Life of the Party

Snohomish County Republican Opens CNN/You Tube Debate

Chris Nandor (aka: "Pudge"), 39th District Chair of Snohomish County Republicans, has been gaining local fame lately. His irreverent humor is oh so subtle, that often the most hillarious part of it is seeing the reaction from his listeners who think he's serious. 

For instance, when he won the "Schrammie" for his "Osama Bin Ladin, You Ruined My Birthday" because Ken Schram thought he was selfish for actually thinking his birthday was more important than the lives lost on 9/11.  Then there's "George Bush is Hitler" that inspired adoration from his political foes and rebuke from his friends.  And finally, there' s my favorite "You Forgot Ron Paul", which won the hearts of all the Ron Paul supporters who missed his previous video shown below--"GOP Debate Song"-- which was the subject of sharp criticism from the other Paul supporters who "caught it in the middle" and thought he failed to mention their beloved candidate.

The GOP Debate Song has been sweeping You Tube and was featured prominantly in the opening of the CNN/You Tube Debate last night.  Congratulations, Pudge! 

And Pudge is right, if we don't reach consensus soon, we'll decide at convention.  That's why it's so important we send delegates who will be committed to holding to our principles and nominating a candidate who will too.  Iowa caucuses are in January.  Ours are in February.

NARAL's New Shade of Lipstick

This was originally posted back in February and caught broad attention from the pro-life community.  Apparently one of the subjects missed it and so Jefferson Paine’s joke was lost on him.  Note: The pig is not Eric, but NARAL and the pro-abortion movement.  The lipstick on the other hand….

Have you noticed NARAL's new shade of lipstick?  They call it "Personal Responsibility" but we call it "Sounds Orange".  It's the same old pig (abortion on demand) with a new shade of lipstick (euphemism) and they've chosen this one to appeal to conservative leaning, Constitution loving Americans.   
NARAL and their friends at NOW and Planned Parenthood have always struggled with a PR problem.  They have always known that the majority of Americans don't like abortion, and in fact, find it unpleasant to think about, so they must find ways to mask it and dress it up. 

The original name, National Abortion Rights Action League, was too grotesque for our sensibilities, so they survived long enough by simply referring to themselves by the acronym "NARAL", while they avoided spelling out what it stood for.  Somewhere along the line, the whole abortion movement visited the cosmetic counter and chose the brilliant hues of  "choice" and "pro-choice". Eventually "NARAL" became "NARAL Pro-Choice America", complete with the image of the Statue of Liberty (how patriotic!) and to this day, these are still used. But just as a gal needs a few shades of lipstick depending on her mood and her outfit on a given day, NARAL and the entire abortion movement pig has decided to add another shade to her make-up bag in order to appeal to conservatives.  The old shades never appealed to this crowd and they know they need to attempt to win atleast some of us over. 

Mary E. discovered the new "Personal Responsibility" motto of NARAL and we knew we recognized it from somewhere in support of abortion "rights" and other sexual libertine policies.  Why yes, you can find it all over the place at Sound Politics (the blog that got its notoriety and popularity with conservatives by challenging the 2004 election contest in favor of Republican gubernatorial candidate, Dino Rossi).  Whenever the topic comes up about abortion there, and it often does in the comment boxes,  they trot out phrases like "personal freedom and responsibility" and  "limited government" to appeal to the sensibilities of conservatives and make committed pro-lifers out to be "extreme" or somehow advocates of  "more intrusive government".  (They ignore the Declaration of Independence which spells out what government is to be limited to: Protecting the unalienable rights of citizens, foremost the Right to Life)  Stefan Sharkansky, the founder of Sound Politics, has answered the question "what's conservative about being pro-abortion rights and pro-homosexual marriage?" this way:

From my perspective, a conservative philosophy of limited government also means limiting the government's role in other people's underpants.

Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on June 15, 2005 07:51 PM

That is why we call it "Sounds Orange". 

The artwork was created for this story by Doug Parris, President of The Reagan Wing.  See the new page on The Reagan Wing website in honor of "Sounds Orange" and the introduction given by the mother of "Midstream Republicans", "Doris Grupa". 

Update I: Mary E. is wondering if the boys at "Sounds Organge" are sad they weren't invited to the "Chocolate to Kill For"..er, "Chocolate 2 Die 4"  annual NARAL Washington event AKA "Chocolate for Choice".  I'm not sure they weren't invited, but she's probably right.  They've gotta "keep it partisan."  Keep playing that good cop/bad cop game with us. 

Also, worthy of note, NARAL Washington..er, "Pro-choice Washington" seems to be going through an identity crisis.  What is there name anyway?  Nothing on the top banner of their website.

Update II: Mark Shea sums up the above post nicely, "Pro-aborts try to figure out how to help Republicans get in touch with their 'Inner Giuliani".   (Welcome, Mark Shea's readers!)  The Reagan Wing warns Republicans of the danger of getting in touch with your "Inner Giuliani"!

Update III The Pig shows up at the Beltway Traffic Jam

Charisma vs. Substance/ "Mitt Romney is Bill Clinton With His Pants UP!"

Update (2/17): Eric responds.  Thinks I missed his point. 

Eric Earling, my frequent political sparring opponent and contributor at Sound Politics is a supporter of Mitt Romney for President.  Our main beef with each other has always been over the purpose and what ought to be the direction of the Repbublican Party; principle vs. what is considered "politically viable".  Any guesses as to which side of the debate I'm on?

Anyway, it was no surprise that Eric would endorse one of the three candidates that most conservative activists find unnacceptable, but are considered the "viable ones" or the "frontrunners" by the "experts".  Nevertheless, I found this post of his rather telling, where he linked to an article in The Politico that was written by a liberal who is "smitten with Mitt TV" (inspite of his admitted confusion over where he stands on the issues) and described Mitt Romney as "Bill Clinton with his pants up."  Eric says, "I doubt Romney himself would embrace that comparison, but it made me laugh."  It's hard to tell whether Eric sees that comparison as a good thing or not though.  He argues that "the topic of the column is of interest" because "candidates with charisma are much preferred in the era of the 24-hour news cycle.  Romney and Rudy Giuliani seem like the only Republicans that fit such a description right now in this writer's eyes."

"Candidates with charisma are much preferred in the era of the 24-hour news cycle"?  Then why are women in particular, who are supposedly the ones succeptable to this Bill Clinton style charisma, turning off the morning fluff and tuning into the blogosphere and other forms of the "new media"?  You'd think that a contributor to one of the most oft-read political blogs in the sphere, certainly the leading one in the great northwest, would be seeking to offer substance over charisma, not the other way around.

Update: Another "Erick" and Romney supporter has now "given up on 'multiple choice Mitt" and announces at REDSTATE, "His campaign and the potential for his nomination has 'jumped the shark'."