by: the Common Constitutionalist
It appears there is a full-court press from all sides on the few conservatives remaining in Congress and especially the Senate, Ted Cruz in particular.
I guess when I think about it, it’s not from all sides. It’s more like a semicircle, with people attacking from different points of the same side of the circle; center left, far left, etc.
The usual suspects from MSNBC, CNN and the like are pummeling the conservatives, the real ones. But they, Cruz in particular, are all the sudden being attacked virtually every day by Republican moderates.
It’s as if some marching order has gone out to the “RINO Coalition”, past and present, to take these upstarts out before they gain any more traction or support from the great unwashed (that would be us).
Has everyone in government read Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”? I ask because this is a classic Alinsky tactic. Conservatives like Cruz must be isolated. I realize it is not just Cruz but he has become the de facto whipping boy.
Take Bob Dole for example. When was last time you saw Dole, on an E. D. Commercial? Why has he picked now to speak out?
I always liked Dole. He is obviously a war hero, badly injured in World War II. He must be thanked and respected for that. He appears to be a genuinely good guy. The same could be said of both George Bushs. But he, like the Georges, is a moderate, a RINO. Dole is from the “Cross the Aisle” crowd.
I was going to say, back when the Republicans thought the Democrats were more reasonable, but I’ll stop myself. Most Democrats are no more radical now than they have been. They’ve just “come out of the shadows”. A little illegal immigration humor there. But in my opinion, they are no more radical than was Woodrow Wilson.
So why the big RINO push now? Do they have some internal polling telling them that Republican voters are tired of compromise and Democrat lite posturing that are groups like the “Gang of 8” plus some?
By now most have seen or heard of Dole’s recent interview on Fox news Sunday. Why Fox? Two reasons, in my humble opinion. First, more people watch and trust Fox than any other network. Second and I believe more important: Republicans and conservatives watch Fox. They don’t watch MSNBC, CNN or the major networks for their news. The moderates must feel they need to get ahead of Cruz and company and they know Dole is well respected and well liked.
Frankly, I think the conservative reception for the Rand Paul filibuster a few months back was a wake-up call to Republicans squishes. It seemed to electrify conservatives.
The progressive big government Republicans cannot have a repeat of the 2010 elections, leaving them to deal with possibly even more Ted Cruzs.
In the interview, Dole expressed his disappointment in how far right the current Republican Party has shifted. Huh? He proclaimed: “I think they ought to put a sign on the national committee doors that says ‘closed for repairs’ until New Year’s Day next year and spend that time going over ideas and positive agendas.”
Really Bob? The national committee needs repairs all right but it certainly isn’t due to Reince Priebus being too conservative. Dole should actually love the RNC, with their practice of abandoning conservatives.
Olympia Snowe chimed in saying she agreed with Dole. Shocker! She said she worked with Dole when she arrived in Washington. She described him as a consensus builder. Red Flag! She laments that consensus building has been lost on Capitol Hill. The red flag is for the word “consensus”. It’s squishy code for cross the aisle and vote with Democrats.
Dole continued by claiming not even Ronald Reagan could get along with the right wing radicals (my words, not his) infesting his sacred halls of government.
Well, let’s just here for ourselves what Ronaldus Magnus had to say about taking on the establishment:
So tell me Bob how Reagan couldn’t function within the Republican Party. He sounds more like Limbaugh or Beck than any moderate. I think you’re right though. As Reagan described, Cruz, Lee and the guys are finding it difficult to deal with the moderate party.
Does any of this sound like history repeating – the Romney loss? Some 4 million conservatives stayed home in 2012.
All these years later and still the moderates are misguided and Reagan is still right.
What took them so long to start speaking up?
Phyllis Schlafly: Karl Rove Gave Us ‘Bunch of Losers’
Conservative activist and author Phyllis Schlafly says the Republican Party has too often been dominated by the “establishment” instead of by the real conservative “grass-rooters” — thereby producing a “bunch of losers.”
Schlafly, 88, is the founder of the pro-family Eagle Forum whose latest book is “No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religion.”
She sat down for an interview with Breitbart contributor Warner Todd Huston that was posted on the wizbangblog website.
Schlafly, who has attended GOP presidential conventions for decades, said she has witnessed first-hand the fight between the Republican establishment, with “the series of losers they have given us like Thomas Dewey, and the grass-rooters who wanted their own candidate.”
Ronald Reagan was the “best president of the 20th century,” she opined, but after his two terms “we lost the party again to the establishment, and they’ve given us a bunch of losers — Bob Dole, John McCain, and then Mitt Romney.”
Alluding to the infighting between Karl Rove and the tea party, Schlafly said “now we have the same battle again. It’s the establishment against the grass-rooters. The establishment likes a certain type of person who calls himself a moderate, will do what he’s told, vote the way he’s told, and not talk about certain issues. They don’t want him to talk about the social or the moral issues. They don’t even want him to talk about the national defense issues. Which is all a terrible mistake because that’s where all the money is.”
She went on: “The establishment’s voice seems to be Karl Rove, and they just gave us a bunch of losers. Rove had at least $300 million to spend on campaigns. And he only won, I think, nine of 31 races where he ran ads. A dismal result.”
As for Mitt Romney, she said “he couldn’t even run his own staff. So how is he going to run the country?”
Mark Levin describes to Sean Hannity that the RINOs are destroying the Republican Party:
by: the Common Constitutionalist
(sorry, no time for pictures; just text)
So why did Mitt Romney lose election? Why did Barack Obama win the election?
I’ve been asked that question a lot today, by people in the office, the UPS driver that delivers our packages, some folks at the gym, even customers.
The title of this article sums it up, but not fully.
People like free stuff and most figure that Santa Obama can get them more than Romney the Grinch (before his heart grew three sizes that day).
Taking a look at some of the exit poll data can give us a clue, at least somewhat, of why people voted the way they did.
A solid majority of those who voted for Obama still blame George W. Bush for the economic problems this country faces today. I frankly was stunned at this revelation. How could any thinking person blame someone four years prior for the bad economy today? Exit poll respondents claimed that Obama just didn’t have enough time to turn things around.
If I were an exit pollster, I would have asked a simple follow-up question. That being, “How long, then, should, we give the president?” It would’ve been very informative to discover the response. If four years isn’t long enough, just how much time should he get?
As I recall it was just months after George W. Bush took office that the recession, that actually began in Bill Clinton’s final year, was dubbed the Bush recession. Funny, the double standard.
Exit polls also show the Obama auto bailout to be a success. It evidently carried more weight than did Romney’s overwhelming business experience.
Those polled had the impression that Romney wanted to simply drive the auto companies into bankruptcy and dissolve them. They apparently are unaware that bankruptcy can simply mean reorganization and not necessarily dissolution. They were also apparently unaware that GM did in fact go through a managed bankruptcy anyway.
This idea was especially true in Michigan. I would like to ask those polled, in about five years or so, if they still approve of Obama’s auto bailout, knowing that, according to GM’s own president, General Motors has plans to move most of their manufacturing to China.
Regarding jobs, of those polled six in ten that worried about jobs, favored Obama over Romney. This was quite confusing to me knowing that the president has never created a single private sector job.
9 out of 10 blacks voted for Obama while only 6 out of 10 racists (whites) preferred Romney. That’s a rather monolithic voting block for the president.
The only folks I knew of that received 90% of the vote were those like Hugo Chavez and Saddam Hussein.
Other minority groups also preferred Obama to Romney by wide margins.
According to the exit polls, young single women did vote their body parts, being more concerned with contraception and abortion than anything else.
That’s just sad.
At least a full one-third of voters from the ages of 18 to 29 actually believe socialism is preferable to capitalism. The only way one could have such a preference is having never studied or experienced true socialism. I venture to say; most of the 18 to 29-year-old ideologues are still living in their parents’ basements or forced to move back in, due to lack of employment. One could hardly blame the president for that.
The Heritage Foundation has a saying that may be of great solace to many despondent conservatives. It states, “There are no permanent victories, there are no permanent defeats.”
Another question that was asked of me today, rather frequently, was, what do we do now? Was it Romney’s fault? Was it just a sign of the times, changing demographics?
Well, it was all of these, to some extent. For the most part, Mitt Romney ran a fairly good campaign. At times though, it lacked specificity.
See, it is much easier to be a liberal than a conservative. Liberals have never had to really defend their positions. They don’t think; they just feel.
As a conservative, I find myself constantly having to defend the positions that I take and my beliefs. That causes me to think, research and truly understand why I believe what I believe. It’s a lot more difficult to be a conservative. It’s not enough for me to simply say, for instance, that I will stand up for the poor, or I’m for women’s rights. They sound great until you think about them. What do those statements even mean? The answer is that both of those statements mean absolutely nothing. If, however, a liberal politician was to say that to his or her constituents, that would be enough. No explanation would be required.
A conservative could never get away with such a hollow statement, nor should he.
As I see it, the only way that we can bring this country back from the brink of socialism is by education.
Every conservative, in his or her own little corner of the world must find a way to educate at least some of our youth. I say our youth, because most of the adult population that are dyed in the wool liberal will simply not listen. They will shut you out or shut you up.
We need to begin to reeducate our younger generation in the ways of our founding. We must teach them about the Declaration and Constitution and why this country differs from any other. We need to show them how every other form of government or society mankind has ever devised has been tried and failed time and time again. Most have failed with disastrous consequences. We must show them there are no new ideas, just repackaged old ones.
Although it seems like a daunting task, it can be done. It’s like cleaning out your garage. If you look at the job as a whole, you may never start, but if you begin in one corner and just concentrate on section at a time, before you know it, the whole garage is clean.
I personally am going to concentrate on my son’s and their friends. Maybe it will blossom into something larger, maybe it won’t, but something has to be started.
If anyone has a better idea or other suggestions, please share.
The tranformation of Andrew Klavan
by: the Common Constitutionalist
I was watching Fox News over the weekend. The host was interviewing the governors of both Iowa and Florida. Rick Scott is the republican governor of Florida and Iowa’s Terry Branstad, also a republican.
Both are considered to be fairly conservative and pro-growth republicans.
They discussed the employment situation in their states as well as the other states that most recently elected republican governors. I believe 7 in all.
They each gave fairly good, straight forward answers as to why, in all seven states that republicans were elected, the unemployment rate actually went down. The answers weren’t as direct as I’d like but they both did a fair job.
Then the topic turned to the Obamacare Medicaid expansion as it pertains to the states. States would have the opportunity to greatly expand their Medicaid roles, ostensibly paid for, in part or whole, by the feds.
More than a few states, run by republicans say they will refuse the expansion, knowing full-well that, after a few years and just like virtually every other federal program, the states would be left holding the bag, as it were.
In other words the feds would cease to fund the program and the states would therefore be financially responsible for the increased membership. Neat trick. The feds do it all the time. After all, they’re just looking for the sound bite.
Anywho, the host asked both of them, one at a time, if reports were true that they would refuse the expansion of the Medicaid program.
I watched anxiously, or should I say, with great anxiety, for what seemed like a painfully long time, just hoping for a straight answer. Neither provided one.
They both, Branstad more than Scott, pontificated and bloviated about jobs, Obamacare and who knows what else.
I found myself leaning ever forward, on the edge of my chair, straining to keep my composure. It was a losing battle.
I finally just began to yell at the TV. “Why can’t either of you just answer the question?! It’s a simple question, requiring a simple answer! All of these politicians are the same! They just won’t answer a question!”
We don’t curse in our house, but I’ll tell you, I sure wanted to.
Evidently I was so loud, I woke my sons up, whom I allowed to sleep in that morning. They were not appreciative.
This just demonstrated, once again, why politicians don’t appear to be trustworthy.
Is there some sort of class or school they attend to learn how to just talk out their collective butts until the clock runs out? That is how it always ends, does it not? The host will finally say, “ Ok, we’re out of time, thanks for coming on”.
Thanks for what? We didn’t learn a dang thing! I still have no idea whether either Florida or Iowa will or won’t sign on to the expansion. (Florida evidently will not participate. Why couldn’t he just say so?)
Through experience, I know this is not a good sign. More often than not, when a supposedly conservative politician won’t give a straight answer, it means they will be voting or siding against the folks that put them in office.
I’ve heard it many times when calling a politician to see how they will vote on an issue or bill. When it’s 12 hours before the vote and their aids say they haven’t decided yet, you can bet it ain’t gonna be good.
For this reason, despite their lack of conservative bona fides, people love “The Donald” (Trump) and also Chris Christie of New Jersey. They tell it as it is and pull no punches and are all the more popular for it. Why is it that other politicians can’t see this?
I can’t be the only one that feels this way!
Just stop lying, hedging, dodging and generally irritating your constituency and you’ll be loved for it.
I thought I might feel better after that, but I don’t.
By Martin Gould and Ashley Martella of Newsmax [emphasis added]:
Saying he’d look for a “strong and principled conservative” as a running mate should he win the Republican presidential nomination, former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum tells Newsmax that he certainly would consider rival Newt Gingrich for that vital role.
When asked if he would consider the former House Speaker as number two on his ticket, Santorum said Gingrich had been “tested” by the bruising GOP race and that makes him an attractive vice presidential candidate.
Santorum tells Newsmax that his choice would be a core conservative who is “willing to stand up and fight for the things that I believe in.”
“My principal and only criterion for vice president is to make sure that I have someone that I have confidence that if something should happen to me that they could carry on and do what I promised the people of America I would try to do,” he said.
Gingrich would seem to fit the bill more than any of the other candidates. He and Santorum have been battling for the same voters on the right of the party as they try to defeat front-runner Mitt Romney.
Santorum said the GOP only has to look to history to see that conservative candidates do better in general elections that do moderates.
“If we have another moderate Republican we are going to end up with the same situation we had four years ago,” he said, referring to John McCain’s loss to Barack Obama. “We’ll have the same situation we had with Bob Dole and the same situation we had with Gerry Ford.
“You go back. If we nominate conservatives we win. If we nominate moderates we lose. We can’t afford to lose this one.”
Santorum said he is not worried that the latest Rasmussen Reports poll gives Mitt Romney a double-digit lead over him, going into Saturday’s caucuses in Kansas and next week’s primaries in Alabama and Mississippi.
“Three weeks ago I had a double-digit lead and before that he had a double-digit lead and before that Newt Gingrich had a double-digit lead,” he pointed out. “This is an ebb-and-flow campaign.”
He said that Romney has spent some $65 million so far and has had a super PAC spend almost as much, while he only put some $6 million into his campaign.
“The fact that he hasn’t been able to close the deal and get this nomination behind him, that we are very much alive and well and have an opportunity to win this race, is a testament that money does not buy this election.
The GOP has to nominate “someone who has convictions, someone who tells the truth to the American public, someone who goes out there and lives what he says he is going to do and follows through and has the courage of his convictions and can create a clear contrast with President Obama,” he said.
“I do that. Gov. Romney, in all fairness, is simply not measuring up. The people of America are beginning to see that and that is why we have the opportunity we do.”
Santorum said he is “very hopeful” that he will win Kansas and that he will at least beat Gingrich in the two Deep South states, proving he is the conservative alternative to Romney.
“We have literally 60 billion barrels of gas and oil off the coasts of this country and this administration is saying, ‘No, we are not going to go there.’ Shutting down federal lands for good, not voting the Keystone pipeline, not opening up Alaska – all of that is driving up energy prices, which is slowing down this economy and crushing it with a high-energy cost burden.”
“I would cut the corporate rate of tax to zero and say to every manufacturer not just in this country but around the world, bring your business here; expand your business because we want to make things here in America again.”
“It’s bad enough to impose a new rule making everybody buy insurance but the idea that they are going to force people to buy insurance on products that they have moral objections to is truly government run amok,” he explained.
And Santorum said that if there is enough GOP support in November to elect him, then the party can get at least 50 seats in the Senate.
“We’ll have the wherewithal to be able to strip all the funding and fines and fees out of Obamacare and make it basically a dead letter,” he vowed.
“That can be accomplished within a few months.”
Wake up Tea Party. You’re backing the wrong man and I can’t figure out why?
There is plenty of things to tag Romney with. Why pick the one capitalist thing he has done? That doesn’t sound like a conservative.
Yet plenty of Tea Party leaders are backing Newt.
“My sense is there is a growing coalition behind Newt Gingrich,” said Joe Dugan, leader of the South Carolina Tea Party. He added that Tea Party members do not want a “moderate” like Romney as their standard-bearer.
He would much rather throw in with an FDR “Progressive” than a moderate or a real conservative like Santorum.
Yes, I said FDR. As I have stated in past articles, Newt has proclaimed reverence for the 4 most despicable presidents in history; Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson & Franklin Roosevelt. If given enough time, he’ll probably eulogize LBJ.
If I knew nothing more about Newt, that would be enough. No real conservative would ever back such a man.
I recall going to Tea Party events, where many were condemning Obama for his socialist, Marxist, communist, terrorist friends and ties. You do pick your friends, allies and idols, you know.
Now, I suppose, it’s ok to discount the candidate’s own words & alliances.
I guess we’ll just overlook when Newt stated how, “The Four Freedoms still work.”
In his own words:
No Reagan, no Coolidge or Harding. Just FDR & Wilson.
If you are not familiar with the Four Freedoms, it was part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1941 State of the Union speech where he said everyone in the world should have the freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
The first 2 are fine, but the third & fourth? Really? Are they in the Constitution, Mr. “History Professor” Gingrich?
Tea Party Nation founder Judson Phillips said, “Newt Gingrich is not perfect, but he is head and shoulders above the best candidate in the field right now.”
Holy crap!! I think I just figured it out. I began writing this article without knowing why my supposed brethren would do this. I was just hoping to solve it before I completed this.
Let’s read what Phillips said again. He is the best “Candidate” in the field. That’s it; Candidate!
Well folks, a candidate can’t govern. These Tea Partiers backing Newt are evidently giving little to no thought of how he will govern once he becomes president. They are so blinded by the possibility of Barack Obama winning a second term; they are willing to sell out what I thought they/we stood for.
Do they think Newt’s fire & brimstone style will carry the day? He only surges after debates. Without them, he is surely toast anyway.
Remember people; both sides have to agree to debates. How many, where, when, etc.
They will also be moderated by the enemy and the audiences that Newt relies on so heavily, will be stacked against him. I guarantee it.
If Newt wins the nomination, Obama may debate him once, even twice early on and then, nothing. There will more than ample time for any debate bounce to vanish.
I don’t care if Newt says he’ll follow Obama to the ends of the earth, The One, will not continue to debate him and the media will certainly carry his water in that regard.
Now, with my rant finished, I will still more than likely, hold my nose once again and vote for Newt, if he wins the nomination. I would vote for a dirty diaper before casting my ballot for King Barack.
What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
From Godfather Politics:
On a Sunday morning appearance on “Fox & Friends,” conservative columnist Ann Coulter tried unsuccessfully to explain why Romney got beaten by Newt Gingrich in the South Carolina GOP presidential primary. Here’s what she said:
“Apparently, South Carolinians would rather have the emotional satisfaction of a snotty remark toward the president than to beat Obama in the fall.”
When I first heard this, I thought the article was about Catherine Coulter, the mystery writer.
Ann Coulter is the queen of the “snotty remark.” Her entire career has been built on the quick retort, the turn of a clever phrase, and buckets of snotty remarks. Coulter is the epitome of the put down. She has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot” and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do.”
Who is Coulter supporting? Romney. You all know the run-down on Romney. This is not to say that Gingrich doesn’t have his own load of excess baggage. What many people like about Gingrich is that he’s not afraid to take on the media.
Something has happened to Coulter in the past year or two. She began to move leftward. Maybe she was trying to broaden her speaking options. She used to get pies in the face by liberal groups. Now she’s invited to speak at their conferences.
For example, she spoke at GOProud’s HOMOCON
2010. This engagement resulted in her removal from World Net Daily’s “Taking America Back” conference. It is unfortunate that Coulter is willing to be a vehicle of legitimacy for a group that certainly goes against the foundation of conservatism.
Joseph Farah, editor and chief executive officer of WND, had this to say about the incident:
“Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about ‘taking America back’ when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very ‘unconservative’ agenda represented by GOProud. The drift of the conservative movement to a brand of materialistic libertarianism is one of the main reasons we planned this conference from the beginning.”
Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said: “They hired me to give a speech, so I’m giving a speech. I do it all the time.”
She went on to say, “I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don’t endorse their views. I’ve spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion.”
Soon after, Coulter joined the board of the pro-homosexual GOProud. “I am honored to serve in this capacity on GOProud’s Advisory Council, and look forward to being the queen of fabulous,” Coulter said in a statement.
Coulter can’t be trusted as a reliable conservative voice.