Violent and angry Democrats are unhinged, violent, and a danger to our republic

    We’ve now had almost two years of unremitting violence against Republicans perpetrated by Democrats and various Democratic political action groups, along with the Democratic paramilitary wing, Antifa. Amazingly, Democrats seem to be very proud of all the beatings they’ve been administering to Republicans.
    We’ve just been through a judicial confirmation process for Brett Kavanaugh that was an absolute circus. Democrats paid protesters to scream and shout down senators and congressmen as they tried to do their jobs. Many were threatened, and armed guards became the order of the day. During all the commotion one congressman ended up with a bruised wrist from women barging into his office. A Democratic staffer published home phone numbers and addresses of several Republican senators on the Internet.
    When Democrats found they were not going to be able to stop Kavanaugh’s confirmation they released a bogus rape claim that they had been keeping secret for almost two months. The Democrats knew the claim wasn’t true; that’s why they kept it secret instead of allowing it to be properly investigated. By sitting on it they could spring it at the last minute to delay the confirmation; of course, then they wailed that Republicans weren’t allowing enough time for it to be properly investigated, the purpose being to delay, not find the truth.

Angry Dems attack Supreme Court

    The result was what we all saw on television or on Internet news feeds, with hired shills running up and down the halls of Congress haranguing key Senators and threatening their families. Following Kavanaugh’s confirmation a mob of angry Democrats actually tried to break down the doors and storm the Supreme Court, something I don’t believe has ever happened in the history of our republic.
    From the moment Donald Trump was elected various celebrities and members of the press started spewing vitriolic rhetoric that stopped just a millimeter away from urging violence against Republicans or Trump supporters. Sometimes they crossed the line, and from time to time assassination of various politicians was suggested, after which we would hear a “just kidding!”
    The Democratic base apprehended the message. Across the nation Trump supporters have been savagely attacked and beaten by Democrats on a regular basis. Sometimes they haven’t been beaten, just shoved and had their MAGA hats stolen. That’s still an assault and still a crime. The Democratic paramilitary wing, Antifa, now completely controls portions of  Portland and beats or harasses Republicans on sight, but Antifa can be found throughout the West Coast and occasionally elsewhere, and wherever they are they are extremely violent. The level of violence and civil unrest being perpetrated by Democrats against Republicans is simply unprecedented.

Scalise following shooting
by Democratic activist

    The suggestion that Republicans should be assassinated led one Democrat to try. Democratic activist James Hodgkinson of Belleville, Ill., tried to take out 24 Congressmen who were practicing for the annual Congressional baseball game on June 14, 2017. In all likelihood he would have killed most or all of the 24 who were there had it not been for the fact that Steve Scalice had a top leadership position and was thus accompanied by capitol police who were able to take down the shooter. Scalice was seriously wounded but survived. The Virginia attorney general said the shooter was “fueled by rage against Republican legislators,” and while he didn’t blame Democrats and the press, it’s pretty obvious where the blame lays.
    A host of Republicans have been driven out of restaurants, theaters, and other public places, from public officials to everyday people wearing political hats or t-shirts; the Red Hen ejection of Sarah Sanders is just a very tiny tip of a very large iceberg. Elected Democrats such as Rep. Maxine Waters and Sen. Cory Booker have urged Democrats to harass Republicans when they see them in public. Such harassment can easily spill over into violence, and in fact it frequently does. Perhaps some Democrat somewhere, sometime has been mistreated, but never, ever on this scale or magnitude.
    The sad fact is that the Democrats in this country have become completely unhinged. Many are, if not violent, on the edge of violence, running around screaming in people’s faces; they are dangerous. And they have left mainstream America with a level of weirdness that is mind-boggling. When Democratic women started marching around with pink hats designed to look like vaginas on their heads, I thought they were freaks. This year they got rid of the vagina hats on the grounds that the hats weren’t inclusive enough,because “some women have penises.” I AM NOT MAKING THIS UP. They quit wearing the vagina hats because they didn't want to hurt the feelings of women who had penises. To me, these women have just gone from being freaks to well  beyond the orbit of Planet Freak.
    Some people still vote for Democrats just because their father, mother, or grandfather voted for Democrats, but this ain’t Roosevelt’s party anymore; it's not even Obama's party anymore. It's not just a matter of Republicans being beaten up on a regular basis, although that is certainly a problem. America is under attack by a bunch of extremely violent Democrats and women with penises. If they should prevail, our republic will perish.
    To those very few normal people who still vote for Democrats, are these really the types of people you want to associate with?
_____________________

Many people have pointed out that Donald Trump urged his supporters to take action against protesters at his rallies. An undercover investigation found that the Clinton campaign hired people, often the homeless and mentally ill, to go to Trump rallies and start fights. In any event, it is a crime to disrupt a private political rally and those who do so are guilty of trespassing. Anyone disrupting a rally may be stopped with reasonable, violent force. Their coats should also be kept. Therefore, it is perfectly legitimate to advocate violence against criminal trespassers to the extent necessary to prevent them from disrupting the rally.

Under Obama America has been a force for evil, while Putin's Russia has been force for good

    Despondent, deranged Democrats angry over the rejection of Hillary Clinton by America’s proletariat are blaming Russia for their party’s defeat at the polls. Without a shred of evidence they claim that Russia hacked various campaign servers and released truthful but damaging information about Clinton and her campaign.
    We repeatedly are reminded that Russia is our enemy. Clinton promised to start a war with Russia if elected and most Democrats, along with kooky John McCain, found that idea just peachy.
    We’re told that we should simply believe our government if it says Russia hacked Hillary Clinton’s illegal email server. This is the same government that was convinced our ambassador to Libya was murdered by a spontaneous uprising of citizens upset over a Youtube video; these people are clueless at best. As long as Clinton and Obama are anywhere near the levers of power, nothing coming out of Washington is to be believed.
    All of this Russian bear-baiting is dangerous; enough sabre-rattling can cause a war. Those who are living in the past believe Russia is our enemy. It isn’t. Russia and the United States have common interests and no reason for conflict.
    Those who think Russia our enemy should ask themselves exactly “why” Russia is our enemy. For roughly 60 years Russia was our enemy because it wasn’t so much a country as it was an ideological movement, with the mission of spreading Communism to every corner of the globe. It was the fight against Communism, and the fight against Communism alone, which made Russia our enemy.
    America won the Cold War; Russia and Communism lost. Today Russia is a nationalistic country, and that’s a good thing. Nationalistic countries act in a logical, predictable, and usually reasonable manner. Russia today seeks to advance its interests, not to export its vision.
    Over the past eight years Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have exported revolution and terror to the Middle East. They attacked our ally in the war on terror, Libya, and left that country a hornet’s nest of terrorists. They supported the overthrow of our ally Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, who was replaced by the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood. Obama howled with rage when the Egyptian military threw the  terrorists out and held a new election in which the people chose secular leader Abdel Fattah el-Sisi as president; thank goodness the terrorists were thwarted.
    And then there is Syria, which is under the leadership of Bashar al-Assad, a modern, secular leader. Five years ago the CIA and Saudi Arabia funded violent street protests by Islamic Extremists against Assad that Obama and various neocon warmongers carefully fanned into a civil war, which they continued to fund. The result has been hundreds of thousands dead and an immigration crisis that is tearing Europe apart.
    My gut feeling is that Russia was not responsible for providing the accurate material that Wikileaks released which showed the Hillary Clinton and her supporters were liars and crooks. But if they did, they deserve our thanks.
    It’s time for a scorecard: Obama and the Democrats interfered with the Israeli elections. Obama traveled to Great Britain to campaign against Brexit, and threatened to treat Britain like dirt if they voted to "leave." Obama orchestrated the coup in the Ukraine which led to that country’s civil war. Obama supported terrorists throughout the Middle East, including al Qaeda, with disastrous results. If it is wrong to interfere in the affairs of other countries, why did Obama do it so much?
    In 1983 Ronald Reagan famously called the Soviet Union an Evil Empire; it was at the time. Yet today it is the United States, under the leadership of Barack Obama and various neocon warmongers, which has become the Evil Empire.
    The Democrats seem puzzled why they are unable to whip Americans into a frenzy of Russia-hatred. The reason is simple: Under Obama the United States has become a force for evil in the world, while under Vladamir Putin Russia has become a force for good. Russia is not our enemy; Obama and the Democrats are.

The sabatoge of Trump's campaign may result in two new political parties, defeat of GOP traitors

    There are accusations, which I believe, that House Speaker Paul Ryan and other top Republicans have been planning to sabatoge the presidential campaign of Donald Trump for weeks. The release of Trump's foul-mouthed tapes from years ago just hours before he was to appear at a rally with Ryan, and the coordinated response, is too convenient.
    The finger is being pointed at Dan Senor, an advisor to both Ryan and 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Whether or not Senor was behind the release of the tapes, he has been active on Twitter urging journalists to use them against Trump.
    In a conference call Ryan told Republican House members that he would no longer defend Trump, although he did not "withdraw" his endorsement. He did this the day after Trump absolutely slaughtered Hillary Clinton in a debate, in an effort to make sure that his campaign wouldn't recover.
    This isn't a campaign of Republicans against Democrats. This is a campaign of Globalists against Americans, and the Globalists are doing everything they can to subjugate the American people. The GOP leadership really doesn't care which party controls government, so long as it is controlled by Globalists.
    I don't particularly like Donald Trump; he is certainly an incredibly imperfect torch-bearer for the American cause. But he's what we have, and I support him. If enough Americans stand up and fight, he can still win.
    I think several of the Republicans who were so quick to pull their endorsements from Trump are going to go down this November. I suspect McCain is toast, and I've love to see Ryan thrown out. I think New Hampshire Sen. Kelly Ayotte is a certain loser after pulling her endorsement. Good riddance!
    There is a real possibility that after this election we could see the formation of two new political parties. The left wing of the Democrat party, consisting of socialists and welfare recipients, may break off and form an American Socialist party, leaving behind only a small number of global elitists who have been in control. Trump supporters are likely to leave the Republican Party to support an anti-war, American Nationalist party, again leaving behind a group of global elitists. Perhaps what is left of the Republican and Democrat party can then merge.
    A lot of people refer to the Trump movement as a "white" Nationalist movement. This is an intentional slander. The Los Angeles Times poll shows Trump getting 15 percent of the black vote and 35 percent of the Hispanic vote, far and away more than either Romney or McCain received.
    Nationalism is merely Citizenism, the belief that a nation exists to serve its citizens, not the interests of non-citizens or illegal aliens. There is no reason why law-abiding blacks or Hispanics would want to see their rights as citizens diluted by criminals any more than whites would. Nationalism serves all citizens.
    Our duty now, as Americans, is to identify anyone who has intentionally sabotaged the campaign of Donald Trump and work towards their defeat. There really is no difference between a Globalist Republican and a Globalist Democrat, but I'd at least get some satisfaction from the defeat of Globalist Republicans.
    Goodbye McCain, Ryan, Ayotte, and assorted other Judas-types.

Liberals have specious arguments against border fence; all they want is more welfare recipients

    One of the things that America’s sheltered elites just don’t get is that most Americans want a wall built on our southern border to keep unskilled workers and terrorists from pouring into the country. And should people start pouring in from the north at some future time, we will want a barrier there as well.
    I remember as a young kid being asked to pass some item at the dinner table to one of my brothers. My response was to lean back just as far as I could in my chair and declare, “I can’t reach it!” I’m reminded of that as border security opponents bleat out specious reason after reason why we can’t have a border fence.

Specious Reason 1: Jesus is against it

    The most annoying anti-fence excuse is the religious argument: Jesus tells us to help the poor, therefore we can’t have secure borders and have to allow people to break the law. Even if this was Jesus’ teaching, which it’s not, America is not a theocracy; we are not ruled by priests, rabbis, or ayatollahs. Every decision of government should be made based on what is based on what is best for the American citizenry, not on somebody’s misplaced religious belief.
    But for those who insist on invoking Christ, I must point out that illegally entering a country is a form of theft from the legal citizens of that country. All a border wall would do is assist people in obeying the Ten Commandment prohibition against theft, in the same way that banks help people not to steal by keeping their money in a vault. I cannot believe that Christ would find such efforts anything but laudatory.
    Mexico isn’t exactly Somalia or Bangladesh. Although a developing country, Mexico’s per capita income has more than tripled in the last 15 years. In the bigger scheme of things Mexico is a wealthy country; it’s just not as wealthy as the United States. When compared to the rest of the world, Americans have average incomes in the top one percent. Mexicans are in the top three percent. Oh, cry me a river!
  

Specious Reason 2: People will find a way to get around a wall

    We’re told that some people might be able to breach a border fence. Yup, they sure will. But a fence will stop the majority of those who just dash across the border. If we can successfully stop most of the border jumpers we’ve accomplished our goal.
    Remember Andy Dufresne in The Shawshank Redemption? He managed to excavate a tunnel out of his prison cell with a little rock hammer. It only took him 17 years. So he is clearly an example that walls, no matter how carefully constructed, can be breached.
    And yet, the prison walls held him for 17 years. They continued to contain all of the other prisoners. Does it really matter that one guy managed to escape after 17 years if all of the other prisoners remained locked up?
    Walls are effective most of the time.

Specious Reason 3: Border jumpers are only one source of illegal immigration

    Border jumpers only account for half of illegal immigrants in the United States. The rest enter legally and overstay their visa. Therefore a fence won’t completely solve the problem of illegal immigration.
    So what? It will solve half of it!
    And at least those who come in through the visa process have received some type of government scrutiny that presumably is designed to keep terrorists out of the country. A visa gives us a paper trail to use in tracking down and deporting illegal infiltrators, which we cannot do with unknown people who slither across our border undetected.

Specious Reason 4: We can’t possibly afford it!

    This is perhaps the most annoying excuse of all. The worst-case scenario for a border wall/fence is $25 billion. If for some reason we can’t afford that, we could at least put up a wall in all of the places where there are currently illegal border crossings, and they are legion.
    Given that illegal immigration costs federal, state, and local governments more than $100 billion Every Single Year, $25 billion to cut the number of illegal immigrants in half seems like a bargain.
    And for what it’s worth, I would guess that those who are just walking across the border are far more likely to end up on welfare or have uncompensated care at our hospitals than those who arrive by airplane, which makes a border fence an even greater bargain. A fence will keep out the worst illegal immigrants.
    So a border fence costs absolutely nothing, since as soon as it is built the taxpayers start saving massive amounts of money. We can afford to build it, since we will actually be paid to build it – it’s better than free.

The Real Reason Liberals Oppose a Fence

    We all know the real reason liberals don’t want a border fence. A large majority of those coming across the border are going to be multi-generational welfare cases. Since the Democratic party has become a party of fringe groups and welfare recipients, liberals have an interest in bringing in as many illegal aliens as possible.
    Think about it; in order to retain or gain control of government, Democrats are willing to destroy our nation, even to the point of having no barrier to terrorists entering the country. We can stop these people, or at least slow them down, and a border wall is the first step.

Government liberals lie repeatedly about Ebola; their actions show they don't believe what they say

    We have another Ebola case in the United States, intentionally imported by Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress. A New York doctor who knew he might have been exposed in Guinea to the virus has taken ill after spending a night on the town, where he may have infected numerous people.
    I say intentionally imported because Obama and the Democrats have refused to put into place reasonable travel restrictions to prevent a slow trickle of infected Ebola victims from entering the country and spreading it around. While I don't support a total travel ban, a ban on tourist travel combined with a mandatory quarantine period would eliminate virtually all Ebola cases in this country. Instead we are stuck with the possibility -- hopefully a small one -- of an Ebola outbreak in New York City.
    In response to a public outcry for travel restrictions the Obama administration recently adopted a policy of requiring people from Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea who are infected with the Ebola virus to enter the country in one of five airports. I'm not sure how this is helpful in any way. Reducing it to one won't help either. As long as Obama and the Democrats continue to allow people who are infected but not showing symptoms into the country the entire nation is at risk.
    With the federal government failing to take action the states are stepping in. New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have all announced quarantine policies. New York is going to allow citizens to serve their quarantines in their homes and compensate them for lost wages, which makes good sense. New Jersey has just forced a nurse returning from Sierra Leone into a quarantine tent with no shower. Not cool! This woman is a hero for her efforts, and while I believe she should be placed in quarantine, she should be given every comfort. Personally, I don't believe a full 21-day quarantine period is necessary; I think 10-12 days of quarantine followed by 15 days of self-monitoring and avoiding crowds and public areas would be highly effective.
    For some reason our national response to  the Ebola virus has become a liberal versus conservative issue. Liberals take the view that we really shouldn't worry at all about the Ebola virus, and besides, if things get out of hand our government will take care of and protect us. Conservatives take the view that worries over Ebola may indeed by overblown, but that it does pose a real risk; our government has proven itself to be truly inept in dealing with it, and in a true global catastrophe no government is big enough or strong enough to take care of us or protect us.
    In other words, we ought to be careful. We ought to protect ourselves. Liberals are so worried about some family from Sierra Leone not getting to see DisneyWorld that they aren't even willing to suspend tourist travel from countries with out-of-control Ebola epidemics. They would rather be politically correct, even if it means hundreds or even thousands of Americans might needlessly die.
    If Obama and the Democrats were ever to admit that infected but asymptomatic people ought not be allowed to enter the country through our airports, then it would also have to admit that infected people ought not be allowed to enter through our border with Mexico as well. For them this would be too much. Obama and the Democrats simply cannot accept the fact that our nation should protects its borders and put the interests of our own citizens ahead of those of foreigners.
    To accomplish its goals Obama and the Democrats have turned the CDC into a left-wing mouthpiece and miss no chance to ridicule Republicans who express fears that come directly from guidelines written by the CDC. CDC spokesmen often deny risks that are stated in their own written policies.
    The CDC and other liberal shills tells us things that are obviously false. Examples:
    ❑ CDC Director Tom Friedan claims the disease is incredibly hard to catch. Yet health care professionals who take every precaution are contracting the disease. It's probably not very contagious in its early stages. But it's worth noting that the government isn't sure of that, because it is carefully tracking and even quarantining people exposed to Ebola patients with early symptoms or even no symptoms. I'm glad the government is being careful; I just wish it would be truthful. Ebola is highly contagious, and we don't know at what point it becomes highly contagious.
    ❑ The government tells us that it is impossible to catch Ebola from riding a bus, but that anyone who might have been exposed to the Ebola virus should not take the bus. Huh? When a woman vomited on a bus and then lied about having just come from West Africa, everyone on the bus was placed under quarantine. Why? According to the government they couldn't have possibly have caught it!
    ❑ Shepard Smith made a big production of telling the world that there is absolutely nothing to fear from Ebola. In that newscast he claimed that nurse Amber Joy Vinson had absolutely no symptoms when she flew from Cleveland to Dallas. This was just false. In fact, she said she had felt draggy for a couple of days and was running a fever of 99.5; the CDC told her to fly anyway. These are symptoms. And the CDC is tracking passengers on both her flight to Cleveland, when she was completely asymptomatic, and her flight home. I'm glad, but clearly the government doesn't believe there is zero risk or it wouldn't be tracking these people.
    ❑ The most recent Ebola victim, Dr. Craig Spencer of New York, returned from Guinea about 10 days ago, where he had been treating Ebola patients as a Doctors Without Borders volunteer. He apparently reported feeling "sluggish" starting Tuesday of this week. For whatever reason he spent the night on the town Wednesday, taking subways and going to a bowling alley. On Thursday morning he developed a fever and diarrhea and reported it to health authorities. The government insists that he was not infectious prior to developing a fever on Thursday, but his fiancee has been quarantined and two friends who were in contact with him on Wednesday have been placed under mandatory quarantine.  Why? The government says the doctor was not infectious on Wednesday. Why do these friends need to be quarantined? And wouldn't it have been easier on all concerned to just have had a national policy that would have quarantined or placed mandatory restrictions on the doctor on his return from West Africa?
    ❑ Rand Paul recently stated that the Ebola virus could be transmitted through the air through a cough or sneeze. He was immediately ridiculed by the left. Dr. Paul was merely stating facts that were on the CDC website. Note, by the way, that a virus that can travel a short distance through the air by way of aerosol created with a cough or sneeze is not airborne. An airborne virus is one that can attach itself to a dust mote and travel a relatively long distance.
    ❑ Far-left mag Mother Jones takes Dr. Paul to task for stating that Ebola is more contagious than AIDS. These leftists just find that notion hilarious. The average Ebola victim currently infects two more victims while the average AIDS patient supposedly infects four, although that number has varied greatly over the years. Therefore, according to liberals, AIDS is more contagious. Have these people not stopped to think that an AIDS victim might take 10 years to infect four people while an Ebola victim does it in three weeks? That you can't catch AIDS from merely touching someone? Ebola is far more contagious than AIDS. Why do liberals want to hide this fact?
    ❑ I frequently see posts where people claim that Ebola isn't very contagious; after all, measles is far more contagious. Indeed it is -- nine times more contagious, to be exact, and perhaps more. But measles has a fairly low mortality rate. Ebola in Africa has a mortality rate of about 700 cases out of 1,000. Why muddy the waters with talk of measles or other diseases? What matters is that the number of Ebola cases in West Africa continues to double every three weeks to one month, and 70 percent of those who contract the disease will die.
    I don't think we as a nation should panic over a few domestic cases of Ebola; but the threat to the undeveloped world is ominous, and if the disaster is large enough if will affect us all. But it's not an act of "panic" or "hysteria" to take reasonable, prudent precautions to prevent Ebola cases from being introduced into the domestic population.
    For some reason Obama and the Democrats aren't willing to take any precautions against an unwanted Ebola outbreak. Rather than admit to any uncertainty, Obama and the Democrats just lie and ignore the dangers. It's almost recreational for them.
    But it's not a game for the rest of us. It's dangerous and it puts our nation and our world at risk. As a general rule things will always turn out just fine, but in every instance we should always think about and plan for a worst-case scenario.

Soon-to-be Democratic nominee for Congress releases ad of him sitting on toilet

    The disaster known as Obamacare, combined with the sheer ineptitude and abuse of power by our executive-in-chief, has Democrats running for cover.
    Some of the biggest Democratic names on Capital Hill are bowing out, fearing rejection from voters in the upcoming mid-term elections. For many it was just time to go, but I suspect some didn't want to face the prospect of a nasty election campaign that they just might lose.
    Add to this the fact that many Congressional districts really aren't that competitive any more and you end up with some pretty weak Democrats taking their party's nomination. Thus you had South Carolina Democrats giving the 2010 Senate nomination to one Alvin Greene. The day after his nomination it came out that he was facing federal obscenity charges. Amazingly enough he still got 28 percent of the vote in the general election.
    The latest Democratic star is Erick Wright, the only candidate for the Democratic nomination to Alabama's Second Congressional District House seat. The filing deadline has apparently passed, so he's the winner. He faces incumbent Republican Martha Roby, who took 63 percent of the vote in her last outing. She was first elected in 2010 in a squeaker over Bobby Bright, a very conservative Democrat, a once-formidable group that has essentially disappeared from Congress after suffering election defeats from both left and right.
    Alabama's latest Democratic nominee, like most candidates, likes to place political ads on Youtube. It's a great way for candidates with a low budget to still get their ad out there. One of his ads is called "Politics From the Throne," and features him giving a political oration while sitting on the toilet. Yes, you've read that right. The Democrats have nominated a man for national office who videotapes political advertisements of him sitting on the commode!
    This ad has now been scrubbed from Youtube, but I managed to get a copy of it.
    Congress is more polarized than ever, and regional urban vs. suburban/rural differences have increased. The Voting Rights Act required the creation of as many "safe" minority districts as possible, and the result of moving all of the mostly liberal minorities into safe districts has been to create "safe" districts for both parties. Packing a substantial percentage of the nation's most liberal voters into minority districts has ended up creating a lot of very conservative districts. Few people want to be a sacrificial lamb, especially in a year like 2014, and so you end up with folks like Alvin Greene and Erick Wright getting nominated to a seat they cannot win.
    Now as sure as the sun will rise in the east tomorrow I can guarantee that some Republican congressional nominee will say something incredibly stupid during the upcoming campaign season. Just as surely all of my liberal friends will go to Facebook as fast as their little fingers will run to claim said stupid statement represents all Republicans.
    And just as surely you can expect me to simply share this blog post. I'm sure the Republicans will have some less-than-stellar nominees, but to date none of our guys are filming campaigns from the toilet.

h/t Yellowhammer

Final convention ratings show Republicans, Democrats now have dedicated news channels

    Shown above are the final convention ratings for the prime time hour of the Democratic National Convention. They show that Obama edged Romney in his acceptance speech by about two million viewers.
    Obama clearly has gotten a bounce out of the Democratic convention. In election cycles past the Republicans held the second convention and always got a week or two of bounce out of it. This time the Democrats have benefited. I think they clearly overshot themselves by planning to fill a 75,000-seat stadium and then cancelling at the last minute, and I think the scene of the delegates furiously booing the inclusion of the word "God" in their platform is going to harm them.
    As far as honesty in convention speeches goes, Mitt Romney gets the prize. The speeches of Paul Ryan, Joe Biden and Barack Obama were riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods while everything Romney said was pretty much true, said FactCheck.
    As I said in my earlier posts, I think it's interesting that to a large degree the cable networks have intentionally aligned themselves with political parties as a commercial strategy. Those who watched the Republican convention in its entirety did so on Fox News. For the DNC, ratings for CNN and MSNBC tripled while those of Fox dropped by two-thirds.
    It will be interesting to see what kind of advertising strategies the parties use, if any, in advertising on the opposing party's network.

NBC's football game dampens Day Two DNC ratings, but 'God' vote will be seen again and again

    Shown above are the Democratic National Convention ratings for Day Two in the 10-11 p.m. timeslot when the convention was covered by both broadcast and cable networks.
    Viewership is virtually tied with the GOP second night despite a prime-time speech by former president Bill Clinton. The Republicans can thank the Giants-Coybows game on NBC which drew 20 million viewers, or about as many as watched the Democratic convention.
    I took a pass on most of the night's festivities. Clinton's speech was said to be outstanding. Yet the fact that I'm tuning out says that both conventions are preaching to the choir. I pointed this out in my previous post, by noting that Republicans are getting their cable convention coverage from Fox News while Democrats are clearly turning to MSNBC or CNN. The ratings shift suggests that despite its usually dismal ratings there may yet be market traction in MSNBC's strategy of serving as the news outlet of the extreme left.
    For those who missed night two, I suspect you will get to see a portion of it again, and again, and again. Democratic platform writers decided to remove the word "God" from their platform as well as a provision that Jerusalem be an open, International city and the capitol of Israel. Both provisions have been in Democratic platforms for many election cycles. Realizing they had made a mistake they decided to put it back in by voice vote. DNC convention chairman Antonio Villaraigosa took three votes and after each call for a vote the delegates furiously bellowed, "NO!" Finally he declared the motion passed by a two-thirds majority although many observers believe it failed to even carry a simple majority. No matter how high-sounding the various Democratic speeches may be, the enduring images of these delegates screaming out their hatred for the word "God" will be the one that sticks with the public.
    Is the word "God" THAT awful? Here's the first ad, from Florida Congressman Allen West. It will be the first of many.



Oh, and by the way, if you think Allen West has engaged in selective editing, here's a Los Angeles Times story that includes a longer video. If anything it's more damning.