In light of last night’s election results in Mississippi, there is one question every conservative should be asking: how much longer can a party survive when its leadership is inexorably against the ethos of its base?
While Democrats harness their base supporters to advance the party’s liberal agenda, the Republican establishment works to undermine and disenfranchise its own base the minute they have pocketed their support in the general election. Now, after actively campaigning for Democrat votes in order to win against conservative Chris McDaniel in Mississippi, the GOP establishment has reached a new low in their treachery against those who embody the heart and soul of the party.
Based on the preliminary election results, it appears that the well-oiled campaign by the NRSC and Haley Barbour to turn out Democrat votes was more than enough to make the difference in last night’s primary. With roughly 60,000 more votes cast in the runoff than the primary, and an unprecedented surge in Democrat counties and precincts, it is almost certain that Chris McDaniel won the GOP vote while losing overall by about 6,400 votes.
Campaigning openly for Democrat votes in a GOP primary using issues and arguments contrary to the party platform is one thing. But the fact that they played the race card and ran mailers and robo calls in African American areas accusing their own party of being racist is downright despicable.
Hence, the NRSC and the GOP establishment essentially marshalled Democrat support to beat conservative voters in order to reelect an ineffective incumbent who is barely lucid and will very possibly never serve out his term.
Ironically, the establishment treachery on the campaign trail in Mississippi is merely a reflection of what they do in Washington. The GOP-controlled House has whipped Democrat votes to undermine and disenfranchise the GOP majority on numerous occasions over the past few years. Senate Republican leaders stood shoulder to shoulder with their Democrat colleagues and denounced conservative supporters of defunding Obamacare both on the Senate floor and in the media. They have clearly grown comfortable allying with their fellow career politicians in the Democrat Party than with those who in their own party who want government to work for the people again.
Throughout the primary season, GOP elites have accused the conservative base of helping Democrats by challenging Republicans in primaries. The reality is that we are challenging these people precisely because they work in tandem with Democrat and empower them in growing government. Yet, despite the acerbic differences and acrimony, the conservative base had always soldiered on and supported the Republican establishment candidate in the general election. Conservative were quick to do so with Mitch McConnell in Kentucky.
Now, the establishment has openly and unabashedly empowered Democrats to disenfranchise Republican voters in Mississippi by running on a platform of big government and playing the race card.
They may have the ability to continue fighting their base in the short-run, but no party can be at war with its base forever and succeed. It’s unclear whether the Republican Party will remain viable in the long term. But either way, these people will eventually be left without a home. At some point the base will either reassert itself or start a new party, and Democrats will not be there to help them in a general election. Live by the Democrats; die by the Democrats.
Tag Archives: Republican Party
By Isabel Matos
Is Ted Cruz’s dad a secret weapon in his arsenal to run for president in 2016?
After speaking with his son briefly, I was able to get some chat time with this very interesting Cuban American (and yes, he is very very Cuban. I felt at home speaking to him as I did listening to his son speak.) I limited the chat strictly to politics but let him know he is very popular in the Palin community-many who happen to be Evangelical. I will share only my impression on his take on the GOPe which interested me since I first heard of him at the RNC Convention in 2012.
Ted Cruz’s dad, Pastor Rafael Cruz, endured incarceration and torture in 1957 – two years prior to the revolution. He endured this under Batista. Batista’s party was called the “Partido Liberal” which could be considered the equivalent of the Republican party. This “Republican” became a dictator through a coup d’etat on March 10th, 1952. There were no elections following that even though a half-hearted attempt was made before Batista’s second term in office. Because the constitution was not followed from the start, people were unhappy. The situation grew worse as violence and protests increased in attempts to overthrow his government. Ted Cruz’s father was politically involved at this time like so many. This part of history is fascinating as it is incomplete (maybe others have more information but I hope to get more soon). After leaving Cuba to come to the U.S. for opportunity and economic freedom, Castro’s army gained momentum while Batista’s popularity continued to fall. Fidel did not run on communism, but anti-corruption (this was backed by many because it was legitimate). Batista left a blood bath behind after he abdicated power to Fidel on January 1st, 1959.
I’ve shared some of my patriotic journey in the last three years, and continue to look for answers from my country’s history. Since 2008 I have had my suspicions that something has been wrong in our party for years so I tried to get the pastor’s attention and had his ear when I called him “Reverendo”. We exchanged niceties; throughout the conversation we spoke in English and Spanish (it’s normal to switch back and forth and not remember what was said in what language).
Specifically I was interested in knowing what he thought of the comparison of the situation in Cuba which he experienced under Batista (without all the violence of course) to the one we have had with our current GOPe. I said we wouldn’t have gotten stuck with Obama had it not been for the GOPe in 2012 because Romney was there to lose on purpose. The family has not allowed anyone who does not have the last name of Bush to be a GOP presidential nominee (I whispered that it has been about Jeb 2016 from the start). That set off a spark in his yes and a very lively reaction. He nodded, his eyes rolled around with delight. He was not allowed to discuss it further at the event. He said it smiling and I thought he was being honest. I said that’s okay “esa reaccion me lo dice todo.” (your expression said it all). It really did. Time ran out. He looked over my shoulder for Ted, patted my back and darted over to where his son was. He’s a bit agitated and that constant protectiveness and almost adulation is very Cuban to me. It was a familiar sight. I said to one of my friends online there are many fathers like Rafael Cruz who happen to be patriots who sacrificed much for their children and keep them close all their lives .
I was in a sea of Republicans last night afraid to mention my activist issues with the party but I found Rev. Cruz’s natural response to my comments indicated to me that 1) we have a problem in the GOPe, 2) he is a great communicator/orator like his son, 3) he listens attentively but 4) he is unafraid to speak his mind or do what he has to do to defend his views. I loved his enthusiasm most of all. We need more of that in every state. I would love to see that kind of spark in more politicians or even activists here.
Miami has to have an awakening.
There were subjects off-limits in this event – notably immigration reform. That concerned me. We have a lot of progress to make because amnesty is being pushed through the church, the evangelical church is not exception. One thing can be sure, if Ted decides to run for president 2016, he has a great wind beneath his wings to do so.Ted’s dad is a charmer, but he is a fierce political activist and freedom fighter. Tonight, I just want to raise a toast to this politically dynamic duo.
There was a beautiful prayer where Jesus’s name was invoked before dinner. The pledge of allegiance was recited and the national anthem was sung. That was nice.
Must-See Clip of the Day: Republican Stupidity on Display Courtesy of Bob Corker. No Wonder We Are Losing.
If you have time, please still contact your Senator and a few more and let them know you want them to vote NO TO CLOTURE. That is the vote that counts on Friday. This is just disheartening. Some people make mistakes and correct them. The worst mistakes are the ones that are not identified to begin with. I know we have a lot to choose from, but this one is a doozy. Senator Corker tells Ted Cruz he is confused. I can’t believe Ted Cruz is the one criticized and these Senators continue to be re-elected for years. Tennessee, you have two who need to go! Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker.
The clip with the entire exchange on CSPAN (worth seeing in its entirety) http://www.c-spanvideo.org/clip/4466242
by Whitney Pitcher
I started writing this post about two weeks ago. In light of this post at Legal Insurrection today (which I encourage you to read) about low information voters and how we as conservatives should reach out to them , I thought I should finish it. I’m going to stray from my typical writing style with this post and get a little bit personal by sharing a bit about my life politically prior to 2008. I don’t want this post to be about me, and I apologize if this post ends up being a bit long. I’m just a Midwestern rube with a blog. I just want to use my recent past as a case study of sorts.
I was born into a middle class farming family to conservative parents during Reagan’s first term. My parents were your typical Republican voters. They weren’t super involved in elective politics, aside from my mom serving as an election judge during most elections. Most of my formative years were during the Clinton administration, whom my parents didn’t particularly like. They even named one of our cats Clinton because, as my dad would say, “one more thing and he’s out!”. Clinton also happened to be our first black cat. I was involved in student government in junior high and high school, but I didn’t really pay any attention to politics at any other level, aside from once helping stuff envelopes for a family friend running for county board .
The first election I could vote in was in 2002. I voted primarily because my mom always said growing up, ” if you don’t vote, you can’t complain”. I didn’t necessarily want to complain, but I did feel like I should vote, even if I didn’t really know who I was voting for. I do remember voting for the GOP nominee for governor in 2002 primarily because my parents were Republican. During the 2004 general election, I was a senior in college. My political knowledge was confined to headlines in the school newspaper, brief news segments I would occasionally catch watching TV, and whatever my professors would talk about. Since I was a microbiology major, my professors didn’t talk much about politics, aside from a 20th century American history professor who spent a big chunk of each class bashing Bush about Iraq. In that election, I ended up voting to re-elect President Bush, and I voted for Barack Obama for Senate. The little bits I picked up about John Kerry showed to me he was a flip flopper, and I appreciated how President Bush handled 9/11 which happened during my freshman year in college. When it came to the Senate race, I was aware that the GOP’s original nominee was gone and they had brought in a candidate from out of state to replace him–Alan Keyes. I didn’t really know anything about Keyes, but I didn’t understand why the GOP had to go out of state to find a new candidate, so I voted for Obama. In 2006, I was getting a master’s degree in community health. Most of my professors sympathesized with universal health care policy, and me, being at the time, naive and easily persuadable, agreed. So, in 2006, rather than vote for Blagojevich or the GOP candidate, Judy Baar Topinka, I voted for the Green Party candidate who believed in universal health care as public policy. Plus, his last name was Whitney, and my first name was Whitney. I thought that was cool.
You don’t have to register with any particular party in Illinois, so when the 2008 primaries rolled around, I toyed with the thought of voting for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary because I thought it was cool that a woman was running. Ultimately, I decided to vote in the Republican primary and voted for John McCain, mostly because as a short, grey haired veteran in his seventies, he reminded me of my grandpa. I didn’t pay attention to the election again until Senator McCain picked Governor Sarah Palin to be his running mate. I thought it was cool that he picked a woman, and I had caught enough of the news to know that she was a runner, former high school point guard, and a flutist (all the things I was too). I decided to catch her VP nomination acceptance speech on TV, and I was impressed. It was the first political speech that I had watched in its entirety. I started to pay attention to politics that election. I’d catch a few interviews or clips of rallies. I kept hearing this phrase, “energy independence”, but I had no idea what it meant. I began to learn more about Governor Palin’s record of taking on corruption and being fiscally responsible. She was the opposite of the Illinois politicians I typically ignored. She spoke in ways that made sense to me.
Following the election, I began to read because politics began to intrigue me. I happened to catch a segment on FoxNews that S.E. Cupp was on, and it highlighted her book Why You’re Wrong about the Right. She put aspects of conservatism into a language and a format that I could understand by weaving in cultural references and quotes from athletes. I don’t always agree with her now, but I’m grateful for that book because it spoke conservatism at a level that met where I was at the time. Now, I feel that I’m a reasonably informed voter who is now a political junkie. It wasn’t because Sarah Palin was well versed in explaining the nuances of the Fed’s interest rates or the geopolitical history of the Middle East; it was because she spoke of conservatism in concepts that were relatable in my everyday life.
In his recent speech at the National Prayer breakfast, Dr. Ben Carson noted that Jesus spoke in parables and how that was an effective teaching mechanism. I’m very hesitant to mix politics and religion, but I do think that if one is trying to reach people on an ideological level, be it with religion or with politics, relating those concepts to their audience’s daily lives and culture is effective. Jesus spoke to those who weren’t of the religious establishment be using parables about farming, fishing, and weddings. Good political communicators– the Reagans and Palins–do the same thing. They use rhetoric that speak to their audience. This seems like a very basic thing, but it is important. Often it’s the most rhetorically wonkish politicians who get the most praise. They may be very smart, but their approach doesn’t resonate with everyday Americans.
It’s not just the language conservatives use that makes a difference. It is the platform that we use. This is what makes Governor Palin prescient with her use of Facebook and Twitter and for and her family’s involvement in TV shows aside of the political commentary. She knows as she noted in her interview with Breitbart following her decision to not renew her contract with Fox, ” we can’t just preach to the choir”. It may be taking the GOP more time to see that she is right 99.9% of the time, but at least hopefully people are truly grasping it. We may mock Buzzfeed for having posts featuring 10 cats who look like Lady Gaga or the top 20 quotes from Full House, but low information voters eat that stuff up. It’s a part of culture now. This is why sites like Twitchy and Breitbart (especially Big Hollywood) are important because they push back against the cultural narratives, but they also engage the culture. There is a great opportunity for us to do even more though, as the Legal Insurrection post suggests, but we first have to fully realize that it is important. This doesn’t mean we abandon our principles. We must continue to embrace them. We don’t try to make a bigger tent by driving the stakes of the tent into swampy, unstable ground. That will only make the tent collapse, no matter how many people are inside. We make the tent bigger by making it attractive to enter, and for low information voters, this means that we meet them where they are politically and culturally. This does not mean all will choose to enter, but we do want to make conservatism attractive to them. Again, not by changing conservatism, but by making our message appealing.
By Gary P Jackson
Follow Gary on Twitter!
Sarah Palin has often said one of her favorite movies is the 1939 classic Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Directed by Frank Capra and starring Jimmy Stewart, the movie follows newly appointed Senator Jefferson Smith [Stewart] , a naive and idealistic young man. As the story unfolds, Senator Smith runs up against the political machine, massive corruption and cronyism.
Before taking office, Smith was the leader of the Boy Rangers a fictional group akin to the Boy Scouts of America. It’s his goal, as Senator, to create a national boys camp, a noble idea that turns into a battle. It’s a great movie that I firmly believe all Americans should see. Like all Capra films, it has a strong message.
It’s easy to understand why Sarah Palin loves this movie. Sarah is a proven reformer, having gone after questionable politicians since her earliest days as a member of the Wasilla, Alaska city council.
In a move that kinda mirrors the movie, after an unsuccessful bid to be Alaska’s Lt. Governor, Sarah, whose political star was definitely on the rise, was appointed by Governor Frank Murkowski as Chairman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission. This is one of the most powerful positions in the state. It was here that Sarah uncovered massive corruption at almost every level.
After uncovering all of this corruption, Sarah went to the Governor and demanded action. After being told to let it go, she told the Governor to either get something done, or she would go to the media with the facts. This, of course led to Murkowski sending then Attorney General Gregg Renkes, who was also neck deep in his own corrupt dealings, to pay Sarah a visit, threatening her with legal consequences if she blew the whistle.
In the end, Sarah resigned from her high paying gig at the AOGCC and took on the entire corrupt Republican Party in Alaska. The rest is history. The FBI would eventually get involved, and two years later, months into Governor Palin’s term, corrupt Republicans were still being hauled off to prison.
It’s easy to see why Governor Palin relates to the struggles of Senator Smith. She’s lived the movie, and then some!
For me though, it’s another Capra film that hits all of the right notes. Meet John Doe is a wonderful film starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck. I relate to the film because of the parallels between the film and what is going on between the Republican Party and the Tea Party today.
Full Disclosure: I’m a huge Gary Cooper fan, something helped along by the fact that he was my mother’s favorite actor, and who I’m named after. And I simply adore Barbara Stanwyck. She is one of the greatest actresses ever to appear on film, and one of the most beautiful. As such, I love every film both of them made.
It’s interesting to note that Cooper and Stanwyck, as well as actors Clark Gable, Ginger Rogers, John Wayne, and Irene Dunne [among others] were members of The Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. Within Stanwyck’s online bio, the Internet Movie Database describes this group as “a rabidly right-wing political action group during the McCarthy-era ‘blacklisting’ period in the early and mid-1950s.” Wonderful actors and Conservative to boot. Good enough for me! If they were alive today they would likely be Tea Party members themselves. BTW, as we now know, MaCarthy was spot on!
Released in 1941, while America was still in shambles due to Roosevelt’s failed liberal policies, that turned a bad recession into what is now known as The Great Depression, the movie opens in the town’s newspaper office. The local newspaper has been bought out by oil tycoon D. B. Norton, deliciously played by Edward Arnold, and the first order of business is firing almost everyone, including popular columnist Ann Mitchell. [Stanwyck]
Angered, especially after being told to make sure her last column is done before she hits the door, Mitchell decides to leave a parting shot. She quickly types up a fictional letter to the editor in which a desperate, unemployed man, who calls himself “John Doe,” goes on and on about the state of the country, the political corruption, and the decline of the American way. As a gesture, this fictional “John Doe” promises to commit suicide by jumping off the city’s municipal building on New Year’s Eve.
Once published, the letter creates an uproar in the community. The new editor Henry Connell [James Gleason] summons Mitchell back. Connell figures the letter is bogus, and the town’s other newspaper is already saying as much. Ann’s a fast talker though and convinces Connell that his only course of action is to run with the story, as any admission that the whole thing was made up would harm the paper’s credibility. Mitchell then convinces Connell to hire her back, with a substantial raise.
It’s decided they will run an article asking “John Doe” to come to the newspaper office, and that they have employment for him. The thinking here is people would show up claiming to be “John” and they could pick someone to play the part. It works, as a long line of sad looking tramps parade through the office claiming to be “John.” Of course, none of these characters will do, but as luck will have it, an injured baseball player “Long John” Willoughby [Gary Cooper] walks through the door. Unlike the rest, the humble Willoughby doesn’t claim to be “John Doe.” He tells Mitchell and Connell that he just figured if there was one job, maybe there was two. The newspaper just found itself a sucker to play “John Doe.”
As it turns out, Willoughby is a good speaker, and inspires people all over the nation, when he goes on a nation radio show with his message, a message written by Mitchell. In an organic movement that mirrors the formation of the Tea Party, “John Doe Clubs” start popping up across the country, built on the ideals that Willoughby, speaking the words written by Mitchell, sets forth.
Seeing what he has, D. B. Norton starts outlaying his own cash to fund a national tour with Willoughby and Mitchell, and to help start up these “John Doe Clubs” everywhere. Norton also puts a plan in motion for a national “John Doe” convention.
There are several plot twists, and Willoughby starts having feelings for Mitchell, but we’ll skip past that. Besides, if you haven’t seen the movie, you simply must, not only because you’ll better get where I’m going with all of this, but because this is simply a damned good movie and I want you to experience it yourself!
Moving along, we learn that the kindly D.B. Norton really isn’t kindly at all. The oil man has bought up newspapers and radio stations across the country and plans to use them, as well as the now powerful “John Doe” movement, to launch his political career. It seems Norton has his sights on the White House.
The plan is for Willoughby, as “John Doe” to deliver the keynote speech at the convention, and endorse Norton for president. At least that’s Norton’s plan. Meanwhile Mitchell has actually bought into the “John Doe” movement and has written a wonderful and inspiring speech for the convention.
It all comes to a head when the newspaper’s editor, Henry Connell, gets wind of what Norton is up to and grows a conscience, though not before getting all liquored up. He informs Mitchell of Norton’s plan, and catches Willoughby before the speech. Willoughby then approaches Norton and tells him he refuses to go along. Norton informs Willoughby that if he doesn’t go through with it, he will expose him as a fraud to the world, and destroy him.
At the convention Norton has his union thugs placed throughout the audience, and newspapers pre-printed exposing Willoughby, just in case. He also has Ann Mitchell on lockdown, so she can’t blow the whistle.
It’s cold and rainy as Willoughby takes to the stage. His conscience simply won’t allow him to do Norton’s bidding. As promised, Norton’s union thugs start calling him a fraud, when he starts with the speech Mitchell wrote, rather than the one Norton wanted him to give, and newspapers magically appeared exposing Willoughby, conveniently leaving out Norton and his newspaper’s part in it all. Pretty soon the entire crowd turns on Willoughby.
Destroyed, Willoughby takes the role of “John Doe” all of the way to the top of the town’s municipal building on New Year’s Eve, where he intends to jump.
Much like the fictional “John Doe” movement, the Tea Party is an organic movement that got it’s inspiration from a man who was fed up. On February 19, 2009 CNBC anchor Rick Santelli, reporting from the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, went into a well deserved rant about the corrupt dealings going on in the financial markets and called for a new Boston Tea Party. This rant, heard around the world, spoke to tens of millions of fed up Americans who would form thousands of Tea Party groups nationwide.
Though mostly without a formal structure, and no national leadership unifying all of it’s members, the Tea Party has become a powerful force in American politics. It didn’t take long for politicians to try and co-opt the movement for their own gains. For the most part though, Tea Party members turned out to be more sophisticated than the politicians hoped, and with only a few notable exceptions, weren’t fooled by the phonies in the least.
That didn’t stop the GOP from riding the Tea Party’s coattails into 2010 and historic victories nationwide. With the help of Conservative leaders like Sarah Palin, we saw the greatest nationwide political turnover of power since Reconstruction after the Civil War.
Of course, not everyone the Tea Party helped put in power stayed true to their mandate, and those who have are despised by the Republican Elite. You see, true Conservatives cannot be corrupted by Washington, nor can they be controlled by the party bosses. The more the GOP has tried to get Tea Party members to “play ball” the more resistance they have met. The Republican Party bosses want to keeps the status quo. They want to keep their little power bases and corrupt deals alive and producing. They want nothing to do with real reform and real reformers.
True reformers, like Sarah Palin, are attacked unmercifully by the Republican Party Elite. The last thing they want are strong, powerful men and women who, if elected, would dismantle the entire corrupt establishment machine. [in both parties] Something that must be done if America is to survive.
Since they can’t control the Tea Party, the Republicans are again imitating the movie, and have moved into the seek and destroy phase. Recently we’ve seen Speaker of the House John Boehner purge Tea Party Republicans from leadership positions in Congress, and his minions bad mouth the Tea Party to any and all who would listen. As you can imagine, the democrats, and their corrupt media partners, are loving it all, and reporting it breathlessly.
History is being rewritten, and losses by establishment hacks are now being blamed on the Tea Party. The GOP is blaming the Tea Party for all of the loses in 2012, never mind it was their standard bearer, Mitt Romney, who lost to the worst president in American history, and it was their candidates who failed to win 10 seats. Seats that would have put the Senate in Republican hands.
Now we have Karl Rove, one of the most despicable human beings in politics today, renaming his failed political action group the “Conservative Victory Fund” in an attempt to not only co-opt the Conservative movement, but stop the Tea Party as well.
As we reported last November, Rove’s group spent between $100 million and $400 million [depending on who you ask] on various establishment candidates. Rove had a 1% success rate. In comparison, Sarah Palin had a 75% endorsement success rate and America Grizzlies United [Organize for Palin] a group of Palin supporters nationwide, had a 66% success rate, putting candidates in office locally, statewide, and of course, in national office. Thomas S Schmitz, Chairman of the Board of American Grizzlies United, tells me the group spent less that $1000 total, the rest was just good old fashioned hard work.
No wonder Rove wants to destroy the Tea Party and other Conservative groups. They are making him look like the worthless hack he is!
Though establishment candidates lost big in 2010, and Tea Party candidates won huge gains all over the country, the Rove wing of the GOP love to bring up two candidates who lost: Christine O’Donnell and Sharron Angle.
The elites use these two ladies as examples of why the Tea Party is a failure and can’t be taken seriously. For the establishment, this is a twofer, because they can bash Sarah Palin at the same time. The GOP lies when they bash Sarah, and they lie about Angle and O’Donnell.
First let’s look at Sharron Angle. For one thing, Sarah Palin didn’t endorse her in the primary. She didn’t endorse any candidate in that race, as both her dad and brother had endorsed Danny Tarkanian. BTW, Mitt Romney DID endorse Angle in the primary, something the GOP Elite never mention. Now Sarah did endorse Angle once she was the nominee, but so what. Who else was she gonna to endorse? Angle lost because many liberal Republicans in Nevada backed Harry Reid. Plain and simple.
Christine O’Donnell is another matter altogether, and if anyone is to blame for her loss it’s Karl Rove. Yeah, she was, and is, quirky. But O’Donnell was sincere and had a real Conservative message, and no doubt would have made a good Senator.
As it was, you had George Soros’ boy, Republican Congressman Mike Castle, who only voted like a Conservative at election time, and voted like a socialist democrat the rest of the time, or Mike Coons, the self-proclaimed “bearded Marxist” on the democrat side. Quirks and all, Christine O’Donnell would have made a far superior Senator then either one of those two idiots!
Karl Rove didn’t quite see it that way. You see, Rove had dealings with Congressman Castle, and had hoped to further them along with a Senator Castle. As Michelle Malkin reported at the time, Rove had met with Tea Party leaders in Delaware and tried to convince them to leave his boy Castle alone, and NOT support O’Donnell’s bid for the Senate. As it happened, the Tea Party told Rove to shove it, and O’Donnell got massive Tea Party support from around the country. She won the nomination handily.
O’Donnell was still giving her victory speech when Karl Rove took to the airwaves on Fox’s Sean Hannity Show and proceeded to rip her to shreds. In Fact, Fox [and Hannity] allowed Rove to bash O’Donnell for three nights in a row. As you can imagine, the left ate this up, and their media partners reported it all breathlessly.
Had Rove kept his yap shut, we’d probably be addressing her as Senator O’Donnell to this day. We’ll never know. What we do know, is before Rove’s despicable attacks, O’Donnell was favored to win over Coons by a respectable amount.
Now Rove, along with the rest of the Republican Party machine has targeted Conservatives for defeat. It’s Rove and the GOP’s intention to destroy the Tea Party, and stop Conservatives from winning primaries. Never mind that Conservatives have traditionally won, where the unprincipled squishes the establishment is in love with, do not, and cannot.
This is where you, the American People, come in. It’s time to hold ALL politicians accountable. All politicians from BOTH parties.
As Conservatives, we have very few places to go. The democrat party has been taken over by Marxists. The party of the KKK, Jim Crow, and Margret Sanger is beyond redemption. Thing is, the party of Lincoln and Reagan ain’t much better.
Since the days of Barry Goldwater, Conservatives have tried to reform the Republican Party, and force it to live up to the principles it pretends to stand for. The only brief moment of victory was the Reagan presidency, but Republican Elites have been trying to erase Reagan’s triumphs since the day he left office.
So what are we to do? There are dozens of registered political parties, but none have proven viable. I think at this point, a real reformer COULD win the presidency as an independent, but then what? A president without a party would have both the GOP and the democrats doing everything possible to stifle any attempts at real reform, both parties hoping to get back in power quickly. It would be a frustrating situation.
How about creating a new and vibrant alternative? I’m of the mindset that the Republican Party has become just as morally bankrupt and beyond redemption as the democrat party, but for different reasons. I personally think it’s time for the GOP to go the way of the Whigs, the party it replaced.
It takes time and money to create a new party, and one would have to convince many solid Conservatives already in office to leave the GOP and join that new party. Can it be done? I don’t know. It would take a dynamic leader, and a solid message of real reform. Sudden, and relentless reform. The American people thirst for that message and no-bullshit leaders who would deliver on it. But is it really possible to start a new party?
One thing I do know is the Republican Party machine, with the help of the corrupt media, and much to the delight of the democrats, aims to destroy the Tea Party and the entire Conservative movement, once and for all.
The question is, are you just going to stand by and let them get away with it?
The final scenes of Meet John Doe have D.B. Norton and all of his cronies atop the city municipal building waiting to see if Willoughby will show up and jump. In fact, Willoughby does show up, ready to make good on his threat, after mailing off a letter exposing everyone and everything.
Norton greets Willoughby and tells him that if he jumps, his people are already down there, ready to grab his body, and bury it in an unmarked grave, and no one will ever know. It’s at this point that Ann Mitchell, who has broken free of her captors, shows up and begs Willoughby not to jump, and in tears professes her undying love for him.
Willoughby is dead set on jumping, when members of the “John Doe Club,” folks we’d met earlier in the movie, make their way to the top of the building where Willoughby, Mitchell, and Norton are. They are accompanied by Henry Connell, the newspaper editor.
These “John Does” all plead with Willoughby not to jump. They tell him they don’t care how it all came to be, that they believe in his message, because they have used it in their own lives, and seen positive change in their own communities. It’s then that Ann Mitchell, crying, collapses in Willoughby’s arms and he picks her up and starts carrying her toward the crowd of “John Does”
In the very last scene Henry Connell looks at D.B. Norton
and says with a dare: “The people, you just TRY and lick ‘em!”
It has been explained to me millions of times: Rino means ”Republican in name only”, but I always wondered if the term had any relation to the French play I read in college, Rhinoceros. After all, the image is used to depict that special breed in our party which many of us have grown to despise – those who betray the conservative principles they are supposed to stand on. Would it not be the juiciest coincidence in the world that the “Rinos” we know today – those who have turned against us, their very own, may have derived their name from the herd of “Rhinos” running amuck in a quiet little provincial town.
I decided to finally check for myself, and reread the play in its entirety. What a difference thirty years makes (almost)! I absorbed most of it in one afternoon, and did so with a great deal of interest and a heightened sense of awareness, because of my intimate involvement in politics today. I was glad I did not use the Wikipedia to refresh my memory. There is nothing like nourishing one’s mind or elevating one’s spirit with literature (or art), or savoring the nuggets of wisdom and pure genius first hand, in the original language, when one is overwhelmed by the depths of the crass and vulgar actions that politics reduces individuals to.
Rhinoceros was written in 1961, by avant-garde playwright, Eugene Ionesco, of Romanian-French descent. Amazingly, its valuable lessons can be still be applied today; specifically, to the situation we find ourselves in, in our party. You can decide for yourself if it is true. My translated, summarized version of the author’s forward is followed by a summary of the plot and a brief analysis.
Rhinoceros is an anti-Nazi piece inspired by events in the late 1930’s; however, it is more importantly, against collective hysteria in general, in which epidemics hidden under the guise or “alibis” of ideologies are used for the de-reasoning of history itself. If one notes that the lies of propaganda are used to mask contradictions that exist between events and the ideologies that support them, and gave reality a true, lucid look, it would be enough to prevent us from succumbing to irrational reasoning, and to escape from its vertigos.
The hero of the play, Berenger, is allergic to the invasion of “delirium and strange magic” that attracts his friends, colleagues and neighbors, which turns them into rhinoceroses one by one. He is saved from the fate of becoming one himself because he fights so adamantly against, but must deal with the uneasiness that comes from standing alone in resisting the “collective” storms.
Ionesco selects as a protagonist an anti-intellectual, or simple man, to expose not only the absurdity of the systems that engulf, dumb down and eventually enslave others, but the so-called “intellectuals” whose pretenses include feeling like they know more than others because they have read a novel, newspaper article, or two. They are among the first in the play to be duped and swept away by the forces of the absurd system which they themselves cannot identify.
The Rhinoceroses appear gradually in the play: first in the public square, then at an office building, then in the neighbor’s apartment building, and eventually in the fire department, police station and other official areas. At every instance, Berenger questions what it is that makes those around him change, and forces himself be intensely vigilant. He checks himself constantly for minor changes in the mirror, wears a bandage around his head to ensure he does let a horn grow on his forehead, and asks others to check him for any changes, too. He fights against becoming a rhinoceros with his whole being.
The most dramatic moment in the play is the transformation of his best friend, Jean, who lectures Berenger about being a more well-groomed, cultivated and informed in the beginning scenes of the play. Berenger, who is a careless drinker and a bit of a sloppy dresser, does not care much about this, but listens anyway and tries to become a better person just to please his friend. He is not proud or pretentious. When Jean’s views begin to evolve from a man of reason into a man of a new “reasoning” and mentality, Berenger is taken aback.
In this dramatic scene, Jean begins to identify with the point of view of an animal, the rhinoceros, reasoning that it is not as bad of an animal as people say, to which Berenger replies: As long as its mentality does not DESTROY our own! Jean cannot tell the difference between the beast’s mentality, which is against man, and that of man’s, which is superior to animals, because of its morals, principles and values. His inability to see the change in his own reasoning marks the point at which he starts to leave his humanity behind. He expresses a desire to follow the primitive order of things, citing all of the advantages of living by the laws of nature. As his thinking reflects that of a rhinoceros, he scans for a swamp to head toward. He is completely oblivious to the physical and mental transformation that he is undergoing. It is Berenger, in disbelief, who points it out.
Every transformation that takes place makes Berenger question. He questions the motives. He questions the thoughts and actions that take place prior to the change. To him, each person fails to do something which turns them from being human to a being a beast, and he tries to figure out what it is so it does not happen to him. Each person has an excuse. One leaves humanity because her husband does. She jumps out of a window, lands on his back and they ride off into the sunset. Others follow the herd out of political spite, or even a dispute with their employer. Most are caught off guard and do not see it coming. They are too busy minding their business, or too focused on details, missing the greater picture of what is happening.
Berenger loses sleep, he is so preoccupied figuring out how to avoid becoming a Rhino. He wants with every cell in his body to be immune from the epidemic that is seizing those around him. He is questionned for questioning what is going on. He is criticized, called obsessive and paranoid, and advised not to think too much or worry, that everything is fine. Nothing he can do or say will make a difference, they say. He just needs to “change with the times” and just “deal with things!” instead of trying to change them. Berenger is baffled by the conformity and chooses not to participate in it or make excuses for himself. He RESISTS!
Berenger laments that more were not involved as citizens, saying that their fate, and the town’s, would have been spared by it. Theory is one thing. Instinct is another. When you are faced with a real-life situation you have to respond with passion and instinct. Berenger’s last contact is with his love, Daisy. She sticks by him until almost the very end, but eventually she leaves him, too, to be with the others. Berenger does not leave with her despite his love for her.
No one sees what Berenger sees throughout the play. He is constantly urging others to see what he sees, and reminding them of what makes them human. They don’t. They don’t heed his warnings either. He becomes so miserable being alone at the end of the play that at one point, during his monologue, he wishes he could join the herd, but because it it too late, he has made himself to be so individualistic and immune to the epidemic, and he is incapable of it.
It does not take a lot to see that we, ourselves, are in a fight for our own survival. The main character of the play understood that if he joined the herd, the Rhinoceroses would eventually destroy him. He was not willing to do that. It went against every fiber of his being to allow that to happen. He stood alone in the end. It was not enjoyable, and he paid a price. He is a hero because he sacrificed. We must be like Berenger.
We must SEE what is going on, protect ourselves from it, and spread the warning to others so they can SEE, too.
The “Rhinos” in our Party are trying to threaten our existence. We are in their crosshairs, make no mistake! I have been saying this since the first article that appeared in this blog, and since I founded GOPAYL, which is a great little group on Facebook, by the way. Why are we a threat to them? We are a threat to them because our party is no longer against big government. It panders to groups, not individuals, because large groups of people mean bigger government programs which keep them in business. Do not ask me to explain the “power” mentality. I understand wanting the best for people who deserve freedom. Not evil.
We must defy them with our whole being and dispell myths, educate voters. We should get off Facebook (for one week), or incorporate politics into our conversations with those around us. Talk to the gardener, your hairdresser.. the T-Mobile lady while you wait to have an issue taken care of.. whoever you can chat with about how it is great to be American, and what it really means. Mention big government like a member in the family who doesn’t go away. Urge them to see if our lives depend on it, why aren’t we fighting more? Let’s reach out to reasonable people. It takes time and practice, but we must do it.
Let’s be lucid, fierce and focused, and continue watching for those slight digressions in language, or inconsistencies I call symptoms of rhinoceritis! If you’re for the Tea Party, and you are against amnesty, but you support candidates who are pushing it, you could be a Rhino! Saying “It’s not amnesty” is no excuse for supporting what you are really against. Let’s be honest with ourselves. Rand Paul has also said “The party has to evolve and adapt”.. Evolve into what? We must become immune to having things two ways. If we say we are conservative, then let’s not support candidates who are not acting like conservatives.
Let’s continue writing articles, speaking up for ourselves, speaking out against the Rhinos who see us as the threat. We know who they are. If we are afraid to pay the price it takes, or sacrifice, we will end up relinquishing power to those who seek to end us.
The left is full of Rhinos who don’t reason, see or question, but our party is full of Rhinos who don’t reason see or question either. Neither party wants you to see or question. To be a good Republican you must do as you are told. Talking with the establishment is like talking to a wall, or running into one. If they do not agree with you, you are extreme, irrational or intolerant, all of which they happen to be. If you expose their true intentions, or tell the truth to others, they marginilize and disrespect you. Just today the Hispanic Leadership Network banned me from posting comments about Immigration Reform.
Again, our GOP establishment in Washington has been defiant with us. We must be pernicious and push back. It’s tiring, but it is the only way to ensure a win. We send representatives to Washington to keep true to the principles that represent us, not to turn on us. When they gradually start to see things not from our point of view anymore, but from those who are against us, they leave behind their humanity bit by bit, and take on the mentality of political animals, self-unaware of the transformation, just like Jean in the play. We react by getting angry, justifiably so. Don’t stop Resisting! The Democrats and the Republican are both against us.
They are all Rhinos!
There is no window of opportunity to succeed without the input of reasonable, ordinary every day people who have no pretensions or airs, who see things that the so-called experts don’t see, who are not like the “Rhinos” in our establishment who put up walls, and who don’t reason. This is how we will be America again.
If our politicians stay close to the people, and hold on to the principles we believe in, they will spare themselves of being transformed into Rhinos. There is only one extraordinarily ordinary individual who is loved for being one of “us”, the people, and she has been in the crosshairs of our party, like us. It’s war. I am moved every time I see this comment from a member: “Our Future President just hanging out with the common folk. No pretense.. not fake.” (L. Luerssen)
We must protect our treasure.. the “common folk”.. the People.. not just for this party’s, but this country’s own self-preservation. It is not selfish to self-preserve.
I am almost sure “Rino” was not really derived from the “Rhinos” in the play, but after rereading the play, the term sure does fit to me!I
By Stacy Drake
* Follow Stacy on Twitter
But this is the “stupid party” we’re talking about, so I won’t hold my breath.
In the wake of the disastrous 2012 election results, there has been a lot of discussion on the right regarding the GOP’s apparent “message” problem. Much of the conversations has focused on immigration issues as a way to bring in new voters. Recently, Charles Krauthammer wrote:
’ve always been of the “enforcement first” school, with the subsequent promise of legalization. I still think it’s the better policy. But many Hispanics fear that there will be nothing beyond enforcement. So, promise amnesty right up front. Secure the border with guaranteed legalization to follow on the day the four border-state governors affirm that illegal immigration has slowed to a trickle.
Imagine Marco Rubio advancing such a policy on the road to 2016. It would transform the landscape. He’d win the Hispanic vote. Yes, win it. A problem fixable with a single policy initiative is not structural. It is solvable.
It’s going to take much more than that to solve the current issues the GOP has with voters. You can’t pander to one racial demographic and think that will solve all of your problems. The predicament that they find themselves in goes much deeper than a single issue, and it’s based primarily on trust. According to an election night survey released by Breitbart News, Judicial Watch, and Public Opinion Strategies:
Voters’ responses suggest that the American public agrees with conservative policies–but does not trust the Republican Party to implement them.
For example, voters dislike big government, with 71% agreeing (and 49% strongly agreeing) that: “The larger the size of government the more opportunities it creates for possible corruption.” In addition, 85% of voters said they were concerned about corruption in Washington, and 53% described themselves as “very concerned.”
Yet voters do not trust Republicans more than Democrats to deal with corruption. Only 34% said Republicans would do a better job of cleaning up corruption; 37% said Democrats would. That is an indictment of the permanent political class, regardless of party. And despite the President’s talk of cleaning up Washington, his party is not viewed as better able to do so.
So, the Democrats share much of the same issue with voters regarding corruption, but they’re able to squeak enough votes each cycle because they have more credibility on other matters. Here’s a thought. How about for starters, the GOP stop selling out their principles and try to gain some trust back with that 71% who dislike big government? And how does either party address the 85% of voters who are concerned about corruption in Washington, when both of them are compromised in that area? Considering all of the money wasted in Washington on cronies and corruption, these concerns by the vast majority are extremely legitimate.
As I watched the debate go back and forth on the GOP’s message problem after the election, an article written by Anand Giridharadas back in 2011 titled “Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide” came to mind. In it, he wrote:
[S]omething curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa…
She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).
In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.
Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.
“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”
Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.
Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs…
“This is not the capitalism of free men and free markets, of innovation and hard work and ethics, of sacrifice and of risk,” she said of the crony variety. She added: “It’s the collusion of big government and big business and big finance to the detriment of all the rest — to the little guys. It’s a slap in the face to our small business owners — the true entrepreneurs, the job creators accounting for 70 percent of the jobs in America.”
Keep in mind that Sarah Palin was told to “leave the room” by none other than Charles Krauthammer, back in 2009. Yet now he tells the Republican Party that in order for it to save it’s hide, they must reward lawbreakers and anoint a man as leader who has engaged in illegally soliciting foreign donations, just as President Obama has also done.
That is not the answer. The answer for the GOP is to clean up its own act and address the real concerns of the majority of Americans, regardless of political affiliation. They can start by not shunning the members of their own party who have the credibility to speak on such matters. Reform in Washington is a winning message and has the potential to bring in voters from nearly every racial, gender, and economic demographic in the country.
It isn’t too late for the Republican Party to jump on board, but time is ticking. American voters need a true opposition party to the big-government, tax and spend, corruption plagued Democrats. The GOP establishment would do themselves and the country a favor by allowing people into the room who can credibly push for reform, and by ceasing their own practices of big-government corruption.
Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening anytime soon.
Publisher’s Note” in case you missed it, here is the Indianola, Iowa speech Stacy references. This is what real leadership looks like. The Geniuses of the GOP™ should take note:
And of course, the she stuck around to meet the people:
By Gary P Jackson
Ted Cruz talked to Neil Cavuto on Wednesday. Ted is one of the very few bright spots in these very dark times. Ted and Neil talk about the need for better articulation of values by the GOP leadership, as well as tax policy.
Cruz is so right on outreach. Texas has a huge Hispanic population and most are Conservative in their personal lives. But that’s true for Hispanics nationwide. The same can be said of blacks. Most live very Conservative lifestyles, and yet, they continually vote against their own best interests. That speaks to around 50 years of failure by the Republican Party to defend itself against lies and slander from the democrat party.
Poll after poll, for decades on end, have shown that Conservatives are, by far, the largest group of people in America, and yet, the nation just re-elected the most anti-Conservative, radical Marxist, ever to even attempt to hold public office in America. That’s not America’s fault, it’s the failure of the Republican Party to protect the brand. A total and complete failure.
Video courtesy SarahNet.
by Whitney Pitcher
Since Deb Fischer won the Nebraska Republican Senate primary on Tuesday, the discussion of the power or intent of Governor Palin’s endorsement has been discussed by many in the media. Some have tried to pass off Fischer’s win as the result of the fact that her opponents turned their guns on each other, and she escaped unscathed. In other words, Governor Palin’s endorsement had little to do with the victory. The folks at Breitbart, and even some at the New York Times, have recognized the power of Governor Palin’s endorsement. Heck, even, Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post, gave some backhanded credit to Governor Palin for Fischer’s win. However, there are those who are questioning not only the power of Palin’s endorsement, but the intent. They are trying to imply that Governor Palin primarily endorsed Fischer because she is a woman, when so much of the support for Fischer extended far beyond that.
It’s easy to recognize with Deb Fischer’s win that Governor Palin endorsement played a big role in Fischer’s campaign, alongside a big grassroots effort in Nebraska. This is the kind of boost that Governor Palin provided that helped Nikki Haley win her gubernatorial primary in 2010. Governor Palin’s endorsement is powerful, but it isn’t solely about getting the candidate over the top to win. It’s about changing the way the game is played. It is not about gender, though Governor Palin definitely wants to see more conservative women in politics. Remember too that Governor Palin endorsed Rick Perry over Kay Bailey Hutchison and Deb Medina in the Texas gubernatorial primary and Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Senate primary in 2010. Really, those two endorsements tell quite a bit of the story when it comes to the meaning of her endorsements.
When Governor Palin released her congratulatory note about Deb Fischer’s victory, she noted:
As recently as a week ago, Deb Fischer was dismissed by the
establishment. Why? Because she is not part of the good old boys’
permanent political class. The message from the people of Nebraska is
simple and powerful: America is looking for real change in Washington,
and commonsense conservatives like Deb Fischer represent that change.
This is what Governor Palin’s endorsements are about–real change and ridding Washington (or the state halls) of the permanent political class.This is not better seen than her recent endorsement of Richard Mourdock in Indiana to replace veteran Senator Dick Lugar, nor in her endorsements opposite the Bush endorsed Kay Bailey Hutchison and coattail riding Lisa Murkowski. While many questioned her 2010 support for Christine O’Donnell, her intention was to send a message to the Establishment and to the permanent political class–which extends beyond those who hold political office. The message echoes Reagan’s — “those voices don’t speak for the rest of us”. Suffice to say, Governor Palin is the Expo eraser to Karl Rove’s dry erase board. It’s about the principles of the party, not the party itself. While the Roves of the GOP want the tent to get bigger, the Palins of the GOP want to ensure that the tent–no matter its size– has its stakes driven into solid enough ground that it won’t collapse.
It’s not solely about opposition to Rovian-Schmidtism political strategy though. Governor Palin views politics and policy in a way that very few in politics do– both politics and policy must revolve around the people, not the party. Governor Palin recognizes that politics is not just a battle between right and left; it’s a vertical battle between top and bottom–both within the party structure and as a matter of policy. Governor Palin is the political Galileo ( with Ronald Reagan as Copernicus). You may recall that Galileo was an astronomer who pursued the ideas Copernican heliocentrism–the concept that the earth revolved around the sun, rather than the other way around. The Catholic church declared him a heretic and put him under house arrest where he continued his work, and of course, he was eventually proven right. This Galileo-Palin comparison may not be perfect in its entirety, but it shows an important point. Those in the permanent political class wish to believe that all political power revolves around them, when it really revolves around the people–the people who vote, not those who pontificate. The same concept is true for policy. The big government views of the Left and the “pro business” views espoused by many in the GOP think that government exists to do things for the people or for businesses. Governor Palin is pro market. Who is empowered in a pro market economy? The consumers (the people). The people determine whether or not a business fails or succeeds by their purchasing power–not by the special loans of the big government Left or the special tax breaks of the pro-business GOPers, but of the the Galileoan pro-marketers.
This is what makes Governor Palin’s speech in Iowa late last summer so compelling. She laid out a vision of a pro market economy–no corporate taxes, but no corporate welfare, no special tax breaks or subsidies either. In other words, let the people decide what business fail or succeed by their purchasing power. Also, as Governor Palin wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed, echoing Peter Schweizer’s book Throw Them All Out, let there be no more crony capitalism and no more special treatment of politicians. This is the very thing that Deb Fischer espouses too. If you look at her campaign website, Fischer notes specifically “reform Congress and Washington D.C.” as one of her policy plans. As example, Fischer mentions some of the very same things in this policy plank that Governor Palin did in her WSJ op-ed:
Tighter Ethics Laws
- Prohibit Members of Congress and federal employees from trading
stocks based on information obtained on the job that is not publicly
- Prohibit Members of Congress, their staffs and federal employees from disclosing nonpublic information for investment purposes.
- Prohibit Members of Congress, their staffs and federal employees
from purchasing land based on inside information that is not public
- Require Members of Congress to be subject to the same laws and privileges as every citizen of the United States.
This brings everything full circle. Whether it’s an endorsement or policy driven speech, Governor Palin’s influence is powerful and so is her impact on ridding the political system of the permanent political class and replacing it with what the Founders stated at the very beginning-“-We the People”.
By Gary P Jackson
In the United States, our government doesn’t have a revenue problem, it has a spending problem. It has an over regulation problem, and a great many policies that kill jobs.
Proving just how lame even Congressmen considered Conservative have become, here’s a report from Americans for Prosperity®
40 House Republicans Ask Super Committee for Higher Taxes
Late last week, a group of 100 U.S. Representatives sent a letter to the so-called Super Committee urging the handpicked group of twelve legislators to consider “all options for mandatory and discretionary spending and revenues” in order to reach the committee’s goal of $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over the next ten years. In Washington speak, this is code for raising taxes.
Among this list is 40 Republicans whose capitulation encouraging the committee to raise taxes is troubling. We shouldn’t be surprised to see 60 Democrats seizing on the opportunity to drive a wedge between conservatives intent on restoring economic growth by keeping taxes low and Republican lawmakers who are starting to throw in the towel on keeping pressure on Democrats to cut spending.
We all know that the real driver of long-term deficits is runaway spending on entitlements and big government pet projects. In the past, lawmakers have cut deals that supposedly included both tax hikes and spending cuts. But when you get a few years down the road the spending cuts never materialize and the higher tax rates take a bite out of economic activity. We’re still climbing out of the recession and we cannot afford higher taxes slowing us down.
Read more here.
You’ll note presidential candidate Ron Paul is one of the co-signers of this letter. I’m sickened to see my Congressman, John Carter on the list as well.
Thankfully, there is still some common sense left in Washington. Congressman Jim Jordan of Ohio gets it right. In an op-ed for USA Today Jordan writes:
After an unprecedented spending binge, apologists for big government once again want to raise taxes to reduce the deficit. We’ve seen this before.
Read it all here.
Now the list:
Charlie Bass – (R-NH)
John Carter – (R-TX)
Howard Coble – (R-NC)
Tom Cole – (R-OK)
Ander Crenshaw – (R-FL)
Charlie Dent – (R-PA)
Robert Dold – (R-IL)
John Duncan – (R-TN)
Jo Ann Emerson – (R-MO)
Mike Fitzpatrick – (R-PA)
Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE)
Paul Gosar – (R-AZ)
Mike Grimm – (R-NY)
Richard Hanna – (R-NY)
Gregg Harper – (R-MS)
Mike Kelly – (R-PA)
Peter King – (R-NY)
Jack Kingston – (R-GA)
Steve LaTourette (R-OH)
Billy Long – (R-MO)
Cynthia Lummis – (R-WY)
Tom Marino – (R-PA)
David McKinley – (R-WV)
Pat Meehan – (R-PA)
Devin Nunes – (R-CA)
Ron Paul – (R-TX)
Tom Petri – (R-WI)
Todd Platts – (R-PA)
Tom Reed – (R-NY)
Reid Ribble – (R-WI)
Phil Roe – (R-TN)
Tom Rooney – (R-FL)
Mike Simpson – (R-ID)*
Marlin Stutzman – (R-IN)
John Sullivan – (R-OK)
Lee Terry – (R-NE)
Bob Turner – (R-NY)
Ed Whitfield – (R-KY)
Frank Wolf – (R-VA)
Don Young – (R-AK)
* – Indiana’s Mike Simpson Organized the Letter
Hey Republicans, Ronald Reagan called and he’d like to have a long talk with you guys!
Americans for Prosperity® has ways for you to get involved and help remind Congress that it works for us, not the other way around. Go to the link and get involved.
Governor Sarah Palin at the Americans for Prosperity® event in Madison, Wisconsin. “Game on Mr President!.”