RINOS FEAR WINNING
By Don Surber, March 03, 2021 https://donsurber.blogspot.com
Josh Kraushaar of National Journal gave an
insight into RINO thinking about Donald John Trump in the coming 2022 midterm
elections. They fear he will win.
Kraushaar wrote, "As president, he played the role of kingmaker in Republican primaries, tallying a near-undefeated record (109-2) while elevating underdog candidates like Ron DeSantis and Brian Kemp into office."
Only the Harlem Globetrotters have a
With his 98% winning record, the fear in Washington is our president emeritus will succeed in nominating people the Washington Establishment does not like.
My fear is he won't.
Kraushaar wrote, "Republicans are worried that he’ll anoint weak candidates in winnable races, hurting the party’s ability to mount a political comeback."
We heard this before. In 2010, the Tea Party gave Republicans their best midterm in 64 years. The Tea Party gave Republicans a net gain of 63 seats in the House and 7 in the Senate.
The spin was the Tea Party "cost" Republicans the Senate by nominating Christine O'Donnell for the Senate in Delaware.
No. Republicans cost her that seat by abandoning her Senate campaign because the media dragged up something she said 12 years earlier. It abandoned her just like it would Todd Akin in the Missouri Senate race 2 years later, and Donald Trump in 2016. In all 3 cases, the party's abandonment came because of what they said, and nothing they actually did.
Democrats would back Hannibal Lector.
But Republicans in Washington care more about what the media thinks than they care about the country.
Kraushaar is the RINO messenger.
He wrote, "Trump already issued his first endorsements of the 2022 cycle, supporting his former press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders in her bid for Arkansas governor and endorsing former aide Max Miller’s primary campaign against impeachment-supporting Rep. Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio. In both of these contests, Trump’s involvement is unlikely to impact the GOP’s chances to retain those seats. Both races are on conservative turf, where winning the primary is typically tantamount to general-election victory."
Why would Sanders be a bad candidate? Her father was governor and she has made a name for herself to the point where most people just call her Sarah Sanders.
Her crime, of course, was working in the Trump administration. Democrats continue to refuse defeat in 2016, and Republicans continue to refuse to accept that victory.
Kraushaar wrote, "But in two elections taking place this year, Trump’s engagement would be a lot more damaging. He is encouraging Ric Grenell, his former director of national intelligence, to run in the anticipated California gubernatorial recall election."
The other election is a special congressional race in Texas. Rumors had Katrina Pierson running. She declined.
How in the heck is the California governorship winnable?
Newsom got 62% of the vote in 2018. I get that Schwarzenegger won the 2003 recall but that was nearly 20 years ago. Since then, millions of Republicans have either died or moved away.
And what makes Grenell unfit for office? Is it because he is light in the loafers? You know, a friend of Dorothy. A confirmed bachelor.
RINOs do not fear defeat. They are used to that. They fear victory by those people. You know, people who wear boots. A friend of Donald. A confirmed American.
The last thing Dick Cheney's daughter wants in Congress is another Marjorie Taylor Greene or Lauren Boebert.
RINOs love to complain about what Democrats do but they hate to do anything that displeases Democrats. I offer Obamacare as my best example.
When he was president, Donald Trump was loyal to the party and endorsed the likes of Ben Sasse and Mitt Romney.
We won't be fooled again. Primary them all if we must. Send the people we need to Washington, not the people RINOs like.
Return to Index
WAS RUSH LIMBAUGH DONE WITH CONSERVATISM?
By Rich Danker, 2/26/2021
In a trail of observations that began with Trump's campaign in 2015 and peaked during the last year of his life, the late Rush Limbaugh, as he was in and out of the studio battling cancer, was on a path to the previously unthinkable. He was ready to let go of the ideology he'd spent three decades promoting — Reaganite conservatism — and replace it with right-wing populism. Specifically, the right-wing populism of the just-defeated Republican president. Why?
Limbaugh, the self-proclaimed "mayor of Realville," was constantly trying to see around corners. What he saw was a political movement that offered more staying power and strength against the left than the ideological one he'd been associated with since 1988. That calculus wasn't based on election outcomes. It was informed by the first Republican voter realignment to occur since Reagan's election. Here is how Limbaugh described it in the days after Trump's Republican convention speech on the White House South Lawn last year:
Now, what emerged was the new Trump Republican Party. And it's a fascinating change. It's the party of the little guy. It's the party of working America, not politicians, not elitist think-tank denizens. It is literally the party of working Americans.
Limbaugh never missed the chance to rib what might be called Cruise Ship Conservatism. As an entertainer with a massive following, he found it ridiculous that other media personalities would cultivate the small-time celebrity role. But "elitist think-tank denizens" was a stand-in for the country club set, too. With a small-town upbringing and blue-collar audience, Limbaugh relished the idea of his being "the party of the little guy."
Limbaugh realized that right-wing populism was more appealing than conservatism to the little guy. This was a counterintuitive conclusion for a movement conservative like him to reach. The Reagan coalition was heavy on union members and other disillusioned Democrats. But for all its success through the 1980s, it didn't survive the end of the Cold War, something Limbaugh would rue for the rest of his life. He even took it personally. This was his response just six weeks ago to one of the many listeners who called in to credit him with the listener's political conversion:
You know, I'm not gonna sit here and deny that. But, folks, I gotta tell you, there's a large part of me that feels like I have failed in such a major way, in a political sense. I've had 30 years here to try to convince people, to try to persuade people, to try to encourage people to think — critically think — on their own, to realize the difference between conservatism and liberalism, the difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat party as it relates to conservative versus liberal.
This was a lament not that conservatism has lost to liberalism, but that most people weren't voting by ideology in the first place. He recognized over the Obama and Trump years that voters are situationally rather than ideologically oriented. Along the way, in a conversation with me in April 2016 for his Limbaugh Letter, he recounted a lunch with Ted Cruz ahead of that year's Republican presidential race. Limbaugh warned the conservative hopeful that most of his own 25-million-member audience didn't even identify with the conservative movement.
My message in conversation with Limbaugh was that conservatives could use Trump's success to achieve big ideas, a thought that was considered unconventional at a moment when many Republican leaders dreamed of sabotaging Trump's nomination. But even that prediction proved shortsighted. Trump would remake the GOP. By 2020, it had changed from a conservative party to a right-wing populist party.
Is the difference between conservatism and right-wing populism really more than just nuance, or the presence of Trump? After all, conservatism won with a populist coalition under Reagan. And much of Trump's agenda from tax cuts to deregulation to judicial nominations came straight from the conservative playbook.
A look under the surface of these outcomes shows fundamental differences. Using my mentor the late Jeff Bell's definition of populism as "optimism about people's ability to make decisions about their lives" (from his 1992 book Populism and Elitism), it's clear that a reckoning was coming once the foundations of postwar American politics collapsed.
Conservatism demands an allegiance to institutions rather than to a public. For powerful conservatives, it could be whatever institution they called home, whether that was the U.S. Senate or a magazine that took subscribers on cruises. Limbaugh, like Trump, was never part of an institution that needed to be conserved. Each owed his platform to massive consumer followings that presaged the rise of digital media. Eventually, those and all the other followings that formed the public superseded institutions in politics.
Until that happened, elitism, which Bell defined as essentially the opposite of populism — "optimism about the decision-making ability of one or more elites, acting on behalf of other people" — had not yet outlived its usefulness. Cold War presidents were on average several years older and better credentialed than their predecessors. Public trust in the media was strong. White-collar bosses often lacked college degrees like their employees. The economic power of any one set of elites was limited in pre-internet times by regional geography. Elites and ordinary people related relatively well with one another.
Limbaugh came of age politically under the three-legged stool conservatism that Reagan had cultivated out of post–World War II America. It was a challenge to the liberal-moderate consensus on economics, social issues, and foreign policy of the earlier Cold War years that was itself the reaction of both parties to the four presidential elections won by FDR. Postwar conservatism called for an ideological change of American positions on various issues, not class-based change.
Conservatism won the Cold War but struggled to find traction in peacetime. The 1990s conservatism that Limbaugh is closely associated with is now most remembered as an effective check on Bill Clinton. George W. Bush was re-elected during wartime in 2004 as a legacy conservative, but Reagan revivalism was finished off by the 2008 financial crisis. So was the political momentum of elitism.
Bell lamented two decades after the publication of Populism and Elitism that the
book had mainstreamed the concept of elitism in American politics but not
populism. He only had to wait a few more years for vindication in 2016.
What changed? Was it when management jobs finally ran out for the uneducated? Was it when the technology revolution consolidated corporate power after manufacturing jobs has been offshored? Or was it when broadband internet allowed voters to instantly scrutinize politicians, and smartphones enabled them to become informed by one another rather than just by media elites? Former CIA analyst Martin Gurri in his book's title calls this technologically-driven redistribution of elite and populist power The Revolt of the Public.
Suddenly, a Republican frontrunner was winning primaries in rich and poor ZIP codes alike by trampling on the reputation of every party leader who had come in Reagan's path. A party that had a tradition of giving its presidential nomination to the previous runner-up and been respected for its conservative institutional pedigree was now up for grabs.
What would Limbaugh do?
Contrary to popular framing, Limbaugh and Trump were not friends before 2016. Limbaugh's decision to back Trump's hostile takeover was the result of methodical analysis. His radio program in the Trump years became a search for the political movement that respected conservatism while acknowledging that it was essentially over as we knew it. As Limbaugh said on that show after Trump's 2020 convention speech:
You know the old concept of conservatism might have gone into the chasm, too, 'cause it's time to maybe rethink how conservatism's existence is going to evolve and how conservatives mature into whatever this new party is.
Limbaugh had forever demanded, especially after Republicans lost presidential elections, that the party accommodate conservatives, not the other way around. Yet there he was, saying conservatives had to "mature" into their party. But it wasn't the party establishment he was referring to this time; it was a "new party" of the same name but changing voters — blue-collar but also multiracial, nationalist, and consumerist.
Unlike the white professional class that underpinned the post-Reagan Republican coalitions, these voters weren't deluged by left-wing programming in offices or college classrooms. Their detachment from the four institutions most captured by the left — corporate America, academia, mainstream media, and mainline Protestantism — made them valuable holdouts to the critical theory version of liberalism sweeping the culture in 2020. They were more likely to be anchored on the right wing of populist appeals than the left wing.
If this was true, it had the makings of a durable Republican realignment that could outlast even its standard-bearer president.
Limbaugh claimed that he knew the left better than anybody. It seems likely he concluded that liberalism with its ambition to politicize everything could not be contained by conservatism. It was not a fair fight. Conservative critics have said Limbaugh became darker in the Obama and Trump years. In the moments when that was actually true, it was a recognition of this reality that they didn't have.
Limbaugh also knew there are many more conservative voters than liberal voters, even though conservatives sometimes voted for liberal candidates because they voted situationally rather than ideologically. Right-wing populism held the potential to turn latent conservatism into reliable Republican voting.
The only way Limbaugh complained about his terminal illness during the last year was that it threatened doing what he loved every day — demystifying politics for his audience. That role must fall to others now. But Limbaugh left behind enough clarity to see beyond the horizon — to see how far a realignment from conservatism to right-wing populism could take this new Republican Party.
Rich Danker is a former conservative operative. Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: https://www.americanthinker.com
Return to Index
THE REPUBLICAN PARTY: NOT MUCH
OF A HORSE BUT THE ONLY ONE IN THE CORRAL
By Jared Peterson, July 30, 2018
The tragedy of
American conservatism is that its only electoral home is in a party most of
whose funds come from those who agree with the globalist agenda and whose
privileged position insulates them from its disastrous cultural consequences. In
short, America’s corporate elite is making tons of money from globalism --
chiefly, mass immigration and manufacturing outsourcing -- while they experience
no negative effects in their privileged and insular world.
Oh sure, they advocate a bit of border protection here, a little improvement in US trade deals there, but basically they’re on board for free trade, relaxed borders and mass immigration. They have a wealthy person’s distaste for excessive government regulation and high taxes -- hence, they are “Republicans” -- but, stem the flood of cheap labor immigrants? Why on earth would they want to do that?
The first economic consequence of mass immigration is lower labor costs across the economy, from lettuce pickers to computer programmers, and that pushes historic quantities of money up to America’s corporate owners and executives. The working and middle classes endure the economic downside in the form of fewer jobs and much lower wages.
This has all been discussed ad nauseam before. But it can’t be repeated too often: Mass immigration has been an economic bonanza for major owners and executives and an economic disaster for the other 80% of the population.
Looking away from the economic to the cultural consequences of mass immigration, the divergence between America’s wealthy decision makers and the other 80% is even greater. Put bluntly, the American upper classes have yet to see the those consequences, let alone to feel pressured by them. They are Peggy Noonan’s “protected classes.”
It has been said before but cannot be said too often: America’s upper class hypocrites who have brought the joys of mass third world immigration to middle and working class America are, as yet, absolutely immune from its baleful cultural concomitants.
They live in elegant neighborhoods, behind gates and walls, protected as often as not by private security; their children attend the finest private schools where a learning environment still exists and the risk of being beaten up or shaken down for lunch money is zero; their family members and friends don’t have to ride BART, or the subway, or the bus in the middle of the night to or from poorly paid jobs; the members of their swank clubs look like they did in 1980 and all speak English; and their mode of transport is the first class cabin or private jet.
I begrudge them none of this. My quarrel is that much of their wealth and ease comes from a globalism whose detriments are inflicted solely on the bottom 80% of Americans. But the cultural concomitants of mass third world immigration are well known to that bottom 80% of Americans.
All over urban America, parents struggle to scrape together the money to buy a house in a neighborhood where the public schools have not been destroyed. In small town America, parents warn their kids about drug pushers from South of the Border who have discovered and targeted the once-safe American countryside. Illegal immigrants commit crimes at rates hugely in excess of those legally present. For 2014 the Sentencing Commission of the US Justice Department reported that of all crimes for which convictions were obtained and sentences imposed, illegals made up 13% (if the 11.2 million figure for US illegals is correct, illegals constitute slightly more than 3% of the population)
And on and on.
None of this reaches the neighborhoods of those who brought it to us.
But It is the decision-making elites of these neighborhoods that fund the Republican Party. And therein lies the rub for this fall’s election:
The Democratic Party, in its lunatic, massively unpopular stands on illegal immigration and border protection, has been leading with its chin as perhaps never before. Abolishing ICE, opening America’s southern border, and supporting sanctuary cities that shelter criminals and drug dealers may be the most toxic brew of Democratic Party electoral poison that party has yet concocted. It begs for brutal, repeated, brass knuckle exposure. This well could be the issue that turns an off-year election into a historic Democratic wipeout.
Will the funders of the Republican party seize one of the most inviting opportunities in US electoral history to deliver a knock-out blow? Or will they wuss out?
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: https://www.americanthinker.com
Return to Index
HOW A PATHETIC
REPUBLICAN PARTY IS ALLOWING 'THE RESISTANCE' TO RUN THE SCORE -- AND THE
By Christopher Bedford, 03/04/2018
Republicans are heading toward midterm elections with control of their chamber
and the biggest advantage any majority party has had since 1790. Yet every week,
the Democrats are allowed to work just 2.5 days before returning home to duke it
out with their Republican challengers. That is, Mitch McConnell is allowing
Democrats to hit the campaign trail hard while obstructing 139 of the
In eight months, eight Republican seats and 26 Democratic seats are up for grabs.
That’s less than one sixth of GOP seats, and more than half of Democrats’ seats, including 10 in states President Donald Trump won in 2016 — half of which by 10 or more points. While three Republicans’ seats will be open elections, every one of the Democrats’ seats is defended by a working senator, or at least should be. Instead of working, however, these senators are clocking into the office late on Monday, generally starting the work week Tuesday morning, and heading back to the trail Thursday, often before lunchtime.
When you account for travel, that’s a full four days “working” from home: speaking with constituents, attending meetings, cutting ribbons, raising money. In other words, campaigning: making the case their Republican challenger should be defeated and they should be re-elected.
Executive governance is out of style. On Friday, while 26 Senate Democrats up for re-election went home to their states or elsewhere to speak and raise money with which to batter Republicans in November, 139 of the White House’s nominees languished in positions from undersecretary for arms control and international security affairs to director of the National Counterintelligence and Security Center.
According to the Senate rules Democrats and their Republican enablers love to cite, they have to wait 30 hours after ending debate. This has turned into three or so nominees confirmed a week, averaging 79 days a nominee, with McConnell himself griping that at this rate, it will take 11 years to confirm Trump’s nominees. That’s nearly three weeks longer than the average for President Barack Obama, whose appointees, meanwhile, form the backbone of the “resistance” inside our federal government — “the deep state” that liberals in the media like to pretend is some type of hallucination, possibly caused by “swamp gas.”
There is, however, another way.
Senate rules — specifically, Rule XXII — dictate that during the maximum allowed 30-hours of debate, senators can speak no more than twice, and for no more than an hour total. Senate rules are rarely entertaining, but forcing 30 senators to the floor every single time they wanted to play cute would be good for their health, and put some much-need fire under the Trump-Republican agenda. If three senators show up, then, the 30 hours would turn into three.
With this level of ruthlessness, McConnell would have little difficulty replacing “the resistance” with the president’s nominees. “The rules say the majority leader can force a talking ‘filibuster’ and limit it to two speeches per senator, so, about an hour per senator if they come down to talk,” Wesley Denton of the Conservative Partnership Institute, which has repeatedly warned of Republican weakness, told The Daily Caller. “They could probably get 10 or more done a week, and instead they’re just gifting it to Democrats.”
It’s true, Mitch McConnell doesn’t have a 60-vote majority in the Senate. It’s true that this Senate has twice as many people over 80 than it’s ever had, and its members’ age and health have made it more difficult to vote more than a few times. But it’s also true that Mitch McConnell has the power to make “the resistance” do their jobs, instead of spending their days in the field campaigning, safe in the knowledge that Obama’s men are still hard at work in this new government of theirs.
Article reprinted with permission from The Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com
Return to Index
By Brian C Joondeph, March 4, 2015
Every two years before the midterm elections, we hear Republican candidates promise that if elected they will rein in the Obama administration excesses – Obamacare, amnesty, trillion-dollar deficits, increasing government regulation, legislative transparency, and unlawful executive orders. Like Lucy promising Charlie Brown a shot at the football, Republicans promise each time that things will be different. Yet Lucy continues to lift the football at the last minute, leaving the hapless Charlie Brown kicking at air.
Immediately after the
November midterms, the president announced his amnesty plan. Republicans, fresh
from landslide victories in congressional, state, and local elections, were
well-positioned to flex their newfound muscle by re-establishing constitutional
checks and balances on an overzealous executive branch. Instead, Senate
Majority Leader McConnell folded like a cheap suit, abandoning efforts to defund
President Obama’s amnesty efforts.
Tell me again why we need Republican majorities in Congress.
Sure, we get the
usual excuses. Harry Reid and the minority control the Senate to such an extent
that Reid can force Republicans to abandon an extremely popular position. That
pesky filibuster – the same one that Democrats eliminated a few years ago when
they were in power and wanted to bypass Republican resistance for judicial and
executive appointments. Why can’t Senator McConnell trigger the same “nuclear
What about Obamacare? It remains alive and well despite Republican promises to “repeal and replace.” The truth about Benghazi remains elusive, now over two years after the fact, despite recent e-mails debunking then-secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s explanations. Lois Lerner’s missing e-mails remain elusive, without explanation or accountability. The deficits remain at the trillion-dollar level, with the national debt spiraling out of control. And the government is now taking over the internet via a secret plan, without protest from Congress.
Republican voters wanted the opposite. Would things really be different if Pelosi and Reid still ran Congress rather than Boehner and McConnell? The left’s agenda marches merrily along, with little resistance other then a few words or excuses.
The latest excuse from Republican leadership is that they need the White House before they can accomplish anything. Really? What the Republicans need is backbone and leadership. Ronald Reagan ushered in hugely effective income tax cuts while working with a Democrat Congress. A Republican Congress enacted welfare reform despite initial opposition from Democrat President Bill Clinton. A Democrat Congress was able to raise taxes despite Republican George “read my lips, no new taxes” Bush in the White House. Legislation can and does move forward despite divided government.
Margaret Thatcher told us, “Consensus is the absence of leadership.” If the Republican leadership is waiting for consensus with the Democrats, that will never happen. Rather, they should be making their case, standing by their principles and promises, and fulfilling the mandate they were given last November. Republican voters don’t expect victory with each issue, but they do expect a principled stand and a fight, not a concession at the end of the first quarter.
Let the president wield
his veto pen. Congress has given him next to nothing to veto. In his six years
as president, he has vetoed three bills, with two of those during his first two
years in office, when the Democrats controlled Congress. Republicans have
controlled the House since 2010 and the House and Senate currently, yet we have
only one veto in the last five years, and that within the last month.
There are still constitutional options for Republicans against the president bypassing Congress entirely. Defunding and impeachment are both politically challenging, but legitimate nonetheless. But the Republican leadership have taken these off the table, further limiting their options.
Giving in to Democrat opposition, as they have done with amnesty, debt ceilings, continuing spending resolutions, and other “line in the sand” issues leaves voters to scratch their heads, wondering what’s different having Congress under Republican control.
The 2016 elections will be pivotal for Republicans, with a chance to win the White House and maintain control of Congress. Unless they make the case as to why this is important, voters will tune out and stay home, as they did in 2012. If Republican voters believe, to borrow from Mrs. Clinton, “What difference does it make?,” they will stay home again in 2016. The Republican Congress, as evidenced by the amnesty capitulation, is doing little to help.
Brian C Joondeph, M.D., MPS, a Denver-based physician, is an advocate of smaller, more efficient government. Twitter @retinaldoctor.
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/03/why_vote_republican.html
Return to Index
CONSERVATIVE WATERLOO: JOHN BOEHNER MUST GO
By Layne Hansen, December 16, 2014
It is time to stop thinking of John Boehner and the rest of the Republican congressional leadership as being cowardly and recognize them for what they are: part of The Ruling Class that believes it has the right to tell the rest of us how to live.
Since conservative voters handed a majority in the House of Representatives to the Republican Party in 2010, there have been countless missteps and opportunities to stop Democrats. It began with that first lame duck session when Republicans gave Obama some victories that eventually boosted his popularity and washed away the memory of the landslide victory that had just occurred the month before. Among these “accomplishments” was the dubious START, a missile treaty that one could argue emboldened Vladimir Putin.
Four years later, after seemingly countless battles where Boehner and company caved to Democrat demands, the conventional wisdom has been that Boehner and the like are cowards who are unwilling to take on an African-American president out of fear that they will be called racists. Now, however, following revelations that Boehner and the rest of the leadership lied to GOP caucus members to secure passage of the so-called CRomnibus bill, it is now clear that Boehner and his ilk are not cowards. No, it’s much worse than that. They are complicit in this continual boondoggle. Perhaps the Republican congressional leadership agrees with Jonathan Gruber that Americans are just too stupid to stop what they’re doing.
In light of this latest betrayal, Angelo Codevilla’s analysis of American politics is even more relevant. In his book The Ruling Class, Codevilla claims that Democrats and Republicans are part of a ruling class that seeks to maintain and expand their power over the “Country Class.” Who is the Country Class? That would be you and I, dear reader. We’ve been had. However, at least we now know where John Boehner truly stands: with Barack Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi.
This all reminds me of that fantastic Warner Brothers cartoon where “Ralph Wolf” and “Sam Sheepdog” meet up at a time clock. They speak congenially with one another, wishing one another a good day. Upon clocking in, however, the two assume their natural roles: Ralph tries to catch a sheep, while Sam tries to stop him. Sam basically beats the crap out of Ralph for the duration of the cartoon, but they eat lunch together, and when the two clock out at the end of their shift, they once again assume their cordial relationship.
The analogy is clear: GOP leaders appear to doggedly oppose Democrats’ agenda, but in reality, they are complicit in it. It is all political kabuki theater that is meant to assuage Tea Party anger and give the impression that Obama is being stopped. However, and it is not just clear – it’s right in our face with neon lights – that we are being duped.
For example, the national debt has continued to climb, even after the GOP took over the House, arguably the most powerful political body when it comes to spending. This is possible only because the House allowed for multiple raisings of the debt ceiling. And what did they get in return? Nothing. Nothing notable, that is. An average undergrad poli sci major could tell you that if you have political leverage, you should use it. However, this assumes that Boehner and the like want things to change. I am now convinced...finally...after giving them the benefit of the doubt for years, that they really want to turn this ship around. Instead, they want to slow the ship down so it doesn’t hit the iceberg as hard as the Democrats seem to want it to.
I recently had a very illustrative conversation with a colleague, who is a very ardent moderate Republican. He actually said that Republicans should seek to give citizens “more bang for their buck” in services. Not streamline and cut, but maximize the utility. This is the mentality that conservatives are up against. Meanwhile, employment and wages are stagnant, as are real economic growth and opportunity. However, I’m here to argue that this can change, and all it will take is the courage of 29 souls.
The current GOP leadership has got to go; this has ceased to be an arguable point. We cannot count on these people to do what is right. Conservatives did not give them majorities in both chambers for them to keep playing the same game.
To retain his position as speaker of the House, John Boehner must receive 218 votes, which is a simple majority. There will be 246 Republicans in the House in the 114th Congress. This means that 29 Republicans must state that under no circumstances will they vote for John Boehner for the speakership. Yes, there are stories of bribery and intimidation by the leadership, but this point in history has to be the conservative caucus’s Alamo. They must stand here. If they don’t...well...I don’t even want to think about what will happen.
Layne Hansen is a Ph.D. student in political
Reprinted with permission from the American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/12/a_conservative_waterloo_john_boehner_must_go.html
Return to Index
By Jonathon Moseley, May 22, 2014
Yes, you heard that
right. The tea party is (still) winning, even during and after this year’s 2014
Republican primary season.
The tea party is not a political party. It never has been. The tea party never set as its goal defeating every single incumbent Republican officeholder. The fact that the tea party has taken the scalps of about 50 House Democrats in the 2010 election and several giants in the Republican establishment during 2010 and 2012 is a bonus. That is far in excess of what the tea party movement ever expected to accomplish.
The tea party movement was born in the Spring of 2009, out of Rick Santelli’s famous rant on CNBC on February 18, 2009, calling on citizens to gather and throw tea into Lake Michigan near Chicago as a tea party protest. A few activists claim credit for hatching precursor efforts earlier than that, mainly supporters of Ron Paul. But Rick Santelli’s nationwide television broadcast was the rocket’s blastoff.
The purpose of the tea party was to protest financial irresponsibility, excessive regulation strangling liberty and the economy, and business as usual in Washington (voting for bills no one has read, for example). The tea party was always about promoting issue positions for financial responsibility. The tea party was not primarily about running candidates.
The tea party continues to dominate the Republican Party. Although there are many enemies of the commonsense goals of the tea party, they mostly have to scheme behind closed doors. The few exceptions get pounded with criticism.
Yet in 2014, many candidates favored by the Republican establishment have survived primary challenges. Is this the test for whether the tea party is successful or is fading? No.
First, as Christine O’Donnell just tweeted, the winners of these primary candidates are (more or less) conservative Republicans. A notable exception is Dr. Monica Wehby in Oregon, who is pro-choice, and perhaps Mitch McConnell, who was never going to be unseated anyway.
This election cycle, establishment-backed candidates not only pretended to be tea-party friendly conservatives, but by and large actually are. The establishment did not try to ram through liberals like Olympia Snowe or Arlen Specter. For example, analysts are trying to portray conservative Rep. Jack Kingston (ACU life-time rating 95.6%, designated as an “ACU Conservative”) as “establishment” in the Georgia primary for U.S. Senate.
As a result, tea party conservatives were not motivated as strongly to oppose establishment candidates in 2014 as they were in 2010. The difference was not that great among the primary candidates.
Second, the tea party already knocked off some of the worst Republican incumbents in 2010 and 2012. That leads to the result that 2014’s incumbents did not draw as much fire from the tea party this time around.
Third, it is clear to everyone that the biggest obstacle to tea party objectives -- at the moment -- is Democrat control of the U.S. Senate. The Republican-led U.S House has in fact undertaken many strenuous efforts to advance tea-party objectives. Those efforts have crashed on the shores of Harry Reid’s U.S. Senate. Although there is great dissatisfaction with Republican leadership and its competence and devotion to conservative goals, there is a unity of purpose across the Republican coalition.
A consensus that Republicans must take control of the U.S. Senate is consistent with the tea party’s goals. But that is simply the biggest obstacle in our path at the moment.
Fourth, all Republicans seem to feel that 2014 is a "growing year” for the Republican majority in Congress. That is wholly consistent with the pruning that took place in 2010, and which will take place again in the future. You do not prune a tree constantly. You also let it grow.
But the tea party is still holding the pruning shears and won’t hesitate to use them in 2016 and beyond. Indeed, the tea party is gaining strength in expertise, training, organization, and infrastructure. Tea party activists are mastering skills on radio and the internet. The Northern Virginia Tea Party, for example, launched “Tea Party 2.0” almost two years ago.
Fifth, no one ever suggested that the tea party would get rid of bad Republicans all at once. That is an unrealistic expectation. It took us decades to get into the mess we are in, and it won’t be fixed overnight.
Sixth, in most of the primaries in which an establishment-favored candidate won, there were many other candidates in a divided field. There was no one clear tea party candidate. Tea party organizations were divided supporting different candidates. Many candidates divided the vote.
For example, businessman David Perdue in the Georgia primary Tuesday will face a July 22 runoff for the nomination. But Perdue only got 30% of the vote. There is little to make us fear David Perdue as a liberal, except just a lack of a record of actual votes. Perdue’s appeal as an outsider bringing “fresh blood” resonates with the tea party. Yet if supporters of other candidates unite behind conservative Jack Kingston, Perdue will lose the runoff.
So the tea party is here to stay. The fantasies of GOP insiders, who sold out the country to big business lobbyists as part of “K Street Project,” that they can return to the trough will fail.
Republican insiders keep announcing -- again and again, over and over -- their new plans (the same old plan every time) to “this time” overcome the tea party insurgency. The same ideas that didn’t work before won’t work now.
One of the biggest mistakes the establishment keeps making is imagining that spending lots of money on TV ads counts for much. Conservatives know that they are the ones who win elections pounding the pavement door to door. A second big mistake is thinking that the voters pay any attention to what the establishment has to say. Insiders keep saying that – this time – we need to “vet” candidates. But the establishment strongly attacked tea party candidates in 2010 and 2012 primaries. The voters simply ignore what the insiders have to say.
Instead, the way that the establishment has beat the tea party challenge this year is to join them. Running candidates more in harmony with tea party demands, who echo tea party themes and claim to be conservative, is what the establishment has done successfully this year. But the tea party will be waiting to pounce if Republicans stray from the path of financial responsibility.
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/05/tea_party_continues_winning.html
Return to Index
IS JOHN BOEHNER 'A MAN TAKING
Jeannie DeAngelis, January 26, 2014
Newfound understanding as to why America is in the dire straits it's in was gained when Speaker of the House John Boehner ('Beener,' 'Bonner,' 'Boner') Boehner (pronounced BAY-ner) finally appeared on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno.
The guy with the perpetual cottonmouth took to Jay's couch to spout off on people like Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and Vladimir Putin. But the real revelations came when Boehner explained why he refuses to do anything to counterbalance Obama!
It started when Jay Leno leaned in and asked the Speaker, "Ever think of running for president?"
"No!" Boehner shot back.
Then came the big reveal, the peek into what Barack Obama has on Mr. Boehner that keeps John on the president's good side.
Boehner said this: "Listen, I like to play golf, I like to cut my own grass, I do drink red wine, I smoke cigarettes--and I'm not giving that up to be president of the United States."
Whoa Nellie! You mean that's all it takes to get 64-year-old Boehner to sell out America to tyranny - a golf cart, a riding mower, a case of Ripple, and a few cartons of Marlboros?
Boehner also explained that his "orange" tan was simply the result of spending time outdoors. Bike-riding Boehner, one of 12 children, said, "My mother's dark-complected so I'm a little dark. No tanning beds. No spray or anything. Not ever! Not once ever!"
Sorry John, we don't buy it. You either eat too many carrots, overdose on beta carotene, or you're dipping into the Coppertone, which means Obama the dealer may be funneling a membership to a tanning salon your way.
When Jay asked Boehner if he'd ever met Putin, "No!" he barked back, "And I don't want to meet him. I think he's a thug, and I think he's treated his neighbors in a disrespectful way and, frankly, I think the president ought to stand up to him."
Huh? Putin's a thug and the president should stand up to him?
The president is a thug too, John. However, if the guy in the mom jeans attempted to stand up to Putin (who swims in the freezing Siberian Lake Baikal), the Russian president would say "Boo" and make him cry like a little girl. As for Putin's neighbors, Obama's the one who said "Nyet" to missile defense in Poland.
Boehner called indicted whistleblower Edward Snowden "a traitor to the country," but didn't think to mention Benghazi, Fast & Furious, or the IRS.
On the NSA spying scandal, Boehner matter-of-factly advised, "Let's just get over it. It's been going on for thousands of years," which means the last bottle of red wine Obama sent over must have been a fine vintage indeed.
As for the anti-Constitutional ACA fiasco, John Boehner reminded America, "It's the law!"
Asked about the government shutdown over defunding Obamacare, the Speaker admitted that it was "tactically not the right way to do it." On the tactic-driven Tea Party members of Congress and the GOP infighting, "it's bad," he said.
Mr. Boehner explained that he had accepted Leno's invitation because in two weeks Jimmy Fallon takes over, and "I thought I ought to get here before it's too late," to which Jay replied, "I was gonna say the same thing for you!"
Speaking of "too late," maybe the Speaker should pay more attention to getting done what needs to be done in Washington DC "before it's too late," and less time golfing and scooting around the lawn on the John Deere with a cig dangling from his lips, drinking red wine out of a red plastic cup.
The Speaker revealed a lot about himself when he said, "you learn that a leader without followers is simply a man taking a walk." Here's a suggestion from a disappointed group of Americans who depended on you to represent our concerns: Walk on, Mr. Speaker, walk on!
Jeannie hosts a blog at www.jeannie-ology.com Page reprinted from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/01/is_john_boehner_a_man_taking_a_walk.html
Return to Index
1.1 TRILLION REASONS TO DUMP BOEHNER AND McCONNELL
By J. Robert Smith, January 18, 2014
Thursday, on Jan. 17, in the afternoon, the Senate passed a $1.1 trillion
spending measure that's best described as a fix -- fix, as in an act of
Republican perfidy and chicanery.
The process was rigged by Speaker Boehner and Senate Minority Leader McConnell (doubtless with a wink and a nod from Harry Reid) to push through the gargantuan spending measure while giving House and Senate Republicans cover on ObamaCare funding. The bill was an incomprehensible 1,582 pages.
Here's how it worked. House Republicans passed the spending bill with a provision to strip funding from ObamaCare. In the Senate, Harry Reid used rules to see to it that measure wasn't subject to a filibuster, which would required 60 votes to overcome. That meant eight Republicans would have to have joined 52 Democrats to end a filibuster.
Not insurmountable for Reid and his Democrats, siphoning off GOP votes, given the plentiful supply of quislings among the Republicans. But why the headache, and politically, why give Senate conservatives a chance again to shine a harsh spotlight on the very unpopular fledgling ObamaCare health care grab? Why expose Democrats up for reelection this year to that sort of rigorous body-cavity search?
So Reid (this time doubtless with a wink and a nod from McConnell), maneuvered to strip the ObamaCare defunding provision by a majority vote, which split along party lines, 52-45 in favor. This happened quickly without any fanfare.
This analysis from Fox News:
The compromise-laden legislation reflects the realities of divided power in Washington and a desire by both Democrats and Republicans for an election-year respite after three years of budget wars that had Congress and the White House lurching from crisis to crisis. Both parties looked upon the measure as a way to ease automatic spending cuts that both the Pentagon and domestic agencies had to begin absorbing last year. [Italics added]
astonishingly stupid and cowardly. In an election year, particularly one as
critical as 2014, it's not time for a "respite," it's time to sharpen
differences and up the conflict. The point is to provide voters with crystal
clear contrasts to compel choices. What Boehner and McConnell did by greasing
the skids for this mammoth spending bill was give Democrats a "Get out of Jail
Free" card. It's what one would expect from RINOs, who'd rather accommodate than
Ted Cruz, most notably, saw through this ruse and he, along with other key conservative senators, attempted to force Democrats' hands via an amendment that would have put Democrats in the awkward position of explaining and defending their support for ObamaCare funding. Not a real winning position for Democrats, huh? By offering the amendment (which plotting RINOs voted for knowing it would fail), Cruz and company thus demonstrated the courage and savvy that those feckless RINO leaders, Boehner and McConnell, lack.
"But, but, you just don't understand, Mr. Smith. We RINOs don't want another ugly budget fight that detracts from focusing on ObamaCare during this year's elections. A budget fight just hurts Republicans, Mr. Smith, don't you see, you dimwit?"
No, I don't. Congress is very much a political arena. Setting the table for this year's midterms through a fight over ObamaCare funding is very much an advantage to GOP congressional candidates. Americans are greatly unhappy with, and fearful of, ObamaCare. Voters need more than lip service; they need to see tangible action from congressional Republicans.
"But, but, Mr. Smith, we mustn't speak ill of RINOs. It's an election year. Such criticism will only divide us."
Sorry, Republicans are already divided into craven go-alongs and conservatives who want and appreciate the value of a bare-knuckled fight with Democrats over ObamaCare and a range of other key issues. In politics, winners are fighters with a taste for blood. The prez and his left-ideologue Democrats have demonstrated that fighter-instinct from January 2009 to present. They'll play patty-cake if it helps their causes, but will bring out the shivs, chains, and guns if required.
What use are GOP majorities in the House and Senate if establishment Republicans are in control and roll over for Democrat belly scratches? The nation needs conservative majorities and leadership in the House and Senate come 2014. For conservatives, the fight is within and without this year. That means "goodbye" to Harry Reid and to Boehner, McConnell, and their leadership teams.
Vote conservative in 2014, and insist that conservative candidates for Congress commit to new conservative leadership in the House and Senate come January 2015. Let's stop the 1.1 trillion games played by congressional RINOs.
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2014/01/11trillion_reasons_to_dump_boehner_and_mcconnell.html
Return to Index
THE ROAD TO DESTRUCTION OF
By Dave Agema, RNC National Committeeman
somebody were [in the White House] and they wanted to destroy this nation. I
would create division among the people, encourage a culture of ridicule for
basic morality and the principles that made and sustained this country,
undermine the financial stability of the nation, and weaken and destroy the
military. It appears coincidentally that those are the very things that are
happening right now." - Dr. Ben Carson
Now that we've all watched the media's feeding frenzy concerning the shutdown and the impending doom of America, we all must be made aware that the deal to "avert default" and reopen the government is simply a Band-Aid on a huge wound that's going to start bleeding once again in a few months. Nothing was settled. ObamaCare goes forward. The IRS has the authority to keep spending if Congress and the President can't solve their differences . . . and they won't. If they do, it will once again be more future debt, causing a bigger crash down the road.
China is already making plans to make their currency the international standard, because of our debt and printing of our dollars ($1 trillion a year) with nothing backing them other than the "full faith and credit" of the U. S. Government. If that happens, our standard of living will change for the worse - rapidly - and it'll be due to our government's inability to stop spending money they don't have. It's like a kid with an allowance that keeps borrowing from his buddies with no way to pay it back with his limited money.
Whatever happened to the Republican philosophy of shrinking government? The largest growth of government spending is "entitlements" (I hate the term), and they make the problem worse. Weakness (read: "surrender") with this president is not going to work. We need a clue-by-four approach to stop his insanity concerning fiscal, moral, military, and security issues. Personally, I believe we caved. You may disagree - this is America, but we just got sold a temporary easement in exchange for a catastrophe down the road.
On a different note, I attended the Tea Party Pow Wow in Mt. Pleasant, and was pleasantly surprised (no pun intended). The people prayed, respectfully listened, and got ideas on how to get involved. I spoke about the referendum I'm supporting concerning a part time legislature. The savings here is less law, regulations, and taxes. 46 states have some sort of a part time legislature, and some only meet every other year. The time has come. I would not doubt in the future that we could vote from home on a secure computer - now that would cause problems for the lobbyists.
While many blamed the Republicans for the shut down, Ted Cruz arrived home to a standing ovation . . . for nearly 8 minutes. Not all people are buying the liberal news media spin.
Keep the faith, pray for your government and leaders, and hold them responsible when they stray off the path of common sense and constitutional principles.
Return to Index
Many of you know that we have been looking to replace our elephant which has been used as a float since it was made by Dave and Dawn Nelsey in 2003 and was paper-machéd by a group of volunteers. It was viciously attacked by a bunch of flying squirrels in Adam Hume's barn. They decided they needed to live inside it and burrowed in and out, leaving it much worse for wear. We looked into trying to repair it again, but the squirrels will attack it again. We looked into coating it with fiberglass, but it is not sturdy enough to withstand the weight and wear from travel.
We were hoping to be able to buy a used elephant for about $1500, but were unable to locate one.
We have found elephants for less than $1000 but they are "baby elephants" generally less than 4 feet tall.
We have been able to locate a gentleman who makes fiberglass elephants in Indiana and he happens to have one in stock. It is built on a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood and will fit on our trailer. It is about 10 1/2 feet tall at the top of the trunk with the back about 8' tall and 6 to 7 feet wide at the ears. It will cost $3000 which means we will need to raise about $1000 to complete the purchase.
If you would like to make a donation to this cause, feel free to do so. You can send any donation to the cause to Iosco County Republicans at P.O. Box 283, Tawas City, MI 48730.
Return to Index
gathers around the water cooler Monday-morning quarterbacking Speaker Boehner on
the execution of his game plan for the Cliff Bowl before it is even played, let
us spare a thought for the hapless Democrats. After all, who would want to be a
Democrat as we go into 2013?
Don't be fooled by that tough-guy act.
Yes, yes, we know that the Democrats own the future with the educated, the young, the black, and the Hispanic. And Republicans have just got to learn to speak Hispanic. Even Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan seem to agree.
But my suspicion is that the old song had it right. The new Democratic majority has gone about as far as it can go. You can tell that in the subtext of Democratic policy this holiday season, which seems to be: entitlements today, entitlements tomorrow, entitlements forever.
There is something vaguely familiar about that catchphrase.
Here is how I explain it.
Back in 1989, the Democrats panicked. They had just lost three presidential elections in a row, first to an amiable dunce and finally to a New England blue-blood. How bad can it get?
The new strategy, we can now see, was fiendishly clever. Democrats would feint towards the middle, as in New Democrats, while playing race politics with blacks and Hispanics. And they would use their cultural power to put the mark of Cain on the religious right and social conservatism. Remember how they demonized Pat Buchanan's speech at the 1992 National Republican Convention?
On winning the 1992 election by splitting the Republicans with Ross Perot and demonizing the Bush economy with "worst economy in the last 50 years," the Democrats gave it all back in 1994 with the first Republican Congress elected in 40 years.
The Dems kept the ship afloat in 1996 with the help of Dick Morris and welfare reform, but they failed to extinguish the Republican Congress. In 2000 they almost kept the presidency with an October Surprise on W's DUI.
Fortunately, the razor-thin loss in 2000 gave the Dems an opportunity. They decided not to concede the election but instead keep their partisans at white heat for the next eight years, railing against anything that would stick on the wall. It all finally came together in the 2006 and 2008 elections, with big Democratic majorities in Congress and America's first black president.
This is where things start to go wrong.
Despite the worst economy in the last 50 years, Democrats decided to run the old plays out of the old playbook, and they just went ahead and burdened the economy with more stimulus, more entitlements, more environmental regulation, and more crony capitalism/socialism. In consequence, the economy failed to thrive as it tried to rally from the depths of the Great Recession. What a surprise!
And get this: Just when the economy needed a superfluity of risk-taking businessmen creating new jobs from Maine to California, the Dems decide to run against businessmen, spending months demonizing Mitt Romney as a cruel plutocrat!
Today, President Obama is proposing that all we need to do going forward is to increase taxes on the rich by about $80 billion per year. In the face of a $1,200-billion deficit per year.
Why won't the president come up with a proposal on entitlements? Writes Fred Barnes: "The liberal base of the Democratic party--Obama's base--opposes [it], that's why." Apparently Nancy Pelosi thinks it would "harm the middle class."
Here's where I am left scratching my head. You would think that now would be the time, after the Dems have just won re-election, to take a few tough decisions; that's what politicians usually do right after the election. Apparently, this time, they won't.
Maybe there is a secret deal, known only to insiders, that "they" will spring on us in a couple of weeks after everyone has fed red meat to all their hungry partisans.
Maybe Democrats still think they have solved the Medicare problem with ObamaCare and its shadowy IPAB.
But maybe Democrats are simply afraid to cut any spending, ever, because if they do, then their coalition will start to melt away into the countryside. After all, what idiot sticks with a marauding band of predators after the word goes out that there is no more loot?
Or maybe the Democrats are like the Bourbons, who had "forgotten nothing and learned nothing" when they returned to rule France after the defeat of Napoleon. Sixty years ago, the only thing that a Southern politician needed to know was Segregation. Today the Democrats are more advanced, so their politicians know two things: Entitlements and Inequality.
In the end, dead-end ideas and their mindless promoters get thrown on the ash heap of history. The trick is to make sure that happens before the U.S. gets thrown on the ash heap.
Christopher Chantrill (mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org) is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his usgovernmentspending.com and also usgovernmentdebt.us. At americanmanifesto.org he is blogging and writing An American Manifesto: Life After Liberalism.
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/12/you_think_the_gop_has_problems.html
Return to Index
IT'S NOT ABOUT NEWT
By Joseph M. Koenig, January 28, 2012
GOP voters are sending a clarion call to the party establishment, but it seems GOP leaders are not getting the message. The statement being sent to the GOP elite isn't about Newt, and it goes beyond even Romney. It is about a deep dissatisfaction that has been building for years within the Republican rank and file.
With the proclamations of Bob Dole and others against Newt Gingrich recently, it is clear the GOP establishment fears a Gingrich nomination. In truth, however, it is the GOP establishment's own ineffectual leadership that led to the recent surge of the former Speaker of the House.
The prevailing wisdom in Washington and the media is that Newt's re-birth in South Carolina is due to his fiery debate performances, which is true, but what happened in the polls goes far beyond clear articulation of conservative principles and debate prowess. Yes, the Republican voters want a fighter, someone who will take on President Obama, but Newt's boldness and passion resonated so well with the disaffected party base, they were willing to overlook his huge political and personal shortcomings. There is a larger lesson here.
According to Rasmussen Reports, just five days before the South Carolina vote, Mitt Romney held a 14 point lead over Gingrich. After two debate performances, the final primary results showed a nearly 27 percentage point swing in Newt's favor, with the Speaker finishing almost 13 points ahead of Romney. A shift that large, that fast, reveals a weakness not just in Romney's support, but in the establishment GOP's support as well.
Political debate-goers are not prone to giving standing ovations. Jumping to your feet and cheering is something enthusiastic fans watching a Super Bowl do, not conservative GOP loyalists watching their candidates in an intraparty debate. The fact that such an audience, and surely millions of viewers at home, felt such elation, such euphoric relief, that they were prompted to offer not one, but multiple standing ovations to a political candidate, demonstrates the utter paucity of spirit and lack of understanding so glaringly obvious in the GOP political elite.
Unfortunately, the GOP elite's failure to understand exactly why Gingrich did so well portends the sad prospect that Republican leadership isn't going to improve anytime soon. In election after election, and on issue after issue, the Republican base has felt increasingly frustrated and disappointed by their party's leadership, who have consistently underperformed, buckled under media and opposition pressure, and squandered any mandate provided them by the American people.
With a candidate like Newt, who brings with him loads of personal and political baggage, such reactions as those seen in the debates reveal sentiments that run much deeper, and that have been building far longer than any one campaign season. The Republican rank and file have been sending messages to their party leaders for years, but without avail. The GOP has touted itself as the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, but for too many years, their supporters have seen government and spending continue to spiral out of control, even when they put Republicans in charge.
In 2006, Republicans were sent a resounding rebuke, losing both the Senate and the House after 12 years of controlling majorities. After defeating an uninspiring establishment GOP candidate in the 2008 election, President Obama promptly showed the disaffected Republican voters what real spending was like, making the ousted Republicans look downright miserly.
Realizing just how much worse things could be under liberal Democrat control, the American people rose up. The Tea Party was born. In 2010, frustrated Tea Partiers sent Republicans back to congress in an attempt to stop the profligate spending. The mandate could hardly have been clearer. Even Obama admitted to taking a shellacking.
While it is true Republicans control only one chamber of one branch of the federal government, the change the American people sent them to Washington to effect has not happened. The frustration that led Tea Partiers to demonstrate in public squares and dominate town halls around the country has not been alleviated. The debt limit battle was lost, the economy continues to stagnate, and the GOP establishment is once again pushing a candidate that fails to inspire hope that he can actually make real change happen in Washington.
Unlike many of the Occupy Wall Street movement protestors, the Tea Party conservatives had businesses to run, and jobs to return to, but the frustration and anger they felt is still very real. They are tired of sending people to Washington, Republicans claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility, only to see things continue to get worse.
Romney lost big in South Carolina against split opposition support. However, Mitt shouldn't take it personally. The "Anybody but Romney" vote, could well be renamed the "Anybody but What We've Already Tried" vote. The Republican voters have already tried the next-in-line, safe, establishment candidate, and lost--to Obama no less. As heroic as they have been in wars past, there are no more perfect examples of this kind of unexciting candidate as John McCain and Bob Dole, both of whom have now publicly endorsed Romney.
If they had a real understanding of why Newt surged, and why their preferred candidate has failed to connect with voters, they would have kept McCain and Dole as far from cameras and microphones as possible. To many, Romney is the best Republicans have in their current field of candidates, but to openly associate him with the same tired, uninspiring cast of characters of elections past is more than just bad political strategy. The tone-deafness of the Republican establishment could not be more astounding.
The voters want someone who understands their frustration, anger, and concern for the future of the country. They are tired of candidates too timid to say it like it is, candidates so afraid to offend the smallest of minorities with uncomfortable truths they instead exasperate the majority through monotonous political-speak, media-safe answers, and unfulfilled promises.
The stakes are higher than ever. The Republican base is ready. Their message is loud and clear. If the Republican establishment had the willingness to hear, and the courage to tap into and focus the dissatisfaction and passion so evident in the party base, the change we all would like to see would be possible. Until they get that message, however, it looks like it is going to be business as usual.
Contact Joseph M. Koenig
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/its_not_about_newt.html
Return to Index
"CLOSED" PRIMARY CHOSEN
The Republican State Committee released this announcement on the presidential primary.
LANSING – Michigan Republicans will participate in a closed primary next year to select the GOP Presidential nominee, state party chairman Bobby Schostak said, following the party’s vote at its State Committee meeting on Saturday.
“Saturday’s vote by our State Committee was the culmination of months of communication between our grassroots, activists, policy committee members, statewide GOP supporters, and everyone with an interest in ensuring that Michigan sends a Republican president to the White House in 2012,” Schostak said.
In May, the policy committee was tasked with researching facts and gathering opinions about which process Republicans should use to choose the nominee. On July 12, the policy committee recommended that the State Committee adopt a closed primary.
“President Barack Obama’s policies have done tremendous harm to the economy,” Schostak said. “Michigan voters have painfully endured the results of a federal government that tries to be all things to all people. We need jobs, not empty, feel-good rhetoric. And today’s vote finally gives Michigan voters the chance to send a Republican to the White House.”
Many of the grassroots activists were not happy with the choice since there is absolutely nothing to prevent Democrats from choosing our nominee by simply asking for a Republican ballot. The primary will be moved to later in the calendar year, not be held in early February as it was in 2008.
Return to Index
NOT A GOOD BEGINNING FOR THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE
Limiting Term Limits
House plan would extend careers of most Lansing politicians from 6 to 14 years
By Tom Gantert, Jan. 17, 2011
The new Michigan Legislature was sworn into office Jan. 12. The next day, they were at work on a proposal that could greatly extend the years that most of them are able to spend in Lansing.
On Jan. 13, state Rep. Sharon Tyler, R-Niles, introduced House Joint Resolution C, a proposed amendment to the state constitution aimed at changing the term limits imposed on state officeholders.
It would benefit most those politicians who get elected to the House of Representatives, according to Jack McHugh, the Mackinac Center’s senior legislative analyst.
In 1992, Proposal B was passed by 58.7 percent of the voters. It stated that no person could be elected as a state representative more than three times (each term is two years) and that no person could be elected as a state senator more than two times (each term is four years). So under current constitutional law, a lawmaker elected to the Michigan House can serve six years and then be eligible to run for the Michigan Senate and add two more 4-year terms.
However, as McHugh points out, there are 110 seats in the House and just 38 seats in the Senate. Not enough offices to go around, so the majority of state representatives never get to extend their political careers beyond six years. For most of them, that would more than double if HJR-C becomes part of the constitution.
“You got a musical chairs going on but not everyone gets in,” McHugh said.
The proposed revision would allow politicians to “mix and match” their terms in both chambers, with a maximum limit of 14 years total. That means a state representative would be able to serve 14 years in the House, not the six that is term-limited under current law, but then would be ineligible to ever run for the Senate.
The advantages of incumbency mean that the vast majority of lawmakers are re-elected when able to run for the same office again. Stretching the maximum House terms from three to seven will mean that most state representatives will stay more than twice as long – 14 years rather than six.
“A lot of people would just spend 14 years in the House. It would totally change the whole idea of term limits,” McHugh said.
HJR C must be approved by two-thirds of the lawmakers serving in each chamber before it can be submitted to the voters for their approval. All changes to the state constitution must ultimately be ratified by a popular referendum.
The following state representatives have co-sponsored HJR-C. They are all Republicans:
Greg MacMaster, Peter MacGregor, Al Pscholka, Matt Lori, Kevin Cotter, Kenneth Kurtz, Mike Shirkey, Mike Callton, Ken Yonker, Gail Haines, Hugh D. Crawford, Kurt Damrow, Wayne A. Schmidt
Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited. http://www.mackinac.org
Return to Index
OH THOSE FECKLESS
January 21, 2010
I was watching Neil Cavuto for a couple of minutes the day after Scott Brown was elected a Senator for Massachusetts, and he had Tim Pawlenty on as a guest. Mr. Pawlenty is the Republican Governor of Minnesota, and touted by some on Fox and elsewhere as an attractive 2012 Republican Presidential candidate.
During his conversation with Cavuto, Pawlenty made it clear that he thinks the American "health care system is broken." He didn't say why he came to that radical conclusion, opining merely that health care is too expensive, and that Republicans and Democrats should work together to fix it.
No doubt there are some reforms that Congress can make affecting the cost of health care in America, like tort reform and competitive bidding across state lines. But the American health care system, as such, is the best in the world, and it is very far from broken.
I wonder when Republicans like Pawlenty are going to acquire sufficient discernment to realize that their conclusions are more in the nature of left-wing talking points than thoughtful social analysis. Adopting left-wing Democrat verbiage leads inevitably to being co-opted by left-wing Democrat policies.
The dictionary defines feckless as "incompetent, useless, spineless, feeble, weak and ineffective" - and that just about sums up the gutless Republican establishment's "let's all join hands and work together" attitude toward the Democrat tyrants in government.
Most of the American people don't want to "work together" with so-called progressives, whose real agenda is to deconstruct America and reconstruct it according to the dictates of cultural Marxism. They want the crypto-Marxists sidelined in America, and it is time that feckless Republicans shook off their bi-partisan stupor and came to that realization.
Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/oh_those_feckless_republicans.html
Return to Index
NEWS FROM THE CHAIR, ADAM HUME
Larry Boyce, a Republican from Ogemaw county has joined the race to represent the 103rd District. We have added a 2010 Candidate list to our Links page, which will include Larry and the other candidates who are contending for the various offices up for election this November.
Sandy Hollabaugh, the Sunrise Side Republican Women's Club President, suggested that those people who get their newsletter in hard copy send us some postage stamps, our largest newsletter expense, if they do not have e-mail. Thanks Sandy, for the stamps and the idea.
As many of you know, Adam Hume's
mother has been associated with a mission in Haiti for many years. It is
called Bon Samaritan/Haiti Mission and Orphanage. Please see more
about the Mission and Orphanage at
Ann Hume just found out the
earthquake did effect Montrouis. (Montrouis is south of Saint-Marc on the
map of left.) We do not know how the Orphanage is, but we do know one
person was killed that we know. The hospital/clinic where Ann works in Pierre Payean (which is north of Montrouis) was not harmed. Ann booked the earliest
flight to Haiti for January 20, 2010, and her Husband Mark and Son Adam will be
joining her February 1, 2010. Ann will be working at the hospital. We will be
hand carrying all donations to Haiti since the banks are closed. Anyone who
would like to donate, please send donations to the following address.
Bon Samaritan / Save Haiti Mission Orphanage
PO BOX 662
Oscoda, Michigan 48750
100% of donations will be hand carried to Haiti and used for Earthquake relief.
For more information, contact Adam at email@example.com, (989)305-0889
Return to Index
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER THE REAGAN LANDSLIDE
By Bruce Walker, November 03, 2009
Election Day, 1984 -- twenty five years ago -- many thought that the ideological battle of America was won. President Reagan, the disciple of "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater ran against Walter Mondale, the disciple of "Mr. Liberal" Hubert Humphrey. Reagan got into politics with "The Speech" endorsing Barry Goldwater. Here is what Reagan said in 1964:
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Reagan stayed with that theme, regardless of whether it cost him primary victories or elections. When America had the chance to vote for the conservative Reagan or the liberal Humphrey in 1984, Reagan won every state except Mondale's Minnesota, which Reagan almost won. In many states across the nation, Reagan carried every county in the state. Twenty-five years ago, the ideological war seemed clearly won.
What has happened in the last quarter century? The conservative ideal still overwhelmingly prevails in America: the 59% percent of the vote which Reagan got in 1984 is exactly the percentage of the American people who have defined themselves in "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative" in the last fifteen consecutive Battleground Polls. (The respondents in these polls can also choose "moderate," "undecided," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal.")
Too many Republicans since Reagan presumed that the party, not conservatism, mattered. They saw the two political parties, not the ideology of freedom, as the crux of politics. The Republican bureaucrats believed pragmatism and compromise were what made America great. They were wrong. Goldwater nailed the matter when he said in 1964: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." That short phrase summed up the greatness of America. That was the message of Goldwater and Reagan in 1964 and the foundation of the Reagan Landslide in 1984.
Republicans before Goldwater and Reagan and Republicans after Goldwater and Reagan did all they could to purge the clarion call of liberty from the business of partisan politics. The party should care about winning, and if it won power, then a set of "core values" could be constructed after the fact.
Republican presidents after Reagan could break "no tax pledges," pick ideologically indifferent judges to the Supreme Court, dismiss Reagan's legacy in pursuit of a "kinder, gentler America" or "compassionate conservatism" (as if conservatism itself -- the celebratory defense of liberty -- was not the essence of political compassion) and create "practical" government solutions to problems, rather than embrace the truth that government itself is usually the problem.
The result was as predictable as the dreary study of all rulers: it is not that power corrupts -- power derived from free market competition purifies and liberates -- it is that power derived from the state corrupts the greater it grows. Republicans, in power and unconnected to principles, began acting like Democrats, then a criminal class of Republicans like Bob Taft, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney began a corruption of partisan power which had long been the hallmark of Democrat one-party rule.
It is not odd that the rebirth of political opposition has come less from the Republican Party than from citizens acting in the spirit of Reagan and Goldwater. The revolt last May in California was one such example (as was the earlier recall of Gray Davis, however poorly his replacement performed.) The sprouting of tea party demonstrations spontaneously throughout the nation is another example. And, of course, the success of citizen candidates like Doug Hoffman, whose political party is the Party of Reagan, personifies that spirit.
It is not odd that the rhetorical opposition to growing statist power and its close sibling partisan dominance has come from people disconnected with the Republican Party or from people like Sarah Palin, Republicans treated disdainfully because of their principled commitment to limited government and Judeo-Christian morality by Republican "regulars," who actually represent that much greater part of America than the Republican Party.
Twenty-five years after Reagan almost swept every state in the nation, his guiding ideals, so clearly captured in his speeches, his manuscripts, and his books, burn just as fiercely in the hearts of most Americans as ever. That is why Rasmussen polls show that Americans today are turned off by every political figure today...except Reagan. The principles he championed are the same that Washington, Madison, and Henry defended. It is not a question of "right" or "left." Reread what Reagan said in "The Speech" about this myth:
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right.
Once all Americans understood that the greatness of our land was simply liberty. The vast majority of Americans now, as in 1984, still know this truth in their hearts. The Founding Fathers, rightly, loathed political parties. The last twenty-five years have reminded us why they felt that way. But one quarter of a century after the political landslide of liberty, the mandate for liberty still remains.
Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.
Page Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/twentyfive_years_after_the_rea_1.html
Return to Index
SARAH PALIN, THE 21st CENTURY 'IT GIRL'
By Jay Valentine, June 15, 2009
The best and the brightest on the left go into politics. The best on the right run their own businesses. So it is no surprise that the left is far more adept, even expert at the art of hardball politics. And they are telling us something profound.
The left is telling us something many feel, many find as a hunch, that Sarah Palin is the most dangerous threat to the Obama administration with no close second. The left is telling us this by their "over the top" attacks. Not just the Letterman assaults, but the constant barrage of grievances filed against her in Alaska. The attacks every day on Palin for no apparent reason -- except that the left seems to see her quite differently from any Republican candidate. A difference of kind, not of degree.
They would never do this to Romney, Huckabee or Newt, at least not to this level. There is a clear reason -- these guys couldn't fill up a high school stadium unless they were giving out free beer.
What is the Sarah difference? Well, it's not the issues, at least that is not all of it. It is the charisma factor. Charisma is not learned, it is innate. One is born with it and no amount of training can inject it. Jack Kennedy had it. So did Reagan. Now Obama. Out of the thousands of politicians who have come and gone over the last generation, not one other person has shown "it."
Money is no longer the life blood of politics. Charisma is. Charisma can
raise money overnight; money far beyond what a tired, inarticulate incumbent can
raise from rich donors.
When you have "it," the conventional rules no longer apply. Reagan was vilified in 1976 and few thought he could ever be president. No matter how the liberals berated him as a "dumb actor" who made chimp movies and the actor who never got the girl, he just looked the American people in the eye, gave them a dose of common sense and it was over. Carter went on to build low income houses and a life of obscurity punctuated by mischief.
The street fighting, world class, lifelong political experts of the left see "it" and it makes them crazy. They went crazy for Obama; they are going crazy for Palin, although in the other direction.
Palin could fill a stadium if she were reciting a cookbook. But she isn't. She is delivering common sense to an electorate that is becoming ever more jaded every day with the Obama nonsense. Miranda rights for terrorists? $4 trillion deficit?
Look at the blow she delivered with one phrase about "styrofoam columns" and imagine what she can do with the material Obama has recently given her.
Opposing Palin's values has no payoff for the left. They oppose those values for any conservative. They have to destroy her. And that is her power because they can't destroy her.
Whenever she chooses, she will take her first trip to Iowa to campaign for
some obscure congressional candidate, and when she does, the liberal media
cannot ignore the screaming crowds. And they will not be crowds manufactured by
an advance team. They will be fired up mothers, working people who do not want
to pay for deadbeats' mortgages, people who are now going to grass roots tea
The television age gives "it," charisma, more power than ever before. Charisma is magnified through television. How else to explain how a 2 year senator few knew could derail Hillary in a few months. How else to explain how an anti-charisma John McCain, someone television does not flatter or magnify, saw his crowds surge when Palin was next to him. Palin, an obscure, unknown governor of our most distant and most unknown state, walked onto the national stage and ignited a burst of energy that may well have taken McCain over the top, until his Queeg-like pausing of his campaign to work on a financial crisis and then vote for a bailout.
The landscape is now quite different. There are tens of millions of people who never voted for Obama, telling their friends "don't blame me." There is a growing number who did vote for Obama who have lost their jobs at car dealerships, who have not found work yet even after the massive spending, and there are those who just say "...this is not the change I had in mind."
Some thought McCain would be the anti-charisma candidate against the charisma candidate and that would work. Now we may be lining up for the common sense charisma campaign against the nonsense charisma.
The left is telling us something and they are the experts. They are telling us not to make Palin the conservative candidate because if we do, it will be humiliating. I agree with them and I take them at their word.
It will be the undoing of Obama, and it may be overwhelming.
Jay Valentine blogs at jayvalentine.com. Page reprinted by permission from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_the_21st_century_i.html
Return to Index
THE ONE-TWO PUNCH AIMED AT
By James Lewis, January 08, 2008
John McCain has had a hate-hate relationship with GOP conservatives for years, and has locked himself into that position with the McCain-Feingold assault on the First Amendment. The establishment media loved McCain-Feingold, because it made them the biggest power in the land in the weeks before Federal elections when candidate commercials are supposed to stop.
Mike Huckabee is a Southern populist, which means a socialist with a
strong social conservative message, like Jimmy Carter. The media have been on
the side of both Huckabee and McCain. Just think of what that means. Think.
The one-two punch of McCain and Huckabee is aimed at the
conservative base of the GOP. It is designed to wrest party leadership away from
the conservative coalition that has more-or-less controlled it since Ronald
Reagan: vigilant on defense, strong on social issues, free market-oriented in
economics. The Huckabee-McCain gambit is calculated to drive the party
leadership to the Left. It will divide the head of the party from the body.
Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses, and McCain may win New Hampshire. Those are significant wins, but they are peanuts in delegate votes for the GOP nomination. The big states are coming up fast, with the five-week rush to the nomination. So the liberal media are going to parlay largely symbolic victories in Iowa and New Hampshire to a major push for McCain and/or Huckabee in the big states.
Conservatives who resist the Huckabee-McCain-Leftist assault are left with
only two realistic choices: Romney and Giuliani. Fred Thompson is a fine man,
but he is not fighting hard enough.
Romney has strong conservative values in his personal life, understands
the economy, and understands this dangerous world. His strong executive
experience may give him better control over the huge obstacle of a liberal and
at times anti-American Washington bureaucracy. Just look at yesterday's New York
Times headline about a Pentagon plan to penetrate Pakistan. It is designed to
sabotage and even kill Americans who participate in it. Remember that leak to
see how far the Left will go to sabotage the war effort. Simultaneously the NYT
published an article celebrating its new relationship with the Pentagon. Chances
are that leak came from SecDef Robert Gates or others. That is why the
bureaucracy needs to be tamed.
Rudy Giuliani is much like Romney in his strengths and weaknesses, without the all-American family. I like Rudy, but GOP conservatives may have to choose between Rudy and Mitt, to fend off the Huckabee-McCain assault. Romney is playing a long, steady game. Giuliani made a rational bet that he could make up for early losses with later gains. Now he may be losing that bet.
That may be why the editors of National Review chose to endorse Romney
early. None of this is in the bag; politics springs constant surprises. But
backing Romney early in the game makes sense for conservatives.
There are no solid all-round conservatives in this line-up. But even
Ronald Reagan endorsed a liberal abortion policy at one time in his career. His
change of heart appeared to be sincere. The anguished abortion issue can only be
dealt with incrementally, step by gradual step. An all-or-none reversal of Roe v
Wade is not likely. We can discourage abortions, make aborting viable babies
illegal, and stop celebrating abortion as just another "choice." That's what
Giuliani has been saying in legalese. He's not a pro-abortion candidate.
This is going to be a tough campaign, with assaults on conservatives both inside the GOP primaries and during the general election campaign. Republicans have been holding their money until a clear candidate emerges. The crucial time to support candidates is in the next five weeks.
After that we could have a choice between a liberal and a liberal for
president, if Huckabee or McCain are nominated. A lot of conservatives may stay
home on election day if that's the choice, putting Obama or Hillary in the
Bottom line: For GOP conservatives, it's Romney or Giuliani, with an edge to Romney, because he's fighting every primary.
This will be a crucial, crucial election season.
Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker, www.americanthinker.com See James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
Return to Index
By Christopher Chantrill, October 10, 2007
Long term victory for
conservative ideas means changing the culture. The Democrats will get back into
power sooner or later. We want an America in which Democrats no longer want to
create huge one-size-fits-all government programs that create widespread
dependency on the government. We want an America where no liberal would think of
proposing a nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the United States Supreme
In our vision of America, when someone says: "But people have needs," liberal women like Larry Summers' tormentor Nancy Hopkins will faint away in disbelief if anyone suggests a government program as a response.
The future is not won by elections and Supreme Court decisions; it is won
by changing the culture. We are talking about a national conversation.
"Let's talk," said Hillary Clinton, among others.
Last week the British Conservative Party decided to start a national conversation at their annual conference. The result was a sudden 10 point jump in the opinion polls. The week before all the experts had written Conservative leader David Cameron off as a light-weight and a loser.
So how did David Cameron and the Conservative Party come back from the dead?
First of all they proposed a little tax relief, raising the exemption on inheritance tax to one million pounds: no death tax for anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of a sudden the experts realized that inheritance tax was deeply unpopular-with women. Wrote Anatole Kaletsky in The Times:
[M]iddle-aged, middle-class women, eager to maximise the legacies that they can leave to their children and grandchildren, will vote for any party promising to relieve them of inheritance tax.
Then there was David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference. It was a speech that covered a lot of the same ground as any Republican presidential candidate, starting with lower taxes and broken windows policing. Then Cameron called for radical choice in education.
[W]e need to open up the state monopoly and allow new schools... So we
will say to churches, to voluntary bodies, to private companies, to private
schools come into the state sector... [W]e can have those new schools so we can
really drive up standards.
OK, it was not that radical. It was just calling for an education system similar to Sweden. But try suggesting it to Randi Weingarten of the United Federation of Teachers in New York City.
It was Cameron's attitude towards the Labour Party and its welfare policy that was truly radical.
Labour's great passion was tackling poverty but in many ways its been one of their greatest areas of failure... They've put the money in... but it hasn't worked. Why?
I believe it's because they relied too much on the state organisations
that can treat people like statistics rather than like human beings.
With this approach he gave credit to the left for its good intentions. But then he invited his audience to wonder why it didn't work.
Instead of the normal method of the political platform speaker with its
clanging accusations and exhortations to victory Cameron used a more feminine
He came out from behind his podium and abandoned his prepared speech and teleprompter.
I've just got a few notes so it might be a bit messy; but it will be me. Instead of indicting the other party he tasked them for not listening. You know how it goes: They meant to end poverty, but they just didn't know what they were doing and they didn't listen, bless their hearts.
"You know the best welfare system of all," Cameron concluded, "It's called
Political insiders like William Langley report that Cameron's wife, Samantha, is a prime driver of this woman-friendly conversational format.
What do women want? Do they want a government monopoly education system that doesn't listen to them and doesn't respond to the special needs of each child?
Do women want a uniform single-payer health care system, designed by Hillary Clinton and her experts, that is incapable of responding to the specific needs of each family?
We already have a system that delivers every kind of house that women want. It delivers every kind of clothing that women want. It delivers every kind of food that women want, and cars with every kind of cup-holder that women want.
How about a system that delivers every kind of education and health care that women want?
Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.
Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/post_9.html
Return to Index
2 STATES, 22 OBSERVATIONS
Things I have noticed while watching media coverage of the recent hurricanes:
1. Texas: Productive industrious state run by Republicans. Louisiana: Government dependent welfare state run by Democrats.
2. Texas: Residents take responsibility to protect and evacuate themselves. Louisiana: Residents wait for government to protect and evacuate them.
3. Texas: Local and state officials take responsibility for protecting their citizens and property. Louisiana: Local and state officials blame federal government for not protecting their citizens and property.
4. Texas: Command and control remains in place to preserve order. Louisiana: Command and control collapses allowing lawlessness.
5. Texas: Law enforcement officers remain on duty to protect city. Louisiana: Law enforcement officers desert their posts to protect themselves.
6. Texas: Local police watch for looting. Louisiana: Local police participate in looting.
7. Texas: Law and order remains in control, 8 looters tried it, 8 looters arrested. Louisiana: Anarchy and lawlessness breaks out, looters take over city, no arrests, criminals with guns have to be shot by federal troops.
8. Texas: Considerable damage caused by hurricane. Louisiana: Considerable damage caused by looters.
9. Texas: Flood barriers hold preventing cities from flooding. Louisiana: Flood barriers fail due to lack of maintenance allowing city to flood.
10. Texas: Orderly evacuation away from threatened areas, few remain. Louisiana: 25,000 fail to evacuate, are relocated to another flooded area.
11. Texas: Citizens evacuate with personal 3 day supply of food and water. Louisiana: Citizens fail to evacuate with 3 day supply of food and water, do without it for the next 4 days.
12. Texas: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials provide accessible distribution points. Louisiana: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials prevent citizens from reaching distribution points and vice versa.
13. Louisiana: Media focuses on poor blacks in need of assistance, blames Bush. Texas: Media can not find poor blacks in need of assistance, looking for something else to blame on Bush.
14. Texas: Coastal cities suffer some infrastructure damage, Mayors tell residents to stay away until ready for repopulation, no interference from federal officials. Louisiana: New Orleans is destroyed, major infrastructure damage in and around city, Mayor asks residents to return home as another hurricane approaches, has to be overruled by federal officials.
15. Louisiana: Over 400 killed by storm, flooding and crime. Texas: 24 killed in bus accident on highway during evacuation, no direct storm related deaths.
16. Texas: Jailed prisoners are relocated to other detention facilities outside the storm area. Louisiana: Jailed prisoners are set free to prey on city shops, residents, and homes.
17. Texas: Local and state officials work with FEMA and Red Cross in recovery operations. Louisiana: Local and state officials obstruct FEMA and Red Cross from aiding in recovery operations.
18. Texas: Local and state officials demonstrate leadership in managing disaster areas. Louisiana: Local and state officials fail to demonstrate leadership, require federal government to manage disaster areas.
19. Texas: Fuel deliveries can not keep up with demand, some run out of gas on highway, need help from fuel tankers before storm arrives. Louisiana: Motorists wait till storm hits and electrical power fails. Cars run out of gas at gas stations that can not pump gas. Gas in underground tanks mixes with flood waters.
20. Texas: Mayors move citizens out of danger. Louisiana: Mayor moves himself and family to Dallas.
21. Texas: Mayors continue public service announcements and updates on television with Governor's backing and support. Louisiana: Mayor cusses, governor cries, senator threatens president with violence on television, none of them have a clue what went wrong or who is responsible.
22. Louisiana: Democratic Senator says FEMA was slow in responding to 911 calls from Louisiana citizens. Texas: Republican Senator says "when you call 911, the phone doesn't ring in Washington, it rings here at the local responders".
What if state and local elected officials were forced to depend on themselves and their own resources instead of calling for help from the federal government?
Conclusion: Texas cities would be back up and running in a few days. Louisiana cities would still be under water next month.
Republicans call for action, Democrats call for help.
What party will you be voting for in the next election?
By "evariste" on Discarded Lies Blog, Oct. 6, 2005.
Return to Index
Republican women offer scholarship
A $500 college scholarship is being offered by Sunrise Side Republican Women. The scholarship will be awarded in the spring to a female graduating senior of a high school in Iosco or Alcona County. Also eligible are female residents of Iosco and Alcona counties who are currently in their first year of college.
Other criteria for eligibility include having a grade point average of 2.5 or better on a 4.0 scale, acceptance for attendance at a public or private college or university, and participation at some level with Sunrise Side Republican Women or the Republican Party of Iosco or Alcona County.
The selection process includes submission of the scholarship application by the last Friday in March 2005, transcripts, college admission test scores, summary of high school achievements and involvements, and two letters of recommendation from other than family members. Also required is a brief essay on “What the Republican principles mean to me.”
Scholarship information and applications are available at each area high school office and web site or by request from Sandy Hollabaugh, 739-4722, who will receive the completed applications next spring.
Members of Sunrise Side Republican Women are from Iosco and Alcona counties. One of their objectives is the promotion of education.
Return to Index
IN MEMORY OF PAT CARPIO
The Michigan Republican Party has worked with the American Legion to establish a fund in memory of Pat Carpio. The funds will be used to send young boys and girls to Boys' State and Girls' State, programs which are designed to help teach leadership skills to young people. If you wish to make a tax deductible donation in memory of Pat, send a check made payable to the American Legion/Pat Carpio Scholarship Fund. Send it in care of Henrietta Tow, 2121 East Grand River Ave., Lansing, MI 48912.
Return to Index
"TAX ME MORE"
Faced, like many states, with dwindling receipts and a budget squeeze, Arkansas Democrats and media commentators suggested raising taxes to fill the gap. However, Gov. Mike Huckabee dealt with the problem differently.
According to CNSNews.com, on January 7, 2002, Gov. Huckabee created the "Tax Me More Fund" on November 28, 2001, to showcase the hypocrisy of people who support higher taxes but refuse to donate their own money. By the date of the article, 36 donors had come forward with a total of $1,051.91, ranging from a high of $200 to one cent. All funds, even a penny, are deposited in the fund.
In creating the fund, Huckabee said, "There's nothing in the law that prohibits those who believe they aren't paying enough in taxes from writing a check to the state of Arkansas. Maybe this will make them feel better."
Many of the donations come with letters and most are supportive. One non-contributor wrote, "As an Arkansas taxpayer for many years now, I feel I have paid more than my fair share of the state sales taxes, county sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Please let this letter serve as an invoice to the Tax Me More Fund that I am owed $1,144.85 in overpayment of my fair share of taxes for the past year alone. When the fund reaches the amount stated above, please send me my money back."
Huckabee first announced the Tax Me More Fund at a convention of the Arkansas Farm Bureau in Little Rock. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he responded to laughter in the audience by saying, "I'm as serious as I can be. It's put up or shut up time. Either put up the money, write the check and let us see you're serious or quit telling me Arkansans want their taxes raised. Because I'm convinced that Arkansans would say, my taxes are high enough."
The fund has a real address of PO Box 8054, Little Rock, AR 72203.
Return to Index