Posts Tagged ‘Tammy Bruce’

We Know Who Staged Chicago

Saturday, March 12th, 2016

lefty_thug_ftThe problem isn’t knowing who staged the “riot” at Trump’s UIC rally that was canceled.  That’s easy. The harder part would be to prove it.  What Americans need now to do is to put on their thinking caps.  It’s time to consider the real demons at work here, and what it is that they wished to accomplish with this debacle of Friday night.  Honestly, we all should have seen this coming.  Like seeing the foreshadowing in a movie or novel, but not quite recognizing it as a “tell,” we watched the whole week long as the media led us around by the nose, increasingly pushing the meme about Trump and the violence at his rallies.  We should have realized, in light of other inconvenient truths, that something big was coming.  When the GOP establishment cronies met at Sea Island last weekend to talk about how to stop Trump, we should have known it’s because they’ve become desperate.  Where did their desperation lead them?  What was the result?  Last night’s episode was a manufactured spectacle intended to push you, and you shouldn’t permit them to do this to you.  It’s your country, and you should be offended, and incensed, when the people running Washington DC try to manipulate you, your feelings, and your votes. We should ask, all of us, what Tammy Bruce asked in the wake of the events of last night, in a tweet:

Tammy has been a Cruz supporter throughout this campaign. For her to say this is not so odd, however, because she has experience as part of the leftist mobs.  She knows how these things work, because for a large part of her life, she was part of all of that. Later, she had an awakening, and it looks like she’s now recognized what so many of the rest of us have noticed: The GOP is behind this set-up, and there’s no way to un-notice it once you’ve seen it. Try this:

Re-play the last week of media coverage in your mind.  Looking back, wasn’t it obvious where this would go?  By the time we arrived at Thursday’s debate on CNN, with the moderators pushing the theme that Trump was inciting violence, shouldn’t we have known what to expect Friday evening?  The question remains: Who is behind this?  On the first level, it’s obvious as the day is long that this was a rent-a-mob cobbled together by the likes of Moveon.org and affiliated Occu-pests, Black Lives Matter, and all the other ugly little anarchistic groups of the rabid left, but that part is easy.  You don’t need to be a mystic to understand that much.  What’s more important is reading the signs of a coordinated attack that was contrived not by some organic left-wing movement, but one that was generated deep within the bowels of the DC UniParty, for a specific purpose.  What was the purpose?  I think I’ve covered that much, but if you’re not tracking just yet, think about how you were driven this week, “played” if you will, and coaxed and prodded in the direction of a singular impression: Trump incites violence.  Even if he says no word, his mere presence incites violence.  His simple existence promotes and provokes violence.  This is the seed they spent the whole week planting.  They wanted an impression created in your mind, a linkage if you prefer, that where Trump goes, trouble of the worst sort soon follows.

Who did this?  That’s easy too.  Look at the GOP establishment.  Admit what you’ve always known about the GOP establishment, when you’ve watched them coalesce with the Democrat establishment and the media organs that support one or the other, and frequently both.  They are a UniParty, and they’ve always been.  They’re the same globalist dirtbags, whether they happen to wear a “D” or an “R,” proudly displaying their Donkeys and Elephants for your deception.  Moveon.org is closely tied to George Soros and Hillary Clinton, but you already knew that.  What you may not have realized is that Hillary and those in the Democrat establishment are kissing cousins with the Republican establishment.  Yes, go find the stories on Jeb Bush and his awarding Hillary Clinton, and go find all the dirt that ties these people together.  Remember how curious it was what fast friends George HW Bush and Bill Clinton had become?  These people aren’t two distinct groups.  They’re one.  They are the DC UniParty that rules over us, and commits crimes against we, the American people.  Neither is this a “conspiracy theory.” It’s right out in the open, and if you will merely look, you can see it. You can know.

We are so thoroughly conditioned to see a “left” and a “right” and to think of them as warring parties that we assume the Democrat and Republican establishments are at war too.  Are they?  They agree on every policy. They form “GangsOf” six or eight or whatever might be needed to get their legislative agenda pushed through.  They use exactly the same tactics, and they espouse the same putrid ideas.  One wears the mask of the donkey in public, to control the grass-roots of the Democrat party, while the other wears the mask of the elephant in the open, to control the conservative base of the Republican party.  Cast aside everything you thought you knew about American politics for a moment, and re-order it all under this structure in your thinking about political machinations, past and present, and the scale of it all becomes quite clear.  With that clarity, apply it now to what you’ve seen recently, and suddenly, there isn’t a doubt in your mind about who is the establishment, or who comprises the DC UniParty.

With that new view of things in mind, and mindful of the meeting about stopping Trump in Sea Island, and the Thursday meetings between Jeb Bush and Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich, you should realize the scale of the coordination of all you’ve seen since.  That’s right, folks, they’re all in on it. Did you notice in the coverage of last night’s events, that one right after the next, Cruz, Rubio, and Kasich along with the UniParty’s media organs all said exactly the same thing?  They wanted you to know: If you choose Trump, this is what it’s going to be like, permanently.  They are driving you with your fear of chaos.  They’re using the chaos of last night in Chicago to drive you like bleating sheep, if only you will let them.

Every one of the three establishment candidates, and that’s what they are, if you hadn’t known it already, were in various ways trotted out before the viewers to express their sadness at the events in Chicago, but also to blame the victim, Donald Trump and his supporters, for creating an “atmosphere” or “environment” of violence.  If you can’t see this, please, please, if you’ve never considered seriously another thing I have written, realize that their manipulation of media was designed to create a singular impression, and that they may have at least temporarily succeeded with you.  Again, step back from what you think you have known, and look at it again in light of the idea of a DC UniParty with two heads but only one body.  Then consider again the events of Friday night, and know what it is you are facing.  Apply it.  Look at the events of even the last dozen years, things that had made no sense to you in the traditional left-right, Democrat-Republican, liberal-conservative paradigm you had accepted, and look again.

Do you wonder why they’re in favor of immigration reform that permits amnesty and legalization of the millions of illegals?  The Donkey-face tells the leftists “Hey, this is new voters for us.”  The Elephant-face says to its uncertain folk: “Hey, this is cheap labor.” Both implore their followers: “We’re a nation of immigrants…”  On social issues, isn’t it curious how the Elephant-face sells out conservatism?  On almost any issue, the Donkey-face urges its followers to accept “incrementalism.” Hasn’t it bothered you that a party that claims to be on the side “of the little guy” is every bit as much in bed, and in some cases more, with the powerful interests of Wall Street and K Street?  Both are willing to use our military as a force for the good they advocate, but not for the good of our country.  Is it odd to you that the Establishment Republicans on Capitol Hill have seemed less than fully serious in getting to the bottom of Benghazi, or the IRS’ Tea Party abuses?  Does it seem strange to you that both McCain and Romney virtually handed their respective elections to Obama, both with acts of despicable self-sabotage?  The truth is that they weren’t opponents to Obama at all.  These people are all on the same team.  Once you see that, there’s no unseeing it.  You can’t ignore it.  Spend a week or a month viewing things through this adjusted lens, and you will never again look at the world in the same way.

In truth, that’s been part of my own struggle.  I fall easily into the comfortable, well-worn path of the false dichotomy between the Democrats and Republicans.  After all, for all of my life, that’s the impression they’ve built, and quite successfully.  I have to stop myself on occasion, because I find myself wishing it weren’t true.  I find myself longing for a political environment that was in some way genuine.  It’s not. You should know why.  Our Federal Government spends over $4 Trillion annually now, and that’s a motive for any sort of murder and mayhem you might wish to imagine.  If you think that the control of such spoils couldn’t possibly lead to the establishment of such a cabal, ask yourself how many thugs are only too happy to kill you for your wallet.  What happens when more “civilized” thugs are presented with the temptations of billions or trillions of dollars?  What more motivation is needed?  Do you really believe these people are involved for love of country?  Do you think Mitch McConnell gives a damn about you or your liberty?  Do you think Harry Reid is doing what he does out of an abundance of concern for the future of the country? Do you think any of that is true?

Don’t look away in terror.  Confront it.  Know it.  If ever we are going to take our country back, it is from the DC UniParty’s grip that we must wrest it.  Friday night’s events in Chicago had been their doing, and for once, we ought to recognize it and finally disclaim it.

 

Tammy Bruce: Passionately Independent Conservatism in the New Media

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

"Chick With Gun and Mic"

If you’re not familiar with Tammy Bruce, I would like to urge you to check out her show.  I listen to Tammy Bruce almost daily, as time permits, although it’s generally while I’m at work, and I’m in and out of the office, get pulled away for meetings and problems, and all the usual things that prevail upon my daily schedule.  Hers is an entertaining and informative show, and most days, I will listen to the opening hour of Rush Limbaugh, and follow that with the two hours of Bruce’s show.  It’s an interesting contrast in style and presentation, but each has their own merits above and beyond the superficial differences.  Tammy is a good deal more serious, although cheerfully so.  She’s a former liberal who woke up to the direction in which the left was steering the country, and since then, she’s been what she calls an “independent conservative,” because she owes no allegiance to party.  She’s also the author of  The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values,” a serious examination of how the left has debased our culture by design and intention.

Her independence also defines another distinction between her show and many others in conservative radio:  Hers is a commercial-free show that thrives on the power of subscribers, known as TAMs, or “Tammy Army Members.”  She frequently points to this as leaving her free of “Gestapos” of the sort Limbaugh is now facing in the latest controversy involving Sandra Fluke:  Advertisers who pull the plug on a host when things get too hot in the kitchen.  This helps make Bruce the leading edge of a new wave of new media that waits for none, and takes no prisoners, because she doesn’t need to do so.  She answers to her conscience alone.

I’ve been a TAM for roughly half a year now, and it’s the best investment I’ve made in some time, and while I don’t always agree with Bruce on every issue, I do respect her delivery and her passion.  She’s the beating heart exemplifying new media, and she’s part of what traditional media both deplores and fears: An independent voice that has a direct relationship with her consumers, skipping the middle-men.  From 1p-3p eastern/10a-Noon Pacific, Bruce offers up a seldom-restrained run-down on the day’s events, and if you’re a subscriber, you get a bonus with a recorded Daily TAM Briefing she posts each night, and usually a weekend update too.  The community of her listeners get together in two venues: One is a chat that is available via her website that is open from just before the live show until just after its conclusion, and the other is via the Twitter hashtag: #tbrs.   Like most talkshows, there is a core of supporters, but hers are able to avail themselves of the chat during the live show, and they enjoy an uproariously good time commenting on Tammy’s broadcast in real time, or occasionally schmoozing with other celebrities who pop in on occasion, like Jedediah Bila.

I had the good fortune to meet Tammy at meet-up she held last September 3rd, in Des Moines, the evening after the Tea Party rally at which Governor Sarah Palin had delivered the keynote address.  Tammy gave a frank talk to the TAMs present about the ongoing campaign, and what it would take to overwhelm the left in 2012.  She was precise and her thoughts were well-organized, and she was gracious as can be to all in attendance.  I was pleasantly surprised at how thoroughly engaging and down-to-Earth she was, and that she wasn’t smitten with herself like so many celebrities seem to be.  Instead, she made rounds of all the tables, and engaged the people assembled, and sincerely answered questions, making it abundantly clear that unlike some in radio, whatever Bruce says, you can bet she believes it.

As for her radio show, I find it to be quite entertaining, and besides, who doesn’t love it when Tammy blows her stack over the latest leftist outrage?  She gives voice to the frustrations conservatives feel in the face of a monolithic mainstream media that is in league with the left.   The nice thing about her show is that because of the format, she’s able to speak frankly and without commercial interruptions when she gets on a roll.  Naturally, one of her favorite targets is Barack Obama, who has several nicknames on the show, including “Furkel” (an development of his earlier label as plain “Urkel,” with an “F” prefixed in order to convey “F-Urkel,”) along with the ever-popular DB,(or Dumb Bastard.)  The show is available via TalkStreamLive.com, and they now have an iPhone app, so you can listen there too, but the best part is even if you miss it live, even non-subscribers get access to her daily public show podcast.

What I find most valuable about Tammy’s show is the perspective of a former leftist, a woman who knows how the left operates, and easily recognizes their latest game-plans usually well in advance of the rest of conservative talk radio.  This distinction makes Tammy Bruce unique in talk radio, because she’s able to cut through the superficial nonsense and directly to the meat of most issues.  This makes her insight doubly refreshing, because in so many cases, she is able to see the heart of a matter with a clarity most cannot.  She knows how the left works, and she knows how the left is able to manipulate or collude with media in pushing their agenda, because not so very long ago, she was among their number.

She doesn’t like the Republican establishment for most of the same reasons she can’t stand the institutional left: She knows the fraud at the root of their agenda.  When I need a boost in the middle of a long day, Tammy Bruce is there to offer her audience wisdom, but also a good kick in the seat, exhorting them not to wallow in self-pity or doubt.  If you want to hear what an independent conservative with a passion for her country sounds like, you need go no further than Tammy Bruce.  Hers is a talkshow with a refreshing difference that is really quite addicting, and if you become a TAM, and join in the lively discussions, you’ll soon find that the crowd she attracts is of a similar mindset.  I translate it into the impression I first got when I heard Tammy’s blunt, incisive commentary, bold and rebellious with the fervor of a warrior:  “You’re not the boss of me!”

Tammy is the first woman I’ve ever heard in radio who espouses a belligerent rejection of authority that warns those who would tell her how to live where to get off.  That’s an endearing quality in my book, in this world of obnoxious, overreaching bureaucrats who wish to tell us whether we can have salt on our fries, or how many gallons our toilet-tanks may dispense per flush.  Her direct words to the would-be tyrants?  “Screw you!

Damned straight.  Check out her show, and you’ll quickly become addicted too.

Picture of the Day: Obama at Disneyland

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Losing the Base Again?

Thursday, January 5th, 2012

Nurture What You Don't See, Too

The cautionary tone of Sarah Palin and many in the blogosphere is that the Republican Party seems to be doing its level best to alienate part of its base, but also non-traditional or potential Republican voters.  This is not insignificant, and it bears examination, because the GOP cannot successfully nominate a candidate and recapture the White House in 2012 without all hands on deck.  The GOP can’t afford to make very many people feel as though they have no home in the so-called “big tent,” but as usual, the party’s establishment is willing to extend to cover almost ever conceivable group but their core, and the adjuncts to that core that will make all the difference in November.  If you doubt my contention, look at the comments on these pages, and what you will notice is that there is a growing body of constitutional conservatives and somewhat more independent libertarians who simply view the Republican party establishment as having become too liberal, and too progressive(a.k.a. socialist.)  This is part of the problem the party faces as it marches toward the “inevitable” nomination of Mitt Romney, as conservatives and Tea Party folks look on in horror.  The Paul-ites are preparing to evacuate altogether.

On Tuesday night, during the coverage of Iowa on FoxNews, Palin mentioned that the GOP ought to avoid alienating the approximately libertarian supporters of Ron Paul, and she’s correct.  Driving them away would be part of a potential disaster.  There’s also a broad base of people under the general banner of Tea Party who are not very happy with Romney, and are beginning to feel as though the GOP establishment has pushed them aside.  Christian conservatives aren’t altogether thrilled at the moment.  The establishment believes that it should run the party, without reference to the heart and soul that does most of the voting.  The problem is this:  Some of these subgroups have conflicting interests, and it is difficult to find a candidate who substantially satisfies all of them.  What is needed is a candidate who can unite them, and despite the variety of candidates who have entered this race to date, none have been able to bridge the divides.   The establishment is hoping that the various factions will simply come home to unite behind the eventual nominee, but that’s not happening quite so easily this year, but even if it largely happens, the fact remains that many are simply so dissatisfied and feel so thoroughly disenfranchised by the choices they now face that they are willing to sit out this presidential ballot.

On Tammy Bruce’s site on Wednesday evening, she posted a blog article by a Canadian poster who has watched what happens when a wide swath of a country’s conservatives are effectively disenfranchised, presenting a fascinating study in what happens when a party loses touch with its base, but more importantly, his article offers a distinct warning to the GOP: Don’t dismiss your grass-roots.   One of the things that happens to a party large enough to gain electoral primacy is that all too often, they forget how they arrived in that position, or worse, begin to look at their grass roots activists as people to be managed and manipulated.  This has happened repeatedly to the GOP, and its most recent occurrence began in 2006, when the grass roots stayed home.  That brought the loss of Congress, but it also ultimately brought the 2008 victory of Barack Obama, because that same base stayed home.

The GOP’s dereliction of its duty is based on some of the problems I’ve been discussing this week, and the greater factor is the deal-making for the sake of a deal that led to the robust spending by the Bush administration and the Congress that enacted its legislative agenda.  Conservatives and libertarians began to notice even before his second term that Bush had begun to substantially abandon any notion of significant entitlement reform, and had instead merely added another, while increasing spending on other liberal causes, such as the education bill, and all the rest.  This began the collapse of the GOP.

Here’s the other problem:  The libertarian faction who supports Ron Paul is not entirely enamored with the military spending that has characterized the GOP’s recent past.  Of course, the truth of the matter is that our military spending is at a historical low as a portion of GDP, but it’s a much easier target than what really drives government expenditures: Entitlements.   I think if the GOP could put up a credible candidate who would take an axe to the federal budget, bring spending under control, and perhaps tear down much of the federal regulatory leviathan, returning many issues to the purview of the states, I think it would go a long way to blunt their dissatisfaction.  Of course, they’re going to need to learn to give a little too, but I think it’s possible with the right candidate.

The Tea Party crowd is concerned primarily with economic and fiscal issues, including taxation and the general growth of government.  If they thought the nominee would take that same axe to federal spending, and get regulatory agencies out of the way of businesses and job creators, they’d be substantially willing to consider supporting the Republican party again.  The Tea Party wants to see the dramatic deconstruction of government by virtue of an ethical administration, and they have every right to demand this from the GOP in exchange for their support.  In this way, there is some significant overlap in interests between the Tea Party and the Paul-ites.

Another group that gets kicked around by the establishment is the cultural conservatives, often called the “Christian right,” who look at the devolution and diminution of our nation and point a finger quite accurately at the tendency of government to strip any notion of ethics acceptable to them from all of officialdom.  They share many concerns with the other two groups, but they particularly focus on such as abortion because they see abortion as a vast evil.  This is why Romney shifted his position, of course, and why Laura Bush and Barbara before her, were effectively  gagged on the issue for eight years, and four years, respectively.  The simple fact is that this segment of the GOP simply aren’t amenable to compromise on this issue, and without them, the GOP has recognized they cannot possibly win a national election, so the establishment largely plays “wink and nod,” making their chosen candidates at least nominally pro-life, but not actively so, and this maintains something of an uneasy peace between them.  Whether Romney’s latter-day conversion on this issue will convince them remains to be seen, but they also have significant fiscal concerns that Romney’s 59-point plan doesn’t really address even if he settles their other concerns, because they also would like to see at least a hatchet taken to government spending.

There is one more group the GOP must capture, and they are what I call the pragmatists.  They’re not attached to the cultural or Christian crowds, and they’re not activists.  They really don’t much care about any of it except inasmuch as the current condition of their own lives is concerned.  Analysts call them different things, but most call them “moderates” or “independents,” and this is the group that doesn’t really begin to watch elections until six or eight weeks before an election.  This is the group both parties try to capture, and the group both parties are willing to offend their own bases to entice.  The problem is, the analysts and hacks fundamentally misunderstand what makes this group tick, or their misunderstanding leads them to sacrifice some of the party’s base of support.  The answer is that it depends entirely on how they feel about the state of their lies when they walk into the polling places on election day.  They are governed by impressions and emotions, and their votes are not an intellectual exercise in pursuit of particular principles.

It is for the sake of capturing these moderates or independents that the party bosses sacrifice the base.  It’s for them that the party hacks slice off bits of the grass roots in the hope that they’ll gain votes in the exchange.  The problem is that as a strategy, it’s ultimately a loser.  It means that you’re dependent upon the general feeling in the electorate being one of misery in order to oust an incumbent or their relative happiness to re-elect them.  Principles don’t matter, and these voters don’t think beyond how they feel after breakfast.  For this reason, they are the most volatile group within the electorate, and this may be why they confound so many analysts.  In order to win, the expedient thing campaigns do is to appeal to this crowd on some basis, any basis at all, in order to get their votes.

That’s all well and good, but the problem is that what the party establishment is always willing to do to satisfy this crowd is to abandon the grass-roots.  The reason this remains a mistake is simple:  The moderates or independents aren’t paying such close attention to the specifics of issues, because that’s not what moves them.  What they want is the status quo of their daily expectations: Their electricity is on, the water is running, the job is there, and there are groceries in the fridge.  In this sense, they are the intellectual free-riders who don’t really care whether a socialist or a constitutionalist is president, so long as their basic conditions and expectations are being met.   This is how they could tolerate a second term of Bill Clinton: He maintained what seemed a status quo to the abysmally uninformed, even as he advanced an increasingly virulent social agenda.  This is how George Bush managed a second term, as the economy fought back from 9/11 through tougher times, but the general sense of insecurity represented in John Kerry caused this group to stay with the status quo.

Now we have a party willing to gamble its base on the notion that they won’t need them, because the general idea is that dissatisfaction militates against Barack Obama.  There are reasons to suspect this is true, and it’s one more reason that Republicans shouldn’t be pushing a moderate like Romney, but the truth is that the party bosses have never been happy with populist conservatives, and they don’t feel they can risk a 1964-style outcome, which is the basic hope of the Democrats.  They will paint any opponent to Barack Obama as a right-wing extremist, even Romney, though that claim is a lie most conservatives only wish could be the truth.  What the establishment still fails to grasp is that in such an environment, a guy like Romney will be painted at once as a right-wing extremist and too little change to be worth the risk.  More, they will have plenty of ammunition when they make the claim that Romney’s flip-flopping makes him unreliable on any issue.

The truth is that the old formula won’t work this year, and to rely upon it again is an act of stubborn intransigence on the part of the establishment.  If ever there was to be a year in which you would bring in the base without alienating the various subsets of the party, 2012 would be that sort of year, much like 1980.  This is not the sort of year in which the party can afford to anger its base.  If the establishment loses in 2012 with Mitt Romney, it’s not only over for the GOP, but perhaps the end of the country.  Dissatisfaction is also at historical highs, and all the party really needs is a competent candidate who will not offend the base.  The establishment is hoping Romney can be that candidate, but thus far, his numbers don’t support that premise.  The riddle really is a question about whether any of the current crop can substantially unite the party, but at present, the answer seems to be a resounding “no.”  Romney can’t really capture the South, but neither will Rick Santorum or Ron Paul.  Newt Gingrich might be better positioned had he performed better in Iowa, and Perry might gain some traction in the South with conservative Christians.

This is why the GOP really does need another Reagan, who can appeal to all of these disparate groups and unite them, but still not offend those independents or moderates to the degree that they feel so uncomfortable that they lose their discomfort with the status quo.  As I’ve explained throughout the last week, there are a number of reasons to believe that Romney is incapable of satisfying these criteria, and if the party goes with him, they may see not only a Presidential defeat, but perhaps worse, one on the Congressional side.  Palin stated it best in explaining that all of this is beginning to agitate in favor of yet another candidate, and while some assume she might have included herself in the list of possibilities, the truth is if it isn’t her, it would need to be somebody much like her in terms of track record, and at present, I haven’t a clue who that might be.

Hope Springs Eternal

Saturday, October 8th, 2011

Hope?

I’ve spent some time thinking about Governor Palin’s decision against running for the presidency in 2012.  Many people are wrestling with it still, particularly those people who have poured so much of their efforts into making it a reality.  Even now, over on FaceBook, there’s a group devoted to urging her to reconsider. They’re calling their group Sarah Palin’s Earthquake, and they have chosen that name because of a remark Sarah Palin made in a recent interview in which she said it would take an earthquake to cause her to reconsider.  They want to become that earthquake, and in just more than a day, they have added thousands of members.  I suppose one never knows what might happen, and these intrepid Palinistas are intent upon at least letting their reluctant champion know that they still want her to lead them.

The odds against them are long, but they’re accustomed to that condition, as these determined warriors look around, much like me, and see that no rational alternative to Palin now exists in the Republican field.  I could inventory them and their flaws for you, but if you’re reading this post, you already know the score.  The sad truth for most of Palin’s supporters is that there really aren’t any plausible alternatives that will be even roughly shoe-horned into the great void we had hoped she would fill in the GOP field.  Many people are noting that sad state of affairs with a tone of fatalistic sobriety.  For my part, I have chosen to look at all of this somewhat differently.  For three years running, in various forms, we’ve asked her to run, and she has finally demurred.  I remember the occasion of my own letter to her, and what I said in closing:

“We want you to run, yes, for our own selfish purposes, because we selfishly dare to love our country and our lives. That’s why they hate us. It’s why they hate you. Make your choice, make it in full knowledge of the costs to you and yours. Make it for your own purposes. If you choose not to run, we will understand, though we will be sad, and we will go in search of our back-up plan. We will go in search of the ‘next-best.’ You’ve already borne more upon your back than any thousand candidates have had to bear.”

This now seems to have been the manner of the choice she has made.  We are now sad, but thus far, in our search for a “back-up plan,” we have come up empty.  That’s the unmitigated truth of the matter.  Once again, we are left in the apparent position of having to settle for the best of the rest, whomever that may be.  The others are undoubtedly calling upon her to throw her support behind them, and I expect that will the focus of the media going forward.  The expectation is that wherever Palin throws her support, if she does at all, her legions of supporters will join her in that endeavor like robots.  The problem with this predictable narrative from the media and the establishment is that Palin’s supporters have never been automatons, neither for the political establishment, nor even for her. Palin’s supporters simply aren’t built that way, and will in the end make the decisions they each individually feel are best.  It’s the difference between a fanatic and a supporter, and those who have followed Sarah Palin all this time aren’t mere “fans.”  I continued:

“Nobody will blame you. The part of me that loves justice almost hopes you will walk away. The direction of the country isn’t your fault. It’s ours. We let this happen. We let them cheat and lie and steal our values. We watched them do it. We don’t have any right to ask you to do it for our sake. Where were we? Where was our engagement? Most of us went about our way, trying to pretend what was happening hadn’t been real, or worse, participating in the debasement. There’s no reason you should go it alone on our behalf. In truth, I have nothing to offer by way of compensation except to promise I will not abandon you on the field – that you will not lead the charge into battle only to find your legion has deserted you. The rest may retire from the fight. I will be there, until the end or until victory. I ask only that you choose for the sake of all you love. This may be our last chance. Good luck in all things, Governor Palin.”

Well, that first bit might not have turned out to be one-hundred percent of the truth, but it’s certainly bound to be in the ninetieth percentile.  A few are hurt to the extent of blaming her, but it wasn’t Sarah Palin who left us without options.  It isn’t her fault that the country is in decline.  It isn’t her fault that we let the statists cheat us and lie to us and steal from us our values as a culture and as a people.  That the GOP establishment seems to have managed to pull off another end-run around us is not Sarah Palin’s fault, but ours.  We could have done things differently, and the truth is that if we are now without plausible presidential alternatives to Sarah Palin, it is we who have left ourselves in that position.

Back when I was describing the choice, I was describing it as much for me as for her or for others who might see and consider it.  I haven’t ever wanted to deceive myself or others, and while I knew at the time there were a thousand good reasons for Sarah Palin to enter the race, I also knew that they were not necessarily of a value equal to some reasons leveraging against her entry.  I don’t expect anybody to live for my sake, or the sake of my needs, wants, or wishes; neither in my thinking then, nor in my feelings now.

Sarah Palin doesn’t owe us anything:  Not a presidential campaign, not a campaign for other candidates, nor even an explanation that will satisfy one and all.  It’s her choice and her life, and she must consider these things for her sake and the sake of her most precious values.  She has chosen, and whether I agree with her choice, or the voices of millions disagree, it is her choice and her destiny to do as she feels necessary.  I respect that choice, knowing that as it is her right to choose, my wishes to the contrary have no ability to invalidate her choice.  If she does reconsider, I will respect that choice too, and I will continue to support her in that endeavor.  My pledge was sincere.  I meant it, and I still do.  If she chooses against running, instead to rally the troops on behalf of a cause in which we all agree, I will be there.  It’s as simple as that.

From the moment she first walked out onto the national stage, and brought the energy of her message of freedom to the crowd, I have been there.  To whatever degree she continues to do so, I will still be here in firm support, but I will always respect her choice to determine her course for her own sake and the sake of all she loves.  That’s a big part of what has made the freedoms of our country unique, and it is this that I cherish above all:  This is still the land of self-determination, and while government’s shackles tighten around us like a noose, I am happy to see even one among us escape unshackled on her own terms.

As some have noted, particularly Tammy Bruce, we have a choice, and it comes down to this:  We may be staring down the barrel of a loaded gun with the less-than-satisfactory GOP nomination choices for president remaining from among which to choose.  There are still other things we can do, including joining with the Tea Party, those of us who haven’t already, and begin the process of taking over the Senate and strengthening in the House so that no matter which candidate of either party ultimately occupies the White House, we can still control the legislative agenda, and thereby limit the power of a president we may not fully support, or support at all.  That idea isn’t without flaws, and it certainly isn’t a perfect solution to the problems now confronting us, but it surely offers us more hope than to surrender in sadness or to campaign against the seemingly inevitable.  Nothing is written in stone about the outcome of this battle, and this remains the country of self-determination, at least for now.  However we choose to carry out that fight, each and every one of us, let us do it in our own ways as best we can, while we still can.  Hope springs eternal because we still love our country and it’s still worth the fight, whomever we elect, irrespective of who may choose to run for high office.  If we are to save this country, we must begin now.  My hope is that it’s not too late.

Wednesday’s Talk Radio Response

Thursday, September 8th, 2011

Bruce and Levin Confront the Lies

On Tuesday, at least two radio greats responded to the attacks on Sarah Palin by Laura Ingraham and Ann Coulter on Tuesday night’s edition of the O’Reilly Factor. If you missed either show, or the reason for these two patriotic hosts to get a bit exercised, you can see the video of the Fox broadcast here.

Each of the radio talkers expressed it in their own way, but both noticed the clear hypocrisy implicit in the attacks on Palin by Coulter.  It’s no secret that these two, featured prominently in The Undefeated, both think the world of Governor Sarah Palin.

Say what you want about either of them, but don’t expect them to shut up about the folks on the right who attack Palin any more than they’ll refrain from responding to the rabid left.

First, Tammy Bruce responds:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgzeG2FxKys]

Then Wednesday evening, Mark Levin takes them on, too:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FDtcMMeCCl4]

It seems as though I’m not alone in picking up on the hypocrisy of Coulter in all of this.  My own critics have complained I’m merely being a “crazed knee-jerk” Palin supporter, but if it leaves we Palinistas in the company of Tammy Bruce and Mark Levin, we won’t mind.

One More Reason to Listen to Tammy Bruce

Monday, September 5th, 2011

Tammy Bruce Rallies Palinistas

I was lucky enough to arrive at the Machine Shed restaurant in Clive, IA on Saturday evening with some of the Texas and Oklahoma contingents.  As it turned out, the dozen of us were being seated when somebody mentioned that Tammy Bruce was holding her own post-Tea Party meet-up in the adjacent room.  Tammy graciously extended the invitation to us, and we happily joined her group.  Tammy gave a short talk about how she expects this election season to develop, but more, she inspired the Palinistas by taking the time to talk to them all.  Even me.  Tammy was quite kind to come over and speak to us at our table, and I listened intently, and a bit uncomfortably.  Despite the blogging, I’m really not a public persona, and I don’t like a fuss made about me. What Tammy Bruce explained to me was that there’s no excuse for that sort of humility:  In the new media, what will count is the strength of your presentation and the power of your arguments. Those will be reinforced not by standing in the shadows cranking out blog posts, but by  increasing one’s visibility in order to spread the word.  One can’t make an argument while being invisible.

Those of us who call ourselves Palinistas are mostly ordinary Americans, bent on overturning the status quo by virtue of hard work and through supporting Sarah Palin’s efforts on behalf of the nation.  It’s not a task for the faint of heart, although it can be rightly said that if there is a thoroughly humble group involved in politics, it is the wide range of people who support Sarah Palin.   We’re humble, but there’s not any faintness of heart or in purpose anywhere amongst us.  For those lucky enough to attend this meet-up, we were able to listen to Tammy Bruce’s explanation of how she sees the future, but more importantly, that such a future can only be realized through the diligent efforts of Sarah Palin’s supporters.

As I’ve offered before, Tammy made clear that the core group who expends effort on behalf of a cause or a candidate are really the foundation upon which any such movement must rest.  One of the most important things she explained, particularly to me and those listening around our table of Texans and Sooners)is that it’s time for us to lead, too.  We’re going to need to lay it all out there, often, repeatedly, and again.  The media and the establishment in Washington DC may dislike us, and they may fear Governor Palin, but they don’t have the power to overturn elections.  We have the power to lead to the result we seek, and it’s time that we all do so.

This country is on the verge of even more serious trouble than we’ve seen.  What Tammy offered to me, and to anybody else who was present, is a kind of fortification against the naysayers.  In a sense, it was an inoculation against the disease of timidity that can cause movements to struggle.  Her words implored Palinistas to go forward with bold steps and to avoid being bashful.  To me particularly, she explained that I mustn’t shy away from attention.  As is clear, I want my words to be read all over, and to some small degree, they have been, but it’s also true that I have shied from any sort of publicity with respect to me, personally.  I’m a shy fellow, in truth, and I haven’t been the sort of outgoing, outspoken voice in person that I have been willing to be in my blogging.  I don’t promote myself, and I don’t promote my website, and instead rely on word-of-mouth and links being dropped all over the Internet by a small group of people who’ve already read my work.  It all adds up, but the truth is that at my blog’s current rate of growth, it will be seven thousand years before any substantial portion of the electorate is considering my arguments.

I’ve been satisfied – overwhelmed in fact  – with the number of people who come read my blog posts.  Through the course of the week-end, when I would meet people who are friends on Facebook, or people who’ve read my blogs, some of them have called me a “celebrity.”  That’s a notion from which I’m predisposed to demur, because it’s been my conviction that I want my blog to be about my ideas, but not so much about me.  What Tammy Bruce told me is that which I already knew but denied, and it is as simple as it is wise:  My ideas are an extension of me.  They’re a projection of who I am.  I’ve been careful not to speak for others, but the simple truth expressed by so many wonderful people I met this past weekend is that in some ways, I do.  Maybe not always, or maybe to varying degrees across a diversity of subjects, but in the fundamental sense of who we are and why we fight, those who I met told me in no uncertain terms that when I blog, I’m writing for them too.  For me, that’s a terribly humbling notion, because I’m naturally a tuna in a shark tank when around media, but the fact is that as my blog has grown, it’s become a part of the new media, and it’s time to embrace it.

In just seven weeks, this blog was born and now enjoys thousands of page-views each day.  It all started because I signed up on Facebook just twelve weeks or so ago, and began posting my thoughts there.  Slowly, people encouraged me to widen my audience with my own blog.  Martha Cano, Texas Coordinator for O4P, told me as much from the outset, but it wasn’t until a few of my Facebook notes attracted a wider audience that I conceded the point and started this site, and began blogging in earnest.  Martha was right, and Tammy is right too:  This fight we’re in isn’t for the faint of heart.  We mustn’t shy from leading, in whatever capacity we can.  If we want to see this country restored, we’re all going to need to fully engage.

On this basis, I’m going to do something I’ve not done before.  I’m going to ask you to pass my site along to others if you like it.  Some of you have been doing that faithfully from the outset.  It’s why C4P picked me up as a writer.  Some of you wanted my articles posted there, and C4P agreed.   You shouldn’t be surprised at the effect you’re having, and now, finally, neither should I.  What Tammy Bruce said to me at the Machine Shed is true, and I hope you won’t mind if I answer her call.  We simply can’t wait on the media any longer.  They either don’t “get it,” or more probably would prefer to ignore it.  We’ve got a country to restore, and it’s time we get out  there, all of us, and begin to make that case.  As if the quality of her daily radio show hadn’t been enough, this is one more reason you should listen to Tammy Bruce.  She’s right, and she knows it.  So do I.