Sen. Rand Paul gives hope to the curly–haired.

The 40^th annual Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) held this week in National Harbor, just across the river from Washington, DC, did not appear to be a depressed gathering of Republicans and conservatives still reeling from last November’s presidential loss. There was friendly rivalry between supporters of Sen. Rand Paul (R–KY) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R–FL), but I saw no evidence of divisive infighting and vicious internal attempts to gain mainstream media publicity at the expense of fellow party members.

But then again an impressive contingent of off–duty police officers was probably more than enough to keep John McCain and Lindsey Graham from attending the conference.

The opening day of CPAC 2013 evolved into a faceoff between two potential Republican presidential candidates: the aforementioned Rand Paul and Marco Rubio.

Judging by the crowd’s reception, Paul was the winner.

Rubio — America’s foremost spokesman for regular hydration — did not address immigration, the issue he’s been most associated with this year. Instead the bulk of Rubio’s speech, once we got past the H2O jokes, was fairly standard — although he did touch on the call for a remodeled Republican party.

Rubio said the goal of the Republican Party should be to “create an agenda to apply our time–tested principles to the challenges of today” because average Americans are asking, “who is fighting for them?”

Specifically, Rubio believes the US should be the best place in the world to create middle–class jobs and to facilitate that the country must solve the federal government’s debt and spending problem. Republicans should stress pro–growth energy policies that include both oil and gas. On the home front, he wants every parent to have an opportunity to send their children to “the school of their choice.” And we need real heath care reform that empowers Americans so they can buy insurance from any company, regardless of where the company is headquartered.

The young senator also addressed leftist critics and predicted they will downplay his speech and claim that he didn’t offer any new ideas. “We don’t need a new idea. The idea is called America and it still works,” Rubio responded as the audience applauded.

It would have been the best conservative speech of the day, if Rand Paul had not made an appearance.

It was a standing–room only crowd that anticipated Paul’s appearance and it erupted in applause as he brandished the binders he used during his drone filibuster in the Senate and declared, “I was told I only had ten measly minutes, but just in case I brought 13 hours worth of information.”

Paul — who gives hope to the curly–haired since no one will ever call him ‘blow dried’ — began by explaining that the motivation for his filibuster was to question whether presidential power has limits: “We want to know will you or won’t you defend the Constitution?”

As an audience member called out, “Don’t drone me, bro!” Paul explained that the president’s good intentions are not enough. “No one person gets to decide the law,” he said. And that’s his philosophy in a nutshell: leaders must defend and abide by the Constitution even when it’s not convenient.

Paul then moved to compare his conservative philosophy with that of Obama’s, which has proven to be you can have your cake and eat your neighbor’s, too. He quoted Ronald Reagan who said, “As government expands, liberty contracts.”

With that in mind he proposed a five–year plan to balance the budget. Paul’s blueprint cuts the corporate income tax in half, creates a flat personal income tax of 17.5 percent, erases the regulations “strangling American business” and eliminates the Department of Education entirely giving the power and the money back to the states.

Paul observed without mentioning names that the GOP “of old has grown stale and moss–covered.” His new GOP will need a big tent because it will “embrace economic and personal liberty. Liberty needs to be the backbone of the Republican Party and I ask everyone who values liberty to stand with me.”

And the crowd did, giving him a standing ovation that easily eclipsed the response to Rubio’s earlier speech.

Maybe it’s time.

We’re writing you as longtime supporters. As Arizona residents we’ve watched your support of the state. We’ve watched your support of the military. We’ve watched your support of the constitution.

And we admired you. What you endured as a captive meant you were stronger and braver than us.

We admired when you talked of compromise and you reached across the aisle.

And we admired your tenacity during the run for president. We couldn’t imagine keeping the pace needed as candidate when the media kept reminding us of your age. Like many we were sad to see your handlers reign in the ‘maverick’ but then you surprised everyone with the unknown Palin, a maverick, in her own right and we were impressed.

In 2010 when people began speaking out against the skyrocketing government spending we saw your support of many young Tea Party voices and we thought we were all on the same page.

But maybe it’s time.

Last week we knew you, along with other key Republicans were meeting with the president. So we did understand when you weren’t apparent in the senate chambers during the unexpected Paul filibuster.  We hoped that you, along with your other senate colleagues would at least make an appearance after your dinner.  After all, the Twittersphere and other social media were going crazy with updates on Rand Paul. Surely, C-SPAN doesn’t see such high viewer numbers as they had that night of conservatives, watching and listening.

Don’t get me wrong. We are not Libertarians. And there is much about Rand Paul that we question. But the filibuster was a unifying moment for many conservatives. We aren’t paranoid but we are concerned that this administration who works by executive order and fiat might want to watch, spy and yes, even target key dissenters.

We are worried about the changes we see. So maybe it was just one small, common thread, but common it was and Paul’s questions to Holder and the administration were not irrelevant comments made by a fringe element.

Which is why we were very sad to see you and your pal Lindsey mock the filibuster and Paul’s statements. Even worse, you continued to show up on every news show and further denigrate Paul.

What were you thinking? Momma always told us, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all.” Who did you think you were helping with your criticism?

This was an opportunity to unite conservatives but instead your guffaws became the topic of conversation.

Yes, maybe it is time…Time to step aside and let the next generation take charge. We’d say maybe it’s time to retire gracefully…but we might be too late for that.

Sincerely,

Some of those Wacko Bird nuts you’ve been talking about…just remember, we vote.

Why is Rand Paul the only one in D.C. who is showing concern?

CNN and Pew Research Center polls show a majority of the public will blame the GOP if the country goes over the cliff, even if Speaker Boehner fetches coffee for Obama during negotiations and compliments Michelle on her triceps.

To avoid this the GOP must start thinking strategically. That and take some very useful advice from two unlikely sources: Grover Norquist and Barack Obama.

Norquist urges Republicans to televise negotiations. This is a good idea that will allow the public to see just how intransigent Democrats are. While Obama warns House Republicans to get out of the way, which is exactly what they should do.

While the TV cameras are humming, Boehner should recognize the President built his campaign around raising taxes and voters supported that agenda. Boehner should explain that although Republicans disagree and believe Obama’s policies will plunge the nation back into a recession, if not depression, the people have spoken and Republicans will not obstruct him in any way.

Then — as Dante wrote about denizens of one level of the Inferno — we let Obama be himself with a vengeance. Republicans simply vote ‘present’ and, following the Obamacare precedent, the President’s socialistic, dangerous policy passes without a single Republican vote.

We lose tactically in the short run, but we win strategically in the long run. Negotiating minor cuts at the margin now not only won’t be a victory, it will allow Obama — and his Hallelujah Chorus in the media — to blame the failure of his fiscal policy on Republicans. That is impossible if Obama gets his way.

What’s more, bickering over petty spending cuts, discredits major cuts as a viable debt reduction strategy in the future. When these rounding–error cuts fail to make a difference, Democrats and the media will claim we tried cutting and it didn’t work.

Keep in mind Republican House leadership has a bad track record when it comes to negotiating cuts anyway. The last time we had a debt confrontation in 2011, Boehner came up with a total of $352 million in cuts. To put that in perspective, the amount represents one–tenth of one percent of the budget.

Whoop–tee–freakin’–doo. It would have made more sense to take the “savings” and buy lottery tickets. Last week’s Powerball jackpot was almost twice as large as the “cuts.”

And the wealthy job creators Obama’s tax increase will harm? I repeat, any Obama compromise means Republicans own the failure, because Obama didn’t get all he knew the nation really needed. And in the unlikely event he succeeds — and remember the media will set the bar remarkably low — Obama gets all the credit.

Some will object that House Republicans have just as strong a mandate as Obama, since they were elected, too. But that’s horse hockey. GOP congressmen were re–elected in gerrymandered districts designed to be impossible for Democrats to win. Obama won the entire nation and he’s right about his mandate, misguided as it is.

If recognizing the results of a democratic election is the proper policy in Egypt, it’s the proper policy here, even if the Socialism Brotherhood was the winner.

Holding out for miniscule spending cuts is simply negotiating the length of the rope Obama will use to hang Congressional Republicans.

There are only two instances where the GOP should fight today. One is opposing giving up Congressional debt ceiling authority in the future. The other is Boehner’s promise that if the Democrat Senate changes filibuster rules, all subsequent Senate bills will be DOA in the House.

Giving the President unilateral debt ceiling authority is like giving the Times Square homeless man a pair of boots and a credit card. No Congressional debt authority, along with rewriting filibuster rules, would cause long–term damage to the country and set a dangerous precedent.

Otherwise, let Obama own the agenda and own the responsibility. It will be impossible to blame Republicans for a result they did not in any way impede.

Our goal should be winning in 2014. It’s the asymmetrical strategy I advocated recently; and it is the kind of strategic thinking Republicans need to start utilizing.

Two years of short term pain will result in House and Senate gains that will allow Republicans to start reversing the course of Obamaism. Besides, I want to watch Democrats try to run in 2014 on a platform of “Osama’s Dead & So Is the Economy.”

Although Harry Reid has refused two offers by Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell to vote here and now on passage which would only require a 50 vote margin, the New York Times is putting the blame for Sen. Reid’s delay tactics on Senate Republicans.

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, had convened the Senate at noon, then moved to a procedural vote on his own proposal for raising the debt ceiling. Senate Republicans had been filibustering that plan, which House Republicans rejected on Saturday, and the vote on breaking the filibuster fell 10 votes short of the 60 votes needed under Senate rules.

from: Senate.gov roll call vote to end cloture on S.627

What the Times didn’t report was that one of the people “filibustering” Reid’s bill is .. Harry Reid himself. The Senate’s own roll call reflects the reality of the situation – Harry Reid voted “nay” on the vote to end the filibuster (the cloture vote image right).

If this is a filibuster, Harry Reid is leading the way.

The rich have it all right now–the top 1 percent earns 23 1/2 percent of all income, more than the bottom 50 percent–and it is absurd that we continue to bail out people who do not need any help and who are doing just fine.

Don’t get me wrong. I do not like the tax compromise one bit, but since when is not raising ones taxes a bail out?  This bill does not decrease the amount that anyone will pay, it only says that they will not suffer a tax increase.  These highly-successful  Americans are not asking for a bail out, they are asking to be left alone.  They are asking for you, Senator Sanders, to get your grubby, greedy, selfish mitts off of their personal and private property.  That property protected by the Constitution you so easily disregard when convenient.

The Senator also points to a pillar of progressive philosophy to continue his assault on the biggest investors, job creators and producers in our society.

In 2007, the top 1 percent of all income earners made 23.5 percent of all income. Let me repeat that: The top 1 percent earned over 23 percent of all income; that is, more than the bottom 50 percent.

So Senator Sanders remakes the same point (one he uses repeatedly in the filibuster) but here is saying that 50% of Americans haven’t started their own businesses and been highly successful?  Why not?  Are the 50% being held back by the 1%?  Of course not.  Just because one person is savvy enough to create a business plan and execute it does not somehow make it harder for another person to create their own plan.  Why should the effective entrepreneur be held back by the ineffective one?  Sounds a lot like our lowest common denominator education system.  Coincidence?

So while Bernie makes the point that the top 1% make 23% of income (and pay an even higher percentage in income taxes), he then demonstrates the already highly-progressive tax system we have.

Let us be very clear: This tax applies only–only–to the top three-tenths of 1 percent of American families; 99.7 percent of American families will not pay one nickel in an estate tax. This is not a tax on the rich, this is a tax on the very, very, very rich.

If my Republican friends had been successful in doing what they want to do, which is eliminate this estate tax completely, it would have cost our Treasury–raised the national debt by $1 trillion over a 10-year period. Families such as the Walton family, of Wal-Mart fame, would have received, just this one family, about a $30 billion tax break.

That’s right, 3 tenths of one percent of tax payers are responsible for $1 trillion in tax revenue!!   That only takes into account the death tax.  The money used to purchase these assets was possibly once taxed as income and the asset purchase was probably taxed with sales tax (and an unknown number of federal fees, levies, and other taxes).  So this is possibly the third time those dollars were taxed.

So who are progressive liberals like Senator Sanders helping?  Who are those that need so much government because they cannot help themselves?  Oh, who could forget these takers of Obama stimulus money?

Now, how many jobs do you think those people are going to make with that stimulus cash?

Class warfare is a necessity if the liberal philosophy is to survive.  The most productive, the makers, must be constantly assaulted as if their gains have all been made on the backs of the poor.  The takers must be held on-high so that they can continue their dependence, and therefor allegiance, to the almighty government.

As if to add an exclamation point to the Senator’s diatribe, he made the clearly uninformed point that America supports his point-of-view.

The vast majority of people are behind us on this issue, but they have to make their voices heard to their Senators, to their Congressmen. When they do, I believe we can come forward with an agreement which protects the middle-class and working families and is not a boondoggle for the wealthiest people.

Really?  Polling data and the November election suggests otherwise oh tone deaf warrior for the far-left agenda.  This is their weapon.  Takers take more, makers give more.  If the makers won’t give, they must be evil.  If the takers don’t get more, the wealthy are being stingy.  The only winners in this are the political elite whose power arises on the backs of the poor and blaming their troubles on the successful in our society.  They have their weapon – a massive, ever-growing army of takers rushing headlong against the few remaining makers.  50% vs 1%, the numbers look bleak.