<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Salon.com > Conservatives</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.salon.com/topic/conservatives/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.salon.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 16:42:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>The right tries to pin Gosnell on Obama</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/the_right_tries_to_pin_gosnell_on_obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/the_right_tries_to_pin_gosnell_on_obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kermit Gosnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-abortion movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abortion rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13280173</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Parsing the bait-and-switch with Gosnell and all abortion care -- and a response to Ross Douthat]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Later this week, President Obama will keynote Planned Parenthood's annual gala. According to some antiabortion activists, he <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/23/pro-life-group-calls-on-obama-to-cancel-planned-parenthood-appearance-in-wake-of-gosnell-trial/">shouldn't</a>, because Kermit Gosnell is on trial for murder. "In the wake of the gruesome and horrific revelations emanating from the trial of abortion Doctor Kermit Gosnell, we urge President Obama to cancel his fundraising speech for big abortion giant Planned Parenthood on Thursday night," said a statement from Live Action, which made its name trying to bring down Planned Parenthood with James O'Keefe-inspired video stings.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/the_right_tries_to_pin_gosnell_on_obama/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/the_right_tries_to_pin_gosnell_on_obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>58</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP quits public policy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/gop_quits_public_policy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/gop_quits_public_policy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 18:07:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republican Party]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[House of Representatives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13279870</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Evidence reveals that today's conservatives have been historically bad at writing bills or developing an agenda]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are Republicans even trying? There's good evidence to suggest they are not.</p><p>While I’ve been saying that <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/06/the_republican_party_is_officially_broken/">the GOP is broken</a> and hopelessly dysfunctional, Rachel Maddow has come up with a new name for part of that dysfunction: Republicans are “<a href="http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/29/17517191-why-mike-kelly-got-distracted?lite">post-policy</a>.” To some extent, that’s because they’ll simply oppose whatever Barack Obama proposes, but there’s also an even more interesting aspect of it that they simply have given up on and lost the capacity for developing policy ideas.</p><p>And, no, it’s not just because they are conservatives and conservatives are inherently less likely to have policy ideas. A look at the evidence will demonstrate this.</p><p>Here’s the story: Over the last couple of decades, majority parties in the House of Representatives have taken to reserving the very first bill numbers for their party’s agenda. Normally, bills are just numbered in order, when they are introduced: H.R. 637 is usually the bill introduced just after H.R. 636 and just before H.R. 638. But that’s just custom, and at some point a new custom evolved to save H.R. 1 through H.R. 5, and then through H.R. 10, for important party agenda bills.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/gop_quits_public_policy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/gop_quits_public_policy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Secrets of the conservative media machine</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/secrets_of_the_conservative_media_machine/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/secrets_of_the_conservative_media_machine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:21:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brent Bozell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Paul Weyrich]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Matt Drudge]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13273210</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After mastering TV news and talk radio, conservatives lost control of their message online. That's about to change]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>To borrow a Sarah Palin aphorism, after their election defeat in 2008, conservatives didn’t retreat, they “reloaded.” Instead of finding new solutions to public policy problems or seriously reevaluating Bush’s failures, conservatives focused almost solely on new ways to communicate their old ideas. To do so, they looked to their natural allies in corporate marketing for inspiration -- and they looked to the Left for imitation. The result has been a recent and profound turnaround that has allowed the Right the bury Obama’s message and dominate the political debate.</p><p><strong>Historical right-wing domination of the media</strong></p><p>Traditionally, conservatives have almost always dominated direct mail solicitations, retained the best pollsters money could buy and paid for the most celebrated advertising makers. Message discipline is the first lesson for any Republican politician. Talk radio? unquestionably controlled by conservatives.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/secrets_of_the_conservative_media_machine/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/23/secrets_of_the_conservative_media_machine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>28</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Koch brothers&#8217; real plan for media domination</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/koch_brothers_real_plan_for_taking_over_media/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/koch_brothers_real_plan_for_taking_over_media/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 14:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[newspapers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Koch Brothers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tribune company]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chicago Tribune]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sam Zell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[koch industries]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13278037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conservative brothers would make money off owning newspapers. Just not in the straightforward way they claim]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why would anyone want to buy a newspaper these days? This is the question originally raised by my recent Harper's magazine <a href="http://harpers.org/blog/2012/08/the-citizen-kane-era-returns/">investigation</a> into the state of the newspaper industry and now resurrected by this weekend's <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/business/media/koch-brothers-making-play-for-tribunes-newspapers.html?pagewanted=all&amp;_r=0">New York Times</a> report on the possibility of Koch Industries buying the Tribune Co.'s eight newspaper properties. The answer is that for all the problems they face, newspapers still offer something extremely valuable to a particular kind of investor -- just not what they might publicly admit to because it is more than a bit unseemly.</p><p>In public, of course, prospective newspaper buyers continue to pretend that they are primarily interested in purchasing newspapers either to 1) preserve a venerated civic institution and objective journalism or 2) to seize an honest, straightforward business opportunity.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/koch_brothers_real_plan_for_taking_over_media/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/22/koch_brothers_real_plan_for_taking_over_media/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>23</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The huge, unanswered questions post-Boston</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/the_huge_unanswered_questions_post_boston/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/the_huge_unanswered_questions_post_boston/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston Explosions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[technology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Investigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Muslims]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First responders]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13276835</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why did some seem giddy that suspects were Muslim? Will good police work change our treatment of public employees?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As news outlets reported late last week that the Boston bombing suspects were of Chechen-Muslim descent, many readers (on Twitter and in my emailbox) asked whether I was sad, because I had expressed my hope that it would be <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/16/lets_hope_the_boston_marathon_bomber_is_a_white_american/">a white American</a>. These questions have been posed in grotesquely gleeful fashion, as if the alleged demographic profile of the suspects, unto itself, is some sort of victory.</p><p>My answer to the question about sadness should be self-evident: yes, of course I am sad, and if you aren't sad, you have no soul or aren't paying attention. That's because it should be sad to anyone to see a city terrorized into lockdown mode and Americans maimed and killed. That's a tragedy for the victims, sad for Boston, sad for America and sad for whole communities who are <a href="http://colorlines.com/archives/2013/04/the_post-boston_islamophobic_hate_crimes_have_begun.html">already being persecuted for the actions of individuals</a>.</p><p>As I wrote in my <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/how_to_honor_the_victims_of_a_national_tragedy/">syndicated newspaper column</a> yesterday, there are no definitive answers to something as horrible as all that. But there are huge questions. Here are three to ponder at the end of an awful week:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/the_huge_unanswered_questions_post_boston/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/21/the_huge_unanswered_questions_post_boston/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>284</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The real Gosnell conspiracy</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/the_real_gosnell_conspiracy/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/the_real_gosnell_conspiracy/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kermit Gosnell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Abortion clinics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-abortion movement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13272848</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I take it back, there is one: How credulous media played into the right's strategy to ban all abortion ]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I want to revise some of my earlier <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/12/there_is_no_gosnell_coverup/">statements</a>. There is, in fact, a conspiracy around the case of Philadelphia doctor Kermit Gosnell. But it's being engineered not by a mainstream media cowed by the left out of covering his trial, but by the antiabortion movement. And while Gosnell's trial deserves fair, accurate and contextualized coverage, some journalists seem happy to stop at playing into the right's hands by buying their phony media narrative.</p><p>No one who supports the provision of safe abortion care to women excuses any of what Gosnell is accused of, from willfully gruesome conditions to sadistic treatment to infanticide. He is not typical, and there was, and has been, swift renunciation of his facility. But the case provides the ideal opportunity for the right-to-life movement to conflate his abusive clinic with all abortion as it's widely practiced in the U.S., and to focus on graphic later abortions, conveniently redirecting attention from their desire to ban all abortions for everyone. That desire, by the way, is being enacted into law explicitly in states like Arkansas and North Dakota, and implicitly with laws designed to close abortion clinics in states like Mississippi and Virginia.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/the_real_gosnell_conspiracy/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/17/the_real_gosnell_conspiracy/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>141</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Obama phones&#8221;: Right wing&#8217;s latest bogus obsession</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/why_is_the_right_so_worked_up_about_obama_phones/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/why_is_the_right_so_worked_up_about_obama_phones/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Barack Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[phones]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[drudge report]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Welfare]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13266863</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A Reagan-era policy is the latest bogus attack the right can't let go]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why are Republicans looking to scale back Lifeline, a Reagan-era policy that provides discounts to low-income phone users? Because the policy, referred to as "Obama phones" by conservatives, has had the bad luck of being <a href="http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp">distorted</a> as the Obama administration's policy of handing out free phones to welfare recipients -- a claim that was boosted by a racially charged video that went viral.</p><p>This month, the House Energy and Commerce Committee will hold a hearing on the policy. “The program has nearly tripled in size from $800 million in 2009 to $2.2 billion per year in 2012,” Republicans on the committee wrote in March. “American taxpayers — and we as their elected representatives — need to know how much of this growth is because of waste, fraud and abuse.”</p><p>Lifeline began during the Reagan administration, and was expanded during George W. Bush's presidency to include cellphone service. It's funded by phone bill fees that most people pay -- not, as some conspiracy theorists believe, by taxes. As the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-phones-subsidy-program-draws-new-scrutiny-on-the-hill/2013/04/09/50699d04-a061-11e2-be47-b44febada3a8_story.html">Washington Post</a> reports:</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/why_is_the_right_so_worked_up_about_obama_phones/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/why_is_the_right_so_worked_up_about_obama_phones/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>26</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Glenn Beck&#8217;s favorite immigrants</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/glenn_becks_favorite_kind_of_immigrants/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/glenn_becks_favorite_kind_of_immigrants/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Apr 2013 15:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Immigration Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans for Immigration Reform]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Germany]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Home Schooling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rick Santorum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Glenn Beck]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[White House]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13266910</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Conservatives rally around a controversial family facing deportation. Take one guess why]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did you know that Glenn Beck has <a href="http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/18/there-is-nothing-more-un-american-than-this-becks-interview-with-the-lawyer-representing-homeschooling-familys-fight-to-stay-in-the-u-s/" target="_blank">pledged $50,000</a> to the legal fund of an immigrant family facing deportation from the United States? As of April 9, a <a href="http://www.hslda.org/legal/cases/romeike.asp" target="_blank">petition</a> to the White House to grant the family permanent asylum, organized by Christian conservative groups, topped 100,000 signatories, the threshold to trigger a response from the administration.</p><p>Confused? I can explain. The Romeike family aren’t just any immigrants. They are evangelical Christians from Germany. And, oh yeah, they’re white.</p><p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/us/01homeschool.html?pagewanted=all" target="_blank">Uwe and Hannelore Romeike</a> are devout Christians who want to home-school their five children. But under German law, attendance at an officially recognized school — whether a public school or a private religious or secular school — is mandatory. Facing over $10,000 in mounting fines and police escorting their children to school daily, the Romeikes were <a href="http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1968099,00.html" target="_blank">contacted by</a> the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association — which was looking to expand its work internationally --  and suggested the Romeike’s resettle in Morristown, Tenn., and apply for political asylum.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/glenn_becks_favorite_kind_of_immigrants/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/10/glenn_becks_favorite_kind_of_immigrants/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>185</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Thatcher: A female icon, but not a feminist one</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Margaret Thatcher]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women in politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Feminism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[England]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united kingdom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[International Affairs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13264858</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It's better to have women in public life, even those with whom we disagree, than no women in public life at all]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There have always been women like Margaret Thatcher in power. Never more than one or two at a time, of course. Thatcher was the embodiment of what Katha Pollitt memorably <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/1991/04/07/magazine/hers-the-smurfette-principle.html?pagewanted=all&amp;src=pm">called</a> "the Smurfette syndrome," which is when "a group of male buddies will be accented by a lone female, stereotypically defined." She was not a feminist icon, nor any kind of feminist, as she took pains to remind people. "Some of us were making it before women's lib was even thought of," she once sniffed. To make it any more obvious, she might as well have literally kicked the ladder out from under her.</p><p>For decades, Thatcher's gender provided some public relations cover for her most noxious politics. That was true even today in the White House's statement on her death, which included the following treacly sentence: "As a grocer’s daughter who rose to become Britain’s first female prime minister, she stands as an example to our daughters that there is no glass ceiling that can’t be shattered."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/08/thatcher_a_female_icon_but_not_a_feminist_one/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How conservatives still run America, despite losing elections</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/how_conservatives_still_run_america_despite_losing_elections/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/how_conservatives_still_run_america_despite_losing_elections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gun Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Social Security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cutting social security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FISA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Democrats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13262891</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From guns to Social Security to FISA, the real majority party prevails while liberals lose out again]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There is more than may appear in President Obama’s plan to cut the social safety net in his <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-budget-chained-cpi-2013-4">new budget proposal</a>. The offer, on the face of it, reflects a significant violation of a major liberal creed, discarding the strongest liberal political card and Obama’s peculiar negotiation style of making major concessions at the opening of a give-and-take session. But it also reflects the sad but true fact that the dynamics of American politics cannot be understood in terms of Democrats vs. Republicans. Party labels aside, the nation is still being ruled by what I call a majority “conservative party.”</p><p>If Democrats and Republicans were the true divide, the meager gun control measures recently introduced in the Senate would have the majority needed to pass. After all, there are 53 Democratic Senators (and two Independents who generally side with them). Moreover, this time, the threat of a GOP filibuster is not to blame. Yet the Democratic majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, removed the assault weapons ban from the draft bill because some 15 Democratic senators, in effect, supported the conservative pro-gun position, making up — with the Republican senators — that majority “conservative party.” Thanks to this party, the same legislative defeat is about to befall liberal proposals to curtail high-capacity magazines. This leaves only better background checks on the table, but these, too, will inevitably be rendered ineffective by the conservatives via the underhanded gutting of enforcement (more about this shortly).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/how_conservatives_still_run_america_despite_losing_elections/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/how_conservatives_still_run_america_despite_losing_elections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>63</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is this baby-faced blogger the next Andrew Breitbart?</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/the_next_andrew_breitbart/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/the_next_andrew_breitbart/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 11:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breitbart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Breitbart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ben Shapiro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Breitbart.com]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CPAC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13259537</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Love him or hate him, former child prodigy Ben Shapiro is a growing force on the right]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p dir="ltr">In young, conservative circles, there are many ambitious go-getters who want to be the next Andrew Breitbart. Say what you will about the late right-wing pioneer (and there are plenty of negative things to say), but as Joan Walsh <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/tucker_carlson_you%E2%80%99re_no_andrew_breitbart/">wrote recently</a>, the founder of the eponymous media empire was inimitable, both in his successes and tremendous failings, and there is no obvious successor.</p><p dir="ltr">The empire he left behind is riven with bitter internal disputes, as <a href="http://www.buzzfeed.com/mckaycoppins/breitbarts-inheritors-battle-over-his-legacy">BuzzFeed’s McKay Coppins detailed</a>, and there is a dearth of young up-and-comers. James O’Keefe happily played this role for a while, but his star has since fallen as his legal troubles have mounted. Dana Loesch, the brash radio host who briefly helmed one of the Breitbart sites, has also been pushed aside (<a href="http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/talk-radio-host-dana-loesch-files-suit-in-st-louis/article_d2839490-2ed1-5de8-8292-0a3f90204a6d.html">and sued over it</a>).</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/the_next_andrew_breitbart/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/03/the_next_andrew_breitbart/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>79</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill Kristol: GOP shouldn&#8217;t &#8220;cater&#8221; to young people on gay marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/bill_kristol_gop_shouldnt_cater_to_young_people_on_gay_marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/bill_kristol_gop_shouldnt_cater_to_young_people_on_gay_marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 12:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill Kristol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Youth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13258662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It won't work to "embrace the views of some 26-year-old who doesn’t know anything honestly," he said]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Conservative pundit Bill Kristol is not convinced that Republicans should listen to young people when it comes to embracing gay marriage, because they "[don't] know anything honestly."</p><p>Speaking in an interview for the Weekly Standard's <a href="http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/kristol-podcast-gop-elites-herd-independent-minds_712211.html">podcast</a>, Kristol said that he finds "something pathetic" about politicians now coming out in support of gay marriage, and "jumping on the train because it looks fashionable."</p><p>"I’ve found it really distasteful," he said. "I mean I myself am socially conservative on the marriage issue but even if you’re not, just say what you believe and let the country decide."</p><p>He continued: "This kind of pathetic attempt: ‘Oh my god, young people especially are liberal so let’s just rush to cater to them.’ As if they’re going to respect you if you just embrace the views of some 26-year-old who doesn’t know anything honestly. Can’t adults say young people are sometimes wrong?"</p><p>h/t <a href="http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/04/01/1803301/kristol-marriage-equality/">ThinkProgress</a>.</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/bill_kristol_gop_shouldnt_cater_to_young_people_on_gay_marriage/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/04/02/bill_kristol_gop_shouldnt_cater_to_young_people_on_gay_marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>53</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why conservatives hate college</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/31/why_conservatives_hate_college/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/31/why_conservatives_hate_college/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 31 Mar 2013 22:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Books]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[College]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Editor's Picks]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[William F. Buckley]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13254788</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The right's decades-long war on academia and "liberal professors" is about defining an elite "populists" can oppose]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>If you want to understand the origins of the 21st century campaign against the liberal professoriate, you have to understand why conservatives like William Buckley were engaged in a similar campaign in their day. Some of the anger that National Review authors directed at left-leaning academics reflected the same impulses and strategic calculations that sustained McCarthyism: the sense that the nation was under threat during the Cold War; the view that the ranks of the American left were filled with communists or former communists who were either outright traitors or simply not to be trusted, especially with the impressionable minds of youth; and the awareness that even if there was a meaningful difference between communists and liberals, the distinction could be blurred to good political effect. Buckley, after all, was one of McCarthy’s most vigorous defenders, coauthoring in 1954 (with Brent Bozell, his brother-in-law) "McCarthy and His Enemies," which a reviewer for the New York Times appropriately described as “the most extraordinary book yet to come forth in the harsh bibliography ... of ‘McCarthyism,’” given its point-by-point defense of some of McCarthy’s most outlandish claims. However, <em>most</em> of the criticisms of academia that appeared in National Review did not allege subversion by professors per se, and this was particularly the case from the 1960s onward. What lay behind the alternative lines of critique that Buckley and his collaborators pursued?</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/31/why_conservatives_hate_college/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/31/why_conservatives_hate_college/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>103</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sarah Palin is &#8220;loaded&#8221; for 2014</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/sarah_palin_is_loaded_for_2014/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/sarah_palin_is_loaded_for_2014/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 15:02:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sarah Palin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2014 elections]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ted Cruz]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alaska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13254800</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SarahPAC released a video touting Palin's past success at backing congressional candidates]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sarah Palin's super PAC released a two-minute ad, complete with a growling bear, that promises she's "loaded" and ready to back conservatives in 2014, complete with a guest appearance by Sen. Ted Cruz, who says he couldn't have been elected in 2012 without Palin's help.</p><p>Watch:</p><p><object id="flashObj" width="400" height="225" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=2257780853001&amp;playerID=1409164951001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="src" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" /><param name="flashvars" value="videoId=2257780853001&amp;playerID=1409164951001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="swliveconnect" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="pluginspage" value="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" /><embed id="flashObj" width="400" height="225" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1" flashvars="videoId=2257780853001&amp;playerID=1409164951001&amp;playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAETmrZQ~,EVFEM4AKJdRjek0MS21pRzf_GTDAM-xj&amp;domain=embed&amp;dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" seamlesstabbing="false" allowfullscreen="true" swliveconnect="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></object></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/sarah_palin_is_loaded_for_2014/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/sarah_palin_is_loaded_for_2014/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Limbaugh: There will be gay marriage &#8220;nationwide&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/limbaugh_there_will_be_gay_marriage_nationwide/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/limbaugh_there_will_be_gay_marriage_nationwide/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Mar 2013 11:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rush Limbaugh]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DoMA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13254469</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The genie is not getting put back in the bottle," Rush said]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rush Limbaugh allowed on his radio show Wednesday that gay marriage "nationwide" is inevitable, regardless of how the Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8 and DOMA. Opponents of gay marriage, he said, are being told that "the country is changing and you better get with it and understand it. The genie is not getting put back in the bottle."</p><p>"And I think that's right," he added. "I don't care what this court does with this particular ruling, Proposition 8. I think the inertia is clearly moving in the direction that there is going to be gay marriage at some point nationwide."</p><p>Here's the audio, via <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/27/rush-limbaugh-gay-marriage_n_2965936.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003">Huffington Post</a>:</p><p><iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/42gwMb5LpuQ" frameborder="0" width="400" height="225"></iframe></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/limbaugh_there_will_be_gay_marriage_nationwide/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/28/limbaugh_there_will_be_gay_marriage_nationwide/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>13</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>S.E. Cupp is wrong on marriage, but not why you might think</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/s_e_cupps_wrong_on_marriage_but_not_why_you_might_think/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/s_e_cupps_wrong_on_marriage_but_not_why_you_might_think/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 16:46:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Video]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[S.E. Cupp]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MSNBC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Marriage equality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[LGBT Rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13253560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The conservative commentator and I disagree on gay marriage. It's her promotion of it that I find worrying]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As if we needed further evidence of the malleable nature of ideology, this week conservative pundit S.E. Cupp responded to my critique of conservative “marriage promotion” arguments for supporting gay marriage by defending the cause of marriage equality:</p><p><iframe src="http://videos.mediaite.com/embed/player/?content=JD3GZ22W618T6305&amp;content_type=content_item&amp;layout=&amp;playlist_cid=&amp;widget_type_cid=svp&amp;read_more=1" frameborder="0" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" scrolling="no" width="420" height="421"></iframe></p><p>Here’s what I wrote in my <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/25/are_gop_gay_marriage_supporters_hurting_the_cause/" target="_blank">original Salon essay</a>:</p><blockquote> <div>In the interest of expediency and bringing as many unlikely conservative allies on board, the gay rights movement may give cover to or even amplify a set of narrow values that rank married families as better than unmarried families, two parents as better than one parent — norms that continue to divide America into good people and deserving families versus everyone else. And even if we temporarily succeed in getting gay folks added to the “good” category, is it worth it? Plus do we really think that’s the way we or anyone else will be treated equally?</div> </blockquote><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/s_e_cupps_wrong_on_marriage_but_not_why_you_might_think/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/s_e_cupps_wrong_on_marriage_but_not_why_you_might_think/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>38</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Huckabee: Evangelicals may &#8220;walk&#8221; over gay marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/huckabee_evangelicals_may_walk_over_gay_marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/huckabee_evangelicals_may_walk_over_gay_marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mike Huckabee]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Evangelicals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Republicans]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13253321</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If Republicans shift on gay marriage, he said, they risk losing "a large part of their base"]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Though some conservatives are shifting course and backing gay marriage -- like <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/bill_oreilly_defends_gay_marriage/">Bill O'Reilly</a> and Sen. Rob Portman, for example -- Mike Huckabee remains adamant that if Republicans change course they will lose the support of evangelicals.</p><p>Republicans may begin to support gay marriage in full force, Huckabee said, "And if they do, they’re going to lose a large part of their base because evangelicals will take a walk."</p><p>“And it’s not because there’s an anti-homosexual mood, and nobody’s homophobic that I know of, but many of us, and I consider myself included, base our standards not on the latest Washington Post poll, but on an objective standard, not a subjective standard," he told <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/huckabee-evangelicals-gay-marriage/2013/03/20/id/495593?promo_code=125BD-1&amp;utm_source=125BDTelegraph_Media_Group&amp;utm_medium=nmwidget&amp;utm_campaign=widgetphase1">Newsmax</a>.</p><p>Huckabee continued: “I have great sympathy and extraordinary admiration for Sen. Portman. I consider him a friend and I value his work in the Senate and think he’s a great person. The mistake is that we sometimes base our public policy decisions on how we feel, how we think, maybe even some personal experiences, and we don’t regard a lot of these issues from the standpoint of an objective standard."</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/huckabee_evangelicals_may_walk_over_gay_marriage/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/huckabee_evangelicals_may_walk_over_gay_marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>42</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bill O&#8217;Reilly defends gay marriage</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/bill_oreilly_defends_gay_marriage/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/bill_oreilly_defends_gay_marriage/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 13:04:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bill O'Reilly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fox News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gay Marriage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13253322</guid>
		<description><![CDATA["The other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible," he said]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>On "The O'Reilly Factor" on Tuesday, host Bill O'Reilly came out in support of allowing gays and lesbians to marry, saying that they've made a "compelling" case, while opponents "[haven’t] been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”</p><p>“The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals,” O’Reilly said. “That is where the compelling argument is. We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.” He continued: “That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.”</p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/bill_oreilly_defends_gay_marriage/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/27/bill_oreilly_defends_gay_marriage/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Conservatives and software companies will keep tax season miserable</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/conservatives_big_companies_lobbying_against_simple_free_tax_filing_partner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/conservatives_big_companies_lobbying_against_simple_free_tax_filing_partner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 16:53:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ProPublica]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taxes]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tax Returns]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Lobbying]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13252143</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Return-free filing could save taxpayers billions, but the GOP and companies like TurboTax maker Intuit don't care]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.propublica.org"><img align="left" style="margin: 0 10px 0 0;" src="http://media.salon.com/2012/12/Logo-e1354323738840.jpg" alt="ProPublica" /></a></p><p><em>This story was co-produced with <a href="http://www.npr.org/2013/03/26/175332655/what-would-the-u-s-be-like-with-no-tax-returns">NPR</a>.</em></p><p>Imagine filing your income taxes in five minutes — and for free. You'd open up a pre-filled return, see what the government thinks you owe, make any needed changes and be done. The miserable annual IRS shuffle, gone.</p><div>It's already a reality in <a href="http://www.oecd.org/tax/taxadministration/36280368.pdf">Denmark, Sweden and Spain</a>. The government-prepared return would estimate your taxes using information your employer and bank already send it. Advocates say tens of millions of taxpayers could use such a system each year, saving them a collective $2 billion and 225 million hours in prep costs and time, according to one estimate.</div><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/conservatives_big_companies_lobbying_against_simple_free_tax_filing_partner/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/conservatives_big_companies_lobbying_against_simple_free_tax_filing_partner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>GOP&#8217;s dumb California-bashing</title>
		<link>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/gops_inane_war_on_california/</link>
		<comments>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/gops_inane_war_on_california/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Business]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Entertainment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[All Salon]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[California]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conservatives]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nebraska]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Missouri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Oklahoma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hollywood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Liberals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[communists]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[socialists]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.railrode.net/?p=13251947</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The new talking point that liberals will turn USA into California misses one thing: California is friggin' awesome]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a columnist, I receive email every day from readers across this great country. Not surprisingly, some of these letters are angry missives frothing with apocalyptic rhetoric and dire warnings. Of late, no matter the controversy of the day nor what specific issue I happen to be writing about, these particular screeds (often in response to <a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/20/how_to_turn_your_state_liberal/">liberal successes</a>) have been repeating a singular message: liberals, progressives, socialists, communists, hippies and other alleged undesirables are trying to "turn America into California."</p><p>No doubt, you've probably caught this or a similar phrase in your Web surfing, your email box and your casual discussions. It is the conversation-ender du jour. Don't like the election results and the policies that follow? Deride them as proof America is <a href="http://washingtonexaminer.com/can-conservatives-prevent-the-u.s.-from-becoming-california/article/2513695">"becoming California."</a> Don't like a bill moving through your legislature? Cite it as more evidence your state is <a href="http://www.mainwashed.com/2013/02/colorado-turning-into-california-high.html">"turning into California."</a> Don't like what Congress is doing on any given day? Write a screed bewailing America <a href="http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/amnesty-turning-u-s-into-california/">"turning into California."</a></p><p><a href="http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/gops_inane_war_on_california/">Continue Reading...</a></p>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.salon.com/2013/03/26/gops_inane_war_on_california/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>196</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>