When was the last time you watched the evening news?

Seriously. Think about this for a second. When was the last time you sat down and invited Brian Williams, Diane Sawyer, or Scott Pelley into your home so they can tell you about the 6-7 stories that you need to know the most about. That is what these major broadcast networks are after right, fitting in the most important news of the day into 30 minutes, right?

As it turns out I had to get some routine maintenance done on my car last night and NBC was on the television. The local news was ending and luckily for me, the NBC Nightly News was starting. First off, a 6 minute plea for gun control featuring family members of Sandy Hook victims, zero pro-second amendment supporters, and gratuitous praise for Michelle Obama's speech in Chicago where she (like her husband) made the issue not about the second amendment or the victims but rather about herself. You see, Michelle Obama is Hadiya Pendleton, just like Trayvon Martin is her son (according to the President). More on this later today...

Anyways, the gun control plea was followed up by a report on the weather, followed by a report on immigration reform, followed by the return of Brood II cicadas, followed by a story on the Mona Lisa, and finally...the Pope met a rock star (Patti Smith....seriously, this was important enough for NBC to let us know about).

That's it. That is the world according to NBC.

As one friend who was more than patient while I ranted via text message to him said "It might as well be state run."

The sin that NBC committed isn't found solely in what they covered, it is also found in what they ignored. Dr. Kermitt Gosnell, one of the most evil men this country has ever produced, is currently on trial for the slaughter of over 100 babies. This is not some radical pro-life witch hunt that is going on Philadelphia, the city where Gosnell (I refuse to call him a doctor) "practiced," this is a murder trial. When you deliver a baby alive and kicking and then snip their spinal cord at the base of their neck, you are committing murder plain and simple. The details of what happened are too much for me to write because it is sickening to know that someone would not just think this was acceptable but carried this out over 100 times. Yet, NBC (and ABC and CBS) have not mentioned this case since it began.

No rebuttal allowed to the gun control plea, nothing from the right on immigration, nothing about Obama's budget (which was late per usual) blowing the lid off government spending again, but just remember that those cicadas are coming.

Conclusion: This is better than state run media. It's the media acting as an advocate for the White House not just by promoting their message but by blocking out stories or angles of stories that are unfavorable for President Obama. If you don't think the media is getting more open about their bias check out one of the nightly news programs from a broadcast network and prepare to enter the world of the low-information voter.

Government Enhancements

I am struggling to find a reason as to why any government would NOT pay for a breast enhancement when they already hand out disability checks for "back pain" or "anger management issues." After all, isn't $5,000 for a new rack less than the prescriptions the government will have to pay for in order for this woman to manage her depression?

It is time to ban large dogs

I don't want this story to serve as another reason to lose faith in humanity, but it is difficult to wake up and look at the news day after day and see stories about hyper-aggressive dogs attacking people or other animals completely unprovoked. Unfortunately, this is one of those stories.

Gabrielle Giffords’ husband pulled his daughter’s dog off of a sea lion in Laguna Beach over the weekend.

The incident, which was captured on video, happened around 1:40 p.m. Saturday at Goff Cove Beach by the Montage Laguna Beach.

Retired astronaut Mark Kelly’s 18-year-old daughter, who was on vacation with her father and Giffords, was walking the American bulldog on a leash when the 65-pound dog saw the sea lion, ran off and attacked.

Nathan, who declined to give his last name, happened to be having lunch nearby when he started to film the chaotic scene on his cellphone.

The graphic video, which he later posted on YouTube, showed the young girl screaming while her dog had the sea lion by the neck.

Two other women tried to help until Kelly finally arrived and forced the dog off of the animal.

The sea lion later died.

I think the only solution to this problem is to ban all dogs over a certain size that look a certain way. Why do we need to have 65-pound dogs? When an animal that large becomes aggressive bad things can happen. I understand there are a lot of responsible dog owners out there, but there are some who simply cannot handle a dog of this size. Also, what does a 65-pound dog do that a 10 or 15-pound dog does not do? Did they get the dog because they liked it? Because it made them feel safe? Because it made their daughter feel safe? That's not a good enough answer.

A few thoughts before CPAC 2013

Originally I planned a long-ish post before CPAC, but why? I may as well wait until after this weekend before making too many proclamations about where the conservative movement is at in 2013. That is not to say CPAC is the be all and end all of conservative activism, but it’s the first major gathering of conservatives since the election that is hopefully serving as the kick in the ass we needed on the right.

Now, onto the things I hope to hear and not hear this weekend.

1.       Which brand of conservatism gets the most airtime from speakers?  Is it solely a fiscal conservatism going forward? Is it a shift towards embracing the libertarian wing of the movement? What role are social issues going to play for us going forward? What about immigration?  What about foreign-policy? It seems like a broad question, but I think the conservative movement is at one of those points where stepping back and looking at the 30,000 foot view is required at this point. Conservatism has always been about opportunity, so how do we get that point across?

Along this same point, what is our elevator speech? We live in a seven-second soundbite world. Even more than our short attention spans is the fact that the majority of this country does not actively follow the news on a daily basis. Low-information voters do exist and we do need to take a crack at winning them over. How do we describe conservatism to them in the 7 seconds we might have?

2.       ObamaCare. – For the past few years ObamaCare has been target number one for conservative activists. Well guess what, ObamaCare isn’t going anywhere over the next 4 years and the more time we focus on that the less time we spend on problems that we have a chance at solving. The amount of time spent on ObamaCare and not every other issue will determine how successful this gathering ends up being.

3.       Technology – I work in the digital advertising world and if there is one thing I hope the GOP has learned it is that technology is not how you win an election, but it can be a powerful tool when used properly. In short, email can be used for purposes outside of raising money.

4.       Are we going to divide the country into groups as well? – Lots of the focus after the election has been on the youth and Latino votes. There seem to be two sides – one side is tailor our policies to where these groups stand today (i.e. move left) or find new ways to engage with everyone, including the youth and Latino voters of America, and start moving them back to our side. One common complaint I hear about us on the right is that we do not bother to take the time to reach out to different ethnic and social groups. I, for one, believe that moving left will be the beginning of the end of the conservative movement and that another group will pick up the pieces. Evangelizing conservative philosophies to everyone needs to be the focus, but to get there we need to focus on points 1, 2, and 3.

That is basically it. I would be lying if I said I expected to be blow away this weekend. CPAC knows it needs to do something to stay relevant. This is a time for self-reflection and self-improvement for the conservative movement. Why our policies work should be the focus. Everyone in the room knows that Obama sucks and that Hillary won’t be much better. The only way we will get others on our side is if we start to hone a new positive and affirmative message that focuses on our solutions. Three days spent bashing Obama will be three days wasted.

Everything that is Wrong with Elements of the Conservative Movement in one Sentence

It is not hyperbole when Erick Erickson markets his Morning Briefing with the tagline "What Conservatives Read First." For the most part he is right; this is one of the newsletters that is opened regularly by many in the conservative movement before moving on to the rest of the day's business. It's not so much that this email serves as the talking points for conservatives but rather the email does what most good, must-read email newsletters do -- it gives you a few thing to chew on throughout the day. It is because of this platform and the influence/reputation that Erickson has in the conservative community that makes this one sentence stick out from this morning's email.

From Faulty Premises and Outlooks Formed:

In Delaware, many conservative, myself included, made the conscious decision that it would be far better to have the Democrat win than Mike Castle because of what Castle would do whispering in the ears of Republican leaders.

Take your time to read that again. It would be far better to have the Democrat win.... I understand the logic behind the argument. If you have an influential squish, as Erickson would put it, then potentially the rest of the party's elected leadership will listen to said squish and steer the party towards more squishy stances that will result in bad policy, fewer votes, and at the end of the day a stronger Democratic party and a weakened America. This thinking also assumes that in this particular instance 1. Mike Castle had influence over Mitch McConnell and 2. Had enough influence to not only convince McConnell that the GOP should not challenge Obama on ANY front but also the rest of the GOP senators.

The other theory that came to mind as to why someone in the conservative movement would openly advocate for a Democrat to win over a Republican (no matter how moderate/squishy) is that because the mainstream media primarily caters to low-information voters, having a Republican willing to slam his party repeatedly on camera would give the Democrats an edge is the public relations war that surrounds every policy decision. It's easy to see how the media would portray this "sensible Republican" as a "North Star of sanity in a town where compromise is the new 'c-word'" in an effort to further President Obama's agenda while taking a shot at Republican "grandstanding" (no matter how legitimate the opposition may be).

I can also see why, if this seat is not the difference between a majority position (or a filibuster-proof majority) and that if on big issues there is little daylight between the moderate Republican and the Democrat candidate, that you would prefer the Democrat win.

Actually, no, I can't.

Theories aside, I cannot read this sentence as anything other than one of the main reasons why the GOP is struggling to find its identity in the 21st Century. We are now apparently entering a period where you are only a true conservative if you vote for only staunch conservatives and it is ok to let the Democrats take a few seats if the other option is a guy who will only side with the Conservative movement 60% of the time? That unless you are backed by Red State and Jim DeMint and Ted Cruz and Rand Paul and Club for Growth you are a squish and it would be better if the left wins? Correction, in the words of Erickson it would be far better.

I understand that tea party conservatives are tired of being ragged on for Palin and Christine O'Donnell and more recently Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin considering that the successes of the tea party far outweigh the failures. I understand that it is important to get more people for whom conservatism is their natural language and philosophy to enter and win poltiical races. The key is knowing which battles to pick. Delaware wasn't one of those battles and the longer people think it was (and drag their heels in and write, frankly, stupid and unhelpful sentences like the one quoted above) the longer it is going to take for conservatives to get a battle plan for 2014 ready.

The larger point of the piece, about the Conservative Victory Project (whatever the heck that means) is spot on, but if this one sentence is indicative of how many conservative leaders and grassroots activists feel - that GOP primaries should be what the conservative movement focuses on and whatever happens in the general election is just gravy, then 2014 is going to be one bad year for conservatives.

P.S. - I'm not going to work Bill Buckley's oft-quoted line about nominating the most conservative, electable candidate, into this post because it is too obvious to throw in and it is a line that both the grassroots and establishment will use continuously until the end of time.

Also, I acknowledge that Erickson ends his piece with three paragraphs that are almost completely contradictory of the one I quoted...which is why I took the time to write this because even he knows that what he wrote is not the road map for a conservative resurgence in 2014.