Karl Rove appeared on Hannity on Tuesday night to deflect criticism that he’s an agent of the establishment at war with the Tea Party. I don’t buy it, and I believe his own professions in this clip should give you a sense of how he views the rank-and-file conservatives in the country. You see, he explains that it’s the goal of his “Conservative Victory Project” to support “the most conservative candidate who can win.” You may well notice that there exists a mile of wiggle-room in that statement, and it’s made from a deeply held sense of arrogance that is simply undeniable. If you watch carefully, at roughly 3:43 into the clip from Hannity’s show, as Sean asks him a question about the reaction to the Time article, you will see what “Tokyo Rove” thinks of Mark Levin, shrugging him off in derisive dismissal(screen-capture at left.) Watch the segment:
Rove attacked the motives of a wide range of people in the Tea Party movement, both in the blogosphere and in activist endeavors, as seeking some financial end. The irony of such a claim is galling. Mr. Rove insists that his new group exists to support “the most conservative candidate who can win.” This prompts a few questions in my mind, and I’d like to see them answered by Mr. Rove or any of his numerous establishment apologists:
Who decides what constitutes the “most conservative?” According to whose standard? Karl Rove’s?
Who decides who is able to win? According to whose calculations? Karl Rove’s?
What do we know about Mr. Rove’s success rate in his selections of candidates?
You see, when I answer these questions, I come to several conclusions, and none of them support Mr. Rove’s fanciful explanation on Hannity’s show. Karl Rove has shown no understanding of conservatism. His relentless appeal for immigration reform, his attacks on other conservative causes, candidates or efforts, and his involvement in the Bush administration with the passage of very liberal programs suggest to me quite strongly that Karl Rove is not an appropriate or even qualified judge of conservatism in any respect.
Since when is Mr. Rove the final arbiter on who is able to win? He told us throughout the primary season that only Romney could win, and through the general campaign that Romney would win, and that it might be a big win(though he did not quite go down the fantastic rabbit-hole with Dick Morris who predicted a Romney landslide.) Still, if 2012 is the measure of Mr. Rove’s ability to pick winners and losers, I’d say he did pretty poorly, and on his performance in 2012 measured against his own predictions and his own direction of funds, I would suggest that a blind-folded ape flipping coins could have done as well, and probably much better. For somebody who now indicates he supported Steelman in Missouri, it’s funny that he twice refers to her as “Deb,” though her name is Sarah. I can’t say it adds much to his credibility.
Hannity’s apologetic interview with Karl Rove does nothing to convince me that Rove intends anything but that which has already been said. His history of efforts against the grass-roots of the Republican Party are evidence enough for me that what he’s after is not conservatism, and certainly not victory. Translated, “the most conservative candidate who can win” means: “Vote for the people we recommend, or we’re going to destroy your candidate, depriving your candidate of just enough votes to make them lose.” It’s clear to me that Rove and his bunch would just as soon lose as have an actual conservative win office, and I’m not inclined to believe a word Mr. Whiteboard has to say in his own defense. Sure, the article at the beginning of this latest flap appeared in the New York Times, and I’m certain there’s a bias there, but it hardly excuses Rove’s past actions, and doesn’t explain away his current ones either. One of these days, conservatives will begin to catch on that an “R” following somebody’s name doesn’t necessarily imply the first damned thing about their philosophical leanings.
I’ve listened to this mewling bunch of whiners tell us they’re “one-half of one-third” until I can stand it no longer. It’s true that Obama was re-elected, and it’s true that Harry Reid still runs the Senate, but it’s also true that Republicans still control the House, and it’s about damned time they begin to behave like it. All, I repeat ALL, spending and taxing measures must originate in the House. This is no time for tears, and no situation for surrender. If we are to hold off these statist loons, we must begin now, and we must begin here, at the cliff’s edge. These slack-jawed losers-in-waiting had better understand reality, if they can see it through all of those tears: You were sent to Congress to STOP OBAMA, and I’m sick and tired of Republicans who have all the spine of overcooked spaghetti, and who will not live up to THEIR mandate. I’m not one to cast unnecessary or pointless profanity into the public sphere, but you squishy whiners in the House had better get your acts together. I have one message for House Republicans: SACK UP or GET OUT!
If you’re not willing to do the work you were elected to do, I expect you to tender your resignations now. Conservatives no longer wish to listen to the excuses. If you surrender on taxes to make a deal with Herr Obama, you will be blamed when the economy goes into recession. If you refuse, and he plunges us over this so-called “fiscal cliff,” you’ll be blamed. So be it. You’re going to be blamed either way, so you might just as well summon the testicular fortitude to do what is right and stand on a principle. My apologies to the ladies in the House Republican Caucus, but I think some of you are more capable of leading, and you’ll need to do so, because you’re surrounded by Republican eunuchs. They haven’t the equipment or the gumption to do what is needed, but a few among your number have.
You people have let this thug-in-chief control the narrative for far too long. While he and his henchmen have castigated Republicans for the alleged “war on women,” he’s been conducting a real war on America. It’s time you say so. While you permit him to get away with alleging that all of your opposition owes only to his race, you’ve let his party machine toss out one of your number who happened to be an African-American, and it’s not coincidental that none of you seem all too unhappy about it, because he dared to oppose some of your deal-making.
Back in 2011, as your so-called “speaker” was making deals with Harry and Barry behind closed doors, selling-out both principle and country, you sat on your hands and made no fuss as this entire debacle was shoved down your throats. You took it. You let it happen. You went along with it. Now, some sixteen months later, you’re surprised to find Obama still controlling the situation? If you rest on your laurels, as you did throughout the campaign season of 2012, what did you think would be the likely result? Your short-sighted deal-making of July 2011 has set this stage, and you’re to be held responsible for it.
Now the president intends to run the table on you, and your answer is “Let’s make a deal?” DEAL??? Let me tell you the real deal, and let’s make it clear: Do you remember in 2006, when you lost the House? 2014 is right around the corner, and if you don’t find your stones for this fight, you might just as well go home. In fact, why wait? If you’re unwilling to make a stand now, why don’t you simply surrender altogether? Why don’t you quit your nifty offices, with all your staff and goodies, and make a run for the border…of your home state?
This is not good enough. It’s not nearly good enough. The “fiscal cliff” is a joke. The monetary cliff is real, and the money-printing must stop, but the only way to do that is for you to put the brakes on it. ALL spending and taxing measures must originate in the House. Simply don’t originate any. Why aren’t you out in front of the White House making a spectacle? Why aren’t you down there marching and yelling? When will you learn that if you don’t have the ball anyway, you might just as well keep it in his court and let him field it? I’ll tell you why: You people have grown too comfortable, and besides, he’ll let your pet earmarks through so long as he can get his agenda into law. It’s time to set all this aside now. Where are your tears for the US Constitution, the destruction of which you are enabling?
Dare this president to spend one nickel without your authorization. Dare him to spend one cent beyond the debt ceiling. Dare him. Where is your courage? Will you stand for nothing? Will you fall for anything? When will you realize that this clown can only make traction when you let him? He is impotent if you take the purse away. Impotent. If he tries, impeach him for high crimes and misdemeanors. There’s simply no other purpose for which you exist in your offices. If you fold, there will be no coming back, and there’s no time to argue about it. If you won’t do what is necessary to preserve this union, then we must replace you. You have compromised your last if you expect to return to office in January 2015.
It’s time for Congressional Republicans to act as though they’re in charge of the House, and if they won’t stand, we must send them home. What is the point in fighting to have a majority that once installed will not fight for the principles on which it was elected to lead? Even now, Obama is trying to incite public support for his legislative tax-and-print agenda, but what is John Boehner doing?
This madness needs to end, but it won’t end until the adults in the room learn to say “no” and stick to it. Who will be the adults? It will need to be we conservatives. We conservatives need to think of this entire situation as an emergency, and as a war, but rather than become despaired at the current situation, we need to think in terms of warfare. That’s how the enemy thinks, and until we realize that it is only the outcry of we conservatives who can make these cowardly Republicans in Congress fetch some resolve, we’re going to be in for a tough time. The country is not nearly so overwhelmed as these election results might indicate if viewed only through the lenses of whining losers. We need to buck-up first, and then we need to hold Congressional Republicans’ feet to the fire, and we need to let them hear us. If we don’t do it, who will? If now is not the time to stand, when shall we?
Ted Cruz won Tuesday’s Senate run-off against Lt.Governor David Dewhurst in convincing fashion, defeating the Austin moderate by a margin of nearly ten points. That’s a stunning win given how his campaign was outspent by Dewhurst, and it speaks to the commitment of activists all across the state, and a few notable conservatives who showed up to campaign for Cruz, including Sarah Palin, and Jim DeMint, but also that big voice on the evening airwaves, Mark Levin. Tea Party Express worked tirelessly to get out the vote, and Amy Kremer must be ecstatic and exhausted. Nevertheless, Cruz must still win the general election in November, but it’s a refreshing change to see that Austin insider David Dewhurst didn’t walk away with the nomination. Texas conservatives and Tea Party patriots won a huge victory Tuesday over the Austin establishment!
Twitter was awash in comments all evening, and when various media outlets began to call the race, it was quickly a party of sorts as faithful re-Tweeters spread the word and celebrated.
“Congratulations to Ted Cruz! This is a victory both for Ted and for the grassroots Tea Party movement. This primary race has always been about the kind of leadership we need in D.C. Our goal is not just about changing the majority in the Senate. It is about the kind of leadership we want. Ted Cruz represents the kind of strong conservative leadership we want in D.C. Go-along to get-along career politicians who hew the path of least resistance are no longer acceptable at a time when our country is drowning in debt and our children’s futures are at stake. The message of this race couldn’t be clearer for the political establishment: the Tea Party is alive and well and we will not settle for business as usual. Now, it’s on to November!”
For his part, Ted Cruz thanked Governor Palin, Senator DeMint, and all of his supporters and endorsers via Twitter immediately after the race was called, and Texas conservatives were able to bask for the remainder of the evening in the warm glow of victory! Saturday, in attendance at a small, hastily assembled Cruz campaign stop in Waco, he noticed my Texas4Palin t-shirt, plastered with Cruz buttons, and he said: “Governor Palin really energizes a crowd, doesn’t she? She’s really terrific!” It was easy to see that he was thankful for her support, and appreciative of all the Texans who turned out for him at his stops around the state.
For my part, thanks to all of those who have re-tweeted my messages on Twitter in support of Ted Cruz, and thanks on behalf of a grateful state to Governor Palin, Senator DeMint, Mark Levin, Amy Kremer, and all of the others who so tirelessly labored to get our candidate the win. It’s grass-roots activism at its finest, and I have had the great privilege of helping in a cause in which we dared not fail. Thanks to the candidate himself, who ran a clean campaign in the face of withering, fraudulent attacks and dirty tricks from his opponent. Congratulations to all!
Way to go Texas! Now let’s help conservatives in other states as well!
On Friday, I drove the two-and-one-half hours from my home to the Ted Cruz rally at The Woodlands, just North of Houston. The venue was Town Green Park and the speakers included a number of Tea Party leaders, like Amy Kremer, and also Senator Jim DeMint(R-SC.) Ted Cruz gave a very encouraging, impassioned speech about what he would do if elected to the Senate, and he appropriated Barack Obama’s catch-phrase “Yes, We Can” in a little dialogue with the crowd, asking the crowd “Can we repeal Obama-care?” On cue, the crowd responded with a thundering “YES WE CAN!” Cruz exuded confidence, but the truth is that with early voting now ended, the real crunch is on from now until Tuesday to turn out the vote across Texas on his behalf. In her customary form, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin made her speech to thundering applause and enthusiastic support. It was a remarkable speech, and Palin was fiery with the energy and passion that have made her the premiere speaker in the Republican party over the last four years. Conservatives turn out for Sarah Palin, and there’s simply no escaping that fact.
(Note to GOP establishment: You may want to rethink this plan to exclude her from the convention in Tampa next month.)
I was also heartened to see so many of my friends from TxO4P on hand, including Josh Thuma, who was so enthusiastic in Indianola, Iowa last September, so it was no surprise that at The Woodlands, he followed up in similar form, waving signs and cheering-on all of the speakers. I saw Cynthia Dixon and Del Parker, and some other faces I recognized, so I decided that rather than spending my time trying to capture the event, I would simply join in the fun. It was a good time for all, and Jim DeMint gave an excellent talk about needing help in the Senate, meaning he want more constitutional conservatives. He went on to extol the virtues of Ted Cruz, introducing the candidate to great applause, and Cruz made mention of the effort to repeal Obama-care, saying he would work every day until it had been repealed, killing off the notion of replacement: “Every last word…” must be repealed, vowed Cruz. The crowd roared in approval.
Hearing the Roar
Cruz went on to introduce Governor Palin, and the crowd’s cheering was so loud from my vantage point that I couldn’t hear the first few words of her speech. As always, when Governor Palin speaks at such an event, she speaks as much for those gathered as to them. This event was no different, and she focused in particular on three themes, including the wreck Obama has made and is making of the country, and the intractability of the permanent political class in the mission to restore our constitution, and naturally, how Ted Cruz will be an important player in that fight. She mentioned that she intended to try out Chick Fil-A on her way back to the airport, and as always, Governor Palin made good on her word, later posting this on her Facebook page:
The Palins Stop at Chick Fil-A
She wore the boots Governor Perry gave her on a previous visit to the Lone Star State, saying “at least in that one case he made a good decision,” but also gently chiding Perry for his present support of David Dewhurst in the primary against Ted Cruz. She mocked Obama’s assertion of last week in Texas that he’s seeing “shades of purple,” implying that the state might one day go Democrat. With the amnesty-by-executive-order that Obama has put in place, there can be little doubt that is part of his aim. Governor Palin exhorted the crowd to not let Texas go purple or blue. Said the Governor:
“There will be an Alaskan-sized blizzard on the Brazos before Texas turns blue for Barack.”
“Damn straight.” (So said many in the crowd.) She also went after the “lap-dogs in the media practicing yellow journalism,” but then she shifted her focus to the permanent political class in Washington DC that has managed to confound some of the efforts of the Tea Party patriots who sent more conservatives to the House in 2010, managing to co-opt some of them. She was brilliantly on point as she made clear that politicians in both parties have failed to carry out their constitutional responsibilities, passing Obama-care over the objections of the American people, and failing to enact a budget in four years, but she reminded the crowd:
“There’s nothing wrong with America that a good, old-fashioned fair election can’t fix.”
She then explained that she was supporting Ted Cruz because he is a common-sense, constitutional conservative, saying “Ted Cruz represents the positive change we need.”
As has been the case at events in which Gov. Palin speaks, after the conclusion of her remarks, and to the cheering of the crowd, she and Todd went off-stage and to the rope line, where she signed autographs for a long while, and as usual, the rope-line was mobbed.
I don’t have a firm grasp on how many people were in the park for the event, but I would guess there had been well over one-thousand, perhaps closer to twice that number, despite the sweltering heat. One thing is certain: Texas really is Palin country, and all who want to support a common-sense, constitutional conservative in this election ought to follow Governor Palin’s lead. With early voting over across the Lone Star State, what remains is election day, Tuesday, 31 July. Let’s get out the vote and put Ted Cruz over the top!
The Republic that is our constitutional, representative form of government stands upon a precipice. We have a President who has undertaken to set aside the constitution at every turn. We have a Congress divided, split between a Senate controlled by a maniacal shill for the President, and a House of Representatives led(and I use that verb very loosely) by a Speaker who is unwilling to do battle with the President, unwilling to attempt even the most basic defense of our Constitution, and incapable even of holding an outrageous Attorney General to account without much hand-wringing and waffling. We have a United State Supreme Court that has most recently ruled that States have no sovereignty to speak of, and not even the authority to protect its own citizenry. We are told by the presumptive Republican nominee that he will repeal Obamacare, despite implementing a similar program in the state he governed, while his various mouthpieces talk about “replacement.”
Do you think we face long odds? Do you believe our Republic can survive or recover? The decision expected from the Supreme Court on Thursday will either re-shape our country forevermore, or allow us one more opportunity to restore it. Make no mistake about it: If the court upholds the Affordable Car Act, the Republic is dead.
I have given this a good deal of thought, busy as I have been these last two months, and as we’ve all waited to see what tomorrow will bring, I’ve decided that if the Supreme Court of the United States upholds this legislative abomination, a de facto state of war exists between the United States Federal Government and the people whose rights it had been constituted to defend. Those who will perceive this as true will be branded enemies of the state, in one fashion or another, and the decline of this Republic will accelerate at a breathtaking pace. There can be no recovery of the Republic if this law is allowed to stand, and the urgings to repeal it from we citizens, with platforms large and small, will fall on the same deaf ears that have ignored our pleas for more than two years. If this law stands, there is no constitutional, representative republic.
If the law is overturned, even then, our jeopardy will only have begun, because this President will ignore the ruling of the court, as he has done repeatedly, and as he has done remorselessly. He will attempt to impose his program anyway, and even should our milquetoast House of Representatives act to impede him, he will turn to incitement, outright. He will attempt to raise a mob, and force his will by virtue of threats and violence. He will do everything in his power, and many, many things beyond their legitimate exercise in order to create chaos. Barack Obama will not rest, and none of the looters or moochers who ride upon his coattails will allow this to be overturned. We may see what can only be termed a civil war, and it will be bloody.
This is the direction in which this nation has been lurching for generations, since the so-called “progressives” took over both parties. We have been led into a box canyon, from which none may escape unscathed. Today, idiotic former Democrat Congressman from Rhode Island, and latest family ne’er-do-well, Patrick Kennedy warned:
“If the Court upholds the law, dangerous Tea Party extremists will go on a rampage.”
We should be so lucky. The truth is that if the court upholds this law, Tea Party types will not go on a rampage, because they are not dangerous, although they probably should have been.
Rampage or not, civil war or not, this piece of legislation and all that has followed in its wake serve to demonstrate how fragile our Republic has become after a century of unceasing statist agitation. In the 1930s, we could have sustained this condition had our court exhibited such staying power as to have overturned all of the New Deal legislation, because the American people were still a moral people by a vastly overwhelming majority. By “moral,” I mean specifically in the sense that they respected the notion of property rights, the idea of self-sufficiency, and the concepts that once buttressed our constitutional foundation. Who now can claim this description would apply?
I spent most of the first decade of my adult life serving under an oath by which I swore to uphold and defend the United States Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I have never yielded on my oath, neither for comfort nor for ease; neither for the sake of a false unity nor for the sake of familial peace. Sadly, many of my countrymen no longer even understand what principles that oath had been constructed to honor, and to protect, but still, I observe it, while our Supreme Court ignores it, our President demolishes it, and our Congress abandons its defense. No branch of government seems interested in upholding it any longer, and by this procedure, they have slowly stolen our Constitution from us. Thursday, we will learn if we shall have even one more chance to resurrect our Republic, but if we are given that chance, we must neither squander it nor revel too long in our temporary reprieve. “Rampage?” Indeed, we of Tea Party orientation must rampage at the polls, where we must not permit even the most thuggish brigands of the President to deter us from our electoral duties. We must now walk back the entire statist menu, or watch our Republic perish. If the Supreme Court does not present a sentence of death, we must make the most of any temporary stay. We must undo it all, or be undone by it.
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?
It seems that there’s something wrong with this guy. Chris Rock’s hostility has always had a racial element, and his legendary rants on the subject of race have always bordered on the disturbed, but being a big Hollywood celebrity, he’s able to get away with all of this vile garbage under the heading of being a comic. I would suppose that may work if his audience thinks what he has to say is funny. Jason Mattera’s new book entitled Hollywood Hypocrites exposes some of the endless nonsense that so many of these leftists in Hollywood do, that contradicts so much of what they profess. In this case, as Breitbart.com reports, Mattera was asking Chris Rock about his statements about the Tea Party in a 2011 Esquire Magazine interview, when Rock said:
“When I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism’s almost over. Because this is the last — this is the act up before the sleep. They’re going crazy. They’re insane. You want to get rid of them — and the next thing you know, they’re fucking knocked out. And that’s what’s going on in the country right now.”
When Mattera questioned Rock about this, he reportedly grabbed the camera and hurled it some fifty feet, before threatening a fight. This isn’t sane behavior. It’s called assault. Watch the video:
This is inexcusable conduct, but be ready for the left to excuse it. They will offer reasons why Mattera shouldn’t have asked the question, or similar, but what they will not do is to openly criticize Chris Rock’s thuggish behavior. Mattera interviewed a number of Hollywood types for his book. He says there will be more footage coming. It’s long past time that somebody exposed the blatant hypocrisy in Hollywood.
Chris Rock talks about insane racism, and then puts on this display? Projection?
I’ve attached a video to this post as a reminder of the things our departed friend Andrew Breitbart had supported, because while he has passed, the movement he defended and supported goes on. The Tea Party is still here, and conservatives are still here, so why don’t we take a moment to remind ourselves of where we were just two years ago. This video went viral at the time of its initial posting on Youtube, but let us not forget this as part of our modern Tea Party heritage. It’s easy to become dispirited, and it’s easy to forget how much worse others have had it. It’s time to kick some ass, and we do so, we should remember why we fight:
It’s hard to believe the blogging giant is dead. At just 43 years of age, I cannot fathom what a loss this must be for his family. The articles I have read list only “natural causes,” but it’s still hard to imagine. The conservative firebrand, and vigorous fighter of statism will be thoroughly missed. Breitbart exemplified the indomitable spirit of conservatism, and he was a great warrior in media. This is a tragic loss. My sincerest condolences to his family. This is crushing news for conservatism, and for America. A true warrior in life, may he rest in peace.
It’s a human tendency to lose track of how valuable somebody may be to one’s life until they are gone. Andrew Breitbart’s ceaseless efforts on behalf of conservatism and America placed him high up the list of patriots in media. In the last few years, I cannot think of a single conservative in media who has made a greater concerted effort to advance the cause of liberty, by revealing it to those who would see it. More, he exposed the enemies of liberty, and the Republic, and he showed through his websites how thoroughly the liberal media establishment has undermined our nation. It’s not that Andrew Breitbart did something so stunning in a technical sense, but that the fact that he would pursue media as he did was stunning to an establishment accustomed to sweeping their own dirt under the rug.
Breitbart took all of them on. He defended the Tea Party. He exposed government lies. He did so much to advance conservatism, but more, the cause of our constitutional republic. To lose this fantastic fighter is a terrible loss for America. Like so many this morning, I am stunned. May all our thoughts and prayers be with the Breitbart family.
Andrew Breitbart 1969-2012
Let us remember him and honor him by carrying on his fight!
On Tuesday evening, Mark Levin posed a question on his radio show that bears serious consideration by we conservatives, and I think it’s time we discuss it. It’s not a matter of winning any longer, but whether we can stave off disaster. What Levin wondered aloud was whether our nation might be saved at all. He asked if it is too late, because there are too few people remaining who will oppose the advance of statism. Are we too few? Is it too late? Is the America we had known doomed? If so, what will we have instead? Our Republic stands on the brink of collapse, and the question we now face is what we can do about it. The signs are all around us: If we don’t turn things around in 2012, it may be that we never will.
Identifying the problem we face is simple, and it’s really what Alexis de Tocqueville proposed when he wrote that if the Democracy In America. Among all of the other important and prescient things he warned, these may have been the two we should have etched in stone on the steps of Congress, and on every class-room door in the country:
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
That helps to describe our predicament, and this punctuates it:
“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville
Our nation is now just more than 200 years on from the adoption of our current constitution, and it seems that the cause of Tocqueville’s warning is being realized before our eyes. Barack Obama is effectively a dictator, overturning laws by failing to enforce them, and by promulgating regulations that have no legal basis in authority under our Constitution. Our people, a majority of them, live substantially by taking from others, and those who produce their living have been indoctrinated to supine servitude. This isn’t the nation of our founding, and our current president’s enmity to the constitution to which he has sworn an oath demonstrates our dire situation. Many judges no longer see any reason to restrain themselves to the content or context of the laws on the basis of which they’re allegedly ruling, and they reach out to international case law for precedents that conflict with our own constitution. Under these conditions, our Republic cannot survive, much less flourish, and we are headed for darkness.
Part of what my professional life entails is the process of evaluating threats and vulnerabilities, and projecting organization capabilities for confronting them. Applying that technique to our current situation, for individuals who consider themselves conservative, never mind libertarian, I think we’re going to see a revolution of radical statists, and I believe this has been the aim of George Soros and his pack of radical cohorts. Our options are going to be just three, and you had better begin to consider them:
Submit – Accept the country is going to become a radical socialist state complete with a police-state front
Flee – Leave the country in search of friendly shores that will accept you
Fight – Take up arms against i, risking life, limb, and property
These aren’t pleasant options, no matter which we consider, but let’s look at them. To submit would mean to maintain immediate physical safety, but it also means giving up virtually all personal sovereignty. I’m not cut out for this option, because I’m not one who respects claims of arbitrary authority over my life, or the way in which I choose to live it. I’m not one who abides by theft, whether carried out by a hoodlum in a darkened alleyway, or in the open by a federal bureaucrat. I don’t accept the idea that my life, liberty, and property are rightly subject to the aggression of other men, whether alone, or as a mob. This means that for me, I’m not inclined to submit, but every person will be forced to make their own choices. I fear too many will lie down in order to avoid harm, because in point of fact, the last century has been a progression of this sort of incremental surrender.
I don’t wish to surrender my country. I’m not the sort to flee from tyranny, although I must admit that I’ve done so before. I live out in the country precisely because I could not abide the growing tyranny in a municipality that orders its residents to have so many shrubs, so many trees, and what sort of decorations they can place on their own properties. I could not abide it, so I moved a short way out of the city, and in a matter of a decade, that city annexed properties quickly advancing upon me. At that point, I moved my family and my horses to an even more remote locale, and set up the farm where I expect that I will find some peace for the remainder of my days. This won’t be the case, however, if the federal government becomes the sort of coercive police state that leftists desire. There will be no escape to the country, and the only choice will be to flee the country altogether.
As I’ve reported, there have been some people, including filmmaker James Cameron who have fled to New Zealand, but the problem for most of us is that few can afford that move, and countries like New Zealand are smart enough to refuse easy immigration. Where then shall we go? The geographical isolation that has served America as a protection promises to serve now as a prison. Canada? Mexico? These are our choices, and neither looks very promising to most Americans. I can’t imagine that Mexico will offer much promise, and Canada won’t absorb us all. In my view, this sort of flight isn’t feasible for me, or for most Americans, which then brings us along to the option nobody wants to consider.
Fighting a counter-revolution is a deadly affair, particularly when the power of government is in the hands of the revolutionaries. From the outset, they will have command of the entire military, the police, and indeed, the entire array of government institutions, and since the media serves the revolution in most important ways, they’ve already created a willing propaganda arm. They control the horizontal and the vertical, so communications will become an impossibility. How do you wage a war against such a force? How is it possible to win? There is a very good reason that peoples the world over flee from or submit to large scale national social tyrannies: These are easier than fighting. These pose less danger.
What sort of country have ours become that we must even consider the revolutionary tyranny that is now creeping toward us, gathering inertia? I do not wish to seem as though I’m a doomsayer, but the truth is that we’re in very real national distress. Across the vast expanses of this country, there are probably fewer than one in six who I would consider committed patriots who believe we should maintain this republic as framed by our constitution, but still fewer who are willing to fight to preserve it. I doubt we could must five million patriots who would step forward and take up arms in defense of the republic, and make war against the people who have slowly usurped our system of government.
I am not asking or urging anybody to do anything, except think. I’d like you to consider the meaning of all of these things, and what you are willing to do to preserve what we all claim to love so dearly. Is our liberty to be abandoned without a fight? Is our freedom really to be eclipsed in this generation? Why are we going on quietly about our lives? The Tea Party was launched with the intention of creating a push-back, but the Tea Party has been largely silent in the last year. The problem is that without some rallying cry, we’re sliding more quickly toward the national catastrophe that now awaits in the gaping maw of the social welfare police-state. The other problem faced by those who would be inclined to fight if it comes to it is that we don’t have a single bright line for the trigger for a fight. What is that trigger? What is the thing that if the government undertakes, we would immediately respond with war?
This reminds me of the story of Wyatt Earp standing down a mob: “Sure, you’ll get me in a rush, but who wants to be first?” This is a question nobody likes to consider, because nobody wants to be first. Perhaps that will change, and perhaps it’s not yet as bad as that implies, but at some point, we’ll reach that climax at the pace in which we’re now rushing toward tyranny. All I’m suggesting to my fellow Americans is that now is the time to think these things through. What will we do in defense of our constitution when those sworn to uphold it decide instead to set it aside? What will be that condition under which we will no longer abide the transgressions? It’s easy to make brave oaths, today in the shrinking protection our liberties provide, but if our social compact is to be dissolved, it will no longer be a matter of oaths but instead a course of actions that we must consider.
It’s impossible to argue with a straight face that there’s any real similarities between the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street, and yet that is the contention of some who allege that both are protest movements aimed at reform. If that’s the extent of their similarity, those who claim this as the basis for a relationship between the two are stuck in superficial characteristic that permit one to claim that an orange and a basketball are nearly the same. The Tea Party is predicated on the idea that the best government is that which governs least, while the Occupiers, to the degree you can discern any central agenda, are concerned only with tearing portions of the private sector down.
It doesn’t take a genius to see the dissimilarities far outweigh superficial observations, yet this is the argument you get from leftist shills. Other superficial differences include that the majority of both groups is Caucasian, and male, but in demographic terms, this is the end of similarities. The Tea Party folks are somewhat older, and somewhat more settled in life, and have already engaged in productive activities for most of their lives, while it seems Occupiers seem to be those who haven’t quite yet figured out what they want to be when they finish growing up. If that seems a bit condescending, I will confess that I’m caught, but only because that is my own observation.
The key distinction between the two groups stems from this: The Tea Party has a generic ideological and philosophical basis that its numbers understand, whereas the Occupiers seem to have a scatter-shot approach to issues, and if you examine any of them in isolation from the others, there’s no guarantee that you’ll be able to learn anything about the beliefs of the group, except perhaps that they all think they deserve something, somehow provided by others. They want their student loans forgiven, or they want banks closed down, or they want capitalism brought to heel under the boot of statism. They abhor globalization, but simultaneously say they’re in favor of free trade. They say they want opportunities, but they have squandered many by their own admissions.
In short, while it’s quite easy to make out what the Tea Party wants, it’s no so easy to understand anything about the Occupiers’ demands, because theirs are a moving target, and they seem to modify them daily. They have no electoral agenda, except perhaps that they generically favor Obama, but none of them can tell you why with any sort of conviction. In all, I find it odd that anybody would take serious such a comparison, until you understand how thoroughly the Occupiers failed. They were ginned up to be the left’s answer to the Tea Party, but as the record shows, their behavior in public and private spaces brought them no shortage of negative coverage. It’s so bad that they don’t even bother pretending there is a degree of moral superiority as occurred at the outset, but instead seek to improve their position by the comparison, attaching themselves to Tea Party by way of false claims of similar purpose.
Of course, now that they’ve seen how badly they’ve been received by the American people, a number of Occupiers are now, belatedly joining in on the anti-Obama bandwagon. As Yahoo reported, Obama has brought the two groups together, but only because increasingly, both are now opposing him. Even in this, however, they’re not really together, as the demands of Occupiers seems to be for the President to move even further left. Clearly, that’s not a message the Tea Party will endorse. It’s simply not true to say that the two groups are similar, and even the Yahoo article goes on to admit that this is the case. Still, it’s interesting to watch the purveyors of leftwing propaganda try to paint the Occupy Wall Street movement as a younger, grungier Tea Party, but until its members learn how to find jobs and pay their own bills, never mind bath, it’s going to remain a hard sell.
Many “Palinistas” and many conservatives in general are wondering what former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will say when she delivers the keynote address on Saturday, the final day of the CPAC conference in Washington DC. There’s no way of knowing in advance but as with any such appearance by Governor Palin, I expect she’ll offer further insight into the 2012 election cycle, and almost certainly will “rally the troops.” I think most are waiting to see what she’ll say, and whether they’re establishment wing of the GOP, or grass-roots conservative activists, you can bet that they will want to know her thoughts on virtually anything about which she’s willing to speak. As with any event at which she speaks, there will be people coming in from all over the country to hear her, and a little birdy at CPAC has already told me there is a bit of a buzz in expectation.
What Governor Palin offers that draws such crowds (to the chagrin and despair of the GOP establishment and the leftist media respectively,) is her plainspoken approach to identifying the problems our nation faces, and the facts that are inescapable about our current plight. She is not merely a doomsayer, however, as she offers concise solution sets for addressing our problems, generally to an audience of grass-roots folk who are anxious to see the implementation of the sorts of reforms she advocates. One could scarcely imagine a presentation in which she would not offer ideas about the way forward, but not only for conservatives, but also for the whole body of the American people.
Since her announcement of October 5th on Mark Levin’s show that she was not going to be seeking the Republican nomination “at this time,” many held onto hopes that she would later enter the race. In the intervening period, she has made frequent appearances on FoxNews as a contributor, including during primary and caucus coverage in the early states. In recent weeks, she has taken the position that she would like to see the primary process continue, because she believed that there was still a good deal of vetting left to do. As part of that strategy, she said if she were a South Carolina voter, she would vote for Newt Gingrich, and this seemed to have some effect as Tea Party folk turned out for Gingrich in overwhelming numbers despite the scorched-earth campaign of Mitt Romney in a state where the supposed Tea Party-favored governor had endorsed and was stumping with Romney.
To many in the GOP establishment, Palin is a thorn in their sides. They realize that her populist streak actually makes of her a threat to the status quo they enjoy. What she will say on Saturday, whatever its content, is sure to have an effect on the election cycle of 2012, if only because so many conservatives seem to key on her for direction. Among grass-roots activists, she is able to fire them up and she brings an enthusiasm to such events born of her optimism about America. When she speaks of America and Americans, it seems always to be informed by her own love of both, and her devotion to the country her own children will inherit.
I know there will be Americans who will view the CPAC keynote with an abiding interest in what Governor Palin will say, and in the way she will say it. She has a flair for turning phrases that will permeate the blogosphere, and that will rebound for weeks or months through social media, in a sort of long-lasting echo carried by those who admire her commitment to the country’s future. Some “Palinistas” are having viewing parties, frequently virtual, but all in the spirit of hearing her message and carrying it forward. As an observer of social media, it is always amazing to see how many people become thoroughly energized and invigorated in the political sphere in the wake of one of her major speeches.
Saturday will be a fascinating day if only to watch the growing buzz around Governor Palin’s speech, but conservatives will be most interested in the content of her address. She is scheduled to speak at 4:30 Eastern, or 1:30 Pacific. CPAC is scheduled to be televised on C-SPAN, and the live stream on CPAC.org should be active. Whatever she offers Saturday, it will likely cause a stir simply because the conservative movement simply cannot get enough of Palin’s common sense applications of conservative ideas.
Note: If you’re a Tammy Bruce subscriber, she’s posted that the TAMChat will be open during the speech. These sorts of virtual viewing parties are springing up all over the Internet.
At least she wasn’t ranting and raving, quite. I think Ann has lost the last shred of her rapidly declining credibility. Her littany is exhausting:
Romney is “conservative.” Newt isn’t electable. Obama is “personally charming.” Tea Party is a bunch of “utter hypocrites” for supporting Newt. The “era of Rockefeller Republicans is over.”
Oh, and again: “Romney is the most conservative….”
I know that for some, this will strike some as a contradictory note compared with what I wrote on Tuesday evening, but it’s not if you’re reading carefully. On Tuesday evening, what I told you is that Floridians just voted to re-elect Obama, and I firmly believe that. The problem is, Florida is an important state, but it’s hardly the be-all, end-all the Republican establishment will spend the next several weeks pretending it had been. My post on Florida of Tuesday evening should serve as a warning to others, who hold strong conservative and Tea Party values: I believe 2012 will be a watershed year, and the identity of the Republican party’s nominee will define the election. If we select a conservative who voters can differentiate substantially from Obama on the most important issues of our time, we can win. If we vote a barely-right-of-Obama candidate, who has similar big government leanings, we will lose, and we may well lose the House, never mind regaining the Senate, but what I need you to understand is that this contest is not yet over.
I’ve explained at length all the reasons Romney can’t win, and I’m certain most readers here can tick them off like a shopping list of items, but by now, we all realize that one thing militates against a Romney victory more than any other: Romney-care. It’s effectively the ultimate death-knell of his campaign, and he can’t use it in the general, which is why he’s using it in the primary. In the general campaign, Obama will absolutely slay Romney with his pathetic “states’ rights” argument, because in truth, even Obama knows that’s nothing but a useless dodge. Don’t misunderstand: Obama is fine with Romney-care – it served as the model for his own healthcare reform – but he knows Romney can’t speak of it without doing damage to himself minimally equal to any he might inflict on Obama.
Can Romney claim “Obamacare will bankrupt the nation?” He can’t if he wants to avoid Obama reminding voters that Romney’s own program is bankrupting Massachusetts already. Obama will say his is different enough to bankrupt the nation, and of course, he will use the claims of “social justice” and “civil rights” in opposition to the “states’ rights” argument. In truth, I can’t imagine how Romney doesn’t wind up yielding on this issue. I can’t see how he presses it, and frankly, I can also see Obama attacking his position on repeal, which may not help Obama with independents, but it will be his rallying cry to his base. He will dangle the carrott of its benefits before the eyes of his supporters, while whipping them with the stick of Romney’s promised repeal, and there Romney will stand, flat-footed, neither able to respond in defense or in counterattack, neutered forevermore on the subject.
I keep stressing these points because what you must know is that Florida can still be the aberration and not the trend-setter. One of the problems we face is turn-out in the coming primaries and caucuses, because Obama’s goons have nothing better to do than to give us our candidate. In Florida, it was largely Broward and Dade counties that gave Romney his margin of victory, and this should tell you everything: Those are overwhelmingly Democrat-heavy counties, and that Romney did so well in them offers you a clue as to the real identity of many Romney voters there. You can be assured that a large number of Democrats cross-registered so they could vote in the Republican primary, since they already know who their own nominee will be.
Here I sit in Texas, and as anecdotal as it may seem, I know several hundred people here well enough to know where they stand at the moment on the primary race, and what I can tell you is this: I don’t know a soul among them who wants Romney. Ron Paul? Sure, a few dozen. Rick Santorum? A few dozen more. Newt Gingrich? He has a commanding lead among the Republicans I know, but among Democrats, and left-leaning independents, the answer is unanimous: Romney. Some of them have already told me they have registered last year as Republicans so they could vote Romney in the primary. It’s the plan, you see.
The only way to overcome all of this is for conservatives and Tea Party folk to unite and overcome Romney. Florida’s result need only be as meaningful as you allow. It needn’t be a trend-setter. As I’ve explained at length, I don’t believe Romney can win in November, but there is still plenty of time to prevent that from being our sole choice. Romney isn’t a winning campaigner, and while any who oppose him must overcome his bankroll, as I explained on Tuesday, that needn’t be the driving force. It’s now up to you: Lose with Romney or win with a conservative(or at least such reasonable facsimile as we can muster.) Mitt’s not inevitable just yet.
On November 7th, when we look back on the Florida primary, it will be in knowing recognition that today may have been the day on which the die was cast. We will cry over our breakfast plates, and Barack Obama will come to rule with an iron fist, unrestrained by worries over future electoral defeat. The fact that none will consider as they vote for Romney on the phony basis of his alleged “electability” is that he cannot and will not defeat Barack Obama for a number of important reasons, and while this fact is well-known to those who support him, that’s simply part of the plan. The dirty secret of the Republican establishment is that they don’t want Obama-care repealed, because for two years at least, they’ve been figuring out how to profit from it.
Obama-care is the issue Mitt Romney is unable to address, and without it he will have nothing, because the leftist administration now in power is rigging the statistics, and pushing cash into the market in order to help people feel more comfortable and not so thoroughly inclined to oust Barack Obama in November. In short, they’re placing camouflage over their failures, because they just need to hang on through re-election, and then the true crises will begin. If Obama is re-elected, America as you have known it is over, but the dirty secret is that Romney will not make more than a token challenge to him. He will not outspend Obama five-to-one in any way like he has done in Florida in pursuit of the nomination. He will not have the resources, and you can expect his SuperPAC funds to become more skimpy once he clears the convention.
This is because the core of Romney’s support in this primary season are liberals in Republican clothing, who do not wish to repeal Obama-care. It’s part of the progressive vision to which they adhere, but more importantly for them, it’s going to be a profit center. The GOP establishment is filled with heavy-hitters who will get all sorts of government contracts in the short run to help run the health-care exchanges at the state level, and will be among those who profit most from Obama-cares implementation. Obama bought them off, if you’ll remember, during all of those closed-door meetings with medical and pharmaceutical companies, and a few information technology companies too. If you thought the people in league with Obama-care are all Democrats, you’re in for a shock. No, the establishment wing of the GOP is waiting in the wings to cash in, and they already are so doing. You wonder why they want Obama-care? Examine where so many implementation dollars are now going.
This is the problem with Romney, when you boil it all down, and apart from the fact that he’s not supposed to win, there is the problem that he cannot. The one issue on which a wide majority of Americans agree is Obama-care, but this is the issue he will yield, because of Romney-care. This is thoroughly damning to Romney’s campaign, but we will not confront the fact that without this issue, Republicans cannot win in 2012. Mitt Romney cannot motivate the base, and they already know that. The Tea Party will not hold its collective nose in 2012, and the establishment already knows this. If the GOP had wanted to win, they would have selected almost anybody else. No. Anybody else will not be beholden to the establishment, and will not easily do its bidding. What do these masters of the party desire? Power and money. That’s power over you, and thereby the control over your money.
The biggest smiles on this last day of January 2012 will not be at Romney’s campaign headquarters, nor even in Obama’s, although they’ll be grinning from ear to ear in both. Instead, the smiles will be widest in the halls of the establishment’s seat of power. Obama-care will go forward along with its namesake, and this will permit the final undoing of America, and if you don’t like me pointing it out, you may be part of the problem.
I’ve heard it said at least one-thousand times in the last six months from various sources, day in, and day out, that we must support the Republican nominee whomever it is. I’ve expressed to you my general misgivings about this thesis, but were I to accept it, and follow along, having watched the behavior of the GOP establishment over the last two weeks, I am now beginning to wonder: If a non-establishment candidate were to prevail and win the nomination, how would the establishment behave? I realize they would make a show of supporting the nominee, but remembering what was done by Romney’s crowd in 2008, I have no confidence that they would reciprocate in earnest. So my question for the GOP insiders, and for you my readers is this: If somebody other than Mitt Romney wins the nomination, will you fight for that nominee as diligently as you would fight for Mitt?
I realize there are those in media who hate this entire line of discussion, but when I think about what has been done to Allen West by the machine in Florida through aggressive redistricting, I can’t help but wonder how serious the commitment is among establishment Republicans to do as they say we should do in supporting the nominee of the party. I know there exists an element within the GOP establishment that doesn’t mind losing, and won’t mind if we go down to defeat, for various reasons of their own nefarious intentions. There’s substantial evidence that they’ve sabotaged us before.
We are told we should support the GOP nominee, those of us who are of the grass-roots, either as part of the conservative base, or the Tea Party crowd, and we’re told we shouldn’t hold a grudge or seek to punish the establishment as they circle their own wagons and seek to close us out. I don’t know if I can agree with this thinking, because I know as with any wayward child who thinks he’s in charge, you must occasionally deliver the punishment or your threat to do so loses all credibility. I realize that there is a great force against this sort of thinking, and I hope not to have need to consider it, but I’m one who will not take this off the table.
With the ridiculous behavior of the establishment in this campaign season, particularly over the last two week, I think we should always bear this option in mind even if we would rather not exercise it. With all due respect to those who think this is the topic we must not mention, I believe if we are to ever take back our party, we must consider it in earnest. I’ve heard commentaries in which there is a frantic insistence that the willingness to withhold one’s vote in the general election over the ascension of another GOP establishment nominee would merely constitute a vote for Obama, and yes, I’ve been castigated here for mentioning the idea, but I must tell you that this is not the case. One of the things I’ve heard repeatedly is that we shouldn’t withhold our votes out of some sense of our own moral consistency, but that too is nonsense.
Where is the morality consistency of those who say Obama must go, but would put up another GOP establishment flunky? Where is it? If they know the base may abandon them, why do they insist on shafting us with Romney anyway? Those of you who believe you will be able to motivate the base to support Romney with sufficient diligence and vigor to defeat Barack Obama are every bit as mistaken as those who believed the same about McCain in 2008. Meanwhile, we must ask the establishment: “Will you support the nominee even if it’s not your guy for a change?” The media loves to ask conservatives and Tea Party folk this question, but you won’t see them ask it of Norm Coleman, or Ann Coulter, or Chris Christie. They won’t. You have every right to wonder why.
The media is so completely in the tank for Romney in Florida that I must admit I have never seen anything like this in a GOP primary. Certainly, we have seen it in a general election, as we need go no further than 2008 to see these tactics being used, but this time, the Republican establishment is pulling out all the stops while rank and file conservatives and Tea Party folk are fighting for their survival. Make no mistake about it, ladies and gentlemen, as more is at stake in Florida than the Republican nomination. If the establishment is able to push or drag their boy Mitt over the finish line, they will claim “it’s all over” and that the Tea Party and the conservative base of the party is irrelevant. If you haven’t noticed already, all of this is being pushed by insiders who want to retain the control of the party, and to wrest it from you.
I realize that as Sarah Palin pointed out recently, Newt Gingrich is a “flawed vessel” like any of them, but the truth is that at the moment, he is the only hope for staving off a Romney victory, and while I don’t usually make a vote with a negative end in mind, this may be one of those exceptional cases when the alternative is worse. For that reason, and that reason alone, I am asking Floridians to consider what will become of their Tea Party and their conservative values if Mitt Romney prevails. How will you have a seat at the table if the establishment can claim you hadn’t been relevant in victory or defeat. You scared the living daylights out of them in South Carolina, because in the space of four days, your brethren to the North rose up and told the establishment to pound sand.
In Florida, where sand is in plentiful supply, Floridian conservatives and Tea Party folk shouldn’t hesitate to tell Romney and his dirty-tricksters to pound it. Mark Levin pointed out the problematic revelations this week has raised about Mitt Romney’s character. You deserve a seat at the table, and the fact that Romney has been actively and purposefully ignoring you should say everything about his intentions that needs to be said. I know some of you are leaning toward Santorum or Paul, and I understand your basic objections to what I’m proposing, because in fact I share similar reservations, but unless you want a Romney victory in your state to be used to justify the contention that conservatives and Tea Party folk no longer matter, I don’t see a choice. You must make a stand, if not for Gingrich, then at the very least against the establishment in this winner-take-all primary in which your voice as conservatives is truly at stake.
In another setback in relations between Mitt Romney and Tea Party folk, news now comes from Florida that a coalition of Tea Partiers has endorsed Newt Gingrich, first to beat Mitt Romney, and then to beat Barack Obama in November. This is another repudiation of Mitt Romney among Tea Party patriots, and it’s important to note that Mitt has largely brought this on himself. A candidate seeking the GOP nomination simply cannot afford to belittle, disparage, or ignore the Tea Party. They are a bold and refreshing, rejuvenating segment of the conservative electorate, and it’s been clear all along that Romney has been ignoring them at his own electoral peril. On Tuesday, we’ll get some indication of their relative electoral strength in Florida, but indications are that Tea Party folk are tending to break in Gingrich’s favor, much as was the case in South Carolina one week ago. It’s tight, but we’ll know for sure Tuesday evening.
As we’ve known for some time, Mitt Romney hasn’t exactly been courting Tea Party support, and Florida’s primary campaign trail is no different. According to Investors Business Daily, Romney has basically ceded the Tea Party support to his competitors. I don’t understand what sort of winning campaign strategy sets out to ignore what may be one-third or more of the electorate. Romney has never been a favorite among Tea Party folk, but it seems foolish to ignore such a large segment of Florida’s voters. Romney is currently leading in Florida, but what is remarkable is the question of “how,” if he is going to ignore the Tea Party. From the IBD article:
“Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Gary Johnson have reached out to us, but not the Romney campaign,” said Everett Wilkinson, chairman of the South Florida Tea Party. “I’ve had someone in my organization dedicated to working with the Romney campaign, but we have not heard back.”
Meanwhile, another Florida Tea Party group has apparently endorsed Gingrich. This doesn’t bode well for the candidacy of Mitt Romney. If he continues to willfully ignore Tea Party folk, not just in Florida, but around the country, even if he wins the nomination, you must ask yourself: What is he really winning? If winning the nomination comes at any cost, but he’s not willing to talk to the Tea Party patriots, what attention will he pay them if he managed to get elected as President?
The Tea Party patriots in this country seem to be wising up to the fact that Romney’s strategy is to win without them. There’s only one or two reasons to do so, and one of them is to avoid an association with Tea Party in a general election campaign, and the other is to be able to deal them out if he should manage to prevail. In other words, folks, he’s either embarrassed to be seen with you, or he has no intention of letting you have a seat at the table if he becomes president. Or both!
We all know Mitt looks down his nose at Tea Party and conservatives. It’s the nature of the beast. He’s an establishment guy, and they really just don’t like the Tea Party. There’s no reason Tea Party should like him.
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.
It’s beginning. Florida’s grass-roots Republicans and Tea Party folk have begun to figure out what is going on with the GOP establishment, and as the fact-checking and refutations of the Romney machine begin in earnest, the question is now: Do they have enough remaining time to turn the corner? With just four days until the Florida primary, there’s a new sense of outrage among conservatives who believe they’re being snookered by Romney, and all his various and sundry surrogates in the establishment and in media. There’s no doubt but that Gingrich has been set up again this week, and the base of the party is sensing it too, and reacting vociferously against it.
Nobody likes to lose, but to be sabotaged by one’s alleged allies is something else again, and to be undercut by one’s own party is simply no longer acceptable. The base of the party is getting the word out via Twitter and Facebook and email, and almost any form of social media. You can observe the disgust that characterizes their messages, as they explain how they will refuse to be manipulated in this way. Here’s a sample from Twitter:
Pointing out the obnoxious hypocrisy of Romney in castigating Gingrich over retail politics Thursday night:
@byronyork: Romney tells FL space coast crowd he’ll consult really smart people and come up with a mission for the space program.
Then a word on the change of support by the Latino community:
@maxcua: Mark Levin: Looks Like The Entire GOP Establishment Is Out To Stop Newt = 100% w/ NEWT fb.me/LinmdEaL
Of course, this is just a small sample, and if you use Twitter, you’ll quickly discover that there’s a revolt against the GOP establishment brewing. This is the only hope we have, and I’d urge all of those of you who use twitter to do the same. If you have contacts in Florida, they need to know the truth, and it’s up to you to deliver it, because we already know the media will not.
Matt Drudge is making a lot of hay over Gingrich’s alleged anti-Reagan speech, that we know know wasn’t, and he’s clearly sympathetic to Mitt Romney, but why is it that conservatives are reacting badly against this? The answer is simpler than most will admit, and it comes down to just two things. First, the conservative base and Tea Party folk in the GOP are beginning to doubt media altogether, and they’re seeing through the obvious anti-Gingrich bias, but more importantly, I believe it comes down to this more than any other thing: They are sick to death of the media and the GOP establishment selecting the Republican nominee. I think this explains everything you need to know why conservatives and Tea Party folk look at these exaggerated, out-of-context headlines and stories, and just say “No.”
If you wish to know how dishonest Matt Drudge has been on this story, up in the top-left of his site all morning Thursday were three stories agitating against Gingrich’s alleged anti-Reagan sentiments, but the third of these, from 1988, has already been debunked. Why didn’t Drudge take this down? No, he waited until it was thoroughly debunked, but the damage of the lie was done. He left it up in exactly the same way he allowed his anti-Newt stories of last Wednesday and Thursday to remain up most of the day, despite the fact that it had been revealed most were over-hyped re-hashings of old stories. Drudge has relocated this a bit, but this is how it appeared just more than an hour ago:
How do I know this is dishonest? The link to the video is a Youtube link to a highly edited clip, taken out of context, and therefore made to look as though Gingrich was anti-Reagan. When you watch the whole video selection, in its complete context, the lie becomes obvious. Drudge is doing this purposefully, and if he will lie to you in this instance, there is no doubt he will lie to you in others. I don’t really care what his motive is, or why he’s doing it. This moved his recent activities from “suspicious” in my view, to reprehensible. Thanks to Dan Riehl for exposing the truth, and providing a link to the original, full-length C-SPAN video, with the interesting portion beginning around 2:30.
Limbaugh talked about this extensively on his show today, saying the following, among other things:
“It was everything you wish was happening today, is all I can tell you. It was everything you wish the entire Republican Party was doing today. It was led by Newt Gingrich, and what was he doing? He was defending Reagan. Now, all of this stuff that hit Drudge and everywhere else last night about Newt telling everybody the country goes to hell if they continue Reaganism and that Newt insulted Reagan and that the Reagan administration failed and Iran-Contra… I never heard any of that. I started doing this particular program in Sacramento in 1984, and I was just as immersed in national politics then as I am now, and I could honestly tell you this.”
There’s a reason Rush can’t remember it the way Drudge is broadcasting it: It didn’t happen the way Drudge’s site would lead you to believe, and this is simply a desperately disgusting attempt to do to Gingrich what has been done to others with the distortions. A year ago, if you had told me Drudge did things this way, I would have scoffed at it, but now…
I’m clearly coming to see Drudge in a different light.
I realize that many people have many reasons to be unhappy with Gingrich on one issue or another, and I’m inclined to be annoyed with him too, but this has gone too far, in my view, and I’m not inclined to suffer it any longer. If Drudge is going to be a media participant in this smear-fest, let him, but I won’t be adding much to his page-view statistics any longer.
The simple truth is that American conservatives and Tea Party folk are tired of the media and the GOP establishment leading them around by the noses. It’s not that people are so infatuated with Gingrich so much as it is that they are disgusted by these tactics, and they’re simply disenchanted with the GOP establishment controlling the outcome of our primary system.
I want to take a moment to address in more detail that which I have watched from afar, and only commented on briefly as what had been more or less a bullet point in a larger story, but if you really want to know what elevated Newt Gingrich to a runaway victory in South Carolina, it goes back to one moment. Although she appears on Fox News regularly, particularly now that the primary season has begun, Governor Sarah Palin’s hat-tip to Gingrich on Sean Hannity’s television show was the key moment. Looking at the polling data, it was clear that Gingrich’s big night in the Fox News debate on Monday cracked the door open, but when Palin declared to Hannity that she would vote for Gingrich were she a voter in South Carolina, that little mention, surely not a full endorsement, shoved open the door and sent many thousands of the Mama Grizzly’s most ardent supporters and friends out in the pursuit of that end. If you had wondered what a Palin campaign might have resembled, you have witnessed now only a sample.
In an effort made of devoted pursuit, across South Carolina, Tea Party members heard Palin’s words as the signal, and to the polls they went and beat back Mitt Romney, by lifting up Gingrich. The breaking of the news of an ongoing struggle inside ABC’s executive suites over the Marianne Gingrich story was launched with the intent of arresting this movement, the idea being to head it off quickly. A story that had been intended to destroy Gingrich in the last moments of the week(despite the official story at ABC,) was instead brought into the light and exposed for the slimy bit of manipulation it had been.
Across the Internet, people dug through old stories, and dug up old information, and before the story had festered six hours, it was already being put directly to bed. ABC moved it up, first to Friday night, and then to Thursday, but the obvious nature of the ploy was something that the Tea Party, and particularly those known as “Palinistas,” had seen and witnessed many times before. Repeatedly, over the last three and one-half years, supporters of Palin have watched as similar attacks were launched in Palin’s direction, but with much less scandal behind it. Part of the scheme they had learned to notice had been the way timing was always employed to maximum effect. None who saw the flashing light on Drudge Wednesday evening had any illusion about the nature of the attack.
On Thursday morning, when Rick Perry announced the suspension of his campaign, he made a powerful statement about the fallibility of all mankind and the redemption possible to any who seek it. He stepped forward boldly, in the midst of the continuing theme of attack against Gingrich, and endorsed the former Speaker of the House in spite of the media. This small moment of confirmation made it clear to many who followed his speech that he was clearly rejecting the media narrative and timing. A little while later, Governor Palin tweeted her respect and admiration for Rick Perry’s patriotic message, and this served as confirmation to many that the Newt train would leave the station on schedule. After that, almost nothing else mattered except for Gingrich’s own rebuke of the media on Thursday night, so that when the interview aired of Marianne Gingrich, the few who sat through it were Romney supporters looking for a new source of dirt.
While all of this went on, through the night and into the morning, Tea Party folks in South Carolina rose to make a stand. They began to volunteer for Gingrich, and they got out the vote for him in epic fashion. One could hear the faint echos of the roar drifting down from Wasilla, Alaska, but more importantly, one could see it in the frenzy of activity around Gingrich’s campaign operation. There was only one source of this momentous surge, and Gingrich acknowledged it thankfully, and well he should have, because while he might have managed a victory without Palin’s shout-out, the truth is that he would never have accomplished it under such a withering and well-timed assault without all of the Palinistas and Tea Party folk who responded to her call. Seven in ten people who voted for Gingrich said they were Tea Party, or Tea Party-aligned. As Romney campaigned, mostly ignoring the Tea Party, Palin’s small hat-tip in Newt’s direction sealed the fate of the Mittster.
The injection of this sort of impetus into a race is almost unprecedented, but for her own previous engagements. Her ability to guide and shape the outcome is a phenomenon of which every other politician in the country is now unhappily aware. They saw the effectiveness of her campaigning and endorsements in 2010, and they noticed that she carries elections at least twice as often as she doesn’t, even in tough regions. They also know now the terrible force of her slimmest positive mention in favor of their rivals. What this points out most of all, however, is how quickly the Palin-inclined Tea Party can muster when they see a clear choice. Palin simply provides the clarity, and since they know her record of earnest reform, they tend to give greater weight to her judgments.
There is one more thing about all of this that I haven’t seen mentioned, but it’s noteworthy, and I offer it to you as evidence of my thesis: I believe that even at this late date, if the Mama Grizzly decided to do her own roaring, she would quickly dominate the field. I know that’s wishful thinking, and I realize the likelihood is something less than the discovery of a warm personality in Mitt Romney’s suit, but it bears repeating outside the confines of my narrow skull. The effective nature of Palin’s influence in South Carolina should offer you a hint of what she could bring to bear on this or any campaign, and I look forward to seeing her in full support of the growth of the House majority, and the overturning of the Senate, but most of all her committed and forceful leadership in the matter of “sudden and relentless reform.” Our country desperately needs it, and even if she will not have seek an office, her leadership will be needed more than ever. In Washington, they’re fearful, and the GOP and media elite are listening intently for the sound they dread, should the Mama Grizzly begin again to roar.
Another so-called conservative lost her mind in public again today, this time on Fox and Friends. It’s funny to see Ann Coulter attempt to pass herself off as a mainstream Republican. In New York, maybe. She puts forward a pair of contradictory premises. On the one hand, she says that the voters who Republicans need to attract for the general election are those who trend more to the center, or even a little left, but on that basis, Gingrich isn’t the best choice. Then she attacks Gingrich for being to the left of Romney. The fact that Coulter can’t see this contradiction before she proposes it is all the evidence you need to know that she has now become completely unhinged.
The war against Newt continues to escalate. The GOP establishment is clearly terrified. Here’s the video:
The fact that Coulter dismisses the plurality of the South Carolina electorate who voted for Newt, or the vast majority that didn’t support her guy, Mitt Romney, is a key to understanding that Coulter has now left us. I’m certain there will be future instances in which she will say something conservatives and Tea Party folks like, but in the main, Coulter has demonstrated repeatedly throughout the last year that she is now irrevocably committed to the GOP establishment. She’s grown comfortable among them, and is now one of theirs. Of course, as she offers you her contradictory premises, she assumes you’re too stupid to notice, so her dismissal of conservatives is not surprising.
