Archive for the ‘RINO Alert’ Category

GOP Mafia Produces Cochran Win in Mississippi

Wednesday, June 25th, 2014

Haley’s Helot

There really is something deeply wrong with the GOP establishment, and as nearly all conservatives have always suspected, it’s this: Despite all of the GOP establishment’s haughty talk about moderation, they are willing to do anything, no matter how repulsive, to achieve their political ends in order to maintain power.  In Mississippi, Thad Cochran held onto his seat by the slimmest of margins over conservative Chris McDaniels.  Had there not been a laundry list of out-of-state, center-left interests pouring money in on Cochran’s behalf, this race would have come out differently, but what I want dispirited conservatives to know is that despite the loss, you won.  It might be hard to see at the moment, but there’s really something to be said for your accomplishments in this race.  The truth is now plain to see, and for those who doubted it before, the veil should now be thoroughly lifted:  The GOP establishment is comprised of a mafia-like element that will use any tactic necessary to keep its scumbags in office, and in this election, it was revealed in full, but this was only possible because conservatives pushed them to the brink.

Thad Cochran has been in political office nearly all of my life.  Now he faces an election for a seventh term, and if he succeeds, he will have served in the US Senate for forty-two years by the time the new term expires.  This is despicable.  What makes it all the more disgusting is the manner of his primary victory.  He did not win on the strength of his record, which is sorely lacking.  He did not win on the merits of his legislative proposals.  He did not win because Republicans in his state favor him.  He did not win even because Republican voters though McDaniels was an inferior candidate.  No, he won on the strength of contributions from his center-left connections, shady endorsements, and because his campaign’s proxies illegally urged Democrats to cross over and vote for him in the Republican primary.  They gave “walking-around money” to would-be Democrat voters, and they basically called McDaniels and the TEA Party “racists” who were out to get Barack Obama. Take a look at this flier, circulated prior to the primary run-off(H/T John Fund at NRO):

Despicable Cochran flier that circulated days before the run-off

Let me say this clearly.  Thad Cochran is a scumbag, and that he would employ such an outrageous tactic merely speaks to his unfitness for office.  Were I a Mississippi conservative, there is no way I would vote to re-elect this dirtball.  Instead, I would vote for the Democrat.  You might ask: “But Mark, if the Democrat is elected, we might not retake the Senate,” to which I must respond with a question: “We?“  Who comprises any “we” in any of this?  It is not Republicans and conservatives.  It is not TEA Party and constitutionalists.  The only “we” who will run the Senate, even if the Republicans win a majority in 2014 is the GOP establishment mafia.  I’d like Mississippi conservatives to think about that.

Haley Barbour and his extended gang, including Michael Bloomberg, Karl Rove, the Chamber of Commerce, a Facebook executive, and a legion of GOP establishment thugs were willing to use ginned-up Democrat support to steal this seat away from Mississippi conservatives.  Mississippi conservatives and TEA Party activists should know that there can be no restoration of the constitutional government they hope to promote so long as a gang of criminal cronies own their Senator.  The worst of it may have been the last-minute use of a sickening tactic of soliciting Democrats to support Cochran even if they would not vote for him in the Fall.

Listen to the following recording for a sample of what establishment Republicans(!) did to secure victory:

This call went out to black Democrats to get them to vote in the Republican primary.

This is the establishment of the Republican Party.  They’re every bit the statist, mafia-like dirtbags the Democrats are, and as you can see, they will work with Democrats whenever necessary to maintain their grip on power.   What is my suggestion to the conservatives and TEA Party folk in Mississippi?  Either run McDaniels as an independent in November, or simply go out to support the Democrat.  Yes, I actually suggest supporting the Democrat, because since Cochran is willing to invite Democrats into the primary campaign, Mississippi conservatives should turn the table on him and give him a dose of his own medicine.  Yes, this means the Democrat will sit in office for six years, but to quote Hillary Clinton, “what difference does it make?”  You now have a six-term RINO running for a seventh term who is firmly in Haley Barbour’s and Karl Rove’s pocket.  This November, for much the same reasons, I am voting for anybody but the RINO liar John Cornyn(R-TX.)  If we’re going to take our country back, we’ll first need to surrender a few things, and in this case, it means giving up the illusion of a Republican-led Senate that wouldn’t be the least bit conservative anyway.

Small “r” republicanism v. Big “R” Republicans

Saturday, July 6th, 2013

Which are You?

I’m a conservative, and I’m also a “republican,” but I am the latter only in the sense of a lower-case “r.”  I believe in the republican form of government promised in Article IV, section 4, of the US Constitution.  Many Republicans (members of the political party) seem to be confused about what this means, and I suppose it is only fair to make them aware of the distinctions between the things many current Republicans now advocate that violate the platform and the principles of republicanism that their party claims to uphold.  Those who become confused about what it means to be a RINO (“Republican In Name Only”) need only consider the small “r” form of the word.  It’s easy to fill out a voter registration card and check the box beside the word “Republican,” but it’s another matter entirely to know what is republicanism.  As we debate issues of critical import to the future of the nation, it’s more important than ever that conservatives know what it is they are fighting, and what form it takes.  The outcome of 2014 and 2016 will set the course of the nation for generations, and we must win it.  This is the heart of the battle between the so-called RINOs and we constitutional conservatives, and it will determine our nation’s future.

One of the concepts that has long been associated with republicanism is that we hold in disdain the notion of a “ruling class,” a presumptively superior elite who by virtue of some unknown mechanism somehow know better than the rest of us with respect to how we ought to be governed.  Indeed, when our republic was established, it was with the experience of a people who had freed themselves from the bonds of a King, who claimed his right to rule over us by virtue of his station of birth.  I do not doubt that some people are superior to others in some particular way, but nearly everybody can claim some attribute in which they are superior to most others.  Some of that is a result of education, experience and training, while some of it results from pure genetic gifts.  There is no gene, however, that entitles one man to rule over others.  There exists no family lineage in America that can rightly claim to exercise a disproportionate power over the affairs of nations and men.  We do not have kings, and while there were a few in early America who advocated for a monarchy, the broad body of the American people rejected the idea as an apostasy aimed at thwarting the very revolution in which they had only so recently succeeded.

The only thing I hold in greater contempt than the man (or woman) who would claim the right to rule over me by virtue of family lineage or family station(a.k.a. “nobility”) is the  poor, twisted soul who would consent to such a proposition.  I am no person’s chattel, and I abhor any human being who claims membership in this species who would surrender themselves as having been of no greater significance than a possession of “better” men.  Those lacking the essential self-esteem to realize that they are by right the sovereigns over their own affairs, equal to any other on the planet, ought to immediately depart these shores to seek refuge in some Kingdom as a serf.  In this sense, it is fair to say that I not only reject a supposed “ruling class,” but also that I likewise hold in contempt the corollary premise of a “ruled class.”  Part of the republican ideal is that classes are a subjectively-defined fraud perpetrated against a people who ought not to be willing to accept it.  Why is it that so many Republicans prefer to think of Americans in a class system little different from their alleged ideological opponents, the statists?  The answer is that too many Republicans are statists themselves, having rejected the fundamentals of republicanism.

By what strange and mystical knowledge do the brothers Bush claim to have the better answer on the subject of immigration, both now pushing the Gang-ofTr8ors Bill?  Why do so many Republicans accept their claim in the unthinking form of a command received from on high?  It  is because too many Republicans have either surrendered or rejected the republican principles under whose banner they march.   If you listen closely enough, you can hear in their intentionally vague language the lost concepts that they will not name, never having believed in them from the outset.  Although a few are now catching themselves in pursuit of the betterment of their propagandists’ art, you will invariably hear them speak of democracy as the goal and the object of their advocacy.  This is not merely loose wording, but a true reflection of the form of government they seek, a form so terrible that our founders placed a stricture against it in the US constitution in the form of an endorsement of republican government.

A democracy is not a form of government most rational people would want, except that they have been taught that it is the desired form.  To hear a President say that he wishes to spread democracy to the Middle East is an arrow through the heart of republicanism.  We have seen what democracy creates in the Middle East and throughout the Arab-speaking world.  Pakistan is a democracy.  Egypt is now a democracy.  Libya is now a putative democracy. Iraq now is a sort of hybrid democracy, but in each of them, what you will observe is how the whole course of the nation is changed by political instabilities, and that the rule of law acts as no restraint upon political leaders in working their will.  Barack Obama is intent on turning the US into a democracy, because democracy is always the precursor to despotism.  Most of the worst thugs of the twentieth century came to power on a wave of popular support that defines the democratic model:  He(or she) with the biggest mob wins.  Even now, in Cairo, when the military perceived that President Morsi (the Muslim Brotherhood’s stooge,) no longer held sway over the largest mob, they placed him under house arrest and offered an interim president who will enjoy for at least a time some popular support.  Throughout the third world, it is fair to say that most countries have adopted some form of governance that lurches repeatedly and often from some sort of feigned democracy to absolute despotism.

A republican form of government is much more stable, and it has been the underlying root of our general prosperity for some two-hundred-twenty years, with a few notable exceptions, in largest measure because nearly all of the occupants of the land had accepted the orderly rule of law and the specific, constitutional methodology by which laws are to be adopted, modified, or repealed.  Having a set of rules that is inflexible, particularly with respect to changing those rules, and obtaining the consent of those who must live under them for a span of two centuries is an extraordinary feat in human history.  The dire flaw in all of this is that from the moment of its adoption, people begin to conspire to overthrow it in one fashion or another, by finding loopholes, imagining a “flexibility” that does not exist, inciting rebellion against it, or seizing power over it with which to subsequently ignore the mandates of the law.

In American history, we have seen all of these methods employed, indeed, some of them are being employed even now, as our President conspires with his cabinet to ignore the rule of law, ignoring the plain language of the law as often and as thoroughly as they believe they can manage in a particular political context.  What good is a law that those who are charged with enforcing it refuse to rise to carry it into execution?  When the public officials whose job it is to see to it that subordinate officials execute the law refuse to discipline those who will not obey, always claiming as an excuse some alleged greater “public good,” what you are witnessing is the reduction of a republic to the state of a pre-despotic democracy.

Many Americans who are demonstrably ignorant of the world’s history of governance believe that our Electoral College is anti-democratic, and on this basis, advocate its repeal, demanding instead to rely upon a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.  While they are correct that the Electoral College is undemocratic, their ignorance is born of an educational system that has misled them to expect majoritarian rule in all cases as the preferred model.  Naturally, that same system has failed to teach them about federalism, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the whole construct that is a constitutional, representative republic, being the precise form of government the framers of the US constitution did adopt and ratify .

Informing them of this distinction, many are still suspicious of it, because it sounds strange and foreign to them, most under the age of forty having never been taught a syllable about it in the government schools.  Even in the school from which I graduated a long, long time ago, the senior-year civics class was entitled “Problems of Democracy.” Had I been a more thoroughly-engaged student, I might have questioned it then, but like virtually all of my peers, I did as I was told, never considering a word of it.  It would take years of study to unlock the knowledge of which I had been cheated, and at first, I resisted it.  How could all of this be true?  How could America not be a “democracy?”  How could democracy be a bad thing?  This is where many Americans get hopelessly stuck, because we’ve adopted the flexible language of lunatics, where we interchange words with the imprecise vulgarity of schoolyard bullies.  “The difference between a democracy and a republic won’t matter to you so much after I beat your face.”

The truth about democracy is what has always been its fatal flaw, perhaps best described by a phrase often mistakenly attributed to Benjamin Franklin, but possessed of perfectly sanguine execution, irrespective of its source:

“Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what will be for lunch.”

Indeed, in a true democracy, there can be no protections of any minority but by violence.  This was the great object the framers of our constitution had hoped to impede.  They knew that majoritarian rule is no form of government for a peaceable, civil society, and that such governments are always ripe for manipulation by unscrupulous and demagogic usurpers.  The whole purpose of all their checks and balances had been to obstruct to the degree humanly possible the sort of instability made easier by democratic rule.  Their constitution set at odds every branch of government, and even divisions within branches, like the House and Senate.  It relied upon a competing fight for sovereign power between the several states and the federal government, all at odds in most cases, except when the most pressing of public crises may discipline them to more affable cooperation.  This was their plan, and their intention, and they hoped that in little-modified form, it could survive some severe tests that they knew would come, as they must for all nations.

With the onset of the progressive era in the early twentieth century, there was a move toward greater “democratization,” that brought with it a string of constitutional amendments, causing a great unwinding of our nation.  The 16th, creating an authority to tax income (and the legal establishment of a class system;) the 17th, changing the manner of election of US Senators; the 18th, instituting prohibition; the 19th finally giving women the right to full political participation all came in this era, with only one of them(the 19th) having been justifiable among civilized people, and one of them(the 18th) creating such terror that it was ultimately repealed by the 21st amendment.  Progressive Republicans of that era helped to install these amendments, and none of them did more damage to the system of checks and balances the framers had invented than the 17th amendment.  It effectively muted the voices of the states as sovereigns in the federal system. It did so by causing Senators to be popularly elected in their respective states, shutting out the state governments as a confounding, obstructive influence on the growth of centralized government.

Our republican form of government was constructed to sub-divide government into so many competing segments and interests that it would be nearly impossible for any one interest to gain supremacy.  It succeeded in many ways so long as politicians held onto the general republican ideals, for more than a century generally held by members of both parties. (It is instructive to remember that the forebears of the modern Democrat Party called themselves “Democratic Republicans” for many years before dropping the second half of their name with the ascendancy of Andrew Jackson.)  It is therefore no surprise that a Democrat party would become the party of the slave-holding South, or that the Republicans would supplant the Whigs by championing the rights of an enslaved minority.  Words, including even party labels, meant something distinct in those days.

In the progressive era, mostly for the sake of political expediency, there were a number of Republicans who began to adopt more democratic notions of governance, including the predisposition of their Democrat brethren to an elitist view of a class system not only in the general populace, but also among political offices and those who occupied them.  The influences of corporations grew, as did the corrupting influence of gangsters during prohibition.  From that era arose an establishment of Republicans who were nothing of the sort, and with few exceptions, have managed to maintain a fairly strong control over that party, most often as the minority party.  Viewed in this fashion, it could be said rightly that the Republican Party has been charged with managing the real republicans into submission.

Who are the real advocates of republicanism in the Republican Party?  Nowadays, we call them “conservatives,” although they are actually the philosophical heirs to the classical liberals of the late eighteenth century, by and large.  “Conservative” is approximately opposite of “liberal” or “progressive” in popular connotation, and since the Democrats had successfully co-opted the term “liberal,” despite being nothing of the sort, they managed to carry off a vast fraud on the American people using a sort of primitive branding that set conservatives against the liberal Democrats and the progressive Republicans.  It has been in this approximate form ever since, with the Republicans adopting “moderate” from time to time as a way to escape linkage with the frightful failures of the progressive era.

Now come we full circle to the moment that is both the beginning and the end.  The Bush clan seems to have some special public sense of duty to rule over the country, as evinced by the fact that despite having had two members of their clan accumulate two solid decades of first influence and then dominance over the Republican Party, they are far from finished. Their ideas are as progressive as any Democrat you will ever meet, the singular difference being that they seem to temper the left’s radical secularism with public professions of faith in the Almighty.  Put in plainer language, they are approximately ecumenical communists, and their particular subset of the broad statist philosophy is known as communitarianism. Whatever did you think is “compassionate conservatism?”

They don’t believe in the supremacy of the individual over the interests of the community.  Most conservatives are almost precisely opposite in philosophical leanings to the communitarian front, being Christian individualists in the main.  While they certainly work in their communities and contribute to them greatly, they believe in an individualized form of salvation, and an individual responsibility in obtaining it.  The communitarians conceive instead a form of “collective salvation.” If that term sounds vaguely familiar to you, it is because your current president has used it too.  In this sense, it is fair to say that from Bush the elder, to Barack Obama, we have been on a nonstop course of communitarianism since 1989.  They do not believe in the small “r” republicanism of our founders, and they certainly do not believe in the containment of the state, the only discernible difference being their apparent relative positions on the scale between religious and secular intent.

To demolish the United States will require demolishing its distinct culture, any sort of nationalistic sentiment among its people, and the broadening of the definitions of citizenship and nationhood.  Did you think the Senate’s amnesty bill was just about cheap labor?  It is about deconstructing the United States as a sovereign entity responsive to the interests of its inhabitants.  Now that brothers George W. and Jeb Bush are openly pushing for the Senate bill in the House, or indeed any bill at all that can be a vehicle for the Senate bill in conference, one should be able to discern quite clearly that more is at stake in the matter than cheap labor for some construction contractors.

For those of you who now wonder how any of this pertains to small “r” republicanism, it is so simple as this: Very few of your elected leaders or even your supposed “conservative” spokesmen are interested in the sort of republicanism your founders brought out of deliberations from a sweltering Philadelphia convention.  If you wish to discern who are Republicans of the “RINO” construct and who are actual republicans, you need only key on their records of adherence to lowercase “r” republican principles, including primarily their previous adherence to the US constitution and its framers’ intent. Flowery words don’t matter.  Professions of faith aren’t enough. Look at their records.  Look at their ideas and the principles upon which they rely.  If you are constitutional conservatives, you must in the name of all you cherish perfect the ability to recognize the charlatans at a mile’s distance.  In Washington DC, and in states’ capitals, Republicans are legion, while actual republicans are few, and it’s a ratio we must reverse.

Ryan Whines About Future Labor Shortages; Gohmert and King Call BS (Video)

Friday, June 21st, 2013

Paul Ryan talked with Laura Ingraham about a possible, future labor shortage if the amnesty bill is not passed.  Right this moment, millions of American citizens are un/under-employed, and this guy is worried about a future labor shortage?  I guess after being portrayed by Democrats as throwing Granny off the cliff, he’s take up the real work of pitching US citizens and legal residents over the cliff in earnest.  This ridiculous man, who had been the Republican Vice Presidential Candidate only seven months ago actually believes this is the answer.  What he’s not willing to say, at least not directly, is that he wants illegals legalized so they can be new slaves and beneficiaries in the growing government welfare-state. Listen to this pandering RINO disgorge his platitudes and clichés:

Ladies and gentlemen, we must kill the bill, and we must kill it in the Senate.  Rep. Steve King(R-IA) along with Louie Gohmert(R-TX) appeared on Hannity Thursday to explain why we must kill the immigration reform bill in the Senate:  If this makes it to the House, Boehner will take up the bill, and it may be extensively amended before passage, but the bill will need to go to conference first because the two bills will be substantially different.  After the conference bill is finalized, there will be a vote for final passage, and it is at that time that Boehner and the GOP leadership in the House will screw us with a vast majority of Democrats and a few hands-full of RINOs voting for the conference version.  Then we’ll have our amnesty, and Boehner will appear as though his hands are clean. Here’s Gohmert and King on Hannity:

The two Congressmen reiterated my point of yesterday: There should be no discussion of amnesty/legalization of any kind until the border is secured and enforcement has been significant and effective for a number of years.

We must prevent this scam from going through. I have my own doubts about whether the Senate version of the bill if amended with security-oriented provisions will stand up, because the amendments being added introduce new appropriations, but the Constitution requires that any new appropriations or taxation must originate in the House.  We  already know that these weasels pay attention to the constitution if and when it suits them, so I would not be surprised to see some game-playing on technical grounds if that’s what is needed to stop enforcement of security provisions.

Keep the pressure on them!  I checked by a few of the Republican “Gang-of-Eight” Facebook pages, and noted that they are getting hammered by patriotic Americans everywhere. Let’s remind them whose country this is, and what their duty to the American people is supposed to entail.

Don’t forget to go by and sign the border security petition from Senator Ted Cruz(R-TX) Petition Here

 

McCain Busts a Spring on Senate Floor

Friday, June 21st, 2013

This morning, Senator John McCain(RINO-AZ) made an impassioned speech on behalf of the Amnesty bill.  Senator McCain is catching Hell as you continue to hammer him and his “gang-of-eight” cohorts.  He still wants this bill in the worst way, but this clip is evidence of the effect you’re having:

Sorry Johnny, we want our country.  There won’t be any amnesty for you, either…

 

 

Rove’s Record With “the Most Conservative Candidate Who Could Win”

Friday, February 8th, 2013

Who Me?

On Friday, Karl Rove was further exposed as misleading and disingenuous.  In an email response to his appearance on Thursday’s O’Reilly Factor, in which Rove claimed to have been the Director of Reagan’s 1980 Campaign in Texas, Reagan Biographer Craig Shirley responded via Daily Caller, explaining that Rove was no such thing.  In point of fact, Karl Rove ran Governor Clements’ effort for Reagan, but only after George W. Bush was defeated in the primary.  Do you understand?  Rove was a George H.W. Bush supporter, as was Texas Governor Bill Clements, for whom Rove worked at the time.  You see, Clements was a strong Bush supporter throughout the primaries, but there’s more to consider in this story.  First, watch Rove plead his case on Bill O’Reilly’s softball show:

You might wonder, watching Rove misrepresent his role in the Texas campaign for Ronald Reagan, whether it’s such a big deal that he first supported George H.W. Bush.  After all, it’s not that unusual for a candidate’s supporters to move over to the nominee’s campaign in some role after the primaries.  That said, there’s something very important I want you to consider, and it’s obvious as the spin flowing from Karl Rove’s lips:

In 1980, Rove chose Bush. Consider his dubious argument about supporting “the most conservative candidate who can win.”  It seems the most conservative candidate did win, but it wasn’t Rove’s choice in the primary in 1980.  Instead, Ronald Reagan won, and he was far more conservative than Rove’s choice. Of course, that’s not all you need to know.  In 1976, Ronald Reagan was fighting with Gerald Ford for the GOP nomination, and Karl Rove chose a horse to ride in that race too.  Ronald Reagan?  No, ladies and gentlemen,  Karl Rove was all aboard for Gerald Ford.  Gerald Ford lost to Jimmy Carter, and so it was true that once again, Rove apparently picked “the most conservative candidate who could win,” though neither did.

That’s the truth about Karl Rove.  In 1978, Karl Rove ran the losing George W. Bush campaign for congress. In 2000, his candidate nearly lost, and did lose the popular vote.  In 2004, his candidate barely squeaked by a very weak John Kerry.  In 2006, his strategies lost the House and Senate.  In 2012, he backed Romney early and often, and Mitt Romney lost. Karl Rove’s record of picking winners is abysmal. He clearly doesn’t know a conservative from a turnip, never mind a winner.  You must stop falling for his strategies, and as Mark Levin pointed out on Friday evening, Rove is attacking Steve King(R-IA) incessantly and dishonestly.  I repeat my sentiment to those who hope to reclaim leadership in the GOP: If you want any hope of winning, Karl Rove must go.

 

The Rise of the Mini-Dems

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

Miniature Look-Alike

In the ruinous ashes of Republican defeat at the hands of Barack Obama, a number of Republicans have popped-up in media to dutifully serve the narrative that the election had been the fault of conservatives.  Not only is this preposterous conclusion untrue, but also a proxy for any actual examination of why Republicans lost in 2012.  One of the favored approaches of these critics is to suggest that if conservatives wouldn’t be, well… so darned conservative, there’s some chance Republicans could have won.  One writer has even fashioned a new term to apply to staunch conservatives, but it’s not hard to notice that by the connotations of his term, he doesn’t mean to win them over.  James Arlandson, writing in the American Thinker, has coined a new term for most of you and I, and I don’t believe he intends flattery, although the combative part of me likes the label even if inaccurate.  He suggests we “might be Hyper-conservatives if…” and in the form of Jeff Foxworthy, goes on to list a number of conditions he believes characterizes the class.  Myself, I’ve devised a different label for folks like Arlandson because I believe it captures the essence and spirit of their fundamental philosophical frailties, to the extent they adhere to any ideology at all. These philosophically smallish Republicans would honestly make better “Mini-Dems.”

Arlandson’s approach to the matter is straightforward, if a bit muddled.  He alleges that there are certain aspects of some in the conservative wing of the general Republican universe that must disqualify their opinions because he believes certain positions are beyond the pale.  He lists a number of these conditions, and right off the top, he asserts a falsehood without substantiation. What makes it interesting is his use of a term to describe those who vote libertarian.  We’ve heard this term before, and it’s another I’m not afraid to wear. Arlandson says those who wish to eliminate too much government too quickly(while bothering to define neither scale) are “too severe.”  The only other person I know who in recent memory used that term to describe conservatism was Mitt Romney, describing himself, for Pete’s sake.

He then insists that we might be hyper-conservatives if we cry “third party” every time we don’t get our way.  Actually, I haven’t cried “third party” every time, but only when the party completely undercuts its purported principles for the sake of political expediency, an approach Mr. Arlandson would seem to approve.  The fact that these betrayals are happening with increasing regularity plays no role in his formulation.  His claim is that “grownup conservatives” (ostensibly such as he) “must be willing to suck it up and fight harder for the (imperfect) brand that has the best chance of winning — R.”  Let us imagine we take his advice.  The imperfect brand with the best chance of winning actually won, with the other imperfect brand following his advice.   Hint to Mr. Arlandson: That’s a “D” – Not an “R.”

He argues that we might be hyper-conservatives if… “[We] refuse to work with Dems(even after [we] lose an election.)”  Exactly what work would Mr. Arlandson suggest we take up with the Dems?  Shall we help them ban semi-automatic firearms?  Shall we work with them to more rapidly bankrupt the country(an object Republicans in DC have apparently taken up?)  Shall we stand by and watch the Democrats rape, pillage and burn, or does the mere suggestion of the truth of the situation brand me irrevocably as a “hyper-conservative?” I know one he intends, but he gets to that in a separate line-item, and so shall we.

Let’s apply his faulty strategy to any other human endeavor in which one side wins and the other sides loses.  In war, should we now work with al-Qaeda, since its apparent that despite more than a decade of conflict, our current administration seems committed to failure?  Too late, the President Arlandson suggests we’re no longer to substantially oppose has already done that.  Even in sport, is a beaten football team supposed to work with its rival?  Should a defeated boxer pummel himself in order to work with his opponent? I’m trying to understand the mentality that permits one to believe any of that is possible without simply joining the other team, but I think Mr. Arlandson is fairly-well ahead of me on that score.  This serves as the unmistakable clarion call of an approaching Mini-Dem.

He argues that if we fantasize about shredding or scrapping the school lunch program, we might be hyper-conservatives.  I suppose that cinches the matter, and I should confess, because if this is the standard, I am guilty as charged, and this issue must serve as my hyper-conservative bona fides.  I would also suggest that this is the sort of issue where the Mini-Dem is likewise exposed.  You see, I may be hyper-conservative, but I also know that the ultimate aim of any such program must be the intent to become obsolete by virtue of a growing prosperity, a quantity and quality that will remain out of our reach so long as we continue to fund dependency.  While Arlandson likes to wave Ronald Reagan around with zest, here he instead peddles “compassionate conservatism,” a theory that when turned to practice actually demonstrates neither.  As he decries those of us who would cut government programs “like drunken lumberjacks,” I’m looking around for some whiskey, and where did that blue ox run off to?  It seems Mr. Arlandson has forgotten that Reagan maxim that we should measure compassion not by how many are on government programs, but instead by how many no longer need them.

Naturally, it didn’t take long for him to get around to the discussion of immigration.  After all, it’s a good opportunity to work with Democrats who will be the primary beneficiaries of so-called “comprehensive immigration reform.”  Those who want illegals deported are apparently some sort of back-woods rednecks right out of the script of The Deliverance, at least where Arlandson is concerned.  Says he:

“Honestly, I would self-deport from your America if she were ever made in your image. The DNC is gleeful.”

Honestly, I too would be gleeful at the prospect of your self-deportation, Mr. Arlandson.  He offers us sage counsel, as if we’re too stupid to know it, or too lacking in compassion to care, chiding us:

“Immigrants, even illegal ones, are humans.  Never forget that.”

If there’s one thing a hyper-conservative hates, it’s to be the object of condescension by a Mini-Dem, and here, Mr. Arlandson goes too far.  My wife happens to be an immigrant.  I know everything I need to know about the issue, and I am well aware of the hurdles, the obstacles, and the myriad difficulties, but guess what?  None of that stopped me or my wife from observing the law. Put another way Mr. Arlandson, stuff it. How’s that for hyper-conservatism?

He apparently supports the made-up holiday Kwanzaa.  Why should I care?  In his view, admitting the entirely contrived nature of the holiday is to express some part of that quality that Colin Powell would term “a dark vein of intolerance.”  I suppose he needs to take this complaint up with Ann Coulter who famously dislikes the holiday, if she’s not too busy tying Chris Christie’s shoes. This is one more glaring reason that our country should never be entrusted to Mini-Dems, any more than it should be left to the mercy of the full-size imbeciles.  They’ll accept any absurdity in order to appease others, particularly if those others comprise a significant voting bloc that Republicans will never likely capture.

He says hyper-conservatives get side-tracked too easily by hobbyhorses. Like berating conservatives critical of Kwanzaa?  One example he offers is the desire among many conservatives and libertarians to eliminate the Federal Reserve.  He dismisses the notion with a thoughtful and retrospective view of the history and function of the Federal Reserve by simply saying:

“Ain’t gonna happen.”

That’s a nifty assertion, but let me offer a different view to Mr. Arlandson, although he may well reject it as the product of hyper-conservatism:  Nothing made by men lasts forever, so that whether it happens as a result of a seemingly inevitable monetary collapse birthed by that very institution, or instead because the United States of America ceases to exist as a political subdivision on this Earth, it most certainly will happen at some point whether you like it or not.  The question is not “if the Fed will die,” but instead “when,” and perhaps also “how.”  I love it when people like Arlandson deify themselves and make such preposterous declarations, as if they had any power whatever to make it come out the way they dictate.  It’s another tell-tale sign of a Mini-Dem. Apparently unhappy with their station in life as the weaker ideological sister to either left or right, they tend toward grand pronouncements easily debunked by adolescent logicians.    Notice, however, that Arlandson does not answer whether the Federal Reserve ought to exist, or whether it is doing more harm than good, instead merely asserting that it does exist, and on such basis must remain in perpetuity, or perhaps at least until he gets tired of it.  Naturally, he takes on those who get caught up by media questions about the age of the Earth, as though it had been a perfectly settled matter, but he is unable to acknowledge that the sun will burn out, the world will end, the United States will dissolve, and the Federal Reserve system will come to an end.  Apart from the direct intervention of God, these things will all come to pass, but while He might have some interest in the first two events, I suspect the Almighty isn’t spending much of His infinite time pondering the possibility of life on Earth without the Federal Reserve.

Arlandson goes on a bit more, about “birthers” and rape, and the age of the Earth, along with other pressing issues to conservatism, in each revealing his general competence for the description of Mini-Dem.  Like so many Mini-Dems, he wields Ronald Reagan in selective references like a sword, much like full-size Democrats do, but he is careful to remember only that much of “the Gipper” that will buttress his points, but no more.  He quite predictably flees to that age-old taunt about “hyper-conservatives” being too “simplistic.” What this really denotes, as ever, is a willingness to forgo discussions of precise right and wrong; simple truth and falsehood; moral white and black.   This is the signature cop-out of a Mini-Dem, because what they assert is that things are not so simple as to be reduced to a string of binary choices and decisions, though every computer on the planet proves otherwise.  It’s the same old dodge with the same old flavor:  Create gray areas to obscure one’s [intended]wrongdoing.

As a matter of clean-up then, I suppose it’s time to explain what I mean by “Mini-Dem,” and therefore permit you to decide for yourselves whether Mr. Arlandson fits the description:

A “Mini-Dem” is Republican who never has a single big idea.  Big ideas are too risky for Mini-Dems, because the larger (and smaller) part of what defines them as such is their abiding lack of political courage. They refuse to confront difficult challenges because it’s so much easier to surrender.  To conservatism?  No, never.  To Democrats?  Who else?  Mini-Dems would rather join with Democrats and assist their victory than bend their will to conservatism, because they possess the imbecilic need of a teenager to be accepted by the crowd, while actual conservatives realize that saying “no” is necessary job of responsible adults.  Part of the problem may owe to their conception of political courage, in Mini-Dem terms defined by criticizing conservatism to the endless glee of the left-wing media.

Theirs is the position of interminable surrender.  Who wants to go through all that fighting, and after all, “can’t we just get along?” It’s not that they never contemplate a fight, but instead that at the first imagined spilling of political blood, they go running of in search of another excuse for their cowardice. It’s always “we’ll get’em next time,” but when it’s this time, the “getting’em” is always delayed until next time. Next time never comes.  Ever.  If you want to see Mr. Arlandson’s prescribed approach in action, watch the abandonment of all reason and principle by the House Republicans over the Debt Ceiling.  Last time, they said “next time,” but when the next time came, they said again “next time, not this time.”  Do you notice the pattern?  They talk about conservatism, but when the time demands conservatism in practice, it’s always next time.  My own conclusion is that this owes to small hearts, small minds, weak constitutions, and over-indulging parents.  (All right, fine, maybe not that last, but it just felt right.)  In short, they’re almost exactly like Democrats in practice, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

I think that which defines the larger part of the psyche of Mini-Dems is a preternatural fear of being disliked. It’s like the teenage emotional state of panic that occurs when they realize everybody is looking at them as though they had the world’s largest zits on the ends of their noses. It’s that kind of sheer terror that reveals the Mini-Dem, and it’s another reason why we continue to lose elections.  Their panic at the embarrassment of a naturally occurring dermal disturbance sends them screaming out of the room to the roaring laughter of their peers, not because they had pimples, but because they had freaked out over them.  It makes a more solid conservative wish to grab and shake them. “Get a grip, man: Zits happen.”

The rise of the Mini-Dem was inevitable after moderate Mitt was defeated.  The idea is to excuse Mitt’s moderate or liberal positions, as possible reasons for his loss.  The problem is that these had been most of the cause, but just as Mitt refused to fight over the Benghazi issue after Candy Crowley flat-out lied to the debate audience, this lack of combativeness typifies the Mini-Dem.  We mustn’t have a big and ugly spectacle lest some one notice those zits on our noses, don’t you know?  Therefore, what defines the breed is an near-absolute unwillingness to stand on any principle lest they be mistaken for us.  What are we?  Apparently, we’re hyper-conservatives because we don’t fear losing much of anything save for our souls. Then we’d be Mini-Dems.

 

 

One-Half of One-Third of the People Screwing Us [Again]

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

Boehner and the Boys

There must be something in the water in Washington DC, and I think it’s about 80 proof.  Speaker John Boehner has led the abandonment of principle once again, and I can’t believe these are allegedly our guys.  This evening, the rotten Republican leadership sent down the word that Republicans ought to support a bill that eliminates Senate confirmation for an additional 169 Executive branch positions, meaning that they just let Barack Obama have his way with 169 more positions he can fill, unchecked by Congress, and able to appoint the most maniacal leftists he can dig up.  Thankfully, it was a roll-call vote, and you can look to see how your Representative voted.  My own Representative voted “Aye” on this hogwash, and before this evening is over, his office is going to hear about it, and tomorrow, his offices both in the district and in DC are going to hear about it.  The purpose of confirmations is that there should be Congressional oversight on these appointments so no President can become too powerful.  Boehner and the boys just voted to reduce their own power but according to Mark Levin’s sources, there’s a reason they did so:  Mitt Romney told them to do it on the basis that he would like it if he were to become President.  What?!?

The purpose of this collection of elected jack-wagons is not to dispense with the Constitution, or to weaken the legislative branch on the basis that somebody from their party might become President at some date in the future.  It is their job to protect and defend the constitution, and that means to uphold its intent, which includes the Congressional responsibility of oversight over Presidential appointments.  Who in the world do these people think they are?  It’s not their job to “remove obstructions” to the process.  For the love of Pete, why don’t Boehner and McConnell just get together with Obama and give him all power of Congress, since Mitt Romney might want to be dictator someday?  This is preposterous.  It truly is disheartening, but more than that, it’s a bit more evidence that we cannot salvage the Republican party.  It’s broken.  It doesn’t represent us in many cases, and it certainly doesn’t represent our interests when our elected Republican majority throws we and our constitution under the bus in the name of expedience.

Others may take a somewhat less terse approach, but I no longer give a damn about holding back “for the sake of party unity.”    When they sell us out, I am going to scream it.  What party unity?  The only “unity” I see in this matter is that between John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Hussein Obama: They’re united against us!  I heard part of Mark Levin’s commentary on this, so I’ve decided to share it with you.

Clips 1 & 2:

Alternative content

Ladies and gentlemen, if you want to know what’s wrong with the Republican party, look nowhere beyond this instance of dire stupidity.  Or is it something else?  Barack Obama is a dangerous thug wearing the office of President like the robes of a king, and yet the Republican leadership in the House just gave him a pass on 169 appointments.  Their excuse is that Romney wanted it?  What if Romney doesn’t win???

Even if Romney does, do we want him filling those jobs without Congressional oversight, or the ability of the American people to call their Senators to object to appointments?  What happens when Romney begins filling these jobs with RINOs?  What happens when he fills them with more of his friends, in payment for their support?  What are we to do then?  I’ll tell you:  We should thank John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell and all the other all-star losers in the Republican party who voted for this garbage.

Your voice as a check on the power of the Presidency is being stolen from you, but the they’re not finished.  They intend to bypass the confirmation process for up to an additional 270 positions.  That’s 440 total possible instances in which some President will have no need to worry that he’s appointing a louse, whether it’s the current jerk, or some future occupant of that office.  Do you not see what they are doing to us?  Do you not realize it?  They are systematically converting the courts and the Congress into a mechanical auto-pen for the office of the President.  In short, they’re building a dictatorship, and I don’t much care whether the dictator has a “D” or an “R” behind the name.  It matters not one whit to our liberty what party a tyrant might claim.

The Republican establishment is a part of the disease in Washington DC, and with incidents like this, it’s becoming apparent that they’re the larger part.  Obama and the Democrats can only get away with this because guys like Romney, Boehner, and McConnell let them, and this sell-out is a prime example.

We pay the price, every time.

This isn’t about Mitt Romney.  This is about the separation of powers under our constitution, and the role of the Senate in confirming Presidential appointees.  It doesn’t matter that Mitt Romney may become President.  It doesn’t matter if Ronald Reagan were to rise and somehow become President again.  This is a bad idea, no matter who the President is, and the fact is that at present, the occupant of that office is Barack Obama, and it may just be him again.  Defending the separation of powers is something our Congress ought to do, and on Tuesday evening, the Republican “leadership” in Washington DC failed us again.

 

 

 

Speaking of April Fools…Coulter Attacks Palin Again

Monday, April 2nd, 2012

Here We Go Again...

Ann Coulter seems intent on snuggling up close to the GOP establishment, and her liberal friends in media. On Sunday, notably a day for fools like Coulter, she joined the round table discussion on ABC’s “This Week.”  The problem is that as with all such things, it seems as though the only real intention here was to smear Palin.  The comment was an aside without substantiation, and I now believe she does it just to ingratiate herself with the liberal Republicans and the left.  It’s typical of Coulter to make snide remarks as a throwaway line, but this isn’t the first lately aimed at Sarah Palin.  To attack the former Vice Presidential candidate as having been some sort of “novelty candidate” when she was picked by John McCain as his running mate is simply ridiculous.

Here’s the video:

I think Coulter is losing her grasp on the conservative movement.  Slowly but surely, she’s turning into precisely the caricature the left has painted of her over the years.  Naturally, in discussing the Vice Presidential pick, she acknowledged many are talking about Marco Rubio, and she fairly drooled over the prospect of NJ Governor Chris Christie again, but that’s no surprise.  Coulter has worn out her welcome with me, as she continues to take cheap-shots at conservatives, particularly Sarah Palin.

Marco Rubio Says “Yay Romney!” – Says No to Brokered Convention

Wednesday, March 28th, 2012

Rubio Endorses Romney

Marco Rubio endorsed Mitt Romney on Sean Hannity’s show a few minutes ago on FNC.  Let me get this guy some pom-poms.  I’m not interested in hearing anything more about Rubio as a Tea Party guy.  He’s a Bushie.  Those of you who have seen him as a Tea Party guy?  I’ve got news for you: WRONGO.  He was a Tea Party guy because he needed your votes to overcome Charlie Crist, not an altogether terrible outcome, but let’s not overdo this Tea Party narrative.  It had also been people connected with Senator Rubio who pushed Florida’s primary forward and got out the vote for Mitt Romney in that state, with South Florida winning that state for Mitt Romney.  Remember, it was Florida that caused the four early states(IA,NH,SC,UT)  to move their primaries up to January.

This endorsement has been a fait accompli for some time, the only reason for its public unveiling is to afford some plausible deniability to the freshman Senator.  The truth is that he’s part of the same old crowd that helped to make Florida Jeb Bush country, and still runs that state’s machine.  I warned my readers some time ago that you can learn a good deal from an endorsement, and it’s usually about the endorser more than the recipient of that endorsement.  This is no exception.  Rubio rattled on about wanting to avoid a brokered convention.

Here’s the problem, Senator Rubio:  Some of us want a brokered convention because we think Mitt Romney is a horrible candidate even when he chooses you as his running mate, as we’ve known since Florida that he will.

You’ll do nothing to improve that.

I’m waiting a little longer before I pronounce my final judgment on this race, but the truth is that the establishment is making its big push for Romney now, and you can expect a string of endorsements to come out in the coming weeks to give some false momentum to Mitt Romney.

Note: And then there’s this, for Republicans who hate the so-called “birther” controversy: I keep getting emails from a guy who insists Marco Rubio’s parents were not citizens at the time of his birth, thus making him ineligible to be President or VP, and that this is the “real reason” the GOP establishment has participated in “shouting down investigations into Obama.”  I don’t assign any particular credibility to this guy’s charges, except that I can see a fuss coming if Romney does get the nomination and does pick Rubio. Both are still big “ifs” in my book.

Will we now be forced to endure that indignity too?

 

What is the Difference Between the Left and the GOP Establishment?

Monday, March 26th, 2012

How Friendly Are They?

I find it bothersome that when I listen to some of the obvious establishment hacks, what I hear from them sounds suspiciously like the things I hear coming from the left.  They attack Sarah Palin, and as Breitbart famously pointed out, it’s almost like a membership card that people in the GOP establishment throw down to prove their credentials with the leftist media and cocktail crowd. Those who want in must pay the toll, and that will mean running down actual conservatives whenever possible.  They tell us it’s because we are all blithering idiots, and that’s evidenced because we don’t understand the art of compromise, but that too has the suspiciously similar ring of disdain that we most frequently get from the left.  Worse, when a conservative overcomes the GOP establishment, they tend to think all that remains is to defeat the left, but slowly and surely, the establishment crowd works its way back in.  Conservatives frequently find themselves wondering if there’s any difference between the Left and the Republican establishment.

One could examine the politics of Alaska to get an idea of how that all works.  Sarah Palin was a marvelous reformer who defeated a bastion of the GOP establishment when she beat Frank Murkowski on her way to victory and gubernatorial success. In 2010, Joe Miller defeated Murkowski’s daughter Lisa in the GOP primary, but as an establishment insider, Murkowski ran instead a write-in campaign, and defeated Joe Miller from the left.  This is emblematic of the way the establishment plays the game, and what quickly becomes apparent is how they’ll do anything to maintain power.  Lisa Murkowski won the Senate seat, but she had to abandon the base of the party she had claimed to support in order to get it done.  The Democrats voted defensively, by supporting her over their own candidate in many cases, because they knew they’d rather have Republican Lisa Murkowski than Tea Party-inclined Joe Miller. What that will mean in the future for Alaska politics is unclear, but I suspect the Tea Party and conservative base there are seething over her actions.

Naturally, this is just a microcosm of how it works in Washington DC.  where the establishment rules the Republican roost. When you notice that Republicans have wavered on this or that, you can almost always be assured that you will find one of the establishment pack at the root of the surrender.  It leads many to wonder, nowadays openly:  Is the Republican establishment really any better or any more than a fifth column for the institutional Left?  Of course, much like the Devil, whose best trick is purported to have been to convince others he didn’t exist, the GOP establishment denies their own existence too.  It’s actually a bit of a farce for George Will to have said this, but say it he did, and they run around pretending they do not exist.  Part of it is that they’re a bit slippery, because they will pose as conservatives on this bill or that, and come up with some dandy rationalizations for their sell-outs of conservatism.

Part of what makes conservatives wonder about the possibility of a “fifth column” appearance of all of this is that without fail, these are the same people to whom the media turns when they want a “republican” or “conservative” opinion.  Asking John Boehner on to speak on behalf of conservatism is roughly equivalent to asking Joe McGinnis his opinion on Sarah Palin.  John Boehner isn’t a conservative, though he frequently claims the title.  What Boehner really represents is a mind-set that Washington DC commands all, and that sometimes one must go along to get along.   The problem with Boehner, Cantor, et al, is that they really don’t care about the underlying principles in any issue.  They’re more interested in the appearance of a deal, but the deals are always with leftists, and they never, ever work out as advertised.

The great Debt Ceiling debate of last July is an example.  Boehner was catching hell from every direction, but in the end, who did he abandon?  Did he abandon his make-nice with the President?  No.  Did he force the issue via a shutdown?  No.  Instead, he sent another bill to the Senate after the bill his whole caucus had supported was pronounced “dead on arrival” by Harry Reid.  The truth of the matter is that the deal had been done for some time, and he was looking for cracks in his own party in order to push it through.  Boehner knew it, Reid knew it, and Barack Obama knew it too.  When you know your adversary’s alleged leader is undercutting his own folks in order to make a deal, you can go a long way in really pressing your advantage.  The Debt Ceiling debate ended with a victorious Obama and a devastated Republican base.  We watched people in whom we placed a great deal of hope walk the plank for John Boehner, and all to end up in the same boat just a little later in the year.

This prompted the question among many in the Tea Party at the time, including in this blog: “With friends like these…”  Of course, at the time we were turning our attentions to the Presidential primary season, but little did we conservatives suspect, with a field brimming with actual and potential candidates that the Republican establishment had a plan brewing for this too.  They managed to manipulate the early states forward, moving up the process for a purpose I still don’t think most have grasped.  Those early states are now bound by the rules to yield half of their delegates to the National convention.  Who will be choosing them, and who do you suppose they will be?  Conservatives?  Or more establishment hacks?  So you see, that’s been part of their back-up plan too, engineered to make sure they have a number of delegates they can throw to Mitt Romney if it comes down to it.  Drudge is happily running a story pointing out that Santorum will need to win 74% of delegates in order to win, but what he’s not reporting to you is that Romney will need almost 60% from this point forward.  While Santorum’s chore is an order of  magnitude more difficult, Romney’s road isn’t easy, even with the sandbag delegates the party now has put-away for just such an emergency.

All of this is much like what they did to Ronald Reagan in 1976.  They did everything possible to stymie him and still it came within a whisker of going his way.  I suspect if they could have stopped him in 1980, they would have, but they still managed to get one of theirs on the ticket.  In many ways, the conservative base of the party has been paying a price ever since.  Let’s be blunt, if we may, and suggest that in the halls of power, and where it matters, and in the money of the GOP, George HW Bush is still a terribly powerful force, or at least his legacy has been.  They’re already preparing the next generation, both for the Presidency, and up-and-coming, and there’s little doubt that they prepare a back-bench thick with their folks, ready to retake control when the opportunity arrives.  Given the way the GOP has been run since the Bush establishment took over, I wonder if we’ll ever see a time when our country is free of them, and if it’s even possible any longer.

I tend to agree with those who say that in order to be rid of them, the GOP must ultimately go the way of the Whigs.  The GOP establishment is nearly indistinguishable in their methods and goals from the institutional Left who is our open adversary, and in any case, they’re dragging the country in the same sad direction, albeit somewhat more slowly.  Win, lose or draw, when this election cycle ends, whatever happens, we’re going to be forced to confront this issue or accept that we’ve lost our country.  We tend to think of our fight for the country in terms of our battles with the Left, but I believe we must consider amending our thinking because I don’t know that we can ever defeat the left until we oust their friends from among our number.  We must at some point ask: Are these the actions of a friend?

 

 

Why “Compromise” Has Become a Dirty Word

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Compromise or Capitulation?

Barbara Bush complained on Monday that “compromise” had become a “dirty word.”  If that’s true, it is only as a result of how it has been abused by liberal to moderate Republicans, the media, and the liberal establishment that dominates the country.   Mrs. Bush is part of that establishment, so quite naturally, she is unable to see this the way the conservative base of the party does, and since she’s one who considers herself smarter than the rest of we ignorant rubes, it is now probably high time that somebody explained the problem with “compromise,” not as it is defined in the dictionary, but as it has come to be understood by most grass-roots conservatives who recoil at the word.

A real “compromise” is the result of a process by which both parties to an exchange get some part of what they wanted in exchange for having yielded a little.  A compromise is an exchange, if you will, trading value for value as in commerce, but it extends to many intangibles.  That’s what compromise is supposed to be, but these last two decades and a bit more, that’s not what compromise has been in the United States.  Instead, compromise has come to mean something else entirely, and if you ask conservatives, they will now tell you that it is approximately this: Republicans (particularly of the Establishment class) surrendering on principle to the left, gaining nothing, and getting nothing but a promise of “getting along” that never materializes, but always winds up in another kick in the teeth.

If Mrs. Bush doesn’t understand this, it’s because in her insular view of the world, she doesn’t see the kicks in the teeth, and the principles at  stake are not hers.  It’s a relatively easy matter to yield principles belonging to somebody else, and the Bush family has a long history of doing just that.  They make a pretense at being conservative, but there’s little substance behind the claim, and if truth is told, more often than not, they’re  at the root of many of the sell-outs conservatives have suffered over the last two-and-one-half decades.  Even before the breaking of the “Read my lips” pledge of George H.W. Bush, the elder Bush administration had begun to back-track from the idea that his was a third Reagan term, which had been the basis for his election.

Of course, after the famous sell-out, the elder Bush went on to defeat, and his son George W. Bush, elected narrowly in 2000, did much the same while in office.  He worked together with Ted Kennedy in a “spirit of bi-partisanship” under a supposed “new tone”(of compromise, a.k.a: surrender) to enact the No Child Left Behind program, along with the Medicare Prescription Drugs fiasco, and of course all of the bail-outs and TARP.  The younger Bush famously offered that he had to set aide capitalism to save it.  This last was the final straw for many conservatives, because rather than letting the market work as it should, Bush intervened in order to save big banking interests and GM, but none of this translated into “saving capitalism.” Each of these had been surrenders disguised as compromise, and everybody in the conservative movement knew it.

It’s difficult to win a political debate when members of your own party are undercutting your efforts.  This was the case with all of these issues.  When the elder Bush raised taxes, including a stupendously destructive “luxury tax,” Democrats both chortled in contempt at the breaking of his pledge, while simultaneously urging him to break it more thoroughly.  When George the younger went along with Democrats on education and prescription drugs, both times the Democrats hammered him for “not doing enough” while simultaneously waving the “compromise” in the face of conservatives.  So yes, Mrs. Bush, “compromise” has become a dirty word among conservatives, and the men in your life are the cause.

Just as conservatives don’t want another false conservative getting the nomination, because it defames “conservatism” by the association, conservatives are in no mood for surrenders and sell-outs of their principles that will be disguised as “compromise.”  Every conservative in the country worth his or her salt knows that what the Bush clan offers as “compromise” or “conservatism” are not.   That may cause Mrs. Bush some consternation, but conservatives don’t need or want her advice, and while she may get her way in this primary, that doesn’t mean real conservatives will have compromised.   This one won’t. Let’s hope that as Super Tuesday gets under way, more conservatives will take this stance.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

Barbara Bush Thinks This Campaign Is The Worst Ever

Tuesday, March 6th, 2012

Who's To Blame?

Former First Lady Barbara Bush complained on Monday that this is the worst campaign ever.  Then she went on to say that she doesn’t like the fact that people think compromise is a bad thing.  The former First Lady also recorded a Robo-Call for Mitt Romney to be used in Ohio and Vermont, and I have to wonder if she realizes how she is contributing to the “worst campaign” [she's] ever seen in [her] life?”  After all, nobody has run more negative ads than Mitt Romney, and nobody has done more to try to dominate the other by virtue of unbridled ugliness.  I can’t imagine that her words are very welcome among conservatives, so she must be addressing the RINO encampment with this nonsense:

“I think it’s been the worst campaign I’ve ever seen in my life,” Bush said Monday at a conference on first ladies at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. “I hate that people think compromise is a dirty word. It’s not a dirty word.”

Actually, one very ugly primary campaign I remember was in 1980, when the former First Lady’s husband used many of these same tactics in order to make ground against Ronald Reagan.  Of course, in the end, since her husband wound up being on the ticket as Vice President, I’m sure she’s forgotten those messy details.  “Voodoo economic,” anyone?  That’s right, it was her husband who gave life to that phrase, but what he described as “Voodoo” went on to create the greatest sustained peacetime growth in the history of the country.  Of course, I’ll bet she doesn’t remember 1998, and that “Read my lips, no new taxes…” business that became the basis for her husbands defeat in 1992 after he broke that promise.

Small wonder she doesn’t like that the word “compromise” is viewed by many conservatives as a “dirty word.”  Her husband is part of the reason, because what he called “compromise” was merely surrender, on the matter of tax increases.  He signed into law a luxury tax that drove a large number of domestic boat manufacturers out of business, and it was so bad that the Democrats repealed the law under Bill Clinton because it had created such a severe effect.  What George H.W. Bush then called “compromise” was nothing less than complete capitulation on the promise he made during the 1988 campaign.

I make no secret of the fact that I believe the Bush clan is responsible for more damage to the Republican party in general, and the conservative movement in particular.  I think the elder Mrs. Bush should keep her opinions to herself where the current race is concerned, because by her own participation in it, supporting the person she does, she’s contributing to it, and it is her wing of the party(the left wing) that has caused the trouble we’re in.  It’s her candidate who has turned this into an ugly contest, and I wish to convey only one thing to Mrs. Bush:

I will never vote for any of your descendants or even your non-familial preferences.  Never.  And no, I’m not open to compromise.

Occupy Wall Street’s Newest Member: Mitt Romney (Video)

Thursday, February 23rd, 2012

Mitt Occupies Arizona

This is absurd and ridiculous.  Here we have candidate Mitt Romney doing his best Barack Obama imitation, but Ron Paul won’t take the slightest swipe at him in a debate?  I’m sorry, but this sort of class-warfare rhetoric has no business in a Republican nomination fight, and to hear this from the mouth of Romney tells me all I really need to know.  He doesn’t want the 1% to get the same charitable deductions and home mortgage deductions as “middle-class” Americans?  I have a question for Governor Romney, who is unwilling to make the logical or moral argument for keeping one’s wealth:

Why not, Mitt?  Why are you ashamed of your wealth?  Why are you afraid to claim a right to your property and wealth?  Why does greater wealth imply a lesser claim to it?  This is bizarre and absurd, and it’s another reason the Republican party should never nominate this self-defeating fool. He’s already ceding the argument to Barack Obama. If he’s willing to go this far now, what will he do if he gets the nomination?  Grovel?  Will he openly apologize for his personal fortune?  Will he apologize for the fortunes of others?  This man doesn’t deserve to keep his own wealth, because he doesn’t know how to logically defend it against jackals.

H/T RightScoop:

This is despicable.  Mitt Romney should be ashamed.

 

Deal-Maker Endorses Deal-Maker – Conservatives Yawn

Thursday, February 2nd, 2012

Hats Off to "The Donald"

One thing I must say about Donald Trump is that he knows how to put on a show.  On the other hand, I wouldn’t consider his political opinions any more useful than, say, Ann Coulter’s, which is to say:  Not at all.  I realize there are those who put a lot of weight in these endorsements, but the truth is that I don’t care about endorsements except for one: Mine.  That endorsement will be conveyed to the world when I choose on Super Tuesday, in the Texas primary, and again in November, in the general election.  I am prepared to watch all sorts of unexpected endorsements play out, but none of them matter to me, and apparently, they don’t much matter to most of you.  I don’t consider political endorsements at all, which is one of the reasons I haven’t spent a great deal of time on endorsements here, except as the manner by which to discern who is a part of the establishment, who feels indebted to it, or who seeks to ingratiate themselves to the party of DC.

I’m not particularly surprised that Donald Trump would endorse Romney.  Trump is a New York liberal who happens to have money, and happens to work deals, but who seems to have no solid political philosophy upon which I could predict anything except that he’s likely to endorse the most liberal candidate in the field.  In fact, this can be considered as having explained his endorsement, much like Chris Christie’s.  Another brash Northeast corridor deal-maker signs on with Romney.  I’m not exactly shocked.  If Trump has come out and endorsed Gingrich, Paul, or Santorum, it would at least have been an interesting and more unpredictable outcome.

As it is, I see one guy who likes to make big deals endorsing another guy whose view of the world is largely encapsulated by “deals.” He’s willing to become whatever sells, and that should be your key to understanding Trump’s endorsement.  Trump is a guy who isn’t really very ideological, and I believe most of his anti-Obama ranting has been contrived to gain attention.  Trump is also a guy who has used the power of government to try to coerce other private citizens to sell him property he wanted by virtue of eminent domain.  Sorry, but a man like Trump who would clearly favor the Kelo decision is the kind of guy whose interest in “the deal” afford him the ideological and moral flexibility to permit him to view the property rights of others as flexible and open to renegotiation.

For these reasons, and a few others I won’t name here, I lean away from anybody Trump endorses.  I look at his endorsement as a negative, if it has any effect at all.  I simply don’t see this adding any support to Mitt Romney, although it may help solidify his more tenuous support among pop-culture watchers who also like Trump. I don’t think this converts anybody, and it shouldn’t, except perhaps to chase them away.  I have long viewed Trump as the almost prototypical RINO, in that he fits the definition of that term as well as anybody may.

My apologies to readers who expected me to fall upon my knees in fawning submission now that “The Donald” has spoken.  I know what he’s playing for here, and it’s a chance to say “You’re Fired” to the loser after the Election.  It will be a great marketing ploy, but it won’t help save the country, and since I don’t place much stock in his bluster, I’m not about to spend my time worrying about his endorsement.  It’s meaningless and superfluous, but unlike a bad hair-piece, it fits.

I Need Your Help Compiling a List – Identifying the Establishment

Monday, January 30th, 2012

Who Are They?

One of the things we run into in each election cycle is a cacophony of liars telling us “there is no establishment in the GOP.”  I think most of my readers here agree that there is an establishment, and more, that it’s forceful, conniving, and well-heeled.  I think most of my readers agree that they’re actually the biggest impediment to electoral victory for conservatism, and that truth be told, it would be easier to beat Barack Obama with an actual conservative than it will be to defeat the RINO the establishment will try to nominate.  Since the establishment likes to deny its own existence, I’d like you to help me with a bit of identification.  I think also that most here will admit that there are two wings of the establishment, one consisting of the old guard blue-blooders mainly from the Northeast corridor, but also a wing that consists primarily of the Bush clan and its associates, although there is clear overlap.

Here’s what I’m asking, if you don’t mind devoting a few moments:  In the comments beneath this post, I’d like you to submit who you think is in the establishment, what they do, and how you’ve drawn your conclusion in a sentence or two. Also, tell me whether you think they are ‘E’ for establishment, ‘B’ for Bush clan or associate, or ‘W’ for “wannabe,” or ATA for “All the Above” if you honestly think it applies. If you think they are just general Republicans In Name Only, place an ‘R’ by their names.

For example, you might tell me:

Perino, Dana: B, Always pushes the establishment line on FoxNews, servant of Bush clan

or you might write:

Romney, Willard “Mitt”: E, Liberal Northeastern Blue-blood from well-connected political family

or even:

Rubio, Marco: B,W, Always doing the bidding of the establishment, in tight with Bush clan

or:

Carlson, Tucker: R,W, Part of the Beltway ‘smart-set,’ progressive

Now the point here is not to start a fight, but to create a real list we can point to when we say “establishment Republican” and have some ability to define the group.  When we’re done, I’ll create a page on which I will keep this list, and every time I mention the GOP establishment in a future article, I’ll link to that page. This can continue to grow from now until doomsday, but please abide by the format demonstrated above.

This way, when we write about the GOP establishment, people will know what is meant, and who’s in that crowd.  Feel free to include office-holders, media personalities, and other well-known figures in the political sphere, such as campaign consultants and so on. Just make your case, at least briefly. You can submit as many as you like, and feel free to return as often as you like to toss more into the basket.

We all knew Florida would be difficult for anybody who didn’t have the approval of the Bush clan, and while Gingrich may pull it out, it’s going to be a hard road.  With the influence of Jeb throughout the state, I’ve had my doubts about whether anybody else could win it. This is why mapping all of this out is important. I think conservatives need to have an idea of that which confronts them.  Here’s your chance to tell me who you think constitutes the establishment.

What Will Our Surrender Mean?

Friday, January 27th, 2012

Ready to Join Them?

I wonder about some of my fellow conservatives, who at the first sign of trouble, abandon the candidate who they supported only a week ago, particularly since the charges against him were largely out-of-context fabrications drummed up by supporters of the candidate he defeated last Saturday.   In abandoning Gingrich so easily, for those who have openly supported him, what does it say about the state of conservatism that when smeared, rather than fighting the smears, we tuck tails and run away?  Thankfully, those rare leaders such as Governor Sarah Palin won’t take that approach, and while she and the few others willing to stand against the establishment try to rally conservatives and Tea Party folk to understand the true nature of the assault launched against them, we shouldn’t run away from this fight.  We, who say it is our party, and not the party of the establishment, should for once and all times deliver an unrelenting statement of who exactly runs this party.

By heading off for the tall grass in search of a place to hide, since “when elephants fight, only the grass suffers,” we ought for once to realize this is our fight, and this is our time. While Newt was not my first choice, he’s better by far than the apparent leading alternative, and if we don’t rally behind him at this point, that alternative is likely to prevail.  We like to point out that the GOP establishment consists of “RINOs,” but my question for you is this:  If we bow out of this struggle because it has become a little messy, or because dis-entangling the truth from all the lies is too tedious, are we not in fact surrendering the party to them?  Who then are the RINOs?

We conservatives who value our independence of judgment, and our devotion to principle first before party ought not abandon so easily when it becomes clear our conservative candidates are being torpedoed.  I hung in there with Cain until the bitter end, not because I was a big Cain proponent(I had my issues with him on several things,) but because I was unwilling to let the obvious take-down win the argument. On substance, by all means, take on Herman Cain, but I’ll be damned if I’m going to let the mudslingers acting on behalf of others carry out such a demonic hit.  I’ll not support that, whatever I may think of Cain’s policy ideas.

I remember when the pictures of Bachmann and others were used to bring her down, with a magazine cover portraying her as a wide-eyed, unblinking loon.  That wasn’t fair, but that was the way in which she was butchered.  What about Sarah Palin, and the non-stop three years-long smears of her person, and as I’ve reported, not all of it going back to leftist sources?   I would still walk over Alaskan glaciers barefoot to vote for her, but I’ll be denied that opportunity because even before the McCain defeat of 2008, she was being set up and smeared, but not only by Democrats.

Some have asked me why I am so opposed to Romney, and while some may not have known, and others may have forgotten, I haven’t let loose of the betrayals that began even before there had been a single ballot marked on election day in November of 2008.   You should remember too, since “elephants never forget.”  Those who don’t follow party inside-baseball politics can be forgiven, but the truth is that the Romney machine was angry about not getting the nomination in ’08, and they decided to make sure from the earliest moment that there would be no serious opposition to him in 2012.  In truth, there were some in the Romney camp who would have been happy for McCain to lose in ’08, because had he won, we wouldn’t be talking about a Romney nomination in 2012.  Get it?  Got it?

Clearly then, Newt Gingrich is not my favorite politician, and you, my friends know well who is, but she’s not in the race, and in lieu of that, I am willing to look at who is out there.  Ron Paul remains unacceptable to me, if only because I worry about our nation’s security, coming from a military background as I do.  Rick Santorum has gone home, not officially suspending his campaign, but now completely underfunded and effectively unable to continue irrespective of the official status of his campaign.  This leaves Romney and Gingrich, and while there are a few who suggest there’s little difference, I cannot but decline to agree with that sentiment.

People forget that if not for Newt Gingrich’s Herculean efforts through the late eighties and nineties, we might have had “health-care reform” in the shape of Hillary-care in 1994.  Instead, he used the issue to make the difference that led to the first overturn to Republican control since more than a decade before my birth.  Whatever else you might say about him, this remains an unchallenged fact, and what it implies is that Gingrich has the intellectual wherewithal to create or build upon a movement, rather than simply a candidacy.

In contrast, Romney enacted a health-care fiasco upon which much of Obama-care is modeled, and in fact, which was written in large measure by the same people.  Do you really want to take one of the few issues off the table that has substantial bi-partisan support on your side of the argument for a change?

Ladies and gentlemen, there is one more matter in all of this, and it really gets to the core of why I cannot support Romney, along with the more obvious issues:  Do we really wish to reward a man with victory who has employed the dishonest tactics of every left-wing Alinskyite, in undermining his competitors through smear, distortion, and outright lies, but worst of all through various surrogates who are carrying his water?  I don’t know what you think about this, but in my book, he has become Obama.  If you wonder what has happened to your party, or more importantly, your country, you have no farther to look than this, and there is every reason to state not only in words, but also with your votes and your open advocacy that this is not the kind of candidate who represents us.  If we wish to take back the Republican party, we must do it.  When we run into these sorts of characters, we must be smart enough and wise enough to discern among them, but most of all, we must have the courage to fight them, openly.  I’ve talked about my prospective willingness to walk away, but for now, I have resolved to fight.  Will you?

I hope so, most earnestly. We may not have four more years to reform our party. We must do it now.

Jeffrey Lord: Elliott Abrams Lied About Newt Gingrich

Friday, January 27th, 2012

Jeffrey Lord

In what can only be called a stunning, face-slapping rebuttal, Jeffrey Lord has discovered that Elliott Abrams’ story about Gingrich’s alleged criticism of President Reagan were not only erroneously characterized, but almost certainly indicates it was an intentional hit-piece by Abrams, that Abrams must have known was dishonest.  It points out the problem going on with much of Romney’s campaign of destruction aimed at Gingrich, and it points out how thoroughly damaging such a thing can be when amplified almost infinitely by the roaring link-fest of the Drudge Report.  Abrams’ hit-piece stayed up on Drudge for more than twenty-four hours, and there will be no rebuttal.  The only way the truth will be distributed at this point is for you, the public, to undertake this chore.

Lord used the more charitable word “misleading” to describe Abrams’ piece, but to me, once one has read Lord’s piece, there can be no way to conclude that Abrams had been anything but intentionally dishonest.  At that point, the question of motive is brought sharply into focus, and it is clear that Abrams is part of the establishment wing of the GOP out to destroy Gingrich in order to shove Mitt Romney down our throats.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is no longer an issue of electability. This is an issue of integrity, and whether you like Gingrich or hate him, if you claim to be a conservative Republican, you must not tolerate this from the party.  If the party machine  is permitted this scandalous behavior, there is no point to the party, and you must come to recognize that this has been the root of the smears of all the other conservative candidates too.

What this demonstrates all too clearly is what many conservatives have long suspected: The establishment is intent upon shoving Romney down our throats, and any foolish enough to fall for that deserve the just results.

What Do You Call Somebody Endorsed By GHWB, Dole, and McCain?

Wednesday, January 4th, 2012

Birds of a Feather

“Loser.”  Seriously, on Wednesday, Senator John McCain, (Rino-AZ,) endorsed Mitt Romney(Rino-MA).  This follows on the heels of other endorsements from other famous losing GOP establishment types, including Bob Dole(Rino-KS) and George H.W. Bush(Rino-Texas via Kennebunkport).  Frankly, I am less than astonished by the RINO brigade coming out to support one of their own. This is why the Republican party will go the way of the Whigs.  It’s time to look at how we can develop a new challenge to the GOP establishment from within the ranks of the TEA Party.  Otherwise, we’re going to be permanent losers.  Unless and until the Republican party stops taking conservatives for granted, this is going to be the result.  I hope you folks love Barack Obama, because the GOP is determined to make sure you see a lot more of him.  Four years worth, to be precise.

 

 

The Politics of False Unity

Saturday, December 31st, 2011

So They Say...

An idea I’ve begun to hear and read with greater frequency is that conservatives must abandon the divide between they and the GOP establishment, in the name of “saving the country from Barack Obama.”  It’s no secret that this is being pushed by the Romney camp, and by the establishment media, but I reject it outright.  The divide between conservatives and the party establishment is real, and it’s not going to be patched-over by a lot of happy talk about unity.  The problem is that while the establishment denies its own existence, those who comprise it are continuing a campaign aimed at convincing conservatives they’re merely being stubborn at the expense of victory.  What conservatives know is that you can’t build a victory on the foundation of a false unity that paints over meaningful divisions in the party, and while it is true that the conservatives could surrender for the sake of expedience, they don’t seem inclined to do so in this election cycle.

If we are to accept the argument of the establishment, nothing is more important than to defeat Barack Obama, but the problem is that the tool they’ve selected for this chore isn’t up to the job.  Their strategy has been simple: Divide the conservative base among a number of somewhat more conservative candidates, and then knock them off one at a time, always leaving just enough of a residual support to ensure the division among conservatives.  The strategy seems to be working, and what it has revealed is that the party establishment merely used Tea Party support in 2010 to make gains for the Republicans they really hadn’t deserved.  With the absence of Palin from the field, the Tea Party is either divided or at least uncommitted.

This false unity being proposed by the establishment is the siren’s song they offer as consolation: “Come join with Mitt Romney, and together we’ll defeat Obama in November.”  Poppycock.  This sort of vacuous sloganeering is what has produced such thorough losers as John McCain and Bob Dole.   The very notion that Mitt Romney can fire up a conservative base and Tea Party support in any way at all is preposterous.  Obama won’t be beaten by merely running against him.  The opponent who faces Obama will need to present a clear alternative, and Romney simply is merely a less virulent form of statist.   There’s not much to differentiate, in truth, because what Romney has done is no better than Obama in terms of policy.  Tallying the scorecard, the differences are so few and so superficial that I can already see the race-card play from here:  “Admit it,” they’ll say, “the only reason you oppose Obama is that’s he’s a black man.“  You’ve already seen this card played once before, by Glenn Beck (of all people) against Newt Gingrich, but if Beck will use such a rationale against Gingrich, you can bet the Democrats will use it against Mitt Romney, and frankly, they wouldn’t need to embellish much on Romney’s record to make the policy-based end of the argument.

The main reason they will use this false idea of party unity is the same reason they’re scrambling even now to undo the mess they’ve made in Virginia:  The danger is that given the only choices of Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, you might pick Ron Paul if your contempt for the establishment is as great as they fear.  While I’m not a fan of Ron Paul, I find it almost comical that after putting the Virginia GOP in this position, first they responded with a requirement for loyalty oaths, and then when that was scorned almost universally, they trotted out their AG to propose changes that would permit others on the ballot.  The problem had been, of course, that they didn’t see Ron Paul as a real threat, so they were happy when only he and Romney made it onto the ballot.  They thought it guaranteed a Romney win, until they thought about it, or were reminded of the other possibilities in a two candidate race in which Democrats would be unencumbered by their own primary and thus free to participate, and dare I say “meddle” in the GOP primary.  Up until that moment, “rules were rules,” but when they realized what might happen, the “rules” were no longer so  important.

The real problem for the Republican Party lies in the fact that they have so thoroughly compartmentalized their base that they have made it difficult for them to really unify around a moderate-to-liberal establishment candidate.  The pro-life voters won’t go with Romney very easily, despite his latter-day renunciation of his earlier and long-held pro-abortion position.  Fiscal conservatives will not easily go along with him because he’s a big-spender and he is of the Northeastern blue-blood crowd which likes its inflationary monetary policy and its deficit spending.  He won’t do well with those who dislike the welfare state or the encroachments on individual liberty, because they see in him all of those things in the form of Romneycare to which they are fervently opposed.  Cultural conservatives won’t support him easily because of his actions as Governor of Massachusetts on gay marriage.  Tea Party types will look at him as just another all-around part of the larger problem, and those who are generally suspicious of big government will not have failed to note how indecisive he’s been, or how much he’s been in favor of secrecy and concealing his official records.  His past claim to be a social moderate and a fiscal conservative is a contradiction in terms.  One can’t be both, simultaneously.

This is why they must create this false idea of unity.  Mitt Romney has nothing else to offer, except the claim that “he can beat Obama.”  It is for all the reasons above that I know he is not likely to win, but I also don’t mind saying that if he does manage to win, he’ll have done so without my support.  People don’t want a leader who follows, but that’s all Mitt ever really does.  He’s simply not a conservative, and that’s not good enough for me. I don’t buy into contrived unity, because I know where it inevitably leads:  Betrayal, defeat, and disaster.  In truth, but without respect to calls for a false sense of unity, these are all that Mitt Romney has to offer, and I’m not interested.

2012: Will The Progressives Run the GOP?

Friday, December 9th, 2011

Bull Moose or Moose Bull?

In 1911, Theodore Roosevelt began his second campaign for President.  Having retired from the presidency in 1909, Roosevelt tried to capture the the Republican nomination in 1912, because he was angry with President William Taft, who had served under Roosevelt as Secretary of War, and had been Roosevelt’s hand-picked successor.  Failing this, he decided instead to run as the candidate of the Progressive Party.  That party is more commonly remembered by Americans as the “Bull Moose Party,” because upon surviving an assassination attempt, Roosevelt announced he was “as fit as a Bull Moose.”  I prefer to drop that label, and focus instead on what the Progressive Party really was: A National Socialist Party that was subsequently rejected by the American people, but in 1912, resulted in a split in the Republican Party that handed the election to Democrat Woodrow Wilson, a Socialist.  It’s useful to understand the political parties of the time in evaluating the 2012 election, because if the past is prologue,  what we may be seeing now is merely a global re-run of the worst parts of the 20th century.

First, let us understand what the Progressive Party of 1912 had wanted to accomplish, and what its platform contained. Here is a sample:

  • A National Health Service to include all existing government medical agencies.
  • Social insurance, to provide for the elderly, the unemployed, and the disabled
  • Limited injunctions in strikes
  • An eight hour workday
  • A federal securities commission
  • Farm relief
  • An inheritance tax
  • A Constitutional amendment to allow a Federal income tax

These may sound familiar to you because all of them have become law in some form or fashion.  These may also sound familiar to you because these were the same ideas on which Woodrow Wilson substantially campaigned.  In fact, with the progressives under the flag of the Republican party in Congress, the progressives in both parties succeeded in putting this agenda through, and Wilson was only too happy to oblige.  In short, the “Bull Moose” Party consisted of the RINOs of their day.  They were the barely disguised fifth column of the main socialist political formation, and they managed to convince enough Americans unaware of their designs to aid them in implementing the first steps in converting our country from a Constitutional republic into a Socialist democracy.

Ask yourself this: How many of the current Republican candidates support the list of measures above?  After nearly a century, the answer is: Almost all modern Republicans accept most of the ideas outlined in the platform of the Progressive party of 1912.  So what was the difference, in 1912, between the Democrat progressives, and the Republican progressives?  The Democrat progressives were the US equivalent of European Communists who came to dominate Russia.  The Republican progressives were effectively the same as the National Socialists that would rise to prominence in Germany.  They were both brands of statism, as I’ve discussed previously.

Weigh this against our current situation.  Today, many conservatives look at Romney, or Gingrich, compare them with Obama and are frequently led to ask:  What’s the difference between leftist progressives and so-called “right-wing” progressives?  The truth is that just like in 1912, the differences are few, and you will note with some disappointment that Woodrow Wilson was able to implement most of the planks of the socialist platform outlined above because he had the support of a large number of progressive Republicans who were just enough to rule the day together with Democrats in Congress.    If this sounds familiar when considering Speaker Boehner, and the rest of the Republican sell-outs in our current House GOP leadership, you’re spot on.  The differences between today’s progressive Republicans and 1912′s “Bull Moose” Party are essentially nonexistent.   When you realize that certain powerful players financed both the Bull Moose and Republican parties in 1912, not as a political insurance policy as is so common these days, but in order to keep them at odds, and thus effectively keeping them at rough parity, giving the election to Democrats.  You can bet that this is what is being done in the US at present.

The progressives have always used their friends in the Republican party to undermine conservatives.  This is not a new tactic or practice, and in this sense, Ross Perot was much the same thing, with his runs in ’92 and ’96.  Those of you who believe the establishment wing of the Republican party would rather see Barack Obama elected than to let conservatives into power must understand that this would not be the first time such things have happened in electoral process in the United States.

This is done for no other reason than to prevent the rise of a populist conservative in the Republican party.  The progressive would win every election if they could, and they do their level best to carry that out, rigging both parties with firmly progressive candidates.  That way, while they would prefer the Democrat progressive, the very worst outcome they expect to see is a Republican progressive.  You and I are the rabble to be kept in line with appeals to patriotism, faith, and unity.

In 1992, Ross Perot arose to run on behalf of the “volunteers,” who were roughly analogous to the Tea Party today.  He was doing so well at one point that he suspended his campaign, which was enough to prevent him from winning, but not enough to allow Bush to win: He still  siphoned off enough of the electorate to give Bill Clinton a plurality.  It worked so well that in 1996, they brought him back for a second round.  Dole was a weak candidate, but Clinton had significant problems, so a little insurance was needed. Once again, Bill Clinton failed to achieve a majority of the popular vote, winning with a plurality instead. While not as stark as in 1992, it was clear that without Perot in the race, there was at least some chance Bob Dole could have won.

You might ask what any of this has to do with Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive Party.  My answer to you is that conservatives are being set up again.    The progressives aren’t finished, and they intend to win in 2012 irrespective of the Republican Party primaries.  Enter Americans Elect.   As I’ve explained before, Americans Elect is a group that is seeking to put a candidate on the ballot in all fifty states in 2012.  They’ve not yet picked a candidate, who will be picked later on-line, but this candidate will almost certainly seek to appeal to the disaffected Tea Party types.  The purpose of that candidacy will not be to win, but to divide the center-right and allow Obama to be re-elected.  Their candidate will pose as the modern-day variant of the “Bull Moose” party, and in many ways, it will be.  Be prepared for this to play out. Increasingly, you may notice the Americans Elect ads on sites around the Internet.

All of this is contrived.  I see no way to overcome the progressives of either party in the 2012 election without some radical new thinking about our remaining choices.  Mitt Romney is currently attacking Newt Gingrich as not being conservative.  This is roughly akin to a singularity calling the kettle “black.”  While Newt certainly has his warts, Willard has more.  The conservative base generally recognizes this, which accounts for Gingrich’s meteoric climb since the beginning of Cain’s fall.   Conservatives and Tea Party folk  are looking for a real conservative, and while they are forced to overlook many flaws in Gingrich to see him as a conservative, they look at Romney and see what has been widely described in conservative circles as “Obama Lite.”  No conservative wants to vote for such a prospect, and that they’re willing to turn to Gingrich speaks volumes about their displeasure with Romney.

As this blog has reported, many of these same conservatives and Tea Party patriots would have preferred Sarah Palin to the lot of those still now in the race.  The reason for the ups and downs of the primary season thus far is largely due to the fact that conservatives are seeking a single candidate upon which they can all agree.  They look around the party, and they notice flawed candidates, and while no candidate is ever perfect, they simply see little to recommend in the ones now offered.  The worst part is: They’re right.

If you think conservatives are being set up, I have a suspicion you’re right.  Karl Rove is still out there stirring the pot, and whether he’s a Romney guy, or he’s banking on some late entry, he’s not finished either.  He represents the same progressive wing of the Republican party, so there’s little doubt but that where Rove is, trouble can’t be far behind.

Beware the “Bull Moose” or any reasonable facsimile thereof.  Be sure that a late entry isn’t designed to lead you to slaughter.  The progressive wing of the Republican party isn’t a friend to conservatives, never mind Tea Party folk, and while I have no advice to offer you on candidates to support, I nevertheless remain convinced that the progressives of the Republican party would rather assure Obama’s victory than to let an actual conservative win.  It now falls to you to decipher who that may be.  Progressives favor progressives, and they stick together irrespective of party.  The Republican progressive view themselves as the “loyal opposition,” and in this you should recognize with which ideology their loyalties lie.  It isn’t free market capitalism.  It isn’t conservatism.

 

Ann Coulter’s Sad Obsession With Establishment Republicans

Thursday, November 17th, 2011

Coulter Kissing-Up to Willard

In a column entitled “If Not Romney, Who? If Not Now, When?,”  Ann Coulter laid out her stunningly unconvincing case in favor of Willard “Mitt” Romney.  What Coulter seems incapable of grasping is that the base of the party will not accept Romney, and may even abandon the party if he is the nominee.  Coulter’s argument is that Newt Gingrich sucks, so therefore, we must now accept Romney.  She attempts to herd readers into supporting Romney on the basis that Obamacare won’t be overturned if we don’t win the White House in 2012.  I’ve seen this coming for some time, but it seems many conservatives won’t flinch this time.  They shouldn’t.  We will not win the White House in 2012 with a moderate, progressive, flip-flopping Romney, and as I explained at length recently, it is because Romney is an ideological zero.  Conservatives are not satisfied with Willard, and the establishment’s attempt to scare them into Romney’s arms has begun to anger them.  Coulter is speaking for them, but not you.

Coulter’s biggest criticism of Gingrich comes from the flap over his consultancy with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Gingrich earned $300,000 in consulting fees, personally, while his company was paid a total of around $1.6 million. The conclusion being drawn from Coulter(and others) is that this is evidence of some sort of crony capitalism, but given Gingrich’s history of consulting, think-tanking, and similar activities, it may not be a stretch to believe that this was a legitimate consultancy.

After assailing Newt, she moves on to make her case about Romney and Obamacare, and makes some rather bombastic claims on Romney’s behalf:

“The mainstream media keep pushing alternatives to Mitt Romney not only because they are terrified of running against him, but also because they want to keep Republicans fighting, allowing Democrats to get a four-month jump on us.

“Meanwhile, everyone knows the nominee is going to be Romney.”

Coulter seems rather certain of herself, but I remain unconvinced.  Coulter reduces criticisms of Romney to “Romneycare and Mormonism.”  To be honest, I don’t know anybody who is criticizing Willard on the latter, because most Americans are relatively accepting of religions that are not their own.   Romneycare is another matter, however, and it’s not the only instance of his statist reflex.  There was the “Welfare Wheels” program, among other things I’ve covered, and of course the whole flap over the illegal immigrants hired by his landscaping contractor, who he publicly chastised, continued to use, and who ultimately brought illegal aliens back to work on Romney’s lawn.  I’m sorry, but I don’t view Romney as a conservative.  Among conservatives, he’s consider a “Mush” Republican, a “Repubic,” and a “RINO.”  I think that’s a fair assessment, so that I am baffled by Coulter’s unceasing support of this sort of Republican.

Coulter has long claimed to be a conservative, but I have serious doubts about her claim.  She couldn’t wait to bash Sarah Palin’s voice, or anything else that may have displeased her.  She spent the majority of 2011 pushing the notion of a Chris Christie candidacy, and as soon as Christie announced he would not run, but would instead endorse Romney, Coulter spent a five minutes one day in mourning for the Christie candidacy that would not be, but then jumped into supporting Romney.  I don’t trust Romney, like many conservatives, and the reason is simple: Mitt Romney goes out of his way to avoid staking out positions that we can later reference when he ultimately screws conservatives.  It’s what the establishment does.  It puts me in a mind to remember the words of another conservative who had some troubles with  progressive Republicans:

“I have no trouble with my enemies. I can take care of my enemies in a fight. But my friends, my goddamned friends, they’re the ones who keep me walking the floor at nights!” -Warren G. Harding

Of course, with Coulter on the warpath for Romney, arguing that only Willard can save us from Obama, I am likewise reminded of Harding’s Vice President and successor, Calvin “Silent Cal” Coolidge, who famously said:

“When a man begins to feel that he is the only one who can lead in this republic, he is guilty of treason to the spirit of our institutions.” -Calvin Coolidge

 

 

 

Rove Says Allred Adds Credibility – Question: To What Does Rove Add Credibility?

Tuesday, November 8th, 2011

There He Goes Again

I don’t frankly know which is more laughable:  Karl Rove’s claim that Gloria Allred’s representation of Sharon Bialek makes her claims more credible.  My first question in response to this assertion is: Among whom?   I don’t know a single person, apart from leftists, or Karl Rove, who thinks Allred adds credibility.  Most people view Allred as a carnival barker, selling side-show attractions on the basis of hyped assertions that are most often subsequently undermined by facts.  More, I don’t know who thinks Karl Rove has any credibility on the question of this matter, with respect to Herman Cain.  As I’ve asked before in a different context, why should we believe Karl Rove now?  Wasn’t it Karl Rove less than a week ago telling us “Cain is finished,” while prognosticating on Fox News?  In the days that followed, Cain didn’t decline in the polls as Rove predicted, so now I must ask:  What credibility does Karl Rove add to Gloria Allred?

Answer: None.

Karl Rove has no public credibility once you understand that he’s a master manipulator.  We’ve seen all of this before, and frankly, it’s despicable.  Rove is still trying to kill off the Cain candidacy in much the same we he’s successfully killed off some others.  Appearing on FoxNews Tuesday, Rove said the following:

“Credibility matters here, and Gloria Allred — while she is a Democrat and a liberal Democrat and openly so — nonetheless, has been involved in a number of high-profile cases like Tiger Woods and others, where the charges have been borne out.

So this gives Ms. Bialek’s charges and accusations a little bit of credibility, and that’s what we’re talking about here — credibility.”

Sorry, but this is laughable.  If you’ve forgotten last year, when Allred was engaged in another case smearing Meg Whitman, with purely political motives, she was dismantled quite thoroughly first by Mark Levin, and later by Greta Van Susteren.   Allred has no credibility, and the fact that Rove now expects you to think she has credibility, while ignoring the plentiful reasons she does not, constitute more reasons why Rove has no credibility.

Sorry Karl, you’ve been debunked here too many times.  Come to think of it, so has Allred. Below are the instance last year when she was clobbered by both Levin and Van Susteren:

Romney Isn’t One of Us Either

Monday, November 7th, 2011

Out Amongst the People

It’s not often that you get a chance to see how a politician behaves among ordinary people.  They’re usually surrounded by security, and mobbed by media, so on that rare occasion in which you find yourself relatively alone with one for even a moment, most people will try to exploit the moment and express their own opinions.   In these situations, some politicians bear up better than others, and some are able to disguise the actual contempt or at least ambivalence they feel for we “little people.”  The Romney campaign thought it would be a good idea to have Mitt fly coach just to be among the people.  Unfortunately, once there, he promptly ignored a fellow passenger who wanted to discuss health-care reform with him, reports a New York Times blogger, Emmarie Heutteman.  According to the article, Carolyn McClanahan of Jacksonville, Florida was seated next to Romney.

From the blog posting:

According to Ms. McClanahan, about an hour into the flight — which Mr. Romney mostly spent reading USA Today and using an iPad while wearing headphones — she told him her idea for improving the American health care system: slashing overhead costs by switching to an electronic billing system.

“He looked at me blankly and said, ‘I understand,’ then put his iPad headphones in and kept reading,” she said.

While Ms. McClanahan said Mr. Romney was probably exhausted, she was disappointed he showed so little interest. Even another passenger’s request for a restaurant recommendation in Boston elicited little from Mr. Romney, she said. “I can’t give you any,” he said, according to Ms. McClanahan. “You’ll have to ask someone else.”

This is demonstrative of the arrogance that pervades the permanent political class.  I recognize that Romney just wanted to catch his flight, but if you sit in coach in an attempt to appear to be “just one of us,” then you should expect that people will attempt to make some conversation, particularly if you’re a presidential candidate.  Mitt is just another of those politicians who want your vote, but not your opinions.  I have no idea whether Ms. McClanahan had any good ideas or not, but after all, you never know.  I’m not surprised by this, although this sort of confirmation is troubling.

Undoubtedly, this may be Mitt’s last appearance in coach, because now his campaign is catching grief.  The Times article concludes:

Ms. McClanahan said that if Mr. Romney wants to improve his image with voters, he’s going to have to do more than just fly coach.

“I think that one of the problems right now is that politicians aren’t in touch,” she said. “They’re trying to act like they’re in touch. You need to be a little more sincere about it.”

Indeed. That’s one of the problems with Mitt.  In fact, it always has been: He’s roughly as genuine as a stuffed ape holding a plastic banana.  He’s got no credibility with average Americans because he simply isn’t one of us.  He never has been, and he clearly seems out of his element when among us.  It’s only a matter of time before they put him in flannel at a skeet-shooting range, or at a NASCAR race to show us how he’s one of us.  McClanahan’s instincts are right about Romney.  He’s out of touch. He’s out of style, and if  conservatives and Tea Party folk have anything to say about it, he’ll be out of the running.  Sadly, that’s going to be more difficult than some now think.

FoxToolsSunday “All-Stars” Reveals Establishment Hacks

Sunday, November 6th, 2011

All-Star or All Wet?

Foxnews has become the channel I am least interested in watching.  Fox News Sunday’s only panelist with any credibility was Juan Williams.  Paul Gigot, Evan Bayh, Bill Kristol, and of course, the moderator, Chris Wallace rounded out the show.   In summation: two GOP flacks, and three DNC tools.   Bill Kristol said flatly that Herman Cain “He’s not going to be the nominee, he was never going to be the nominee.”  Paul Gigot, hedging,  said Cain “probably won’t get the nomination.”  I am so tired of these establishment weanies who are seldom right about anything taking their shots at authentic conservatives.  Let’s be honest about it: How did Bill Kristol’s panting, arrogant support of the “Arab Spring” turn out?  After spending weeks bashing Glenn Beck who said at the time that we should worry about the direction of events in Egypt, you would think Kristol might learn some humility.

These wizards, with all of their laughing at Herman Cain simply don’t get it:  Conservatives have no patience for the establishment this cycle. They can climb aboard, or they can become more irrelevant, but their days of pretending to conservatives that they really know best are over.  It’s a sad day when even Juan Williams will defend Cain, but the rest of these tools are content to throw him under the bus.  Watch the video of Kristol, that genius “all-star:”

It’s not so much that I love Herman Cain as it is that I have come to detest the establishment GOP nearly as much as the hard left of the Democrat party.  News cycle after news cycle, event after event, for as long as I can remember, these Republican insiders, these geniuses who tell us which candidates can win, seem to get it wrong until the answer is obvious, and then they backtrack in a cacophony of harrumphing.  The basic problem with these elite Republican tools is that none of them share much in common with the bulk of us out here in fly-over country.  When they venture out of their narrow corridor of insider politics and Washington DC intrigue, they don’t spend much time getting to know us.

It’s a bit like the falsely accused man who retains an attorney who advises his client to “take the deal.”  They pretend to know what is in our best interests, and when we revolt against it, effectively saying “no deal,” they pout and become petulant at the impertinence of our claim of innocence on the charges.  “Just take the deal,” they implore.  “Take Mitt.”  For precisely the same reasons that I would never cop a plea on a charge of which I knew I had been innocent, neither will I accept this deal.  After all, it’s not all about avoiding jail, as they would argue, but as you and I know, about avoiding the damage to our reputation, seeking justice, and being vindicated by evidence, logic and reason.  While we explain in impassioned terms why it is that we cannot support a moderate of any description, they nod, they seem to be listening, but in the end they look at us and explain why “the deal” is better.  NO!

In my world, only criminals accept “the deal.”  In the world out here where prosecutors frequently sell out the interests of justice and tax-payers, what these Republican insiders do on behalf of our country is nearly the same.  “Come on, make the deal.”  Their argument is persuasive to some, and in some years to many, but in this election cycle, the conservative base of the party has begun to understand that you cannot make a deal with the devil and come off clean, or even victorious.  We’ve been through this too many times to mention. Imagine the ongoing conversation between conservatives and establishment Republicans:

“Gerald Ford?”

“He is the sitting President…”

“But he’s not one of us!”

“Just take the deal.” 

We did. How did that work out? In 1980, it was no better, but it turned out well.

“Just accept Gerald Ford and George HW Bush.  That’s the deal.”

“We like Reagan.”

“He’s too old, and too conservative, and the liberals are right: He’s a B-movie actor.”

“He was an effective governor in our most populated state, and we like him.”

“Come on, take the deal.”

“No.”

Odd, this time it turned out pretty well, don’t you think? In 1988, they told us to take the deal again:

“You can trust George Bush. He’s just like Ronald Reagan, bless his heart.”

“Are you sure?  He seems a little, er uh, moderate.”

“No, he’ll be fine. He’ll convince you.  See, look at that pledge he made: Read my lips: No new taxes. He’s Reagan part II.”

We grumbled, but we elected him on this basis. When he made deals with Democrats and raised taxes, we again rebelled, some of us leaving the party in 1992, in search of other options.

“Stick with us. Take the deal. It’s better than Clinton.  That Perot guy is a kook.”

“I don’t know… Maybe Perot is a kook, but maybe he’s not.”

This turned out well too, didn’t it? In 1996, the establishment was undeterred and unreformed.

“You have to support Bob Dole.  I’m Bob Dole, and Bob Dole says…”

Epic Fail

Then, in 2000, they offered us another Bush.

“No, this Bush is different. Really.  He’s not like his father, much more conservative. Just like Reagan.”

“Are you sure?  What’s all this business about compassionate conservative and new tone?”

“Trust us, it will work out. That’s just code so the Democrats think he’s more moderate.”

Then we got four years of socialism obscured by the tragedy of 9/11.  In 2004, however, they were back:

“Look, it’s really simple. He’s the incumbent. You have to dance with the one you brought, right, and besides, John Kerry? He’s WAY worse.”

We fell for this line too.  By the end, we wanted Bush gone so badly that had he been eligible for another term, some of us might have voted Obama just to be rid of Bush.

“Look, we know John McCain isn’t conservative, but this Obama fellow is really dangerous.”

“We know Obama is dangerous, but so is John McCain.”

“Okay, how about we sweeten the pot and give you a good VP pick, say, oh, this Governor from Alaska?  After all, McCain is getting on in years…”

“Okay fine, but we don’t think we can trust him.”

“It will be fine, you’ll see.”

John McCain:

“Due to the crisis, I’m suspending my campaign….”

“AAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH”

Now we come to our current predicament.

“Mitt Romney is running again.  You liked him in the 2008 primaries.”

“Actually, we liked him better than McCain, which is roughly like saying we liked the prospect of having our wisdom teeth pulled slightly more than having our hands amputated.  How about: No Romney.”

“We could put up Tim Pawlenty!”

“No. We’re looking at Michele Bachmann.”

“What about Mitch Daniels? He’s a nice guy.”

“He may be a nice guy, when we can see him over the podium. He’s appointed some really idiotic judges.  Wasn’t he the Bush OMB director?”

“Turns out, Mitch doesn’t want to run. Well, his wife doesn’t. How about Rick Perry?”

“To tell you the truth, it’s hard to stay excited about Perry. He’s too much like one of yours. How about Palin?”

“Nah, Palin won’t run.  Even if she did, she’d lose.  Palin has been marginalized. She’s a quitter.”

“By and among whom?  We like her.  McCain quit. Remember that whole suspended campaign business?”

“Well, anyway, how about Chris Christie? Any takers?”

“No. What about Herman Cain?”

“Cain can’t win. Cain won’t win.”

“Why not?”

“Because we will sabotage him any chance we get.”

“Just like you did Palin?”

“Yep, it’s Mitt or bust.”

“Say, why do you establishment types keep screwing us?”

There is no establishment. It’s all in your head.”

“Yeah, right, and there’s no evil either… We’ve heard this ploy before.”

This conversation is only partially fictional.  While these precise words weren’t spoken by a particular agent of the GOP establishment, it’s nevertheless the meaning of what we and they said to one another.  Each and every time conservatives have compromised their values and went along with the moderates, the establishment, and the Bush clan(all mostly one and the same,) we have been hammered.  Each time.  The surrenders, the failures, the endless excuse-making, all so that this crowd of wizards can tell us how to live rather than having Democrats telling us how to live…  Why?

I submit to my fellow conservatives that we cannot afford another deal.  Whomever we select, it cannot be another one of their choosing.  Honest to goodness, listening to the chatter on Fox News Sunday, it is getting increasingly difficult to tell the difference between the Republicans and Democrats.  One gets the sense that they’ve all spent too much time at the same cocktail parties swilling the same statist kool-aid.

No thanks.  I’ve had enough, and while I won’t speak for the rest of you, I suspect many of you are with me this time:

No deal.