A Good Day For Conservatives

By: the Common Constitutionalist

Update 0615: Well that Good Day was short-lived. Guess I should have known it wouldn’t last. I thought maybe we could have 24 hrs to bask in the glow of a victory before being dashed on the political rocks. But the squishes saw the “SHUTDOWN” looming, I’m sure it was panic time. Oh well, I’ll leave this up here anyway.

Enjoy the false hope as I did last night.

 

Just look at what transpired Thursday in Congress – the hapless Boehner, trying to rally the troops to no avail in an effort to try to pass a $1.1 trillion bill through next September.

And what of the bill? Well, like magic, 200 additional pages were added to it between Wednesday night and Thursday morning. It’s like those elves that show up at the Cobbler’s shop in the dead of the night.

Who added all these pages to the bill? Gee, I don’t know? I left it right here last night and when I woke up there were 200 additional pages? Huh.

Now it’s obvious the voters, at least the conservatives don’t want anything to do with this train wreck. The Daily Caller reported that the Capital Hill phone lines were jammed on Thursday. Neil Munro wrote that at 3:28 Thursday afternoon, it took a full 7 minutes for someone to pick up the phone whereas it’s normally answered immediately.

“When quizzed by TheDC, the switchboard operator merely said ‘there is high call volume.’ She declined to describe the level of calls. ‘My job is to answer and transfer,’ she said. TheDC called again at 3:50 and a second operator picked up the phone after nine minutes.”

This is obviously a good indication that the electorate is not happy with the GOP. I say that with confidence being that democrat voters don’t usually call in. They riot, loot and burn down their own neighborhoods – but they don’t call. read more

THE VINDICATION OF BARRY GOLDWATER

from The American Spectator:

How did our national government grow from a servant with sharply limited powers into a master with virtually unlimited power?
— Senator Barry Goldwater writing in The Conscience of a Conservative (1960)

July, 1964. Fifty years ago this month. The Republican Party nominates Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater for president. The resulting uproar was somewhere north of hysteria. And that was just from the GOP establishment of the day. Followed famously by a November landslide Goldwater “defeat” in which the Arizonan carried a mere five states in his race against Democratic President Lyndon Johnson.

Goldwater was the first conservative Republican to win nomination since the 1924 selection of Calvin Coolidge (the vice president who had succeeded Warren Harding after his death). From 1928 all the way through 1960, every GOP nominee from Hoover to Nixon was drawn from the progressive/moderate wing of the party. read more

The So Called Adults Within the GOP Are Stupid

I realize there are those within the Republican Party who do not like Rush Limbaugh.  Some of them even think the GOP is worse because of him.

Likewise, there are those within the GOP who say they like Rush and see “a use” for him, but they themselves do not like listening to him.  He’s just not their cup of tea or something.

These people should really spend a week listening to Rush three hours a day and perhaps they would not be so stupid.

Most of the people who fall into these camps have been mouthing off on two topics about which their commentary has been decidedly stupid.  Perhaps if they were students of the Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies they’d wise up.

The first, of course, is CPAC, put on by the American Conservative Union.

The ACU gave Mitch McConnell a 100% rating and gave Renee Elmers of North Carolina, one of the most worthless members of Congress to ever be elected as a tea party candidate, some award to prove her bona fides.  That basically means the award is her conservative bona fides because she doesn’t have a record to show for it.

Basically, ACU is good at giving people cover.

And now they’ve given Chris Christie cover.  They haven’t invited him to CPAC.

Boo-freaking-hoo. Continue Reading

An Early Christmas Present – Boehner Could be Ousted

by Mike Flynn at Breitbart

The future leadership of the House GOP conference may be decided by a procedural motion on the morning of January 3rd. When the new 113th Congress convenes that day, the first order of business will be to elect a Speaker of the House. As my colleague Matthew Boyle reported, however, some GOP members are planning to preempt this vote with a motion to conduct the election of Speaker by secret ballot. If that were to happen, John Boehner may face a real fight to retain the Speaker’s gavel.

But if a member introduces that resolution for a secret ballot, the whole House will vote on that first. That vote will need to have a public roll call, meaning the American people, the press, and Boehner will know who voted which way. Even so, those who are considering this path forward to unseat Boehner know that Boehner and other establishment Republicans can’t legitimately oppose the concept of a secret ballot election for a leader of a political body.

It would be very difficult, politically, to vote against a resolution for a secret ballot. A secret ballot is sacrosanct in the American psyche. The procedure, however, would free Congressmen to vote for Speaker without fear of punishment or retaliation. If just a handful of Republicans vote for someone other than Boehner on the first ballot, he would be denied that gavel and the House would then move to another vote. Because of a current vacancy in the House, a member would need 217 votes to claim the Speakership.

A move to a second ballot could quickly get interesting. Seeing that Boehner is vulnerable, other members would start trying to build support for their own nomination. If this coalesces behind a single alternative to Boehner, then his speakership would be in serious doubt. The position of Speaker is built to a large degree on inevitability, i.e. the lack of any credible alternatives. Once that veil is breached, support for current leadership can melt away quickly.

It is also possible that, having failed to secure enough support in the first ballot, Boehner offers concessions to various members to win their votes. The chief source of Boehner’s vulnerability within the caucus has been his tendency to marginalize conservatives or enforce discipline for votes that are against conservative principles. A loss on the first ballot could provide the needed warning shot that Boehner needs to improve relations with the conservatives who make up the bulk of his caucus.

But, all of this rests on that first procedural motion. If a member comes forward to make that motion, then the 113th Congress will begin with a very new chapter.

Obama hearts the Second Amendment

The Obama camp, including the media, wasted no time trying to burnish President Obama’s Second Amendment credentials after Mitt Romney told a crowd at the National Rifle Association that the president was not protecting gun owners’ rights.

“We need a president who will enforce current laws, not create new ones that only serve to burden lawful gun owners,” Romney said at the St. Louis convention. “President Obama has not. I will.”

Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said the president’s record “makes clear the he supports and respects the Second Amendment, and we’ll fight back against any attempts to mislead voters.”

The Associated Press jumped to Obama’s defense with a story that countered Romney’s words with statements such as “the topic has rarely arisen during (Obama’s) time in office.”

It’s the sort of reportorial assertion that masquerades as balance but is more likely to appear in a story about a GOP member slamming the president than vice versa.

Romney does have a changeable record on gun rights, having said in 1994, “I don’t line up with the NRA,” then becoming an NRA member a decade later. But at least his history moves in the right direction.

Obama’s camp seems to be promoting the thesis that because the president hasn’t pushed for outrageous limits on guns that he therefore is some sort of Second Amendment champion. The more likely truth is that he knows congressional resistance from Republicans is strong.

As is often the case with Obama, to discern his real position on gun issues, it’s useful to look at the people around him. Since taking office, the president has appointed a number of anti-gun zealots to high office, such as Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Then there’s the Big Daddy of the anti-gun crowd, Eric Holder, who once talked about having to “brainwash” the public into being against guns, yet administered the Fast and Furious operation that put powerful U.S.-made weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels.Romney also brought up a good point at the NRA conference, raising the question of President Obama’s recent open-mic comments to the Russian President Medvedev.

“In a second term, he would be unrestrained by the demands of re-election,” Romney said. “As he told the Russian president last month when he thought no one else was listening, after a re-election he’ll have a lot more, quote, ‘flexibility’ to do what he wants. I’m not exactly sure what he meant by that, but looking at his first three years, I have a very good idea.”

It’s not a minor point, especially with Obama’s recent executive order allowing him to declare martial law in peacetime without approval of Congress.

Attribution: Tad Cronn

Malkin Beats Me to the Punch

I am a Santorum supporter. Rather than just explaining why I don’t support the other schmoes, I’ve had a request to write an article explaining my support for him.

Well, it appears, I don’t have to. Michelle Malkin has expressed her support for Santorum as well as I ever could.

From Michelle Malkin:

Rick Santorum opposed TARP.

He didn’t cave when Chicken Littles in Washington invoked a manufactured crisis in 2008. He didn’t follow the pro-bailout GOP crowd — including Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich — and he didn’t have to obfuscate or rationalize his position then or now, like Rick Perry and Herman Cain did. He also opposed the auto bailout, Freddie and Fannie bailout, and porkulus bills.

Santorum opposed individual health care mandates — clearly and forcefully — as far back as his 1994 U.S. Senate run. He has launched the most cogent, forceful fusillade against both Romney and Gingrich for their muddied, pro-individual U.S. Senate waters.

He voted against cap and trade in 2003, voted yes to drilling in ANWR, and unlike Romney and Gingrich, Santorum
has never dabbled with eco-radicals like John Holdren, Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi. He hasn’t written any “Contracts with the Earth”, as Newt did.

Santorum is strong on border security, national security, and defense. Mitt the Flip-Flopper and Open Borders-Pandering Newt have been far less trustworthy on immigration enforcement.

Santorum is an eloquent spokesperson for the culture of life. He has been savaged and ridiculed by leftist elites for upholding traditional family values — not just in word, but in deed.

He won Iowa through hard work and competent campaign management. Santorum has improved in every GOP debate and gave his strongest performance last week in Florida, wherein he both dismantled Romneycare and popped the Newt bubble by directly challenging the front-runners’ character and candor without resorting to their petty tactics.

He rose above the fray by sticking to issues.

Most commendably, he refused to join Gingrich and Perry in indulging in the contemptible Occupier rhetoric against Romney. Character and honor matter. Santorum has it.

Of course, Santorum is not perfect. As I’ve said all along, every election cycle is a Pageant of the Imperfects. He lost his Senate re-election bid in 2006, an abysmal year for conservatives. He was a go-along, get-along Big Government Republican in the Bush era. He supported No Child Left Behind, the prescription drug benefit entitlement, steel tariffs, and earmarks and outraged us movement conservatives by endorsing RINO Arlen Specter over stalwart conservative Pat Toomey.

I have no illusions about Rick Santorum. I wish he were as rock-solid on core economic issues as Ron Paul.

And I wish Ron Paul was not the far-out, Alex Jones-panderer on foreign policy, defense, and national security that he is.

If Ron Paul talked more like his son, Rand Paul, about the need for common-sense profiling of jihadists
at our State Department consular offices overseas and if he talked more about the need for strengthened visa screening and airport security scrutiny of international flight manifests, I might have more than a kernel of confidence that he would take post-9/11 precautions to guard against jihadi threats and protect us from our enemies foreign and domestic. But he doesn’t, so I can’t support Ron Paul.

Mitt Romney has the backing of many solid conservatives whom I will always hold in high esteem — including Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement stalwart Kris Kobach, former U.N. ambassador John Bolton, and GOP Govs. Nikki Haley and Bob McDonnell. With such conservative advisers in his camp, Romney would be better than Obama. And a GOP Congress with a staunch Tea Party-backed contingent of fresh-blood leaders in the House and Senate will help keep any GOP president in line. Romney’s private-sector experience and achievements are the best things he’s got going. Only recently has he risen to defend himself effectively. But between his health care debacle, eco-nitwittery, and expedient and unconvincing political metamorphosis, Mitt Romney had way too much ideological baggage for me in 2008 to earn an endorsement — and it still hasn’t

changed for me in 2012.

Lest we forget, this election is not about choosing a showboat candidate to run against John King or Juan Williams or Wolf Blitzer.

It’s not about “raging against” some arbitrarily defined GOP “machine.”

For many grass-roots conservatives across the country, Romney and Gingrich are the machine.

And at this point in the game, Rick Santorum represents the most conservative candidate still standing who can articulate both fiscal and social conservative values — and live them.