Posted by Brian
THIS SHOULD GO VIRAL!
Republican Senator Elbert Guillory, who recently switched from the Democrat Party to the GOP, articulates in just over four minutes, better than anyone I have heard in recent memory, conservative Republican core principles, and why he became a Republican.
If only our Republican leadership understood the core principles of conservatism as well Mr. Guillory.
Powerful in its simplicity and elegance!
Louisiana Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) explains why he recently switched from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party. He discusses the history of the Republican Party, founded as an Abolitionist Movement in 1854. Guillory talks about how the welfare state is only a mechanism for politicians to control the black community.
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
6/17/2013
2/09/2013
'Tokyo' Rove: Undermining the Tea Party, Conservative Movement
Posted by Brian
Karl Rove Is Not The Solution. He is Part of the Problem
"The Architect"?
Karl Rove may have received more mileage out of two razor thin George W. Bush victories than anyone else in the political "elite". Dubbed "the Architect", (1)Rove's leading of W's 2000 campaign narrowly defeated the true nutjob, Al Gore, with 271 electoral votes, while losing the popular vote. AND, it took Gore losing his home state of Tennessee for Bush to get to 271!
In 2004, Bush likewise beat the most left-leaning candidate the Dems had put forward yet, John Kerry, with a mere 51% of the vote. Again, it took something extraordinary for Bush to get the victory. This time it was a group of Vietnam Vets, former swift boat colleagues of Kerry, who challenged claims of heroism and honorable military service made by John Kerry, which derailed the challenger.
Keep in mind that Rove had predicted that Bush would defeat Gore with over 320 electoral votes, and that California was actually in play for Bush. Rove wasn't even close on either prediction.
Rove's record as a strategist since then has not only been less that brilliant. It's been abysmal.
In 2006 Rove predicted that Republicans would control both the House and the Senate. The results? Republican lost 31 seats in the House, going from a 232-202 majority to a 233-202 minority. In the Senate, Republicans lost 6 seats, going from a 55 vote majority, to a 49 seat minority. In addition, Republicans lost 6 Governorships, and 300 seats in state legislatures.
The Trashing Christine O'Donnell
In 2010, Rove had landed a job on Fox News for his "'expert" analysis of politics. Conservative Americans were awake. A grassroots movement of conservatives had risen across the country, resulting in the Tea Party. Tea Party-backed candidates across the country were defeating GOP incumbents all across the country, replacing them with fiscally and socially conservative/libertarian candidates. One such Tea Party candidate was Christine O'Donnell of Delaware. Fresh off a primary victory over her long-time establishment RINO opponent Mike Castle, her victory party was pissed on by Karl Rove. Rove, appearing on Hannity(video here) to discuss the night's primary results, launched into a vicious assault on Christine O'Donnell. Calling her "nutty", and accusing her of having a "checkered background", Rove told viewers that he was "not frankly impressed with her as a candidate", that she had "mislead voters", and "this is a race we are not going to be able to win". O'Donnell's primary night victory was the high point of her candidacy, and she never recovered from the attack. Rove had ensured an O'Donnell defeat in the General election. This, despite the fact her opponent had once claimed he was a socialist. Mission accomplished, "Turd-blossom"!
2012: Rove Candidates Fail on an Epic Scale
Election night 2012 was the night that the wheels came off, and Karl Rove was exposed, once again, for his complete ineptitude in picking winners and losers. Karl Rove and his 'American Crossroads' Super Pac spent $400 million on "the most conservative candidates that could win". How did he do? He had a 1% success rate! Throwing darts at a wall of names while blindfolded would yield a higher success rate.
(2)Juxtapose his "success" with Sarah Palin, who endorsed conservative candidates in the primaries without throwing in the disclaimer, "that could win". Some she endorsed through Twitter and Facebook. Some of her picks, like Senator Ted Cruz, were trailing significantly. Her litmus test? That the candidate was conservative. Period! Her success rate. Seventy-five percent!
Who's the Wizard?
Deflecting Criticism: Attacking the Tea Party
Karl Rove despises the Tea Party. He won't come out and say it. His actions and how he spends his money belie the facts, though. Like every other Washington, DC, inside-the-beltway establishment Republican, for Rove the Tea Party represents a danger to their power and influence. Members of the Tea Party and their candidates have a distrust of the Washington, DC political class, and reject the GOP's "bend over and grab the ankles" approach to dealing with a Democrat Party that more closely resembles a Stalinist politburo than the party of Harry Truman. When there are statists like Barack Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer pushing an agenda with no regard for the Constitution, or the American People's liberty, you're damn right we want "representation" from conservatives who have the backbone to stand up and say not only "no", but "hell no".
Karl Rove represents those ilk of politicians who, for the sake of have "better numbers", lead us down a path of slow motion national suicide. Having the numbers doesn't mean bupkus if compromise is defined as not moving as far to the left as they wanted us to. At the end of the day, you've moved closer to what they ultimately desire, and a "new" center is defined.
Rove and Reagan
Karl Rove's latest attempt to burnish his "conservative credentials" is to claim that he worked on the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign. According to Rove, he "was the director of the Texas campaign for Ronald Reagan in the fall of 1980 and was appointed to the White House Fellows selection panel". Uh, no. (3)According to those who were there, and can document it, he didn't. Radio host Mark Levin who did work on the 1980 campaign, and served in the Reagan Administration for eight years, does not remember Rove at all. Author Craig Shirley, who authored "Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America", which details Reagan's 1980 campaign, also disputes Rove's claim of working on the Reagan campaign, while also noting the following:
Karl Rove has been exposed. He is not this supposed political savant and guru. In fact, his record is spotty, at best. It is also being learned that he is not above stretching the truth as to his record and inside knowledge of the political winds, in order to maintain his facade of being a political boy wonder. The curtain has been pulled back on the "great Oz", and he has been revealed as a fraud, ideologically - a RINO in conservative's clothing.
Karl Rove and his PAC are not the pathway to victory, or for Conservatives to take back the Republican Party. He, and others like him, are the problem.
(1) http://www.salon.com/2012/11/08/shattering_the_rove_myth/
(2) http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/endorsement-power-sarah-palin-75-success-karl-rove-100s-of-millions-spent-only-1-success/
(3) http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/rove-never-worked-for-reagan/?cat_orig=politics
Karl Rove Is Not The Solution. He is Part of the Problem
"The Architect"?
Karl Rove may have received more mileage out of two razor thin George W. Bush victories than anyone else in the political "elite". Dubbed "the Architect", (1)Rove's leading of W's 2000 campaign narrowly defeated the true nutjob, Al Gore, with 271 electoral votes, while losing the popular vote. AND, it took Gore losing his home state of Tennessee for Bush to get to 271!
In 2004, Bush likewise beat the most left-leaning candidate the Dems had put forward yet, John Kerry, with a mere 51% of the vote. Again, it took something extraordinary for Bush to get the victory. This time it was a group of Vietnam Vets, former swift boat colleagues of Kerry, who challenged claims of heroism and honorable military service made by John Kerry, which derailed the challenger.
Keep in mind that Rove had predicted that Bush would defeat Gore with over 320 electoral votes, and that California was actually in play for Bush. Rove wasn't even close on either prediction.
Rove's record as a strategist since then has not only been less that brilliant. It's been abysmal.
In 2006 Rove predicted that Republicans would control both the House and the Senate. The results? Republican lost 31 seats in the House, going from a 232-202 majority to a 233-202 minority. In the Senate, Republicans lost 6 seats, going from a 55 vote majority, to a 49 seat minority. In addition, Republicans lost 6 Governorships, and 300 seats in state legislatures.
The Trashing Christine O'Donnell
In 2010, Rove had landed a job on Fox News for his "'expert" analysis of politics. Conservative Americans were awake. A grassroots movement of conservatives had risen across the country, resulting in the Tea Party. Tea Party-backed candidates across the country were defeating GOP incumbents all across the country, replacing them with fiscally and socially conservative/libertarian candidates. One such Tea Party candidate was Christine O'Donnell of Delaware. Fresh off a primary victory over her long-time establishment RINO opponent Mike Castle, her victory party was pissed on by Karl Rove. Rove, appearing on Hannity(video here) to discuss the night's primary results, launched into a vicious assault on Christine O'Donnell. Calling her "nutty", and accusing her of having a "checkered background", Rove told viewers that he was "not frankly impressed with her as a candidate", that she had "mislead voters", and "this is a race we are not going to be able to win". O'Donnell's primary night victory was the high point of her candidacy, and she never recovered from the attack. Rove had ensured an O'Donnell defeat in the General election. This, despite the fact her opponent had once claimed he was a socialist. Mission accomplished, "Turd-blossom"!
2012: Rove Candidates Fail on an Epic Scale
Election night 2012 was the night that the wheels came off, and Karl Rove was exposed, once again, for his complete ineptitude in picking winners and losers. Karl Rove and his 'American Crossroads' Super Pac spent $400 million on "the most conservative candidates that could win". How did he do? He had a 1% success rate! Throwing darts at a wall of names while blindfolded would yield a higher success rate.
(2)Juxtapose his "success" with Sarah Palin, who endorsed conservative candidates in the primaries without throwing in the disclaimer, "that could win". Some she endorsed through Twitter and Facebook. Some of her picks, like Senator Ted Cruz, were trailing significantly. Her litmus test? That the candidate was conservative. Period! Her success rate. Seventy-five percent!
Who's the Wizard?
Deflecting Criticism: Attacking the Tea Party
Karl Rove despises the Tea Party. He won't come out and say it. His actions and how he spends his money belie the facts, though. Like every other Washington, DC, inside-the-beltway establishment Republican, for Rove the Tea Party represents a danger to their power and influence. Members of the Tea Party and their candidates have a distrust of the Washington, DC political class, and reject the GOP's "bend over and grab the ankles" approach to dealing with a Democrat Party that more closely resembles a Stalinist politburo than the party of Harry Truman. When there are statists like Barack Obama, Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer pushing an agenda with no regard for the Constitution, or the American People's liberty, you're damn right we want "representation" from conservatives who have the backbone to stand up and say not only "no", but "hell no".
Karl Rove represents those ilk of politicians who, for the sake of have "better numbers", lead us down a path of slow motion national suicide. Having the numbers doesn't mean bupkus if compromise is defined as not moving as far to the left as they wanted us to. At the end of the day, you've moved closer to what they ultimately desire, and a "new" center is defined.
Rove and Reagan
Karl Rove's latest attempt to burnish his "conservative credentials" is to claim that he worked on the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign. According to Rove, he "was the director of the Texas campaign for Ronald Reagan in the fall of 1980 and was appointed to the White House Fellows selection panel". Uh, no. (3)According to those who were there, and can document it, he didn't. Radio host Mark Levin who did work on the 1980 campaign, and served in the Reagan Administration for eight years, does not remember Rove at all. Author Craig Shirley, who authored "Rendezvous with Destiny: Ronald Reagan and the Campaign that Changed America", which details Reagan's 1980 campaign, also disputes Rove's claim of working on the Reagan campaign, while also noting the following:
- In 1976, as chairman of the College Republicans, Rove supported Gerald Ford over Gov. Reagan, as did all members of the Republican National Committee at that time.
- Ernie Angelo ran the 1980 Texas campaign for Ronald Reagan; Rick Shelby was field director; and in 1980, Gary Hoitsma ran the media for Reagan in Texas.
- Rove’s own bio on his website says he was on Gov. Clements staff in 1980; Clements was not on board with Reagan until after Republican National Convention held that year in Detroit.
Karl Rove has been exposed. He is not this supposed political savant and guru. In fact, his record is spotty, at best. It is also being learned that he is not above stretching the truth as to his record and inside knowledge of the political winds, in order to maintain his facade of being a political boy wonder. The curtain has been pulled back on the "great Oz", and he has been revealed as a fraud, ideologically - a RINO in conservative's clothing.
Karl Rove and his PAC are not the pathway to victory, or for Conservatives to take back the Republican Party. He, and others like him, are the problem.
(1) http://www.salon.com/2012/11/08/shattering_the_rove_myth/
(2) http://thespeechatimeforchoosing.wordpress.com/2012/11/12/endorsement-power-sarah-palin-75-success-karl-rove-100s-of-millions-spent-only-1-success/
(3) http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/rove-never-worked-for-reagan/?cat_orig=politics
Related articles
11/12/2012
GOP's Dilemma: Constitutional Conservatism, or Permanent Minority Status
Posted by Brian
Americans Believe In Conservative Principles, Distrust Big Government
If, as the headline says, that Americans are essentially conservative, how is it that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party got their asses handed to them on Tuesday?
The problem isn't that the GOP is "too conservative", as the establishment Republicans (think Karl Rove) like to say, it's that the Republican Party is not seen as trustworthy to be the standard-bearers of conservatism. They're pretenders.
"Compassionate" Conservatism
After eight years of George Bush and Republicans being Democrat-lite on spending, immigration, and foreign and domestic policy and trade, who can blame voters for rejecting them?
The problem is that for too long, moderates in the Party have told us that we need to compromise with liberal Democrats, and that Americans just want us to "get along". But, it's amazing that compromise, in their vernacular, means that we as conservatives need to move the ball to the liberal side of the line, but rarely if ever vice-versa. Compromise to them is accepting a decrease in the amount of increase in the budget, which is seen as a "cut" in Washington-speak.
DO What You Say
The public indicates that it agrees with much of what Republicans say, but feel betrayed by what they actually do. Cutting spending and shrinking the size of government reverberates as a message and as a platform, but when all we ever see is more spending, and the government expanding year after year, people are going to become tired of these "promises". And we are.
A huge part of the problem with the GOP is that there is nobody in the leadership who is both capable of communicating, and then actually willing to carry out, a coherent, conservative message and principles. There are rank-and-file conservatives that are capable, but they are relegated to being foot soldiers, while the "establishment" Republican leadership limply gets rolled over by the hard-core leftists of the Democrat Party.
GOP Leadership Is Flaccid
Another huge problem for Republicans is that they are reactive versus the Democrats being pro-active. The Democrats rarely, if ever, are caught flat-footed by the GOP, while for the Republican leadership is in a constant state of being on defense. Whether on taxes, immigration, foreign policy, a national tragedy, or natural disaster, when the Democrats politicize the issue, the Republican leaders have the deer-in-the-headlight look, and seem unable to articulate a coherent thought. The sad thing, at least for many of us out here watching this, is that it is not rocket science as to what the Democrat response is going to be on any given issue. They've been recycling the same memo for forty years. You would think that they could send out someone to not only respond to the Democrats, but to blow them out of the water with answers based on conservative principles which every American could easily understand. Someone like Marco Rubio comes to mind, not because he is Latino, but because his conservatism isn't based on the latest poll or focus group. It is who he is. Part of the reason that Americans are suspicious of Republicans is that they have people like John Boehner weepily trying to explain something that is not in their heart and mind. Their answers are calculated and driven by the latest poll, as they try to straddle some imaginary ideological fence, so as not to "offend" anyone. What is offensive is that we have these leaders who think we can't see this, and are constitutionally incapable of articulating a coherent answer based on sound conservative principles and/or the Constitution.
Social and Economic Issues
IF the GOP doesn't find candidates who can tackle issues like immigration, gay rights, the made-up "war on Women", and the class warfare fraud, with some level of competency, the GOP as a party will go the way of the Whig Party. The issues are not as complicated as the GOP would have everyone believe. The problem is that they have let the Democrats and leftists dominate the discussion with lies and half-truths while offering up feckless responses.
One challenge is that the future GOP are going to need to be teachers as well as politicians, The 2012 election is a glaring example of how ignorant a large portion of the electorate is on many of the issues that are out there. The Democrats were able to get away with a campaign of smears and lies precisely because of this ignorance. The whole war on women meme was driven by outright lies! "Republicans want to deny you contraception". "Romney will overturn Roe v. Wade." The fact is that Romney and the Republicans couldn't do either. The contraception issue was settled in the 1972 case of Eisenstadt vs. Baird. Both are settled law. Romney could no more deny women contraception or abortion than he could walk on water. But this didn't matter. There was literally no one on the Republican side to make this rather simple case: The contraception issue was not to deny women the right to contraception, but whether other people should be required to pay for the sexual behavior of others.
The left has been able to smear the GOP as being anti-"Immigration". Yet no one, no one(!), from the GOP challenges the Democrats on the fact that the issue is not about "immigration", but IS about allowing individuals to enter the U.S. "illegally", and at will. The Democrats have been able to steer the debate as an "anti-Latino" issue, when in fact it is a law and order issue, as well as a national security issue. It is well known at this time that jihadist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are exploiting the lax security at our southern border to move people across, and that it is only a matter of time before many of the major drug cartels savagery spills across the border into California, Texas, and the other border states. Some of it already has. Even though over one-third of Americans believe that securing the border is more important than "comprehensive reform", John Boehner is already out there talking about comprehensive reform, and how to work with the Democrats to make it happen. And he thinks this will get Latinos to come to the GOP? It won't. History proves it. What is going to get any group to the party is to bring them together around common ground and a common message. We know that the Dems are going to try to keep the country divided along every line that they can. The challenge for conservatives is show how their individual success is intimately intertwined with the success of the nation as a whole. There are many successful people today because of the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ray Kroc, and countless others. Because of Berry Gordy and Motown, many others became successful beyond their wildest dreams. Success needs to be celebrated, not demonized. Yet there are few on the conservative side who are out there trumpeting success. Worse, the GOP leadership is more likely to try to find common ground with the Dems in punishing success to make them seem "compassionate".
Diversity
We hear a lot about "diversity", but what is diversity really? To liberals, diversity is the cynical notion that there has to be a certain number of blacks, a certain number of Hispanics, whites, etc. How those people think is of no import. Only what they look like. To a conservative, diversity has nothing to do with color. It has to do with diversity of thoughts, opinions, viewpoints, regardless of skin color. If I am a businessman, I want the best person for a position, regardless of what they look like. I am interested in the ideas that they bring to the table which is going to help my business be the most successful that it can be. The same goes for who I want running my country. This notion, from the likes of Chris Matthews, that I oppose Barack Obama because he's black, is laughable on its face. I would argue that Chris Matthews is racist because he is obsessed with all things racial. He has some kind of Aryan guilt complex which has manifested itself into this ridiculous notion that any critique of Barack Obama is ultimately based on the fact that he is black. This is true in the way that liberals, in general, look at and perceive blacks. The whole "affirmative action" concept is racist. But, contrary to common perception, it's not racist against whites, but against minorities. The whole idea is that without affirmative action, blacks are incapable of making it on their own merits. This is hogwash. The sad thing is that it starts at a young age, where minority children are taught that the deck is stacked against them (a favorite Obama phrase). It is, to steal a phrase, the "soft bigotry of low expectations". And the liberals are masters at it. They are great at telling you what you can't do, or what you are incapable of, all because of the unfairness of life. You are just a loser in life's lottery. They counter that, of course, with the promises of those things that they can provide you, while erecting a multitude of the very roadblocks, in the form of regulations, red tape, and mandates, which hinder every step you take. As conservatives, we need someone to articulate to everyone, regardless of race/orientation/gender, that each one of us has it within themselves to do great things, and that the role of government is not to provide cradle to grave security, but to remove the obstacles that stand in the way of opportunities which await you if you are willing to work for them.
If the GOP is going to be viable in the future and not go the way of the Whig Party, the answer is not to become more like the Democrats, but to be the antithesis to their agenda. The GOP needs to give the people a stark choice of ideology, not the milquetoast one we have offered up the last 6 elections. The John McCain's, Lindsey Graham's, and the influence of the Bush's in the Republican Party need to be culled, and replaced with the DeMints, Rubio's, Scott Walker's, and other solid Constitutionalists. It needs to start taking place at the town, county, district, and state levels, all the way up to Congress and the Presidency. The American people say time and again that they believe in conservative principles and distrust big government. It is up to us to find those leaders who can articulate and govern by those principles, and get rid of those who can't or won't. It needs to start now, or this great country is in for some very dark days ahead. (And no Chris Matthews, that isn't a racial reference).
BREITBART/JUDICIAL WATCH POLL: A WARNING AGAINST COMPROMISE
The Breitbart News Network/Judicial Watch post-election survey released today is a warning to those who have argued, in the wake of the 2012 election, that the way for the Republican Party to broaden its appeal is to compromise on core principles of limited government and the rule of law.
Continue Reading
Americans Believe In Conservative Principles, Distrust Big Government
If, as the headline says, that Americans are essentially conservative, how is it that Mitt Romney and the Republican Party got their asses handed to them on Tuesday?
The problem isn't that the GOP is "too conservative", as the establishment Republicans (think Karl Rove) like to say, it's that the Republican Party is not seen as trustworthy to be the standard-bearers of conservatism. They're pretenders.
"Compassionate" Conservatism
After eight years of George Bush and Republicans being Democrat-lite on spending, immigration, and foreign and domestic policy and trade, who can blame voters for rejecting them?The problem is that for too long, moderates in the Party have told us that we need to compromise with liberal Democrats, and that Americans just want us to "get along". But, it's amazing that compromise, in their vernacular, means that we as conservatives need to move the ball to the liberal side of the line, but rarely if ever vice-versa. Compromise to them is accepting a decrease in the amount of increase in the budget, which is seen as a "cut" in Washington-speak.
DO What You Say
The public indicates that it agrees with much of what Republicans say, but feel betrayed by what they actually do. Cutting spending and shrinking the size of government reverberates as a message and as a platform, but when all we ever see is more spending, and the government expanding year after year, people are going to become tired of these "promises". And we are.
A huge part of the problem with the GOP is that there is nobody in the leadership who is both capable of communicating, and then actually willing to carry out, a coherent, conservative message and principles. There are rank-and-file conservatives that are capable, but they are relegated to being foot soldiers, while the "establishment" Republican leadership limply gets rolled over by the hard-core leftists of the Democrat Party.
GOP Leadership Is Flaccid
Another huge problem for Republicans is that they are reactive versus the Democrats being pro-active. The Democrats rarely, if ever, are caught flat-footed by the GOP, while for the Republican leadership is in a constant state of being on defense. Whether on taxes, immigration, foreign policy, a national tragedy, or natural disaster, when the Democrats politicize the issue, the Republican leaders have the deer-in-the-headlight look, and seem unable to articulate a coherent thought. The sad thing, at least for many of us out here watching this, is that it is not rocket science as to what the Democrat response is going to be on any given issue. They've been recycling the same memo for forty years. You would think that they could send out someone to not only respond to the Democrats, but to blow them out of the water with answers based on conservative principles which every American could easily understand. Someone like Marco Rubio comes to mind, not because he is Latino, but because his conservatism isn't based on the latest poll or focus group. It is who he is. Part of the reason that Americans are suspicious of Republicans is that they have people like John Boehner weepily trying to explain something that is not in their heart and mind. Their answers are calculated and driven by the latest poll, as they try to straddle some imaginary ideological fence, so as not to "offend" anyone. What is offensive is that we have these leaders who think we can't see this, and are constitutionally incapable of articulating a coherent answer based on sound conservative principles and/or the Constitution.
Social and Economic Issues
IF the GOP doesn't find candidates who can tackle issues like immigration, gay rights, the made-up "war on Women", and the class warfare fraud, with some level of competency, the GOP as a party will go the way of the Whig Party. The issues are not as complicated as the GOP would have everyone believe. The problem is that they have let the Democrats and leftists dominate the discussion with lies and half-truths while offering up feckless responses.
One challenge is that the future GOP are going to need to be teachers as well as politicians, The 2012 election is a glaring example of how ignorant a large portion of the electorate is on many of the issues that are out there. The Democrats were able to get away with a campaign of smears and lies precisely because of this ignorance. The whole war on women meme was driven by outright lies! "Republicans want to deny you contraception". "Romney will overturn Roe v. Wade." The fact is that Romney and the Republicans couldn't do either. The contraception issue was settled in the 1972 case of Eisenstadt vs. Baird. Both are settled law. Romney could no more deny women contraception or abortion than he could walk on water. But this didn't matter. There was literally no one on the Republican side to make this rather simple case: The contraception issue was not to deny women the right to contraception, but whether other people should be required to pay for the sexual behavior of others.
The left has been able to smear the GOP as being anti-"Immigration". Yet no one, no one(!), from the GOP challenges the Democrats on the fact that the issue is not about "immigration", but IS about allowing individuals to enter the U.S. "illegally", and at will. The Democrats have been able to steer the debate as an "anti-Latino" issue, when in fact it is a law and order issue, as well as a national security issue. It is well known at this time that jihadist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah are exploiting the lax security at our southern border to move people across, and that it is only a matter of time before many of the major drug cartels savagery spills across the border into California, Texas, and the other border states. Some of it already has. Even though over one-third of Americans believe that securing the border is more important than "comprehensive reform", John Boehner is already out there talking about comprehensive reform, and how to work with the Democrats to make it happen. And he thinks this will get Latinos to come to the GOP? It won't. History proves it. What is going to get any group to the party is to bring them together around common ground and a common message. We know that the Dems are going to try to keep the country divided along every line that they can. The challenge for conservatives is show how their individual success is intimately intertwined with the success of the nation as a whole. There are many successful people today because of the likes of Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ray Kroc, and countless others. Because of Berry Gordy and Motown, many others became successful beyond their wildest dreams. Success needs to be celebrated, not demonized. Yet there are few on the conservative side who are out there trumpeting success. Worse, the GOP leadership is more likely to try to find common ground with the Dems in punishing success to make them seem "compassionate".
Diversity
![]() |
| GOP Convention Speakers (Clockwise) Haley, Sandoval, Davis, Fortuno, Cruz, Love |
If the GOP is going to be viable in the future and not go the way of the Whig Party, the answer is not to become more like the Democrats, but to be the antithesis to their agenda. The GOP needs to give the people a stark choice of ideology, not the milquetoast one we have offered up the last 6 elections. The John McCain's, Lindsey Graham's, and the influence of the Bush's in the Republican Party need to be culled, and replaced with the DeMints, Rubio's, Scott Walker's, and other solid Constitutionalists. It needs to start taking place at the town, county, district, and state levels, all the way up to Congress and the Presidency. The American people say time and again that they believe in conservative principles and distrust big government. It is up to us to find those leaders who can articulate and govern by those principles, and get rid of those who can't or won't. It needs to start now, or this great country is in for some very dark days ahead. (And no Chris Matthews, that isn't a racial reference).
BREITBART/JUDICIAL WATCH POLL: A WARNING AGAINST COMPROMISE
The Breitbart News Network/Judicial Watch post-election survey released today is a warning to those who have argued, in the wake of the 2012 election, that the way for the Republican Party to broaden its appeal is to compromise on core principles of limited government and the rule of law.
Continue Reading
Related articles
- War opens inside Republican Party over immigration (thehill.com)
- The Election and the Right (nationalreview.com)
Labels:
America,
Conservatism,
GOP,
Leadership,
Republican,
Whigs
5/08/2012
Allen West: "You Don't Win On Defense. You Win On Offense"
Allen West Gives The Blueprint for A Winning Speech and Message.
Take note Romney!
Congressman Allen West speaks to the BREC (Broward Republican Executive Committee) at the Hyatt Regency Pier Sixty-Six Fort Lauderdale, FLNo notes. No teleprompter. Clear, concise, humorous, factual, and uplifting. Allen West speaks with authority, not only because he is a great speaker, but because he is speaking from the heart. It is from his soul. He does not have to search in vain for the right words, because these are his core values. They are not poll-tested. He doesn't have to remember a catchy slogan given to him from a consultant or pollster.
Contrast this with the Obama, who when he is without notes or teleprompter, stutters and stammers his way through. His delivery is stilted, with pauses, stutters, and uneasiness. He is delivering speeches which change, based on which group he speaks to, and in which his message may contradict previous statements. When Obama goes off teleprompter, he stumbles because he can't tell people what his real message and beliefs are. If he did, he would be sunk. He knows it, and the Marxists and socialists around him know it. He stumbles because he is speaking the words of a poll-tested focus group, not what is in his heart. When he is off-prompter, it shows.
The contrast is stark.
Bonus! From Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle of PJTV. If you have a few minutes, the Ad at the beginning of the video is excellent as well.
Posted by Brian
3/19/2012
Romney Panders, Sells Out Conservative Principles In Puerto Rico
Posted by Brian
Romney in Puerto Rico: a case study in political pandering
Published: 4:39 PM 03/16/2012
Romney in Puerto Rico: a case study in political pandering
Published: 4:39 PM 03/16/2012
In Puerto Rico, for the price of 20 delegates, Mitt Romney sold out his conservative principles.
There is a long history of Congress requiring English to be the language of government and schools for territories seeking to be admitted to the Union — e.g., Louisiana, Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma. For all of the territories that had large non-English speaking populations, Congress announced before the territories voted on the question of statehood that a change in language policy would be a prerequisite for statehood. In the case of Puerto Rico, where according to the latest Census only 15% of residents are fluent in English, the English language requirement is common sense. Puerto Rico operates its government, courts and public schools in Spanish, which sets it apart from the 50 existing states.
2/09/2012
Hey Romney! Tell Us Why We Should Vote FOR You!!
Posted by Brian
Mitt Romney's plan so far is to speak in platitudes while he tells us why we should vote against this or that candidate. He has yet to tell us why we should vote FOR him. For this, the media and establishment crowned him the presumptive nominee before the Iowa caucuses. Only one problem: he lost the Iowa caucus to Santorum (though we didn't know until S. Carolina's primary). After winning New Hampshire, he promptly lost S. Carolina to Newt Gingrich. He seemed to get his footing, winning Florida and Nevada with a barrage of negative campaign ads against Gingrich. This past Tuesday saw Santorum wax the entire field with positive messaging and addressing the issues, while Romney and Gingrich slammed each other in a petty game of he said/he said.
Romney now realizes that there are two candidates that are a threat to his inevitability and is now lumping both together from their 1990's time in Congress. He attacks their fiscal conservatism and support of earmarks from that time with no context. They are just big government wolves in sheeps' clothing, according to Romney. But is that really true?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, during the 1990's the federal deficit went from a high of $290 Billion in 1992 to a $236 Billion surplus by the year 2000. When Gingrich Became the Speaker of the House (1995), the deficit was over $200B. This was also when Rick Santorum became a part of the freshman class of Republicans after the 1994 GOP landslide. This freshman class was incredibly successful passing welfare reform, eliminating the marriage penalty in taxes, as well as balancing the federal budget.
Romney's attacks on the earmarks and the 1994-2000 GOP Congress is a complete smokescreen. They were one of the most successful Congress' in the modern era.
However, what was Romney doing during this same period? Romney was running away from Reagan conservatism, saying “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” He also backed liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for President in 1992. In 2002, Romney claimed he was a "moderate", and his "views were progressive". And then again there is the issue of RomneyCare, where Romney praised Ted Kennedy as his "collaborator" in helping craft RomneyCare.
Romney's problem isn't Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich - it's Mitt Romney! Unless, or until he starts telling voters why they should vote for him, voters will continue to look elsewhere. The thing is, will voters now trust him enough?
Romney: Rivals are 'Republicans who acted like Democrats'
Posted by CNN Political Producer Rachel Streitfeld
Mitt Romney's plan so far is to speak in platitudes while he tells us why we should vote against this or that candidate. He has yet to tell us why we should vote FOR him. For this, the media and establishment crowned him the presumptive nominee before the Iowa caucuses. Only one problem: he lost the Iowa caucus to Santorum (though we didn't know until S. Carolina's primary). After winning New Hampshire, he promptly lost S. Carolina to Newt Gingrich. He seemed to get his footing, winning Florida and Nevada with a barrage of negative campaign ads against Gingrich. This past Tuesday saw Santorum wax the entire field with positive messaging and addressing the issues, while Romney and Gingrich slammed each other in a petty game of he said/he said.
Romney now realizes that there are two candidates that are a threat to his inevitability and is now lumping both together from their 1990's time in Congress. He attacks their fiscal conservatism and support of earmarks from that time with no context. They are just big government wolves in sheeps' clothing, according to Romney. But is that really true?
According to the Congressional Budget Office, during the 1990's the federal deficit went from a high of $290 Billion in 1992 to a $236 Billion surplus by the year 2000. When Gingrich Became the Speaker of the House (1995), the deficit was over $200B. This was also when Rick Santorum became a part of the freshman class of Republicans after the 1994 GOP landslide. This freshman class was incredibly successful passing welfare reform, eliminating the marriage penalty in taxes, as well as balancing the federal budget.
Romney's attacks on the earmarks and the 1994-2000 GOP Congress is a complete smokescreen. They were one of the most successful Congress' in the modern era.
However, what was Romney doing during this same period? Romney was running away from Reagan conservatism, saying “I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I’m not trying to return to Reagan-Bush.” He also backed liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas for President in 1992. In 2002, Romney claimed he was a "moderate", and his "views were progressive". And then again there is the issue of RomneyCare, where Romney praised Ted Kennedy as his "collaborator" in helping craft RomneyCare.
Romney's problem isn't Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich - it's Mitt Romney! Unless, or until he starts telling voters why they should vote for him, voters will continue to look elsewhere. The thing is, will voters now trust him enough?
Romney: Rivals are 'Republicans who acted like Democrats'
Posted by CNN Political Producer Rachel Streitfeld
Atlanta (CNN) - The day after an embarrassing defeat in a trio of early voting states, Mitt Romney painted his GOP rivals as standard bearers of a Republican party that "lost its way" in recent years in Washington.
The GOP candidate, faced with a pair of doggedly persistent opponents in former Sen. Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, pointed to both men's experience in the nation's capital as a disqualifying factor.
Related articles
- Santorum Leads in Pennsylvania (politicalwire.com)
- Santorum: Romney Plays 'Gotcha Politics' (blogs.wsj.com)
- Santorum: Romney 'hides from his record' (thehill.com)
- Rick Santorum wins Missouri by 30, wins Minnesota by 18, wins Colorado by 5 (winteryknight.wordpress.com)
- Mitt Romney is dazed and confused (politico.com)
- Conservatives: Romney's OK if Obama is alternative (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
- Under attack, Santorum defends 'good' earmarks (sfgate.com)
No More Mr. Nice Guy, Santorum Hits Back At Romney
Posted by Brian
Rick Santorum exposed Mitt Romney's soft underbelly this past Tuesday in Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado with huge victories in all three states. Santorum's consistent conservative message and positive vision for America resonated strongly with voters in all three states, giving him a clean sweep. The Romney camp might have seen some of the writing on the wall on Monday, as the lowered expectations of victory in Colorado, which Romney won big in 2008. What they didn't see was the huge margins of victory that Santorum would win by.
You knew that Romney would have reassess the effectiveness of Santorum and his threat to his pre-ordained status of being the GOP nominee. Why is Santorum's message resonating and Romney's stale? Instead, Romney reverted to form, and like he did with Gingrich, started attacking Santorum. He has not reassessed what his message, or lack thereof, is. His campaign thus far is a redux of his losing 2008 campaign, which is a very generic message combined with personal attacks on his opponents. No vision. No specifics. No fire.
Santorum, on the other hand, has communicated a staunch conservative platform, put forth concrete ideas, and has done it with cheer and a positive message. If there has been a knock against Santorum, it is that he has been too nice. Fair enough. Up to this point Santorum's biggest "attack" has been in the Florida debate where he exposed Romney on 'RomneyCare', where Romney was flustered in trying to articulately make a distinction between his plan and ObamaCare. The lack of distinction was not lost on those who viewed it.
Rick Santorum is now showing a different facet of himself. He is not a pushover. He won't just stand there, smile, and take attacks from Romney without punching back. The difference between Santorum returning fire and the effectiveness of the attacks against Gingrich is that it may be Romney who gets the black eye this time.
By Arden Farhi and Rodney Hawkins
Updated: February 9, 2012 | 1:53 p.m.
Rick Santorum exposed Mitt Romney's soft underbelly this past Tuesday in Michigan, Missouri, and Colorado with huge victories in all three states. Santorum's consistent conservative message and positive vision for America resonated strongly with voters in all three states, giving him a clean sweep. The Romney camp might have seen some of the writing on the wall on Monday, as the lowered expectations of victory in Colorado, which Romney won big in 2008. What they didn't see was the huge margins of victory that Santorum would win by.
You knew that Romney would have reassess the effectiveness of Santorum and his threat to his pre-ordained status of being the GOP nominee. Why is Santorum's message resonating and Romney's stale? Instead, Romney reverted to form, and like he did with Gingrich, started attacking Santorum. He has not reassessed what his message, or lack thereof, is. His campaign thus far is a redux of his losing 2008 campaign, which is a very generic message combined with personal attacks on his opponents. No vision. No specifics. No fire.
Santorum, on the other hand, has communicated a staunch conservative platform, put forth concrete ideas, and has done it with cheer and a positive message. If there has been a knock against Santorum, it is that he has been too nice. Fair enough. Up to this point Santorum's biggest "attack" has been in the Florida debate where he exposed Romney on 'RomneyCare', where Romney was flustered in trying to articulately make a distinction between his plan and ObamaCare. The lack of distinction was not lost on those who viewed it.
Rick Santorum is now showing a different facet of himself. He is not a pushover. He won't just stand there, smile, and take attacks from Romney without punching back. The difference between Santorum returning fire and the effectiveness of the attacks against Gingrich is that it may be Romney who gets the black eye this time.
By Arden Farhi and Rodney Hawkins
Energized Santorum Unloads on Romney's 'Gotcha Politics'
Updated: February 9, 2012 | 1:53 p.m.
February 9, 2012 | 1:11 p.m.
OKLAHOMA CITY – No more Mr. Nice Guy for Rick Santorum.
The newly-energized presidential candidate on Thursday launched a full-throated attack on front-runner Mitt Romney, saying the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign “has been about serially tearing down opponents without offering any kind of vision for what he wants to do for this country.
Related articles
- Santorum Kicked The Mitt Out Of Romney (riehlworldview.com)
- Romney Targets Santorum for Attacks Following 3-State Wipeout - San Francisco Chronicle (sfgate.com)
- Rick Santorum, now a contender, braces for attacks (sfgate.com)
- Romney going back after Santorum on earmarks (hotair.com)
2/01/2012
Allen West For Vice President?
Posted by Brian
Rep. Allen West Is Conservative Slam Dunk For Veep
There is no doubt that as important as the state of Florida is for the GOP candidates running for the right to oppose Barack Obama, it will be even more critical in the general election.
Since he was first elected to the Senate, we have heard Marco Rubio's name floated time and again as a potential running mate for the Republican nominee. To be sure, Sen. Rubio would be an outstanding candidate and would bring many built-in advantages to the ticket.
That said, I believe he has a fellow Floridian in Congress might be a more promising pick: Congressman Allen West from the state's 22nd District.
1/16/2012
The Constitutional Foundations of Martin Luther King’s Dream
Posted by Brian
By David Azerrad
January 14, 2011
By David Azerrad
January 14, 2011
Nearly 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered one of the greatest speeches in American history. Standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial before thousands assembled, King, with his characteristic vigor, shared his dream for America.
While we all know King‘s dream - breaking “the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination” to transform “the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood” - many seem to have forgotten its source. It was, he said, “a dream deeply rooted in the American dream,” one embedded in “the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.”
That adds a note of irony to the storm that broke out two weeks ago over the GOP-led reading of the Constitution in the House of Representatives. “Certainly the Republican leadership is not trying to suggest that African-Americans still be counted as three-fifths of a person,” opined the New York Times, highlighting the contempt many elites harbor for our founding documents.
It’s a tired refrain - the Founders were racists, the Declaration didn’t really mean all men, the Constitution is pro-slavery. It’s also a gross distortion of our history - as King well knew when he invoked the promise that “all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” at the heart of the Founding.
Related articles
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/15/martin-luther-king’s-conservative-principles/
- Martin Luther King's Speech: 'I Have a Dream' - The Full Text (the2012scenario.com)
1/10/2012
100% Pure Conservative Litmus Test is an Unrealistic Pipedream
Posted by Brian
It seems that everybody is looking for the next Ronald Reagan. News Flash! It is going to happen. Probably not in my lifetime, anyway. There are no "perfect" candidates, though Ron Paul supporters would probably disagree. The GOP primary season has given us a number of pretty conservative candidates, though. I would even say that all of them, at least fiscally, are more conservative than Barack Obama. That should at least be a starting point for looking at the candidates. As for an overall consistent message of conservatism during this campaign, I don't think there have been any who have been more consistent than Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann (who recently suspended her campaign), and Newt Gingrich. Their messages and voting records have been, for the most part, very conservative. Yes, a person can say that Santorum once voted the wrong way on this issue, or Newt voted wrong on this issue. In fact you can do that with all the candidates. There is not a candidate running who has a 100% record on conservatism. Hell, even Ronald Reagan didn't have a 100% record. The question then has to be one of principle. and what were the circumstances and facts at the time that certain decisions were made, and votes were cast, For example, Ron Paul claims to have never voted for an earmark. Technically, he is 100% correct. But when we find out that he attached earmarks to, and sponsored numerous bills with earmarks which were guaranteed passage, and then voted "no" on this guaranteed bill, his claim comes up more than a little suspect, mot to mention unprincipled. However, if a person makes decision based on principle, and/or which fulfills the wishes of constituents, but may not be ideologically "pure" enough for some, that person is cast as a RINO. To be sure, there are some so-called conservatives who vote nearly as much with liberal causes as they do with conservative ones, and deserve the RINO label. But there are some in the conservative camp who demand such ideologically purity that a Santorum or Gingrich who have 90% conservative voting records are somehow called "big government" conservatives, which is just code for RINO. Yet, Someone like Mitt Romney who has proposed and supported numerous big government policies, and is to the right of only Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul (who's foreign policy is to the left of George McGovern), is seen as the only "conservative" choice as the Republican
nominee.
The question is whether Republicans are lookong for ideological purity, or whether we settle once again for an "electable" candidate as determined by the mainstream media.
JANUARY 9, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Rick Santorum, Conservative Stalwart
He is a bona fide conservative.
By Quin Hillyer
Just as the conservative movement finally has the first real chance since Ronald Reagan to see one of its own — a “full-spectrum conservative,” as Rick Santorum now calls himself, picking up the phrase from Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) — win the Republican presidential nomination, the purists emerge to say he’s somehow not conservative enough. The attempt to attach a “big-government conservative” label to Rick Santorum for some rare wanderings from the conservative reservation makes about as much sense as arguing that record-breaking Drew Brees of the Saints is a poor quarterback because he threw 14 interceptions this season.
The reality is that Rick Santorum’s instincts and intellectual choices consistently tend toward freedom.
Read More at National Review Online
It seems that everybody is looking for the next Ronald Reagan. News Flash! It is going to happen. Probably not in my lifetime, anyway. There are no "perfect" candidates, though Ron Paul supporters would probably disagree. The GOP primary season has given us a number of pretty conservative candidates, though. I would even say that all of them, at least fiscally, are more conservative than Barack Obama. That should at least be a starting point for looking at the candidates. As for an overall consistent message of conservatism during this campaign, I don't think there have been any who have been more consistent than Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachmann (who recently suspended her campaign), and Newt Gingrich. Their messages and voting records have been, for the most part, very conservative. Yes, a person can say that Santorum once voted the wrong way on this issue, or Newt voted wrong on this issue. In fact you can do that with all the candidates. There is not a candidate running who has a 100% record on conservatism. Hell, even Ronald Reagan didn't have a 100% record. The question then has to be one of principle. and what were the circumstances and facts at the time that certain decisions were made, and votes were cast, For example, Ron Paul claims to have never voted for an earmark. Technically, he is 100% correct. But when we find out that he attached earmarks to, and sponsored numerous bills with earmarks which were guaranteed passage, and then voted "no" on this guaranteed bill, his claim comes up more than a little suspect, mot to mention unprincipled. However, if a person makes decision based on principle, and/or which fulfills the wishes of constituents, but may not be ideologically "pure" enough for some, that person is cast as a RINO. To be sure, there are some so-called conservatives who vote nearly as much with liberal causes as they do with conservative ones, and deserve the RINO label. But there are some in the conservative camp who demand such ideologically purity that a Santorum or Gingrich who have 90% conservative voting records are somehow called "big government" conservatives, which is just code for RINO. Yet, Someone like Mitt Romney who has proposed and supported numerous big government policies, and is to the right of only Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul (who's foreign policy is to the left of George McGovern), is seen as the only "conservative" choice as the Republican
nominee.
The question is whether Republicans are lookong for ideological purity, or whether we settle once again for an "electable" candidate as determined by the mainstream media.
JANUARY 9, 2012 4:00 A.M.
Rick Santorum, Conservative Stalwart
He is a bona fide conservative.
By Quin Hillyer
Just as the conservative movement finally has the first real chance since Ronald Reagan to see one of its own — a “full-spectrum conservative,” as Rick Santorum now calls himself, picking up the phrase from Rep. Steve King (R., Iowa) — win the Republican presidential nomination, the purists emerge to say he’s somehow not conservative enough. The attempt to attach a “big-government conservative” label to Rick Santorum for some rare wanderings from the conservative reservation makes about as much sense as arguing that record-breaking Drew Brees of the Saints is a poor quarterback because he threw 14 interceptions this season.
The reality is that Rick Santorum’s instincts and intellectual choices consistently tend toward freedom.
Read More at National Review Online
Related articles
- Santorum opens primary day in NH with media blitz (sfgate.com)
1/07/2012
Gingrich On Romney: Name One Conservative Accomplishment In Public Policy In Romney's Career
12/26/2011
Sen. Lugar: Tea Party The Reason That GOP Has Minority In Senate
Posted by Brian
Sen. Lugar is illustrative of the entrenched mindset in Washington that only 'Party approved' candidates need apply for national office. Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley", Sen. Lugar (R-IN) blames the Tea Party for the GOP minority in the Senate. He ignores the fact that it was the establishment Republicans who withheld support from numerous candidates who were in striking distance of Democrat incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections - most notably, Sharon Angle, who had a legitimate shot at upending Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware who was knee-capped by Karl Rove on the night she won the GOP primary in that state. Both of those candidates were virtually ignored by the RNC financially, and were in many cases, especially O'Donnell, viciously attacked by so-called conservative pundits and politicians, undermining their campaigns.
The current state of the GOP is what it is precisely because those who are currently entrenched in the upper reaches of the party apparatus are threatened by the current tide of conservatives, who are fed up with the "play along to get along" brand of politicians who currently reside in the august halls of Congress. They throw around words and phrases meant to marginalize conservatives, saying they are not "statesman-like", or they don't have the proper "temperament". Conservatives are called "right-wing bomb throwers" if they call out Democrats who spew some of the most vile, despicable charges against Republicans. A Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or any other Democrat, can go before the cameras and accuse Republicans, without an inkling of shame, of wanting to kill seniors, starve children, lynch blacks, et. al., with no impunity or facts, and according to GOP leaders we are supposed to bend over, grab the ankles, and take it. To speak up and call them out on these incendiary charges, as Rep. Allen West (R-FL) did with Wasserman-Schultz is not, according to the GOP leadership, "statesman-like". In fact, in West's case, he was expected to apologize to her. To his credit, he said not only no, but hell no, he wouldn't apologize.
The state of our country is what it is precisely because we, as conservatives have chosen to take the "high road" in our debates with liberals, while they have made careers of getting down into, and staying, in the muck. President Obama was correct when he said that "you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end it is still a pig". What was lost on people was that the illustration was more descriptive of Wasserman-Schultz, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and their ilk, rather than his intended target of Sarah Palin.
Senator Lugar has it wrong, as do so many in the GOP leadership. The problem is not in the Tea Party. The Tea Party does not need to moderate. Does he think that the Democrats are going to suddenly "moderate" their message? The answer is no! Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the leftists in the Democrat Party, haven't moderated in the past, and they certainly aren't going to suddenly moderate in the future. The vast majority of their positions are anathema to those who cherish freedom. There is no compromise with their positions. There is only defeat. The current GOP leadership is not equipped, intellectually or ideologically, to deal with the current crop of leftists which now hold the reins of power in the Democrat Party. Boehner, McConnell, and the rest of the GOP leadership show, no ooze, weakness and the Democrats take advantage of that every chance they get. The GOP leadership are afraid to get their hands dirty, let alone get down in the mud with these pigs.
No, Senator Lugar, the problem is not the Tea Party. The problem is you, and the other weak-kneed career politicians like you. This country got into the shape it is in on your watch, not the Tea Party's. It's time for you and the rest of the GOP establishment dinosaurs to step aside.
Sen. Lugar is illustrative of the entrenched mindset in Washington that only 'Party approved' candidates need apply for national office. Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union with Candy Crowley", Sen. Lugar (R-IN) blames the Tea Party for the GOP minority in the Senate. He ignores the fact that it was the establishment Republicans who withheld support from numerous candidates who were in striking distance of Democrat incumbents in the 2010 midterm elections - most notably, Sharon Angle, who had a legitimate shot at upending Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, and Christine O'Donnell in Delaware who was knee-capped by Karl Rove on the night she won the GOP primary in that state. Both of those candidates were virtually ignored by the RNC financially, and were in many cases, especially O'Donnell, viciously attacked by so-called conservative pundits and politicians, undermining their campaigns.
The current state of the GOP is what it is precisely because those who are currently entrenched in the upper reaches of the party apparatus are threatened by the current tide of conservatives, who are fed up with the "play along to get along" brand of politicians who currently reside in the august halls of Congress. They throw around words and phrases meant to marginalize conservatives, saying they are not "statesman-like", or they don't have the proper "temperament". Conservatives are called "right-wing bomb throwers" if they call out Democrats who spew some of the most vile, despicable charges against Republicans. A Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, or any other Democrat, can go before the cameras and accuse Republicans, without an inkling of shame, of wanting to kill seniors, starve children, lynch blacks, et. al., with no impunity or facts, and according to GOP leaders we are supposed to bend over, grab the ankles, and take it. To speak up and call them out on these incendiary charges, as Rep. Allen West (R-FL) did with Wasserman-Schultz is not, according to the GOP leadership, "statesman-like". In fact, in West's case, he was expected to apologize to her. To his credit, he said not only no, but hell no, he wouldn't apologize.
The state of our country is what it is precisely because we, as conservatives have chosen to take the "high road" in our debates with liberals, while they have made careers of getting down into, and staying, in the muck. President Obama was correct when he said that "you can put lipstick on a pig, but in the end it is still a pig". What was lost on people was that the illustration was more descriptive of Wasserman-Schultz, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, and their ilk, rather than his intended target of Sarah Palin.
Senator Lugar has it wrong, as do so many in the GOP leadership. The problem is not in the Tea Party. The Tea Party does not need to moderate. Does he think that the Democrats are going to suddenly "moderate" their message? The answer is no! Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the leftists in the Democrat Party, haven't moderated in the past, and they certainly aren't going to suddenly moderate in the future. The vast majority of their positions are anathema to those who cherish freedom. There is no compromise with their positions. There is only defeat. The current GOP leadership is not equipped, intellectually or ideologically, to deal with the current crop of leftists which now hold the reins of power in the Democrat Party. Boehner, McConnell, and the rest of the GOP leadership show, no ooze, weakness and the Democrats take advantage of that every chance they get. The GOP leadership are afraid to get their hands dirty, let alone get down in the mud with these pigs.
No, Senator Lugar, the problem is not the Tea Party. The problem is you, and the other weak-kneed career politicians like you. This country got into the shape it is in on your watch, not the Tea Party's. It's time for you and the rest of the GOP establishment dinosaurs to step aside.
11/09/2011
Congressman Joe Walsh - Passionate Town Hall Meeting with Constituents
Rep. Joe Walsh (R-IL) has an extremely passionate discussion with constituents. I would love to see more of this type of engaging meeting with constituents. There is passionate back-and-forth, as opposed to a Nancy Pelosi blowing smoke up everyone's rear, or a Fortney "Pete" Stark(D-CA) belittling his constituents. I want to know exactly where my Representatives stand on issues. The people of Illinois should be thrilled to have somebody like Walsh representing them. I want someone with that type of passion. Of course the liberal sites/blogs are calling it a meltdown, but notice that the people he is talking with don't look intimidated, but appear more amused, indicating that these meetings are between not only his constituents, but his friends, as he addresses some of them by their first names.
Posted by Brian
Posted by Brian
Related articles
- GOP Rep. Joe Walsh Melts Down, Screams At Constituents: 'Dont Blame Banks!...I Am Tired Of Hearing That Crap!' (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
- Joe Walsh Loses Temper With Constituent And Screams At Him (lezgetreal.com)
10/20/2011
Barbara from Harlem - Patriot Powderkeg, Pomona, NY Oct. 15, 2011
Despite the media portrayal of Tea Partiers as a "bunch of middle aged, angry, white male Republicans and conservatives, the Tea Party is a grass roots movement from all walks of life. Barbara is a proud, black, registered Democrat...and she IS the Tea Party!
h/t to Canada Free Press
Posted by Brian
h/t to Canada Free Press
Posted by Brian
8/02/2011
Sen. Reid - Bend Over, Here It Comes Again
Reid: Joint Committee Must Include Taxes Or Trigger Will Kick In
This troll would have all of us out of work and dependent on the government. Apparently, there is nothing that Congress can find to cut from a $1.6 trillion deficit. If this jerk thinks that 2010 was a watershed election, he hasn't seen pissed off. This goes for jerks like McCain, Snowe, Collins, et al, in the Republican Party as well. There is not a single argument that can be made that will convince me that there are not HUGE cuts that can be made in the federal budget without raising taxes. And notice, these gutless wonders rarely even use the words "raise taxes" anymore. They are now called "revenue enhancements". They don't have cojones to say it because they know that the voters will go ballistic. Cover it up with some benign sounding term. One which doesn't cause ones ears to perk up and start paying attention.
Reid is talking about new taxes, but this is only the beginning. Wait until 2013, when Obama's Health Care really kicks in, and all of the taxes that are going to be triggered by that monstrosity.
If these jerks are not kicked out in 2012, Democrats and liberal Republicans alike, and replaced by fiscal conservatives, who are constitutionally sound in to their core, we are screwed.
Posted by Brian
This troll would have all of us out of work and dependent on the government. Apparently, there is nothing that Congress can find to cut from a $1.6 trillion deficit. If this jerk thinks that 2010 was a watershed election, he hasn't seen pissed off. This goes for jerks like McCain, Snowe, Collins, et al, in the Republican Party as well. There is not a single argument that can be made that will convince me that there are not HUGE cuts that can be made in the federal budget without raising taxes. And notice, these gutless wonders rarely even use the words "raise taxes" anymore. They are now called "revenue enhancements". They don't have cojones to say it because they know that the voters will go ballistic. Cover it up with some benign sounding term. One which doesn't cause ones ears to perk up and start paying attention.
Reid is talking about new taxes, but this is only the beginning. Wait until 2013, when Obama's Health Care really kicks in, and all of the taxes that are going to be triggered by that monstrosity.
If these jerks are not kicked out in 2012, Democrats and liberal Republicans alike, and replaced by fiscal conservatives, who are constitutionally sound in to their core, we are screwed.
Posted by Brian
Labels:
Congress,
Conservatism,
Economy,
Harry Reid,
Liberalism,
RINO,
Statists,
Taxes,
Tea Party
7/31/2011
What A Conservative Looks Like - Marco Rubio Spanks John Kerry With Facts and Common Sense
Image via Wikipedia
Marco Rubio put John Kerry in his place when Kerry challenges Rubio on the Senate floor during the debt ceiling debate.
Posted by Brian
Related articles
- Marco Rubio on Face the Nation (michellemalkin.com)
- Sen. Rubio "We either save this country or we do not." (tbladel.wordpress.com)
- Marco Rubio Tells It Like It Is (minx.cc)
7/25/2011
Rep. Allen West: Obama is a Marxist; I've Been Racist All My Life According To Liberals
Love him or hate him, Rep. Allen West embodies what we want from our representatives - straight talk without politi-speak. He is a breath of fresh air in the cesspool we call Washington, D.C.
Posted by Brian
Posted by Brian
Related articles
- Allen West: There Will Be No Apology, This Is How We Talk In The Military (outsidethebeltway.com)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





Boehner.jpg)









