Scozzafava is just too far to the left too often.

And not only on social matters, like same-sex marriage and abortion. In Albany, Scozzafava has been such a profligate tax-and-spender, she can almost make Speaker Sheldon Silver blush.

With the backing of the ACORN-allied Working Families Party, she supports Big Labor's favorite organizing bill -- card-check -- as well as the federal stimulus, opposed by every House Republican.

Hoffman, by contrast, understands the dangers of unchecked spending, monster deficits and ever-higher taxes -- i.e., concerns of average working Americans.

Scozzafava is the hand-picked candidate of former state GOP chairman Joseph Mondello. His successor, Ed Cox, should learn a lesson from this fiasco.

Voters in this traditionally GOP district can send a useful message -- by sending Doug Hoffman to Congress. [emboldenings mine -ed.]

Just what we need. No, really! A party schism, where we Conservatives send a message to those GOP'ers who would drift too far Left: a nice slap in the face.

As with McCain, I'd rather see the true leftist win, the Democrat, rather than a Republican in Name Only. McCain was a mistake. Yes, I'm glad BHO won the presidency. The exposure of just how far Left the Democrats have drifted was a necessary evil. We will see BHO's poll numbers continue to reflect the growing disenchantment with his far-left positions as time goes on. If we can keep the country intact, maybe we can overcome the Hard Left Progressive shift at the midterm and in 2012.

We can't thwart a hard left turn by moving to the middle. We must provide counterbalance by moving Hard Right. Hoffman and the nascent Conservative Party provides the 'first strike' against the GOP members who want to give ground.

I'm strongly in favor of the Conservative Party, and against the GOP as it's positioned right now.

There will be no more donations to the Republican Party until we Conservatives can check their support of candidates like Scofflaw (sorry, Scozzafava).

---

In case you've been in a cave and missed it, Rush Limbaugh delivered The Speech at CPAC's closing on Saturday. THE Speech that our leadership Republican sissies (well, not the Republicans in the HOUSE, who voted three times against Obama's plan to destroy our economy (he's succeeding), led by putative Republican Leader Michael Steele (or so he says), have since tried to keep at arm's length. The problem with that is, as usual, RUSH IS RIGHT.

Quickly, now: Rush states, again and correctly, that Obama's failed economic policies should, well, fail, for the sake of the nation. Again, the media and the left (same thing, really) claim that Rush wants Obama, personally, to fail (if Obama does fail, personally, and I don't see how, given his marital circumstance, he could avoid failing; for that, there's Viagra.. ).

Michael Steele, Saturday night on one of those CNN shows, says "I'm the de facto leader of the Republican Party." And "Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, the whole thing is entertainment. Yes, it's incendiary, yes, it's ugly --" We've already spoken of Ugly, Michael.

Of course, Rush has perfect rebuttal, yesterday, on his show...

A Few Words for Michael Steele

Okay, so I am an entertainer, and I have 20 million listeners, 22 million listeners because of my great song-and-dance routines here. Yes, said Michael Steele, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, I'm incendiary, and yes, it's ugly. Michael Steele, you are head of the RNC. You are not head of the Republican Party. Tens of millions of conservatives and Republicans have nothing to do with the RNC and right now they want nothing to do with it, and when you call them asking them for money, they hang up on you. I hope that changes. I hope the RNC will get its act together. I hope the RNC chairman will realize he's not a talking head pundit, that he is supposed to be working on the grassroots and rebuilding it, and maybe doing something about our open primary system and fixing it so that Democrats do not nominate our candidates. It's time, Mr. Steele, for you to go behind the scenes and start doing the work that you were elected to do instead of trying to be some talking head media star, which you're having a tough time pulling off. I hope you figure out how to run a primary system. But it seems to me that it's Michael Steele who is off to a shaky start.

...

Mr. Steele, your spokesman sounds like the RNC wants 'em to fail, to me. You're opposing 'em. You say the American people are growing weary of it, getting suspicious of it. But it's not just Pelosi's spending. It's Obama's. Where are your guts? Why can't you tie Obama to these policies? They're his! Where are your guts?

And he puts that certain skewer right into Mr. Steele's nethers. Right where Steele deserves it.

Because it's the gutless Republicans who have caused this nation's nightmares. By nominating a fool like McCain. By trying to be chummy with the Enemy, the Left: Obama, Pelosi, Reid, that crew of nation wreckers. We knew Obama wanted CHANGE, he said so. CHANGE, as defined by Obama, was not a direction or a magnitude, but a general whimsical word that hid his true nature: to drive the U.S. to a Socialist - European model. A model that's contrary to our Constitution.

We are going down, folks. What we were is very close to being relegated to history. Even though it's spearheaded by those on the left, there's plenty of blame to spread to Republicans, who've by inaction and by incorrect action have enabled our enemies.

---

Bobby Jindal makes up for his lackluster speech (you know, the one following Obama’s undefined collective House-Senate BJ last week..)

Morrissey finally gets it right. The Country is not Obama. If Obama fails, the Country will carry on. If Obama succeeds, that’s when the Country will fail.