MMA – The New Hollywood Of Politics!

Share Button

We all know how trendy it was (is) for the stars in Hollywood to bash G W Bush and call him an idiot.  Well, now there’s a new playa in town, the MMA! And they’re tough!!!

Hollywood… Obama.. You betta watch your back!

PS. And this gives me a perfect excuse to post this video!  Thanks for that! The fun starts at about 1:10 in.

Why Journalism Is Dying: Pt… Oh, I Lost Count.

Share Button

Dana Milbank has written an article on the recent RNC chair debate, noting how the vetting process shows nothing more than an “ideological cleansing” of the Republican party…

Well Duh, I’ve been writing about that for years! And history shows that after a party loses power, as happened to Republicans in 2006 and 2008, they tend to sway toward their more polar political wing.  Milbank writes:

Instead, the debate turned into a series of litmus tests of Republican loyalty…. They demonstrated how ideologically homogeneous the party has become.

Isn’t that what typically happens at these things? Aren’t they SUPPOSED to be looking for someone that most closely represents the party’s mainline views? He notes:

Norquist and Carlson, serving as cardinals of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, administered a long series of loyalty checks, and the candidates were nearly dissent-free. Abortion? All opposed. Lower taxes? All in favor. Gay marriage? All opposed. Cutting spending? All in favor….

Asked what viewpoints should lead somebody to be evicted from the Republican Party, Wagner [one of the RNC chair candidates] offered several, including pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage and anti-gun rights. Anuzis [another candidate] said a Republican official should be excommunicated if he or she votes against the platform more than 20 percent of the time. “If you’re pro-abortion, pro-stimulus, pro-GM bailout, pro-AIG,” said Priebus, “guess what? You might not be a Republican.”

So – the big tent is dead. That’s not news as it died some time ago. At least they’ve stopped pretending. What strikes me about this paragraph, is that, if you put the shoe on the other foot, and examine the process for choosing a chairperson for the DNC, do you really think you’re going to end up with a winner, much less a viable candidate, who doesn’t tow the party line? Do you really think we’re going to see a Democrat chair candidate who is pro-life, against taxing the rich, against gay marriage, against the bail outs? Do you really think that candidate has a chance in HELL to win that contest?

And PS. Don’t look now, but the next generation of GOP’ers is not the homophobic crowd the press would have you believe.

PPS. Andrew Sullivan writes:

The RNC debate was like something out of Orwell, apparently.

I think that qualifies for one of Sullivan’s fabled awards, probably a Moore.