Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tea Party. Show all posts

Monday, December 16, 2013

December 16, 1773 - The Boston Tea Party

bostonteaparty-3

240 years ago, a group of brave patriots decided they simply weren't going to take it anymore.

Today is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

What happened then has considerable resonance in our own times.

The colonies were under the thumb of a detached Ruling Class who decided that they could plunder their subjects at will. As part of that governance, the British parliament decided to forbid the colonists to but tea from anyone else but Britain in the 1773 Tea Act, and to pay a tax on it...without the American people having the slightest say in it.

The Tea Act and the tax were extremely unpopular, and protests had prevented the unloading of the taxed tea in three other colonies,New York, Charleston and Philadelphia. But the Massachusetts Bay Colony (as it was known then) was different.

There, the British appointed Royal governor Thomas Hutchinson, whose sons were tea merchants with a royal monopoly to sell it insisted that the tea be unloaded and distributed.

On the night of December 16th 1773, a gang of Bostonian patriots around 100 strong disguised as Indians boarded the Dartmouth, the Eleanor, and the Beaver and dumped 90,000 pounds of tea into Boston Harbor.Th efact that they chose to disguise themselves as Indians meant something besides merely concealing their identities. It meant that they were identifying themselves as Americans, a separate people.

It is worth noting something else here...this was an act of principle, not economics. Because the Tea Act eliminated various middle men and allowed the British East India company to sell directly to the crown appointed tea agents, the price actually lowered. What the colonists objected to was the right of the Crown to tax them at its whim without any representation in parliament. And when the governor refused to bow to the will of the people, they acted.

Parliament's response also showed that this was not about economics.No less than our own Benjamin Franklin declared that the destroyed tea should be paid for. Robert Murray, a New York merchant, went to then British Prime Minister Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the tea, but the British government refused to accept payment.

Instead, the British responded in 1774 with the Coercive Acts, which ended and degree of local self-government in Massachusetts and closed off Boston's harbor. That led to further protests throughout the colonies and had the effect of unifying them, ultimately leading to the First Continental Congress which petitioned King George III for redress, and further united those colonists opposed to Britain's tyranny. Lexington and Concord followed and the American Revolutionary War began in 1775.

Today, our own Ruling Class sees the Tea Party as their 'subjects' in flyover country, a bunch of ignorant. knuckle dragging rubes who need to be ruled by their elite betters. That's pretty much how the British Crown saw those early Americans.

Both the men and women whom supported the original Tea Party of 1773 and its modern equivalent share frustration with elites who simply could care less about their concerns and attack our freedom with taxation and regulation the American people mostly have little or no say over. The very term 'Tea Partier' or in its nastier form 'teabagger' has become code within the media and the elites for racists, reactionary, gun toting Jesus lovin' morons.

It is high time that Americans who still care about freedom and see America as a bastion of freedom and human dignity took a good long look at how that freedom and dignity is being eroded every day by those whom have set themselves up as our Ruling Class. And became worthy of our ancestors by doing something about it.


Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Defund ObamaCare? Why Not? The Time Is NOW

 

The RINO cohort of the Republican Party along with a number of pundits are doing their very best to stave off what would be an extremely popular, common sense and no-lose proposition- the defunding of ObamaCare.

There's every reason to do it and no reason not to.

What we're talking about is attaching a rider or an amendment to one of those must pass budget bills, like spending or the debt limit to prohibiting any funds from being spent to implement or enforce ObamaCare, takes any funds appropriated but not spent and puts them back in the treasury and shuts off all government subsidies for the new medical exchanges and the new Medicaid spending that are now automatically funded through ObamaCare.

It's certainly possible to do this. In 2011, the Republican Majority House actually passed this as an amendment to the debt ceiling bill, but foolishly agreed to scrap it in negotiations with President Obama.

Here's why it's important. In 2014, the main entitlements from ObamaCare kick in, with an estimated $48 billion to be spent on funding the ObamaCare subsidies, the new exchanges and the vast Medicaid expansion.

Another thing that happens is that Americans will all be required to buy healthcare, or face penalties administered by the IRS. President Obama has already requested over $400 million from congress to fund the vast new army of bureaucrats he wants to hire to implement this monstrosity. Not only that, but the vast new laws and regulations to be enforced will increase the average American's premium by over $2000, according to the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office.

You take away the funds to implement ObamaCare and it collapses.And in less you defund it, you can't repeal it.

There are a lot of reasons why it's important to do this now rather than later.

ObamaCare is a financial dead weight hanging around the neck of the American people. The further it is allowed to progress, the more money will be wasted and the harder it will be to undo the damage after January 1, 2014.

The sooner its defunded, the fewer the full time jobs that will be converted into part time employment to skate under the 50 full time employees threshold and the fewer company provided health plans that will be junked.

This kind of damage will take a long time to correct even if the bill is eventually repealed, one reason to utterly reject the nonsense that we should wait 'until it collapses on its own' being being peddled by the likes of Karl Rove and others.

Following that kind of advice makes as much sense as waiting for a cholera epidemic to 'collapse on its own.'

Aside from the fiscal and structural reasons there are significant political benefits.

ObamaCare is an incredibly poor piece of legislation, and it is widely unpopular with good reason. Moving to defund it right now is going to resonate with the American public.

Action of this sort would also remind President Obama that it is Congress, and especially the House that holds the purse strings of government. That would re-establish the checks and balances between the three branches of government that have largely been lost since this president came to town. And might very well lead to President Obama being a lot more cooperative when it comes to investigating the raft of scandals the administration is embroiled in.

And finally it would put the president in the position of either allowing the defunding to go forward or vetoing a bill and shutting down government to defend a massively unpopular law.

In short there's no downside. Just the usual lack of courage and responsibility from certain members of the legislative class.

Make sure these boys hear from you NOW, via fax e-mail and telephone. And if you can, attend any town hall meeting or events that come up so they have a clear understanding of how you feel and what's at stake for them personally if they fail to do their sworn duty to the people that employ them.

Wednesday, March 06, 2013

Rand Paul Wins As Democrats Retreat!!



Senator Rand Paul, with help from Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and Democrat Ron Wyden kept the filibuster against prospective CIA head John Brennan going for 13 hours:

After years in the shadows, the administration’s secret drone program burst into very public view Wednesday with lawmakers grilling the attorney general over legal justification for targeted killings and Sen. Rand Paul launching an old-style one-man filibuster to demand answers from President Obama.

The Kentucky Republican held the floor for almost 13 hours, effectively blocking a vote on the nomination of John O. Brennan, whom Mr. Obama has tapped to be CIA director. He said he would relent only if the administration publicly vowed not to target Americans on U.S. soil.


The Obama Administration didn't concede, but the Democrats were forced to delay the vote until tomorrow, and maybe even the weekend, depending on whether there's another filibuster.

Many of you may not realize how important this is. Since January of 2009, when President Obama and a veto proof Democrat majority in both Houses took over, they've trampled the Constitution and U.S. laws with impunity. They've changed long established congressional rules and procedures at their whim, and by and large they've gotten away with it.

Finally, someone told them no. Finally, at long last, someone said no, we're not going to allow you to shred the Constitution. Finally, someone stood up to them and exposed their lawless behavior for anyone who had eyes to see. And it wasn't the GOP establishment, but some Tea Party GOP senators the GOP establishment went out of its way to defeat, together with one Democrat who apparently still understands what the Constitution says and values it over the leftist agenda.

No matter how this ends up, it's a watershed, a turning point.It's a signpost to where the real future of liberty and our Republic lies.

Not with the Leftist ideologue in the White House, his serial prevaricator of an attorney general and their enablers and not with the Republican establishment. it lies with men and women who still value what it means to live in a free country and are willing in the old language that came down to us from our Founders to pledge their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to save and preserve it.

That's where the future of our Republic lies. And that's where hope lies for and our posterity.

Monday, February 04, 2013

Karl Rove Launches Effort To Become GOP Gatekeeper And Oust Tea Party Candidates



Some interesting news, as self-appointed GOP Guru Karl Rove announced that his American Crossroads PAC was starting a new project called Conservative Victory to weed out 'unacceptable candidates'. By whom, of course, Rove means anyone associated with the Tea Party/populist wing of the GOP.

This is really just an extension of the GOP establishment's war on candidates and office holders they deem too conservative and not willing to go along with the flow of our elite political class.

This would be fascinating stuff if it had a real basis. But of course, it doesn't.

Aside from spending millions backing Mitt Romney,much of which was misspent or poorly allocated, Rove's two political outfits, American Crossroads and Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies spent megabucks backing the wrong horses consistently in congressional elections. 10 of the 12 Senate candidates and four of the nine House candidates the Rove groups supported lost their races.

Senator Mitch McConnell and Speaker John Boehner are probably on board as well. Both face likely primary challenges and both would very much like to be able to have enough RINO's on board to continue their leadership positions. But for Rove, the real game isn't 2012, but 2016.

Rove's ultimate idea here is to get into position to foist Jeb Bush or another RINO if Jeb isn't running on the GOP as the party's candidate in the next presidential race. When once again, rather than any concern about principles or even who wins, the chief objective for Rove is his share of those millions of dollars spent that ultimately ends up in the hands of the consultant class.

If this nonsense continues, we will almost certainly see a new party arise. The peons are not in the mood to just settle any more. Watch what happens

Thursday, December 06, 2012

The GOP's War On The Tea Party Continues

There's a quiet war being waged in Washington these days.

The Republican establishment is systematically engaged in marginalizing it's conservative base.

Conservative congressmen, especially any associated with the Tea Party are being denied committee seats and chairmanships they obviously qualify for as a 'punishment' for apparently not going along with some of the GOP leadership's more outrageous cave ins.

It's purge time for conservatives and anyone associated with the Tea Party, and I'm certain that's going to be even more obvious when the funds from the RNC get doled out.

Another obvious sign of this is Jim DeMint's decision to leave the senate to head the Heritage Foundation.

Jen Rubin, the supposed conservative voice at the Washington Post had an unthinking and fairly vicious reaction to this that is probably typical of how the GOP leadership feels about DeMint.

At leqst Rubin shows her true colors. She's obviously not aware that the entire GOP resurgence in 2010 was largely the work of two people - Sarah Palin and Senator DeMint. The largest segment of the party's bench, consisting of people like Marco Rubio,Kelly Ayotte, Nikki Haley, Susana Martinez, Pat Toomey and a host of others in the sneate, house and state offices benefited for their channeling the energy of conservatives and the Tea Party into a GOP resurgence.

Palin's reward for working herself silly in resurrecting the GOP by speaking,endorsements and raising funds through SarahPac was to be denied a speaking role at the 2012 convention, even though she's one of the most effective and dynamic communicators of conservative ideas in America. DeMint's was to have to swim uphill against a dysfunctional GOP establishment until he got sick and tired of it and decided to leave.

Obviously, the GOP leadership figures that they can win elections by becoming Democrat lite, not realizing that people who lean ion that direction would much rather vote for the real thing. If they continue on that path, they will certainly continue to lose elections. 3 million self-described Republicans stayed home last November. If the Republican Party continues to marginalize conservatives in this fashion, even more will do so next time.

Cut off from their base and their principles, the GOP will go the way of the Whigs and be replaced by a new party..and they'll deserve it.

Nature always abhors a vacuum, and vacuums always get filled...especially in politics.

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Obama's Magical Misery Tour Faces An Unscripted Moment



The president did an event in Iowa last night and wound up being confronted by a couple of Tea Party activists who pointed out that it was hypocritical of him to call for more civility in politics when Vice President Biden had echoed comments that the Tea Party were 'terrorists'.

Sans teleprompter ( or as some have dubbed it, the TOTUS) the president did not come off too well.

In fairness, two things. First I give the president credit for actually addressing these people and not simply avoiding them, although that might have looked bad since the initial comments the Tea Party activists made were quite audible during the Q&A part of the event.

Second,Biden has denied that he echoed the comments and the White House put out a public statement distancing itself from the remarks. On the other hand, senior members of the president's party have continued to use similar rhetoric, the president's media allies, many of whom get briefed and strategize with the White House on a daily basis have continued to push the 'Tea Party terrorists' meme and President Obama has had nothing to say about that.

In politics, this is known as plausible deniability.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Monday, August 08, 2011

DNC Head Wasserman-Schultz Blames S&P Downgrade On 'Tea Party Tyrants'



The head of the Democratic National Committee hearted Sen. John Kerry's (D-Mass.) statements in blaming the Tea Party for the U.S. credit downgrade and calling on the media not to give equal time or equal balance to their views.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) quoted Kerry's comments made Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press" and noted, "Truer words were never spoken." She referred to the Tea Party as"tyrants' for opposing President Obama's 'grand bargain' - even though the president never actually advanced an actual plan of his own!

All the president ever had was a wants list - a new credit card with higher limits, minimal spending cuts that mostly came from national defense, higher taxes, and a provision to kick the can down the road past the 2012 elections so he didn't have to deal with it.

This is beyond farce.

Was it the Tea Party that ran up massive debts or voted in a trillion dollar 'stimulus' that created no jobs but simply plundered the treasury to reward Obama's political allies? Was it the Tea Party that quadrupled the deficit? Was it the Tea Party that refused to pass a budget, or weakened the US dollar through 'quantitative easing'? The Tea Party that got us involved in a neo-colonialist war in Libya that serves no US policy goals and that we can't afford?

No...the last time I checked, those are the achievements of President Obama and the Democrat super majority in Congress.

The Tea party might make a convenient scapegoat, and some people might actually swallow this bolshoi, but that doesn't change its basic nature or remove the stench.

Good luck selling that...but I don't think most Americans are going to buy it.

(via memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Friday, August 05, 2011

Kerry: Media Has "Responsibility" To "Not Give Equal Time" To The Tea Party



Here's the senior senator from Massachusetts at his freedom lovin' best:

"And I have to tell you, I say this to you politely. The media in America has a bigger responsibility than it's exercising today. The media has got to begin to not give equal time or equal balance to an absolutely absurd notion just because somebody asserts it or simply because somebody says something which everybody knows is not factual."

"It doesn't deserve the same credit as a legitimate idea about what you do. And the problem is everything is put into this tit-for-tat equal battle and America is losing any sense of what's real, of who's accountable, of who is not accountable, of who's real, who isn't, who's serious, who isn't?"

On MSNBC,of course. Hey, why debate when you can just censor?

Tell me Senator, who should the media give equal time to? An opportunistic US senator who arguably committed treason during war time, perjured himself in front of Congress and whose chief skill in life appears to be a facility in marrying rich women?

And I suppose that bit in your oath of office about how you swore to "support and defend the Constitution" was just you kidding us. Not a surprise.

Oh, and by the way Senator - we're all still waiting for you to sign that form 180 so that the public can see your full military records, including exactly how and why you were discharged. After all,it's been what, about 7 years since you promised to do that and we're still waiting.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Monday, August 01, 2011

Explaining The Tea Party To The Germans: "We Have Compromised Ourselves Into Disaster"

It's schwere arbeit ( hard work) but Tea Party activist Mark Meckler gives it an interesting go in an interview with Der Speigel:

SPIEGEL: The world is looking at Washington and sees gridlock and chaos. How much have the negotiations over the United States' debt ceiling hurt America's standing in the world?

Meckler: Saying that these debates have hurt our image is absurd. What you currently see in Washington is one of the most responsible debates ever about the size and scope of government. The world should look at what is going on in the United States as a model for what should happen in all countries.

SPIEGEL: We look at it and see a Congress held hostage by a small group of radical Tea Party members unwilling to agree to any budget compromise and risking a US default.

Meckler: What do you mean by "a small group?" Forty-one percent of voters in the last US election said they agreed with Tea Party values. And the primary values of the Tea Party are about fiscal responsibility.

SPIEGEL: But you are willing to accept a US default if your demands for massive budget cuts and no tax increases are not met. That seems rather irresponsible or even unpatriotic. Most leading economists forecast financial "Armageddon" in that case.

Meckler: Default is a false threat. We take in over $220 billion in revenues every month and our debt service is only roughly $20 billion. The only way we will default is if the President of the United States makes the irresponsible choice not to pay our debts. We Tea Party Patriots put principles first, and we have to understand what America is about. Our country was founded on an idea: liberty. But it requires fiscal responsibility for people to be free. We are becoming slaves to our own government. Every US family now owes $400,000 to $500,000 in national debt. We Tea Party Patriots fight for the future of the nation, and there can be nothing more patriotic than that.

SPIEGEL: Democracy is not just about winning fights. It can only function if all parties are open to compromise.

Meckler: The compromises that we have witnessed on debt have taken our country to the brink of financial collapse. Currently, the American government is spending 44 cents of each dollar on interest payments. We have compromised our way into disaster. None of the budget plans proposed have real cuts in them -- only promises to cut. The reality is that legally one Congress cannot bind the future Congress to cut, so these promises are actually a lie. We need real and immediate cuts.

SPIEGEL: The budget plan proposed by Republican speaker John Boehner contained massive spending cuts. Why were you so unwilling to embrace it?

Meckler: Look closely at the plan: It proposes $22 billion in cuts in the upcoming fiscal year. That is ridiculously little. It is the equivalent in the United States of shutting off the lights on Friday night and reopening at your normal rate of spending on Monday.

SPIEGEL: The plan also rules out any tax increases to close the deficit, though. Even the plan of the Democrats does not mention new taxes. So your movement already won the debate over taxes.

Meckler: This debate is not about taxes. This is a question of spending. There is no amount of taxes that we could raise that would stop our deficit spending caused by politicians who have lied so often.

SPIEGEL: Your movement often refers to Ronald Reagan, the Republican icon. But he raised taxes 11 times and the debt ceiling 18 times.

Meckler: At no time did he control both houses of Congress, so often he had no choice. But Reagan got attacked viciously by conservatives over this, just as we would attack any Republican president in the future if he did something similar.

SPIEGEL: The US economy is still growing very slowly. If you cut government spending drastically now, you will risk having a double-dip recession.

Meckler: That is simply wrong. Government spending is never efficient.

SPIEGEL: But in the short run, the cuts will lead to even higher US unemployment.

Meckler: Possibly on a minimal level. But we have worried about the short term for so long that we have damaged the long-term prospects of our nation. Look at what is going on in Europe: Spain is a complete disaster. It has more vacant homes than we have here, with only 40 million people. Italy is a complete disaster. Europe is going down the same path as the US, only many countries are far ahead and don't take corrective action.

SPIEGEL: Speaker Boehner failed several times to rally Republicans around his plans. Does he need to go?

Meckler: We have polled our membership and 74 percent of our members in our 3,500 chapters said it is time to look at new leadership.

SPIEGEL: And should he be replaced by a Tea Party representative?

Meckler: The ultimate goal is to have somebody in the House who is fiscally responsible. We have changed the debate in the United States, which is a pretty radical thing to do in such a short period of time. The question back then was: "How much more will we spend next year, not how much can we cut?" But you will see much more profound change in 2012.

SPIEGEL: Who could be the Tea Party candidate in the next presidential election?

Meckler: The movement has no clear preference. Our members are taking a cool and careful look at all the candidates on the Republican side. I am actually glad people are not more excited and blown away. The last time we saw that on the campaign trail, the country got Barack Obama in the White House -- and that led to complete economic disaster.




please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Sunday, June 05, 2011

Palin: "The GOP Needs To Get It's Stuff Together To Stop The Rise Of A Third Party"



Prescient and spot on as usual, Governor Sarah Palin is simply telling it like it is - the Republicans have no concerted message so far, have been far to accommodating to President Obama's agenda and if they're not careful are at high risk of not just disenchanting their base, but losing it forever.

The latest Gallup says that 52% of Republicans think a third party is necessary, by the way.

As the person who was most responsible ( along with Senator Jim DeMint) for keeping the Tea Party inside the GOP tent and for the success the party had in the 2010 midterms, Governor Palin knows of what she speaks.

For the record, the last thing I personally want to see is a split in the Republican Party, not because I care that much about the GOP as an institution but simply because political infrastructures take time to build up, and a three party race along those lines would give Obama and the Democrats an advantage in 2012 that could lead to his serving a second term. And that would be disasterous for the country, as Governor Palin points out.

But I see no advantage either in maintaining a Ruling Class style GOP establishment that is simply going to be Democrat-lite.

The Republicans need to look at whom they are and the values the GOP is supposed to stand for and act accordingly. Otherwise, a third party is exactly what we'll see.

( h/t, Maggie)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The GOP Left A Lot On The Table In 2010


And depending on how you look at it, that can be seen as a huge mistake or an inadvertent strategic coup.

Ford O'Connell and Steve Pearson have an interesting piece in today's Daily Caller point out, the GOP had one of the largest enthusiasm gaps ever,and they had the issues. The GOP’s donors, especially in the rank and file donated sufficient money. And there were viable Republican candidates running in the bluest of districts.

What happened as I've mentioned before is that it came down to insufficient ground game and Get Out The Vote(GOTV) efforts in a lot of areas - but especially in Nevada, Washington and Colorado.

O'Connell and Pearson quite rightly put that squarely on the shoulders of Michael Steele and the RNC:

Getting voters to the polls in states like Colorado, Nevada and Washington is where the GOP really fell short this year, and that responsibility lies primarily with the Republican National Committee (RNC), which early on telegraphed that it would be cutting back on its GOTV program and later announced it wouldn’t be sending Capitol Hill staffers to the field this year. The Republican Governors Association (RGA) filled in some of the money gap, but lacks the infrastructure and manpower to offset the RNC’s pullback.


While the state parties share some of the blame, the fact is that the RNC did very little to work the territory this year. For instance, the RNC put a lot of eggs in one very questionable basket labeled 'California' - eight million, to be exact - while ignoring infinitely more winnable races in Nevada, Washington and Colorado. And the rot spread down ticket. Tea Party Candidates Sharron Angle in Nevada and Ken Buck in Colorado were not the only ones to suffer from the RNC's mismanagement. Only one state senate race each was won in those two states.

So..was this sabotage, stupidity or genius? Probably a mixture of all three.

The RNC is the voice of the Republican establishment, and thanks to Michael Steele,it's become a good example of mismanagement as well.The national GOP and establishment Republicans basically threw candidates like Angle, Christine O'Donnell and Ken Buck to the wolves, and Joe Miller in Alaska as well, although it increasingly looks like he's going to win.Did anyone in the GOP leadership discipline Lisa Murkowski in any way for refusing to abide by the results of the party primary? Nope!

The motivation behind that is obvious.The GOP establishment wanted to lessen the Tea Party and Sarah Palin's influence. So by deliberately hanging some Tea Party candidates out to dry and having establishment pundits like Karl Rove attack the Tea Party for 'losing us the Senate' they accomplished that. People may call Karl Rove a 'genius', but I don't see anything but stupidity in attacking your party's nominee after the primary, as Rove did with Christine O'Donnell.Flawed as she may have been, there was no excuse for the way the NRSC and the RNC behaved after she won.

And now we get to the inadvertent genius part.

If the Tea party Senate candidates had all won their seats, the GOP would control both the House and the Senate, the latter by a very bare margin, but not the White House. Which means that Obama could veto anything of substance, leaving them to take the blame for what is likely to still be a poisonous economy and high unemployment in 2012. And then campaign for re-election against the Evil Republican Congress who obstructed him.

So how would you prevent this sorry scenario if you were in charge?

You'd make sure you control the House, and allow the Dems to keep a small minority in the Senate - not enough to get anything through, especially since the GOP controls the House but enough so that there's shared responsibility and an impetus in 2012 to go for a reral majority, when both the White House and 23 Democrat Senate seats are up for grabs.

And you'd make sure that Harry Reid is re-elected so he'll continue being the face of the Senate to the voting public, and if you're really lucky, Nancy Pelosi stays on as House Minority Leader.

Even better (from the RINO establishment point of view) you throw a spike in those damned Tea Party insurgents and remind them whenever they get unruly why the GOP doesn't control the Senate.

The end result? Control of the House, near control of the Senate and the responsibility for governing still in the hands of the Democrats. But with spending control in the hands of the GOP, a good position to take control of the Senate in 2012, the ability to totally gridlock the government and have the blame fall on the Democrats and Obama.

I'm absolutely positive this was not a plan on th epart of theRINO establishment, but it could work out quite well. Especially since th eTea Party insurgents aren't going anywhere.

As I'm sure you can tell, part of this is an effort to make lemonade out of the proverbial lemons, but not all losses are defeats, as Clausewitz would have said.

If the Republicans stay true to what they were sent to DC-land to do, clean out the rot from the RNC and refurbish their state party organizations where that needs to be done, 2012 could end up really being the mega-wave election..especially with a great conservative presidential candidate on the ticket.



please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Monday, November 08, 2010

Karl Rove Drinks The Tea - And Sarah Palin's Pouring


He's late to the Party,Karl Rove is - but it looks like he's finally arrived.

Sissy Willis notes that Karl Rove, after all his bashing of Sarah Palin and the Tea Party appears to be finally getting on the train instead of being run over by it:

"Are you and Governor Palin getting along?" Sean Hannity playfully taunted Karl Rove with the other night. We'd missed it Thursday and just caught the exchange in wee-hour reruns this morning. One more notch on Sarah Palin's love belt? Even as a willfully fact-challenged, illiterate Chris Matthews death rattles "Have You Ever Been an Eyewitness to Her Actually Reading Something?" Karl Rove reads the tea leaves and begins to see the light:

ROVE: The other night [election night] she took a picture of me, and Brit Hume and I were studying Alaska for Dummies, consciously. During the break, we were over there reading.

HANNITY: So this media stuff about, you know, your comments that maybe she shouldn't be doing the documentary?


ROVE: Well, look. My job is to, sort of, comment on those kind of things, and look, I understand she's an unconventional politician, and I may be coming at it from a conventional perspective, but you know, I didn't mean offense by it, and I'm sorry if she took it, and I did — the other night, she laughed when she saw Hume and me studying Alaska for Dummies, and I hope to go there in response to her travelogue on the Discovery Channel.


Did you hear that? The Discovery Channel's "Sarah Palin's Alaska," the "reality show" Rove dissed just the other day as lacking "gravitas," is now a "travelogue." How 'bout that.


Better late than never, eh Karl?

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Wednesday, November 03, 2010

Last Night's Real Winner - Sarah Palin



One person who has to be particularly gratified about last night's results is Governor Sarah Palin.While she had some high profile losses among her endorsees, her batting average overall was spectacular, coming in at around .680 so far.

Governor Palin backed 43 candidates for the House, including superstars like Allen West. Thirty of them won, with nine other races still undecided, giving her a .700 batting average.

In the Senate, she did only slightly worse, 7 out of 12 for a batting average of .580..and that's not counting Joe Miller in Alaska, whose race is also still not decided. Among her endorsees? Marco Rubio for Senate in Florida, Pat Toomey for Senate in Pennsylvania, and John Boozman for Senate, in Arkansas.

One big loss for Palin was Sharron Angle, and I'm convinced that Sharron Angle only lost because Harry Reid trucked in thousands of Democrat and union operatives into Nevada in a massive GOTV operation that the RNC was apparently unwilling to put in place for the Tea Party favorite, who was a relative amateur in a big race like this. Without a real ground came, she came up short....but Governor Palin has hopefully learned from that.

Interesting exchange - as you may now, when Governor Palin was asked on "Entertainment Tonight" last week whether she'd run for president, she said she might, if there was nobody else credible to do it.

On "The Early Show" today, Senator Jim DeMint was asked about Palin's answer and asked if he could imagine a Palin-DeMint or DeMint-Palin ticket in 2012.

"I agree with her," DeMint said. "I would only consider if no one else was willing to do it at this point. Sarah Palin's done a lot of good for the country. She's gone out front and taken a lot of the slings and arrows from the critics. When women or minorities get involved in politics as conservatives, they take a lot of hits from the press. And she's done a lot of good for the Republican Party, and for our country."

Hmmmm!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Thursday, October 28, 2010

That Scary Tea Party....



The one and only Ya'akov at Dry Bones, of course!


please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Friday, September 17, 2010

Has Sarah Palin Saved The GOP?



That's the question Paul Goldman, a Democrat political consultant and a former chairman of Virginia's Democratic Party asks in a piece in today's WAPO.

Goldman points out that in spite of all the carping from the GOP establishment, Governor Palin has kept the party strong by keeping the Tea Party inside the GOP tent, instead of encouraging these anti-establishment voters to form a third party and mount insurgent challenges in the the 2010 primaries and in the general-election.

She could very easily have done just that, and put the new party to work on her own political ambitions.

He contrasts her with Teddy Roosevelt in 1912,who, faced with the same circumstances split the party and ran under the Bull Moose Party flag - which enabled Democrat Woodrow Wilson to slither into the White House.

Unlike the GOP establishment, Goldman sees the taking down of several RINOS in the primaries as a necessary sacrifice to keep the Tea Party insurgents in the fold, and he gives Sarah Palin credit for holding things together.

I think he's entirely correct, although Senator Jim DeMint deserves a lot of credit as well...and he's another Republican not so well thought of by the GOP establishment.


The Republican establishment as part of the Ruling Class fails to realize the depth of the anger that the electorate is manifesting these days, directed at both establishment Democrats and Republicans. It's that kind of elitist outlook from both parties that is fueling the Tea Party movement, and Sarah Palin was not only one of the first politicians to tap into that energy but the one who kept it channeled within the Republican Party.

Goldman sees her as a rare "bottom-up," not a "top-down," leader, and one who is trusted by conservative voters, because her word appears to mean something.He's got that right.

Paul Goldman is no Palin fan, as his op-ed makes clear, but he definitely understands her political strengths and appeal and her contribution to the GOP's vastly improved prospects in the midterms.

Ironic that a Democrat political operative who doesn't like her in the least was able to put those feelings aside to assess how important Sarah Palin has been in resurrecting the Republican Party...when a lot of the GOP establishment apparently hasn't.

(A smile and a wave to Soccer Dad, for sending this along.)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

Shock And Awe - The Tea Party Triumphs



Now that Tea Party Favorites Christine O'Donnell and Joe Dioguardio have won their respective primaries with upset victories in Delaware and New York , it's absolutely fascinating to watch the dinosaur media's antics as they drink from the same vat of Kool-ade and form what's almost an identical narrative:

"Hooray! The GOP just lost its chances to take the Senate."

"This proves that moderates have no home in the GOP."

"Even real Republicans ( who we normally despise) are joining in characterizing this as an extreme movement."

Even more interesting was the response of the GOP establishment and th eway it played in th emedia . Karl Rove, for instance didn't even bother congratulating O'Donnell but spent most of his time tonight on Hannity bashing her and repeating Mike Castle's talking points about her “character” and “attitude” claiming she had ignored the questions about her financial problems...when in fact, she did.




Expect the usual suspects to highlight Rove’s remarks no end tomorrow.

John Cornyn, head of the Republican National Senatorial Committee was even quoted as trashing O'Donnell's chances to win and as saying that he and the rest of the Committee are going to "have a little powwow" over whether to commit any money to the Delaware race.

What we're seeing here, of course, is the reaction of the Old Guard – both the GOP and the media to a revolution in the making. And they don’t like it.

While O’Donnell does indeed have some baggage, the choice was between her and a couple of politicians who were essentially votes for the Obama agenda.. Once people figured that out they simply asked themselves how much, in the end, did it really matter whether there was a 'r' or a 'd' in back of their name if it was just going to be business as usual with the same old faces?

Most of the media has yet to grasp the fact that people are increasingly asking themselves that question. And the GOP will survive only to the extent it recognizes that reality.

Otherwise, we're talking about the demise of the Whigs here.

One more thought...conspicuously absent has been more than passing references to Sarah Palin, who once again seems to have powerful coattails.

That's something that apparently bothers the political establishment as well as the media and apparently they would just as soon let that little factoid pass.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Monday, August 30, 2010

Baked Alaska.. er.. Murkowski

http://images.politico.com/global/news/100825_murkowski_decision_ap_328.jpg

Life's funny...

One day, you're a nice establishment connected RINO incumbent in a solid Red state all ready to waltz to re-election in the Senate seat daddy appointed you to.

And the next day, some Palin-backed conservative tea partier named Joe Miller comes out of nowhere and pulls off an upset.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhuSJbHhLvpB8TXbmDKSYmxLJd_6RXgfyY8KkkpSdc6HBC5-Pz6-al_LsXJsENCcNXT5Ca_wzJBoLZx73dPoOvJT2sMOBpAXtcKj5v6ROys5_zL97srBwmx3Ed-RDdxM5fiRRVt/s1600/JoeMiller1.jpg

That's pretty much what happened to Lisa Murkowski, the incumbent in Alaska as Miller edged her in the Republican primary.

The absentee ballots are still being tallied up, but Miller is ahead by almost 1,700 votes, and Murkowski's people no doubt told her that closing the gap was a pretty big long shot.

So she decided to explore pulling off a Charlie Crist and running as an independent.

According to Alaska's laws, if she loses the GOP nomination she has two options ( aside from trying to queer the vote count). She could either run as the candidate for an established party, with the Alaska Libertarian Party being the only realistic choice...or she could pursue the expensive and difficult write in route.

Since the Libertarians already have a candidate, Murkowski's next move was to clandestinely offer herself to the Libertarians to take the place of the Libertarian Party’s nominee, David Haase.

Except..the Libertarians sat down and had a meeting in somebody's house this morning, talked among themselves and decided 'thanks, but no thanks, Senator.'

“We have decided that we will not offer the nomination to Lisa Murkowski for the Senate seat, even if came to that, because of fundamental differences,” said Alaska Libertarian Party Chairman Scott Kohlhaas.

Kohlhaas was a gentleman about it and claimed that Murkowski's campaign had never approached them, but lets just say say fairly reliable sources tell me different.

Kohlhaas cited several of Murkowski’s votes in Congress and in the state legislature as reasons for the party’s decision. He said Murkowski’s votes in Congress in favor of a bank bailout and authorizing the war in Iraq were contrary to his party’s principles.

“She’s a nice lady,” Kohlhaas said. “We wouldn’t tell a sitting senator to get lost. But we just had to let people know.”

Based on the above photo, Senator Murkowski now knows too.

The only thing left for her is to try and tweak the results. As Dan Riehl reveals, her campaign already has been involved in such doings.

(via memeorandum)

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Monday, July 19, 2010

America's Ruling Class


If you read nothing else today, take the time to look at America's Ruling Class -- And the Perils of Revolution in the American Spectator by Angelo M. Codevilla.

In the piece, Codevilla examines and defines America's elites and ruling class and dhow they came to rule over the majority of Americans he refers to as being in the 'country class' with a clarity and historical perspective I haven't seen much of elsewhere:

Although after the election of 2008 most Republican office holders argued against the Troubled Asset Relief Program, against the subsequent bailouts of the auto industry, against the several "stimulus" bills and further summary expansions of government power to benefit clients of government at the expense of ordinary citizens, the American people had every reason to believe that many Republican politicians were doing so simply by the logic of partisan opposition. After all, Republicans had been happy enough to approve of similar things under Republican administrations. Differences between Bushes, Clintons, and Obamas are of degree, not kind. Moreover, 2009-10 establishment Republicans sought only to modify the government's agenda while showing eagerness to join the Democrats in new grand schemes, if only they were allowed to. Sen. Orrin Hatch continued dreaming of being Ted Kennedy, while Lindsey Graham set aside what is true or false about "global warming" for the sake of getting on the right side of history. No prominent Republican challenged the ruling class's continued claim of superior insight, nor its denigration of the American people as irritable children who must learn their place. The Republican Party did not disparage the ruling class, because most of its officials are or would like to be part of it.

Never has there been so little diversity within America's upper crust. Always, in America as elsewhere, some people have been wealthier and more powerful than others. But until our own time America's upper crust was a mixture of people who had gained prominence in a variety of ways, who drew their money and status from different sources and were not predictably of one mind on any given matter. The Boston Brahmins, the New York financiers, the land barons of California, Texas, and Florida, the industrialists of Pittsburgh, the Southern aristocracy, and the hardscrabble politicians who made it big in Chicago or Memphis had little contact with one another. Few had much contact with government, and "bureaucrat" was a dirty word for all. So was "social engineering." Nor had the schools and universities that formed yesterday's upper crust imposed a single orthodoxy about the origins of man, about American history, and about how America should be governed. All that has changed.


Dr. Codevilla examines the criteria of the minority ruling elites and makes the point that what defines them is neither money, academic excellence or even prominance but outlook and attitude.

Today's ruling class, from Boston to San Diego, was formed by an educational system that exposed them to the same ideas and gave them remarkably uniform guidance, as well as tastes and habits. These amount to a social canon of judgments about good and evil, complete with secular sacred history, sins (against minorities and the environment), and saints. Using the right words and avoiding the wrong ones when referring to such matters -- speaking the "in" language -- serves as a badge of identity. Regardless of what business or profession they are in, their road up included government channels and government money because, as government has grown, its boundary with the rest of American life has become indistinct. Many began their careers in government and leveraged their way into the private sector. Some, e.g., Secretary of the Treasury Timothy Geithner, never held a non-government job. Hence whether formally in government, out of it, or halfway, America's ruling class speaks the language and has the tastes, habits, and tools of bureaucrats. It rules uneasily over the majority of Americans not oriented to government.

The two classes have less in common culturally, dislike each other more, and embody ways of life more different from one another than did the 19th century's Northerners and Southerners -- nearly all of whom, as Lincoln reminded them, "prayed to the same God." By contrast, while most Americans pray to the God "who created and doth sustain us," our ruling class prays to itself as "saviors of the planet" and improvers of humanity. Our classes' clash is over "whose country" America is, over what way of life will prevail, over who is to defer to whom about what. The gravity of such divisions points us, as it did Lincoln, to Mark's Gospel: "if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." {...}

Other explanations are counterintuitive. Wealth? The heads of the class do live in our big cities' priciest enclaves and suburbs, from Montgomery County, Maryland, to Palo Alto, California, to Boston's Beacon Hill as well as in opulent university towns from Princeton to Boulder. But they are no wealthier than many Texas oilmen or California farmers, or than neighbors with whom they do not associate -- just as the social science and humanities class that rules universities seldom associates with physicians and physicists. Rather, regardless of where they live, their social-intellectual circle includes people in the lucrative "nonprofit" and "philanthropic" sectors and public policy. What really distinguishes these privileged people demographically is that, whether in government power directly or as officers in companies, their careers and fortunes depend on government. They vote Democrat more consistently than those who live on any of America's Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Streets. These socioeconomic opposites draw their money and orientation from the same sources as the millions of teachers, consultants, and government employees in the middle ranks who aspire to be the former and identify morally with what they suppose to be the latter's grievances.

Professional prominence or position will not secure a place in the class any more than mere money. In fact, it is possible to be an official of a major corporation or a member of the U.S. Supreme Court (just ask Justice Clarence Thomas), or even president (Ronald Reagan), and not be taken seriously by the ruling class. Like a fraternity, this class requires above all comity -- being in with the right people, giving the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs. Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment's parts.

If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can "write" your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was "inadvertent," and you can count on the Law School's dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that "closes" the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about "global warming" to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps.

Much less does membership in the ruling class depend on high academic achievement. To see something closer to an academic meritocracy consider France, where elected officials have little power, a vast bureaucracy explicitly controls details from how babies are raised to how to make cheese, and people get into and advance in that bureaucracy strictly by competitive exams. Hence for good or ill, France's ruling class are bright people -- certifiably. Not ours. But didn't ours go to Harvard and Princeton and Stanford? Didn't most of them get good grades? Yes. But while getting into the Ecole Nationale d'Administration or the Ecole Polytechnique or the dozens of other entry points to France's ruling class requires outperforming others in blindly graded exams, and graduating from such places requires passing exams that many fail, getting into America's "top schools" is less a matter of passing exams than of showing up with acceptable grades and an attractive social profile. American secondary schools are generous with their As. Since the 1970s, it has been virtually impossible to flunk out of American colleges. And it is an open secret that "the best" colleges require the least work and give out the highest grade point averages. No, our ruling class recruits and renews itself not through meritocracy but rather by taking into itself people whose most prominent feature is their commitment to fit in. The most successful neither write books and papers that stand up to criticism nor release their academic records. Thus does our ruling class stunt itself through negative selection. But the more it has dumbed itself down, the more it has defined itself by the presumption of intellectual superiority.


Codevilla examines the history of how this came about, and postulates what it will take to change it. Because it definitely is a scenario that is bound to change. As he puts it, sooner or later, well or badly, that majority's demand for representation will be filled:

The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey. The ruled want self-governance. The clash between the two is about which side's vision of itself and of the other is right and which is wrong. Because each side -- especially the ruling class -- embodies its views on the issues, concessions by one side to another on any issue tend to discredit that side's view of itself. One side or the other will prevail. The clash is as sure and momentous as its outcome is unpredictable.


Benjamin Franklin famously said that the Founders had given us a Republic - "if you can keep it."

In the last part of the piece, Codevilla examines exactly what it might take to undue the harm done to our Republic in the last few decades. How that plays out could well provide an answer to Benjamin Franklin's implicit question.



please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

Understanding The Tea Party Movement..And Washington's Disconnect

One of the best explanations I have read of the tea party movement and why most of the political and media elites simply don't get it comes from the always scintillating Wretchard (AKA Richard Fernandez) at Pajamas Media:

Where one is on the totem is everything in Washington. The idea of hierarchy permeates every situation. Behavior is a question of knowing your place; when to say ‘thank you’ and never speaking out of turn. If you can’t understand the rules you’re a rube. Because of the default presumption that you are at Court; it follows that beneath every courteous speech ultimately you want something from the king or the duke or the duchess. And this is where Bill Clinton has got it subtly wrong.

The former President argued that political discourse had gotten so strident that certain individuals on the right have crossed the line between criticizing government officials and “demonizing them.” Things now remind him of the days preceding the Oklahoma City bombing when Clinton’s unpopular actions were unappreciated by an America lucky to have him.

CLINTON: I worry about these threats against the president and the Congress. … I just think we all have to be careful. We ought to remember after Oklahoma City. We learned something about the difference in disagreement and demonization.

ALLEN: You said that this time reminds you of — of that time. Politically does this year remind you of 1994?

CLINTON: A little bit. We passed the bill which reversed trickledown economics by one vote. Close like the healthcare bill. And it led to an enormous flowering of the economy in America. And that bill was responsible for, take is more than 90 percent of the weight of the balanced budget. But people didn’t realize its benefits.

I think the same thing is happening now with the healthcare bill. Where people are still reading into it all manner of dark things. And they haven’t felt the benefits of it yet. But America is a different country now. We are culturally a different country. We are more diverse. We’re more communitarian. That is, we understand we have to solve a lot of these problems together.

The point Bill Clinton is missing is that the danger doesn’t come from right wing ‘anger.’ The anger is just a byproduct. The voices he hears from the Tea Party crowds aren’t threats; they’re warnings. The real peril is coming from somewhere else: the demographic decline in industrial world working populations, the increasing cost of energy and the international movement in the factors of production. A whole generation of failed policy from both parties is coming to a head and it probably means that the welfare state, the European Union and by consequence the Chinese economy are heading for a cliff.

What’s driving the Tea Parties isn’t amorphous hate. It is concrete fear: worry that pensions have been devalued; medical care will become unaffordable; taxes are too high and jobs are gone, never to return. And a look around the world shows there’s no place to hide. When the wave hits it will be global. In the UK membership in political parties is at near historic lows. In America Congress’s popularity is lower than whales**t. The Eurozone is cracking up under its weight of debt. First Greece, now Portugal are being ripped off the cliff face like a zipper — and all the climbers are roped together. Japan is like a kamikaze sub heading for the depths and tapping out a sayonara. Russia was history long ago. And China, when it has used up its flowering moment, will face the consequences of its one-child policy. And Middle Eastern potentates, stuck in the same old, same old, are warning about a Summer War. The Tea Parties aren’t about putting some country club Republican in the White House, though Bill can’t help hearing it like that.



The media and academic elites live in their own sort of bubble of course, one that's self-created by a false feeling of superiority based on their impression that they are insiders and thus smarter, hipper and more enlightened that some knuckle dragging rube in flyover country. This is a fallacy based on yesterday's realities, and it's becoming more and more evident at least in the dinosaur media as viewers and readers vote with their mouses and remotes and the layoffs mount up. And academia isn't far behind. When the economy goes south, so do enrollments and alumni donations.

As Wretched presciently points out, when the Old Order falls apart, what matters is how people perceive themselves and their values, and which of those values and first principles are ingrained enough to stand by and hang on to..which is exactly the point of the Tea Party movement:


But perhaps the most unremarked thing about the Tea Parties is that they’re not calling for a repeal of the Constitution but for its enforcement. They are the complete opposite of what Clinton thinks they are; an affirmation, not a call to create “a different country” that Clinton congratulates himself in attaining. And that may be an advantage. If the world descends into a prolonged and tectonic crisis, the one clear advantage that America will have going into it is a clear and widely shared sense of the legitimacy of its foundational principles. That may not seem like much, but if a crisis impends a widely shared sense of legitimacy will be among the most precious things in a planet gone awry.

Yet politicians can’t see it. For perfectly natural reasons they fall into the habit of thinking everyone is a supplicant. It’s an understandable outcome of living in a world where someone is constantly asking them for something: photo opportunities, access to news releases, seats on Air Force One or Internet access. Nothing throws them for a loop more than something that doesn’t want anything they can bestow. The Tea Partiers already know the establishment is bankrupt. They don’t want to be the next Botox Queen, the next guest on Oprah or the man with Internet access on Air Force One; they only want their freedom and a chance to meet the crisis with common sense, if that’s not asking too much. It’s a novel idea which will take a little time for politicians to understand. But give them time and eventually someone will take credit for it.


Actually, some politicians have already gone fairly far in latching on to this energy. Sarah Palin comes to mind readily, and she's by no means unique..just one of the first ones out of the box.

Wretched hits the nail on the head. In the end, we will live or die in accordance to how we value the basic principles that made America the greatest nation on G-d's earth.








please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Friday, April 16, 2010

A Great Tea Party Message

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi6YD_hSriLaiAj32dKsZ4LiVy-ZjzPz_eLH3LY3UzwvxZJb8MBQdpesYYze0DQr-rXHdZhnBYbVoWzgN03wAy5rneiixNNihW7hOJGaqS8du1oLru6A8QxkrTeSuZAzG8GkSnB/s400/100416-taxed.jpg









please donate...it helps me write more gooder!