Voice of America Is Undermining the US Abroad. Trump Can Easily Change That.

Conservative Larry Elder serves up Piers Morgan's Head on a Platter

Sen Marco (R-FL) Rubio talks immigration with Rush Limbaugh (Full Interview 01-29-13)

Palin: Let´s Broaden Our Audience

The Superb Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney and the Angry GOP - Challenges Ahead - Michael Medved

Michael Medved nails Mitt Romney’s challenges in 2012, as well as the GOP’s. 

From today’s The Daily Beast 

On no significant issue has Romney moved to the left or to the center over the last four years; his platform of 2012 offers a program of conservative reform far bolder and more substantive than any ideas he put forward in 2008. 

Mitt’s precise problem came into focus for me with an e-mail from an angry listener to my radio show who upbraided me for my open support of Romney as the most electable candidate against Obama. “We remember what you did to us last time, and we won’t let you get away with it again!” she wrote. “This time you’re trying to ram the RINO, Romney, down our throats and last time it was McCain. It was because of people like you that we got stuck with McCain, when we could have had a real conservative who would have beaten Obama!” 

And who would have been that “real conservative” back in the distant days of 2008?

None other than … Mitt Romney, the “conservative’s conservative ” eagerly endorsed by Senator Jim DeMint and nearly all of my talk radio colleagues, including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and many more. 

That Romney no longer counts as a “real conservative” doesn’t reflect any ideological shifts on his part, but it does suggest a significant movement of the entire GOP toward the enraged and indignant right. The far lower turnouts in Florida, Nevada, Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri all indicate that this tectonic movement hardly counts as a positive development for the Republican Party.

-----------------

"The enraged and indignant right." - Sound familiar.

We have seen many such sentiments expressed here, on other sites and in a daily diatribe on most truth twisting Talk Radio shows. This "I'd rather be RIGHT than win" mantrra will prove to be a major stumbling block on the road to successfully ousting President Obama.

Just as Talk Radio and misguided fringer Conservatives mucked up the 2010 mid-term elections, where the goal was to TAKE CONTROL of the Senate as well as the House (while disposing of Harry Reid in the process) they seem hell bent on using the same tactics in the 2012 cycle. The GOP could have deposed Reid in Nevada with a popluar mainstream Conservative, but were overrun by the "blood in their eyes" Right Wing activists who offered us an ill-prepared and unsuitable candidate.

In Delaware, rather than keep a safe, solid seat in the GOP aisle and make the incumbent tow the line AFTER control was won, we had to suffer through the debacle of a  psuedo-witch leading us to defeat, while Talk Radio extolled her Conservative purity.

Why?

"Because we're as mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore."

In our personal lives, very seldom is it wise or successful to make serious decisions while in a highly emotional and angry state of mind. Unfortunately, this logic doesn't seem to be followed in certian political circles.

It's sad to see the same storm clouds gathering again on the political horizon. Hopefully we can wake up, seek shelter from the storm and ride the sensible, pragmatic and MAINSTREAM CONSERVATIVE course to victory.

Michael Savage On Newt Gingrich

I don't normally post articles from conservative talk show hosts, but I found this one interesting. Not because the host of Savage nation is offering Newt Gingrich ONE MILLION DOLLARS to drop out of the race because he can't win, but because he's the first of the talk show pundits that I know of, that is actually making sense.

While conservative talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Levin continue to live in fantasy land by not vetting Newt Gingrich and all his baggage, Savage has decided to put his conservative MONEY where his mouth is. Copied from Michael Savage's Website:

THE REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL FIELD HAS COME DOWN TO TWO CANDIDATES WHO HAVE A REAL CHANCE OF GETTING THE NOMINATION: NEWT GINGRICH AND MITT ROMNEY. WHILE IT’S TRUE THAT ROMNEY IS NOT AS STRONG A CONSERVATIVE AS MANY WOULD LIKE HIM TO BE, THE MOST PRESSING ISSUE BEFORE AMERICA TODAY IS DEFEATING BARACK OBAMA. AND THAT IS SOMETHING NEWT GINGRICH CANNOT DO. FOR WEEKS ON MY SHOW, I HAVE ENUMERATED THE REASONS WHY GINGRICH CANNOT SUCCEED IN AN ELECTION AGAINST OBAMA:

• WHEN HE WAS SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE, GINGRICH FAILED TO DELIVER ON HIS SO-CALLED CONTRACT WITH AMERICA.
• HE MADE ADS WITH NANCY PELOSI PROMOTING THE FALSE THEORY OF GLOBAL WARMING.
• HE’S IN FAVOR OF AMNESTY FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS.
• HE’S TAKEN HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM FANNIE MAE AND FREDDIE MAC, TWO OF THE MOST CORRUPT FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS IN HISTORY.
• HE’S CHEATED ON TWO WIVES AND LEFT BOTH OF THEM WHILE THEY WERE BOTH SERIOUSLY ILL, WHICH WILL DESTROY HIS CHANCES AMONG FEMALE VOTERS.
• HE CALLED THE REPUBLICAN PLAN TO REFORM MEDICARE “RIGHT WING SOCIAL ENGINEERING.”
• IN A PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE AGAINST OBAMA, REGARDLESS OF HOW WELL HE DOES, ON TELEVISION, HE WILL COME OFF BADLY COMPARED TO OBAMA AND LOOK LIKE NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT HE IS: A FAT, OLD, WHITE MAN.

NEWT GINRICH IS UNELECTABLE. MITT ROMNEY IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE WITH A CHANCE OF DEFEATING BARACK OBAMA, AND THERE IS NOTHING MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT FOR FUTURE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND SECURITY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THEREFORE, I AM OFFERING NEWT GINGRICH ONE MILLION DOLLARS TO DROP OUT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATION.

Read the rest HERE.

This probably won't amount to much, but I can't help but wonder how Levin and Limbaugh will react to Savage's criticism of Gingrich by putting this REALITY CHECK out there. 

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Is Rush Limbaugh a HIPPOcrit or a RINO?

H/T Joe

I love it when someone takes the opportunity to nail hypoctrites with THEIR OWN words.

Case in point, on the John Gibson Radio Show today, he killed to birds (turkeys are birds) with one shot.

Larry in Arizona called Gibson to complain about Mitt Romney not being conservative enough.

John took this opportunity to hop into the wayback machine to find out how conservative Mitt actually is/was.

Press the Play (>) below to begin the audio:

HaHaHaHa!... way to go John. I wonder how Rushbo will respond to this? My guess is, he won't. Instead, he'll just continue to talk out of BOTH SIDES of his mouth.

So what else is new?

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

Mitt Romney interview with Brian Kilmeade (AUDIO 09-16-11)

Brian talks with Mitt about the possibility of Herman Cain in his cabinet, Solyndras, The Masscare study that just came out, Time at Bain Capital, Romneycare, his faith, Rick Perry,

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

How Sarah Palin turned me into a moderate

Click graph to see where YOU stand on issues.

To be honest, it was not just Sarah Palin, it was the whole motley crew; including Rush, Levin, the Tea Party, DeMint, O’Donnell, Miller, Bachmann, and others.

And to be honest again, I have not really changed into a moderate. I agree with these people most of the time. I’ve always been conservative, and I’m not about to change now. However, recent events have caused me to wonder if the conservative side of my party has gone a little nuts:

-the constant innuendo/accusations about the birth/background of Barack Obama

-NY23, as OJ so fondly remembers.

-the twin train wrecks of O’Donnell and Miller

-the disparaging remarks of people like Levin, Rush, etc. about Republicans and conservatives, who have dared to slightly disagree with or criticize Sarah Palin. The most recent example of this is Laura Ingraham–who was highly supportive of Palin for years, but has now been thrown under the bus.

-websites such as HotAir and AmericanThinker which have now become Palin-worship-only sites. The constant snarling about good people like Brown, Pawlenty, Daniels, Romney, Christie, Krauthammer, and anyone else who is viewed as an obstacle to Sarah Palin, is so unhelpful. The other day, there was actually a front page article at AT about how Boehner is the most dangerous man in America.

-the overuse and misuse of RINO/CINO designations.

-the third party threats by Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and others.

-the ‘you will be primaried out if you don’t tow my line’ threats.

-the latest debacle in the House, where members of Congress---who appear to be perfectly rational---threw common sense out the window and held out for entirely unachievable goals. As RW said, he wants to ‘go down swinging’.

Well, I don’t want to go down swinging, I want to win. We won’t win every battle, but we can win the war if we play it smart. Unfortunately, sometimes the GOP seems incapable of doing so. It is curious how willing some are to throw the baby out with the bath.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. I imagine that Obama smiles every time the GOP engages in a new civil war. We need to stand united, and not let any single group within our ranks hold the rest hostage. Please do not misunderstand me: I'm not saying that these people should not have a place at the table. They have made great contributions. But sometimes they begin to think they own the place, and that the rest of us don't matter.

I’m all for towing the line on conservative principles, until it becomes counterproductive. Those are the times when we need to take whatever progress we can find, and live to fight the next battle.

Please check us out on Facebook and If you like what you see, please "Like" us. You can find us here.

John Ziegler Challenges Talk Radio

Great news! Today, I found out that John Ziegler, hardcore Palin defender for so long, has been secretly reading my writings here at Right Speak. I had no idea! Just kidding.

Anyway, an interesting video below of him making some very obvious points about Palin and talk radio. He says that the conservative media is invested in the Republicans losing the presidency in 2012. Again, obvious points. But my favorite is his challenge to his critics. He says he is willing to bet $1,000 to anybody who thinks that Palin will become President in 2012. Hilarious!

How To Not Be A RINO: Pay Rush Limbaugh

Politico has a story out about how large, conservative, non-profit organizations are paying talk radio hosts for positive spin. Supposedly, this is shocking. I have been saying for a long time that Rush and Co. couldn't give a rat's rear end about the conservative movement. This is all business, and if you pay enough, Rush can make you a conservative. My favorite part is Rush's defense of the Heritage Foundation's individual mandate. It is a lesson in how to buy remittances to keep your own hide out of RINO purgatory. If Romney were as unscrupulous as these guys, he could use his money more effectively.

Last month, in the midst of a flurry of scrutiny of GOP presidential candidates’ stances on health insurance mandates similar to one included in the 2010 Democratic healthcare overhaul, Limbaugh took to the airwaves to defend Heritage’s past support for such a proposal.

“The Heritage Foundation to this day says they are being impugned and misrepresented in terms of their advocacy for such a thing,” Limbaugh said, explaining that the venerable think tank “abandoned the idea once they saw it implemented” and realized “it doesn’t work.”

Limbaugh, who has been a paid Heritage endorser since 2009, said the reversal did nothing to detract from the “profound … respect for Heritage. Heritage is the gold standard. Heritage was every bit as involved in Reaganism as Reagan was, and nothing’s changed.”

Please repeat after me: Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Mark Levin, and Sean Hannity do not care about the conservative movement. They care about money. 

 

If it wasn't patently obvious before, then it ought to be now.

Romney Vs. Talk Radio

There is some cheery news from Ben Smith for those of us who hate talk radio. Apparently, the people who drive fear and protest for cash have not really taken a shine to the former governor of Massachusetts.

First, Hewitt oddly brackets the most important talk radio figure. While Rush Limbaugh may have criticized Romney, he writes," Rush's vigorous criticism of Romney on these issues is a far, far degree from Smith's lead description."

Limbaugh, who says he likes Romney personally, also said "bye bye nomination" last week. This doesn't strike me as cutting against the thesis that Romney is the "punching bag of the conservative media, though it isn't personal ridicule. 

So to make sure I hadn't dreamed up those more vitriolic talk radio segments, I devoted an arduous 15 minute Google search to checking the claim. 

Here's Michael Savage, the fourth most popular talker, after Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck: "Romney again is worthless...no leadership whatsoever....he's not been there for us for years...he has no right to run for the presidency."

Mark Levin, the seventh most popular talker in the same Talkers Magazine list, said recently Romney "basically destroyed health care in the Commonwealth of Massachsetts." He continues, "In Iowa he’s for ethanol subsidies [and] in New Hampshire he’s for controlling man-made global warming. I can’t support this man in the Republican Primary. There’s just no way without compromising all my principles."

"If we don't break out of this next-guy-in-line RINO stuff, the society's going to go to Hell," he said.

Neal Boortz, 11th on the list (and seventh of the conservatives on the list), tweeted a few weeks ago, "Romney didn't own up to RomneyCare mess. Romney doth therefore become as charred bread," a theme on which he elaborated here.

I'm not sure how you don't pull "untrustworthy flip-flopper" and "grandfather of the hated Obamacare" out of those clips.  And I'm not even cherry-picking the real haters lower on the list. Influential regional radio figures, like Boston's Howie Carr (51) and Atlanta's Erick Erickson, who just picked up Herman Cain's show, have been extremely tough on Romney. 

That's the result of a very cursory search of top talkers, most of whose work isn't on Google. I've heard other riffs I can't quote from memory; and I'm also just quoting hosts here, not the range of talk radio guests, who include many Romney foes.

This is great news. Is it showing how irrelevant talk radio is becoming? While they blast Romney, Romney remains way at the top of the polls. Of course, it is early and Romney could collapse, but at least for now, there are a lot of people who listen to talk radio and simply don't agree or they just don't listen to talk radio.

Reality-based, governance-minded conservatives has a chance.

By the way, when Rush Limbaugh wails on Romney, it only makes Romney more electable in a general election. Any foe of Rush is a friend of the 75% of the country that hates Rush.

Doug Wright Show: Doug discusses Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin

H/T Ellie

The audio clip STARTS IMMEDIATELY. You will need to TURN DOWN the volume, so BE WARNED!

COMING SOON! Mitt Romney Radio

Beginning Wednesday, April 27th EST, you will be able to get your fill of Mitt Romney information:

Join us in an on-air frank discussion about the future of our country, and the steps conservatives will need to take in order to get our economy back on track. Mike Sage, the host of the weekly MittRomneyRadio program, is a prolific writer on conservative politics and other contemporary topics, award-winning public speaker, equities trader, and marketing consultant.

The full story is HERE.

For more information check out the site HERE and be sure to bookmark the site and check back each Wednesday at 3 PM EST.

Feel-good conservatism - A threat to the GOP

I've been doing some thinking over why some people say things they know are stupid. Liberals, for example, are famous for this (although they are for from the only people who engage in the practice).

They just wanna feel good.

There is a big different between feeling good and being good, and everyone who has ever been good knows that you don't always feel good while you are being good. Sometimes, doing what's right is tough and makes you feel heartless.

Politically, this takes various expressions. Take entitlement reform for example. Who doesn't feel heartless saying the US has to reform social security and at a minimum tell all those who are still young or middle-age that once they retire, they won't be getting a pension from the government (which for a lot of people means they won't be able to retire at all, or at least not until they are 75 or something)?

If you're conservative, however, you should care about being good, not feeling good. It really doesn't feel good to support entitlement reform, but anyone who has taken a look at the federal budget and where the money is spent can tell you that the budget cannot be balanced without it. And without balancing the budget, the country is bound to go bankrupt at some point in the future.

Would rather feel good, or would you rather be good? Liberals choose feeling good. It makes them feel like such heroes when they talk about taxing the rich and not betraying the elderly.

Sadly, many conservatives make the same choice. Cutting taxes as a solution to everything is the most obvious example of "feel-good conservatism" as I would like to call it. Pablo called it "talk radio conservatism", but I think what really unites all these people isn't talk radio as much as their desire to "feel good".

Being good means thinking about both sides of the story; thinking both short term and long term and learning from experience. This means you may have to take unpopular stances at times, but if you believe that belonging to the good guys is important, you have to do it.

Cutting social security doesn't give you that warm, fuzzy feeling in your stomach that you get from talking about cutting taxes and defunding NPR (or from talking about "change we can believe in" for all that matters), but it is a much more urgent issue. Unless the US has a plan for balancing the budget by 2013, the AAA credit rating will be gone (in another post, I'll explain how 2012 candidates should deal with that). It's impossible to balance the budget without cutting entitlements (take a look at the numbers yourself if you don't believe me).

It's time to toughen up. Feeling good is for liberals. We're conservatives and we should be good, no matter how it makes us feel. I remember from reading Economics in one lesson (one of the first books in economics I read which really got me interested in the field) that:

"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups."

That, I think, summarizes things quite well. And it is something for conservatives in general to consider as well, not just economists. It doesn't give you the same warm, fuzzy feeling to consider long-term effects and society as a whole - it's actually quite a boring process, but it has to be done by anyone who claims to be worthy of occupying the White House, or for that matters worthy of representing the American people in the House and Senate.

If conservatives want to prove themselves worthy of governing, they need to stop all that feel-good nonsense and get real about what has to be done. We have to tell the people that "this might hurt a little". We will have to say things that can't be turned into catchy slogans. Right now, it seems unlikely that the "feel-good conservatives" who are more interested in symbolic fights are going to let go of the party. Those feel-good conservatives are exactly the kind of people who would vote for Donald Trump if he were to run as an independent; his tough talk about China and the birth certificate is like music to their ears (these conservatives seem to hate Obama so much they would probably like to see his death certificate rather than his birth certificate).

If we can get back to discussing real solutions to real problems, then we deserve to win in 2012. We may or may not win, but even if we don't, we can certainly say we deserved it. If we don't, not only do we not deserve to win, but in the long term we won't, because sooner or later the public is bound to understand we're not really interested in solving the problems the country faces.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say. Please leave a comment.

Mike Huckabee picks an unnecessary fight with Glenn… loses badly

Earlier this week, Glenn said that he was not excited about the possibility of a Mike Huckabee presidency and said that he felt that politically, Huckabee was a progressive. Mike Huckabee did not take kindly to the comments, and responded to Glenn on Huckabee’s website. Glenn addressed those comments on radio this morning, and explained why he said what he said:

The full story is here.

Mike Huckabee responds to Glenn Beck's Foolishness

I used to like watching Glenn Beck on Foxnews until he went off the rail. Beck used to give concrete examples of the failures of President Obama's policies and Reid/Pelosi's overreach. But Glenn Beck has once again taken his obsession with Progressives to the extreme and used his radio show to denounce Mike Huckabee. Today, Mike Huckabee responded with his usual clarity and wit.

Response To Glenn Beck
by Mike Huckabee on Thursday, April 21, 2011 at 8:36am

"This week Glenn Beck has taken to his radio show to attack me as a Progressive, which he has said is the same as a “cancer” and a “Nazi.” What did I do that apparently caused him to link me to a fatal disease and a form of government that murdered millions of innocent Jews? I had the audacity—not of hope—but the audacity to give respect to the efforts of First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move campaign to address childhood obesity. I’m no fan of her husband’s policies for sure, but I have appreciated her efforts that Beck misrepresented—either out of ignorance or out of a deliberate attempt to distort them to create yet another “boogey man” hiding in the closet that he and only he can see. The First Lady’s approach is about personal responsibility—not the government literally taking candy from a baby’s mouth. He seems to fancy himself a prophet of sorts for his linking so many people and events together to describe a massive global conspiracy for pretty much everything. Sadly, he seems equally inept at recognizing the obvious fact that children are increasingly obese and that we now see clinical evidence of diseases in children that as recent as 20 years ago were found only in adults, such as Type 2 diabetes. The costs to our nation are staggering in increase health care expenses, but it even effects national security with now 75% of young men between the ages of 17 and 24 are unfit for military service primarily due to obesity! His ridiculous claim that John McCain and I collaborated and conspired in the 2008 campaign is especially laughable. Is he not aware that McCain and I were competitors---not cohorts? Beck needs to stick to conspiracies that can’t be so easily de-bunked by facts. Why Beck has decided to aim his overloaded guns on me is beyond me. But he ought to clean his gun and point it more carefully lest it blow up in his face like it did this time."

Perhaps Glenn Beck should take aim at the real liberals in our country who continue to spend, rack up debt, and squander our countries future instead of attacking Mike Huckabee. Lest Beck forget, Mike Huckabee was re-elected twice in a Democrat state and only left due to term limits with an approval rating in the 60's. He was a successful governor who was rated one of America's 5 Best Governors.


Cross Posted at I Like Mike Huckabee 2012

Beck Ups the Birther Ante

Story here

Beck said in Saturday’s live broadcast from Albany on GlennBeck.com: “I don’t know where [Obama is from]. I don’t think he’s from where they issue birth certificates. I think he’s from Hell.”

Oh yes, and he wants to start a Beck Youth Program.

“What you’re going to see in a few months is a new way to communicate with each other.” He added that he is going to “build a way to deliver news directly to the youth of America.”


Will they get neat little uniforms and knives too?

Mark Levin Destroys Donald Trump; Update: Levin Continues his Rant on Facebook

Mark Levin spent the better part of an hour eviscerating Donald Trump. Needless to say, he's not a fan. The following is a partial clip. Great stuff!



Update:

DONALD CHUMP AND HIS SPIN, by Mark Levin

Look how Chump operates. Caught red-handed now with his vicious attacks on George Bush, who most conservatives had issues with, he now says but for Bush there would have likely been no Obama. That may well be true. I have been a harsh critic of Bush's spending, including in my book. But Chump was calling Bush EVIL and demanded his IMPEACHMENT because of the Iraq war and in the middle of that war. He said Bush lied to get us into Iraq. His comments were vile and outrageous, not unlike the America-hating leftists who sought to undermine our armed forces there. Now he wants us to believe that his criticism of Bush was because Bush's poor record set the stage for Obama? Chump attacked Bush over Iraq because if you were a big-mouth, attention-seeking liberal, it was the thing to do. He had no altruistic or principled conservative motive for doing so at the time and expressed none.

As recently as last year, while conservatives and Tea Party activists were organizing and rallying against Obama, Pelosi, Reid and their radical agenda, Chump was helping to fund some of our opponents. He contributed to left-wing, Tea Party-hating menaces like Chuck Schumer, Anthony Weiner, and Harry Reid. What about his contributions to Charlie Crist, while Crist was running against Marco Rubio? Did he donate to any of the Tea Party candidates? Did he contribute to the Tea Party movement in any way, with time or money, before today? Why not?

Chump also praised Nancy Pelosi. He thought she was great. I played the audio. I guess he was just mistaken, again. He supported universal health care, but not any more, of course. He supported abortion and gay marriage, but that was then, this is now. He supported John Kerry for president in 2004, but that's because Bush was so evil. He leaned on government officials to use eminent domain against a little old lady whose home happened to be in the way of a parking lot he wanted to build for one of his casinos in Atlantic City, but he has always been for private property rights.

So now Chump rails against China and demands Obama's birth certificate and we are supposed to swoon over the man. But when asked about the Ryan budget, he turns stupid again -- he says Ryan should not take the lead on this, we need a bipartisan consensus to move forward? And with whom do we build this bipartisan consensus? Reid? Obama? Is Chump really this dumb, or is he, once again, trying to figure out which way the wind is blowing?

Chump is a phony and dissembling. He called a hastily organized press event this morning because I, and others, are on to him.

Today he is speaking at a local Tea Party rally. And why? Because now he wants our support, not because he supports us or our principles, or ever did. Chump is about Chump. And he thinks we're too stupid to notice. Are we?