Tag Archives: GOP

Time for Old Soldier McCain to Fade Away

mccain

Senator John McCain (R, AZ) continues his criticism of fellow Republicans for filibustering confirmation of CIA Director John O. Brennan over the White House’s drone policy.

mccainWhile interviewing with the Huffington Post, McCain used the term “wackos” to describe Senator Rand Paul (R, KY), Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX) and Representative Justin Amash (R, MI).

“They were elected, nobody believes that there was a corrupt election, anything else…But I also think that when, you know, it’s always the wacko birds on right and left that get the media megaphone,” said McCain.

When pressed for clarification on who the wackos are, McCain responded “Rand Paul, Cruz, Amash, whoever.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/08/mccain-calls-paul-cruz-amash-wacko-birds/

It seems like just yesterday that McCain was relishing his role as maverick, while using the megaphone provided him by the media to gain the 2008 GOP presidential nomination.

Some Republicans, led by McCain and Senator Lindsey Graham (R, SC), worry that the filibuster, which focused lots of positive attention on Paul, might end up reflecting poorly on the party.

Might these be the same Republicans who nominated Gerald Ford in 1976, sought to nominate John Connally or George H.W. Bush while opposing Ronald Reagan in 1980, nominated Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney?

Clearly, the most successful nominee in that bunch was the most Conservative: Reagan.  That the GOP continues to cling to the notion that presidential electoral success hinges on nominating the most moderate candidate largely explains their lack of recent success.

To his credit, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, who may prove to fit into the Conservative new blood category, described the filibuster as “completely awesome.”

Meanwhile, in a radio interview with former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, Paul responded to McCain: “You know, I think he’s just on the wrong side of history, and on the wrong side of this argument, really.”

Paul continued by saying he respects both McCain’s military service and his legislative record, but stressed that McCain’s experience does not mean he is always right: “I treat Senator McCain with respect. I don’t think I always get the same in return.”

Americans on both sides of the aisle honor McCain for his service.  However, McCain must realize that it is time to pass the torch of leadership to a new generation of Conservative leaders demonstrably capable of filling his seemingly vacated role as maverick while leading Republicans to electoral victory.

http://mjfellright.wordpress.com/2013/03/08/time-for-old-soldier-mccain-to-fade-away/
Give the Gift of Courage

Rand Paul: ‘Not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist’

Rand Paul not isolationist nor neoconservative

Rand Paul not isolationist nor neoconservativeWednesday, Senator Rand Paul gave his long awaited foreign policy speech at the Heritage Foundation. In it, he tried to outline a foreign policy vision that is a departure from the foreign policy that has been offered for more than a decade by the GOP. Also in the speech, he tried to distance himself from his father, Ron Paul’s, more radical non-interventionist views. Predictably, both neoconservatives and libertarian non-interventionists were not pleased with the speech. However, Senator Paul’s speech may open up a path for Republicans and conservatives to regain lost credibility on foreign policy and national security issues and tie it into the larger issues of debt and spending.

Senator Paul began the speech with this.

 I see the world as it is.   I am a realist, not a neoconservative, nor an isolationist.

That sentence largely defines what Paul’s policy is. Traditional conservative realism as oppose to the alternatives of neoconservative hyper-interventionism and quasi-isolationist noninterventionism. A third way that is skeptical of intervention while at the same time engaged and active in the world.

Senator Paul also did something very few American politicians have done since 9/11, have a frank discussion with the American people about radical Islam.

The West is in for a long, irregular confrontation not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with Radical Islam.

As many are quick to note, the war is not with Islam but with a radical element of Islam  — the problem is that this element is no small minority but a vibrant, often mainstream, vocal and numerous minority.  Whole countries, such as Saudi Arabia, adhere to at least certain radical concepts such as the death penalty for blasphemy, conversion, or apostasy.  A survey in Britain after the subway bombings showed 20% of the Muslim population in Britain approved of the violence.

Some libertarians argue that western occupation fans the flames of radical Islam – I agree.  But I don’t agree that absent western occupation that radical Islam “goes quietly into that good night.”  I don’t agree with FDR’s VP Henry Wallace that the Soviets (or Radical Islam in today’s case) can be discouraged by “the glad hand and the winning smile.”Americans need to understand that Islam has a long and perseverant memory.

As Bernard Lewis writes, “despite an immense investment in the teaching and writing of history, the general level of historical knowledge in American society is abysmally low.  The Muslim peoples, like everyone else in the world, are shaped by their history, but unlike some others, they are keenly aware of it.”Radical Islam is no fleeting fad but a relentless force. Though at times stateless, Radical Islam is also supported by radicalized nations such as Iran.   Though often militarily weak, Radical Islam makes up for its lack of conventional armies with unlimited zeal.

For Americans to grasp the mindset of Radical Islam we need to understand that they are still hopping mad about the massacre at Karbala several hundred years ago.  Meanwhile, many Americans seem to be more concerned with who is winning ‘Dancing with the Stars.’

Illiberal Islamic radicalism is more prevalent in the Islamic world than most Westerners believe. After all a few years ago, a Muslim United States Army major killed many of his fellow soldiers at Fort Hood in the name of jihad. There is no way the neoconservative vision of spreading democracy by force could ever take root in such an illiberal society.

Senator Paul opined about Iran, again trying to strike a middle ground. He explained that he supported sanctions as an attempt to restart diplomacy, but he was not sold on a military option to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

No one, myself included,  wants to see a nuclear Iran.   Iran does need to know that all options are on the table.  But we should not pre-emptively announce that diplomacy or containment will never be an option.

 

Senator Paul is correct here. Strategic ambiguity is the best policy in regards to Iran. By stating that the United States will go to war to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons will likely accelerate Iran’s quest to acquire them as a means of deterrence. Also, one of the best arguments the Iranians have for acquiring nuclear is what happened in Libya. After the Iraq War, then Libyan dictator Gaddafi agreed to end his weapons of mass destruction program in exchange for not being removed from power. In 2011, our glorious Dear Ruler, Caesar Barackius the Magnificent, decided to remove Gaddafi from power because he disapproved of his crackdown on Al-Qaeda aligned rebels. Why would anyone trust any security assurances the United States gives in exchange for ending a weapons of mass destruction program?

Senator Paul also did something most American politicians absolutely refuse to do, comment on the plight of Arab Christians.

Likewise, today’s “Truman” caucus wants boots on the ground and weapons in the hands of freedom fighters everywhere, including Syrian rebels.  Perhaps, we might want to ask the opinion of the one million Syrian Christians, many of whom fled Iraq when our Shiite allies were installed.  Perhaps, we might want to ask:   will the Syrian rebels respect the rights of Christians, women, and other ethnic minorities?

Arab Christians have not fared well under the neocon vision of bringing democracy to the Islamic world. From Egypt to Palestine, the persecution of Arab Christians is on the rise at the hands of these new Islamic “democratic” governments. What most neocons do not understand is that democracy is more than just having elections, its about having a pluralistic society that can respect differences of opinion and lifestyle.

Finally, Senator Paul opines about how Congress has failed at its job of oversight over the Executive Branch.

Since the Korean War, Congress has ignored its responsibility to restrain the President. Congress has abdicated its role in declaring war

Congress not restraining the Executive Branch is why Dear Ruler can arrogantly maintain a kill list of Americans he believes he can order killed with no oversight at all. Our liberties have suffered as a result and it is also worth noting that the United States has only had one decisive military victory, the first Gulf War, since World War II.

Overall, Senator Paul outlined a vision of a restrained foreign policy with a suspicion of foreign intervention, Congressional oversight as required by the Constitution, and in line with the realities of a nation deeply in debt and with a weak economy. It also provides a more realistic alternative to the neocon vision of spreading democracy to the Islamic world. It is also a more conservative alternative in acknowledging that we have to take the world as it is and that we can impose a utopian ideal in Western-style democracy in an illiberal culture such as the Arab World. Where at the same time, it maintains the conservative commitment to a strong national defense instead of being the policeman of the world that neocons and leftists would like America to be.

In the political arena, this is a foreign policy that can help regain the credibility with the American people that the Republican Party lost in the sands of Iraq. It signals that the era of perpetual war against a vague enemy is over. This would help reassure the American people that their son and daughters will not be sacrificed casually.

Rubio to Give GOP Address Feb. 12

senator rubio

Speaker Boehner and Senate Republican Leader McConnell announced today that Senator Marco Rubio would be giving the Republican Address in response to the State of the Nation on February 12. This is the first time the young senator will take the national stage representing the conservative party.

Senator Rubio, now in his third year in the U.S. Senate, has been a champion of growing the American middle class through limited government and free enterprise policies, making him a natural choice to outline why the Republican vision can help Americans rise above their current circumstances in the Obama economy.

“Marco Rubio is one of our party’s most dynamic and inspiring leaders. He carries our party’s banner of freedom, opportunity and prosperity in a way few others can. His family’s story is a testament to the promise and greatness of America,” said Speaker Boehner.  “He’ll deliver a GOP address that speaks from the heart to the hopes and dreams of the middle class; to our party’s commitment to life and liberty; and to the unlimited potential of America when government is limited and effective.”

“Marco Rubio embodies the optimism that lies at the heart of the Republican vision for America. On Tuesday, he will contrast the Republican approach to the challenges we face with President Obama’s vision of an ever-bigger government and the higher taxes that would be needed to pay for it,” said Senator McConnell. “Marco’s own experience as the child of immigrants has always informed his belief in limited government and free enterprise, which is why he has helped lead the fight against out-of-control spending and job-destroying tax hikes that continue to hold our economy back and stifle opportunity for millions. He was a natural choice to deliver the Republicans’ alternative to the administration’s reliance on government and debt.”

“I’m honored to have this opportunity to discuss how limited government and free enterprise have helped senator rubiomake my family’s dreams come true in America,” said Senator Rubio.  “Limited government and free enterprise are the very foundation of what makes America special and separates us from the world, particularly through our strong middle class.  I look forward to laying out the Republican case of how our ideas can help people close the gap between their dreams and the opportunities to realize them.”

The address will be delivered in both English and Spanish and comes the same week that TIME Magazine will feature the Florida senator on their cover.

Mullin Disappoints Once Again

Eagle Trusting Government

I attended a town hall meeting in Claremore on Tuesday, January 29, 2013 featuring Markwayne Mullin, the newly elected congressman from Oklahoma’s 2nd District. Some of his statements sounded strange coming from Markwayne Mullina “conservative” but one response to a question bothered me more than the rest.

A man asked Mullin about the executive orders being used by Barack Obama to by-pass Congress, and what can be done to nullify them. Mullin’s response was that the way to stop an EO was for the House to pass legislation nullifying the order, then send it to the Senate where Dingy Harry Reid would refuse to allow it to be heard. And even if it could be passed by the Senate it would have to go to Obama for his signature.

Mullin asked if anyone thought Obama would undo his own executive order by signing such a bill. And of course the answer is “NO”. His next comment astounded me. Mullin then said, to paraphrase, “what’s the point of going through all that when there is no chance of prevailing?”

Isn’t this just accepting business as usual and admitting he has no say in what goes on in Washington? Isn’t this the same point Hillary Clinton just made about Benghazi, that nothing matters? What difference does anything make in Washington? Why is Mullin there then? He might as well come home and run his plumbing business if he is that impotent in Congress. Why have any of them there if they can only follow the dictates of party “leadership”? Why not just let the Traitor John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, and Obama make all the decisions and save us the money we spend for Congress and their massive staffs?

I tire of hearing how spineless Republicans are powerless to make any changes in the way the establishment in both parties runs our nation as a dictatorial oligarchy. “We only have one half of one third of government” is the usual whine from Republicans who didn’t do anything to shrink government when they had total control. We the People are told almost daily that “that is how things work in Washington”. Even those we think are conservative don’t take long to tell us there is nothing that can be done to change government.
I wish Mullin would have told me this during the campaign. I might as well have helped his opposition in the primary run-off. I thought supporting George Faught in the Republican run-off would net me the words I am hearing now from the guy I supported and campaigned for.

How are We the People ever going to get the Bald Eagle back as the symbol of the greatest nation in history with this kind of mealy-mouthed garbage coming from those we elect to public office? Party loyalty trumpsLiberty Eagle loyalty to the Constitution and We the People every time it seems.

I like Mullin, as I got to know him during the campaign, but I hear the same bird crap I heard from his predecessor, Democrat Dan Boren. We change birds in Congress but find the same bird crap falling on our heads after changing the breed of birds.

The problem with changing which party is in control of government is that there isn’t any distinguishable difference in the political parties today. When you look at a pile of horse manure how do you tell if it came from a Republican horse or a Democrat horse? I have often written that John F. Kennedy could not win the nomination for president in the Republican Party today because he would be too conservative. That is a sad state of affairs.

This week Marco Rubio, the non-natural born citizen and presumptive Republican nominee for the 2016 presidential election, became the poster child for the newest “latest and greatest” amnesty scam being foisted upon We the People by the Republican Party establishment. It seems “expanding the Republican tent” means making room for every group but those who have supported the party low these many years since Reagan, the last conservative to sit in the White House. Will Mullin, when faced with voting for amnesty, tell us once again “that is how things are done in Washington” and go on to explain how powerless he is?

The Globalist Oligarchy Party (GOP) has abandoned everything it used to stand for and now embraces the same policies as the Marxist dominated Democrat Party. Liberty is dying in America and there are so few in republican logogovernment willing to stand up for the Constitution and We the People. Unfortunately, Oklahoma is not very well represented in Washington, D. C. (De Cesspool). Five of our six Republican congressmen voted to put the Traitor John Boehner back in the Speaker’s chair in spite of overwhelming opposition to Boehner by We the People of the state.

Changing party affiliation doesn’t change the crap being dropped on our heads so what is the answer? I am looking for the people with the courage to step up and represent my conservative views in government and it won’t happen until we get a 3rd party. True conservatives in both political parties need to leave their bird nest and do something that will benefit America not just their particular set of special interest groups. I though Mullin was one of those but he is proving me wrong.

Bob Russell
Claremore, Oklahoma
January 31, 2013

States Apply for a Second Constitutional Convention

With the current media circus aimed at gun control, can you imagine if the founding document, our U.S. Constitution, was on trial? Instead of demanding our Constitutional Right, we’d have to justify why an individual has the right to possess a gun. Many mainstream state politicians and lobbying groups across the nation are applying for a second Constitutional Convention and…it looks like they may get it.

Americans exercise liberties no individual had experienced prior. In return, the innovations America’s contributed to mankind are unimaginable prior to introduction. This is because our founder’s ingeniously wrote the Constitution establishing a strong but limited government designed to protect our individual rights. Over the years, our government and the protection of our individual rights have eroded. Today, these rights and responsibilities are just as important and just as vulnerable. As these groups pursue an “Article V Convention”, are they looking to abolish our current government and replace it with another?

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Declaration of Independence, 1776

 

Some organizations and academia want the name of a Constitutional Convention change to something else. ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) is an organization that advises and recruits state legislators across the nation. According to their manual for “Proposing Constitutional Amendments by a Convention of the States”,

“Other acceptable names for a convention for proposing amendments are amendments convention, convention of the states, and Article V convention. (…it is inaccurate and misleading to call a convention for proposing amendments a ‘constitutional convention”.)

To call an Article V Convention anything but a “Constitutional Convention” is misleading. Other than being defeated at war, there are ONLY two ways to amend or alter the Constitution. The first method is the Amendment process which has successfully amended the Constitution 17 times and the other is by Convention. Once Congress calls a Convention according to Article V, there is nothing that can alter its course.

“…there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened it will be too late to stop the Convention if we don’t like its agenda.”

US Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger

America’s problem is not an antiquated Constitution but a government that has deviated from it; this includes local, regional and state governments. We cannot fix our government through changing or adding new rules; we need to hold it accountable to the rules already set forth.

Once an Article V Convention begins, what will the Federalist Papers resemble? Our founders wrote Federalist Papers to convince the states in ratifying the Constitution, along with the Bill of Rights. With today’s media, it could easily be made a mockery on CSPAN, MSNBC, CNN or Fox with commentaries of Pierce Morgan, Chris Matthews or Bill O’Reilly moderating the coverage.

In today’s chaos, our Constitution is our only foundation, it preserves our liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, due process, private property or arms…just to name a few! Hopefully, you’ll be prepared to defend these freedoms when it comes for deliberation!

Our Constitution protects our rights as individuals. We, the citizens, are not positioned to defend our Constitutional individual freedoms in such a forum. We have been segregated into false labels so we could easily pick our opponents for trivial stuff.

Imagine our First Amendment’s Five Freedoms, freedom of religion, press, speech, assembly and petition did not exist. What if authorities arrested without charging, search and seized property the State deemed necessary? These fundamental Individual Rights are protected by a federal government established within our Constitution.

When it comes to our Second Amendment, the massacres of Aurora, Newtown and Ft Hood don’t hold a candle to the massacres done by dictators’ like Mao Zedong, Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin. Our founders understood an out-of-control government and attempted to limit it as much as possible. They also understood how special interest could infiltrate it and use it as their weapon.

“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Benjamin Franklin

Once the Constitutional Convention starts, our individual rights will be open for debate. It’s difficult to understand why someone would submit for a Constitutional Convention in these times unless they wish to get rid of our Individual Rights…rights protected by a limited government that may no longer exist. …Or they may wish for a fundamental transformation of America.

 “Whatever gain might be hoped for from a new Constitutional Convention could not be worth the risk involved. A new Convention could plunge our Nation into constitutional confusion and confrontation at every turn, with no assurance that focus would be on the subject needing attention. I have discouraged the idea of a Constitutional Convention, and I am glad to see states rescinding their previous resolutions requesting a convention.”

Chief Justice Warren Burger

Hopefully, Americans have not taken our individual liberties for granted to allow bureaucrats, politicians and special interest to take them away. The only way to accomplish this is hard work, petitioning your Representatives and replacing those who do not protect our individual rights.

In Deep with Michelle Ray – Conservative Offense

In Deep with Michelle Ray

When: Thursday, Janurary 17th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: I am joined by bestselling author and Breitbart.com editor, Ben Shapiro, attorney and Twitter warrior Todd Kincannon, and The Young Cons co-founder, Josh Riddle . This is how the Right learns offense.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

“He Said She Said” with Demetrius & Stacy

hsss featured image

  cdnlogoWhen: Wed, Jan 9, 10PM EST/7PM Pacific

Where: Listen here: He Said She Said with Demetrius & Stacy

What: Have you ever wondered what Black Conservatives think about the political issues of today? Well wonder no more, “He Said, She Said” with Demetrius and Stacy. brings you an inner peek into the mind of the conservative: bold, full strength, and unfiltered.

Tonight: Special guest: Rep. Dr. Paul Broun, (@DrPaulBrounMD), Congressman in 10th district of Georgia, and Dean Clancy (@DeanClancy),  Vice President for FreedomWorks.

drpaulbroun deanclancy

2013 New Year’s Resolutions for the GOP

gop-red

gop-red

The following is a list of resolutions for the GOP in 2013, which was posted at the website Independent Journal Review. Apparently, a lot of people find these recommendations hard to swallow:

1. Unify

Ronald Reagan’s Eleventh Commandment: “Thou shalt speak no evil of another Republican.” The Democrat Party never has a problem getting unified support or opposition to a bill in public. Hammer out your differences before bringing up votes.

2. Diversify

The 2012 RNC had a lot of minority speakers who are rising stars in the party. Keep that trend going. The more advocates for liberty in the Republican party who can connect with people of diverse backgrounds, the better.

3. Shelve the Social Issues

The Democrat Party dines out on Republicans falling into the trap of trying to legislate social policy. The principle of equal protection should be applied, and social issues should be argued about only at the state level, and that doesn’t include candidates for Congress. Republicans should make it a point that they will not seek to implement social issues legislation at the national level (and they shouldn’t).

4. Fresh Faces

We need young, vibrant and enthusiastic speakers in the party, who are passionately opposed to statism. Vocal, intelligent and principled critics of the social welfare state like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, and Rand Paul are vital to a party resurgence.

5. Don’t Preach to the Choir

FoxNews is probably the only conservative TV network, so this isn’t a knock on that channel. But basically, only conservatives watch Fox News. The GOP has to go to where moderates are, even if that means confronting hostile interviewers.

6. Forget Perfection

The constant nitpicking about every candidate has got to stop. Do Democrats care about every single issue? They put inept politicians in office on a regular basis, simply for the reason that they aren’t Republicans. Meanwhile, registered GOP voters couldn’t be bothered to get off the couch on November 6th to vote for Romney.

7. New Leadership

Speaker Boehner may mean well, but he hasn’t been very effective opposing Democrats in Congress. The leadership needs to change it up or be replaced by those who are serious about cutting spending and explaining why they want to do so. The House has the power of the purse, after all, and the GOP’s leaders need to learn how to leverage the people’s branch of government.

8. Get Smart

The Republican Party constantly engages in populist politics when it is completely unnecessary. In order to grab hold of the moderates and lock them up, the GOP needs to be seen as smart and mature, while the Democrats need to be looked upon as childish, reckless name-callers. This shouldn’t be that hard to do against a party whose only solution to every problem is to raise taxes and spend trillions of dollars America doesn’t have. Debt is dumb. Start making that case.

Unless a broad coalition like the tea party, which actually did shelve social issues in 2010, arises to unite against big government — we’re going to see a repeat of 2012. The political fight has to be treated like a long, cultural battle for the heart of the country, not like a one-term election proposition, which the right just lost.

Instead of learning its lesson, the GOP electorate thinks it needs to push back harder, when it should be recruiting more people into its ranks. Don’t take on this image of pushing back too hard, even as we seek to fight the left tooth and nail, but instead entice people into the party.

Stop trying to fight on all parts of the political terrain, instead of picking the most important one or two battles, and making a stand there. Obstinacy on social issues won’t mean much when the central government is running 90% of the economy. Pick debt, free speech, and gun control, and win on those issues. Forget the other stuff at the national level, or suffer ruin.

Ultimately, for the GOP to rebrand successfully, it has to be seen as the mature and reasonable party, and the Democrats need to be cast as childish, reckless name-callers.

Just a friendly word of advice from someone who was very active in the tea party and in the successful 2010 Congressional elections. I’m fiercely against abortion (not for religious reasons), gun control, more spending, tax increases, and the social welfare state. But this isn’t about my personal views, this is about preserving and expanding liberty.

H/T Independent Journal Review

Do you agree or disagree with this list? Comment below.

The Delusional Right-Wing and the GOP

op05yr

op05yrIt has already been argued ad nauseum that the GOP is no longer conservative. If we take that as a basic fact, then perhaps there is a chance at redemption. Additionally, if we recognize the fact that arguing on behalf of “values issues” is useless in this society, there is a modicum of hope that we can move toward some level of sanity in this nation, when it comes to fiscal issues. And finally, if we stop considering the moniker “RINO” an insult, but embrace it as a means to recognize anyone that is focused primarily on moving our nation to a path of fiscal responsibility, there may be some hope for conservatives yet.

It is being argued that we have lost the culture war to the left, and that is mostly true. Matt K. Lewis makes a very valid point, that Americans have generally shifted away from “traditional values.” Turn the clock back to the late 1950’s, and the current laissez-faire attitude toward traditional family values was just beginning in the form of youth rebellion. They owned their narrative, defined their generation, and started us on the path to where we are now. But, most importantly, instead of attempting to force their lifestyle choices on those that disagreed with them – primarily their elders – they simply demanded to live as they chose.

And there lies the problem with the current right-wing. We are being marginalized on important policy and fiscal issues because any opposition we have immediately – and rightfully – assume that there will always be secondary agenda of forcing legislation on social conservative ideals. And we keep allowing our mouthpieces to preach about these issues, in spite of failing miserably for years, even with legislative majorities, to pass laws on them. And there is a hypocrisy inherent in this behavior, since on one hand we cry against nanny state initiatives, like denying consumers Big Gulps, but insist that traditional family values be made the law of the land. But, what would the political landscape look like if instead of trying to force these social issues onto the legislative dockets, we simply fought against secularization on the basis of the First Amendment assurances of the freedom to observe whatever religion we choose? What if we used the same tactics that the youth of 50’s and 60’s did? Thanks to Obamacare, various religious organizations have already started doing this, and they have been at least somewhat successful.

As for the loss of the culture war, perhaps that isn’t over yet either. Ironically enough, Hollywood is offering up at least a couple opportunities for conservatives to take at least one of their favorite issues into the spotlight with the help of pop culture. The remake of the film “Red Dawn” and an upcoming television show about cold war era spies offer a golden opportunity to discuss gun rights from a geo-political and national security perspective. And it remains relevant, because the fact is that China is quite interested in seeing our citizens disarmed. They also aren’t really happy about that remake of “Red Dawn” either.

Finally, our politicians really do need to stop displaying a stunning level of naïveté. It really does no one any good to act stupid, or suggest that anything that this administration would come up with is surprising.

“He has an insatiable appetite for this thing,” Ryan said. “He’s been extraordinarily partisan since his election, even to my surprise. But now there’s no excuse. There’s no getting around the fact that spending is the problem.”

That was Paul Ryan, of course. And if he was honestly surprised about Obama’s desire to bleed the rich dry, maybe it’s a very good thing that he isn’t a heartbeat away from the Presidency himself.

We can’t simply cut our way to prosperity. Cutting spending has to go hand-in-hand with further reforms to our tax code so that the wealthiest corporations and individuals can’t take advantage of loopholes and deductions that aren’t available to most Americans. And we can’t keep cutting things like basic research and new technology and still expect to succeed in a 21st century economy. So we’re going to have to continue to move forward in deficit reduction, but we have to do it in a balanced way, making sure that we are growing even as we get a handle on our spending.

If Ryan didn’t already know Obama held that belief, regardless of whether or not he’d heard the President make that statement, then he sincerely does not have a grasp on reality. And Ryan’s Pollyanna contention that now that Congress has passed that abominable excuse for a budgetary intervention, they can concentrate on spending cuts is bluntly delusional. Either he has an extremely misguided faith in the honor and decency of his fellows on the House floor, or he honestly believes that the pack of thieving wolves on the other side of the aisle actually give a damn about anything other than maintaining their status quo of spending us into oblivion. It is a sad situation, because once upon a time, it appeared that Ryan actually was smart enough to figure out a way out of the financial mess this nation is in, and might have had the nerve to stand up against the crowd to promote his theories. While he still might have the mental chops to figure out the numbers, he certainly doesn’t appear to have the ability to fight to do anything with them.

Phrases like “we must own the narrative” are bandied about, but until we actually start doing that, we’re finished. We are the new rebels. Whether it’s a desire to build businesses without severe hindrances from government, or wanting to live a piously religious life without having to fight secularists at every turn, we’re all battling a common enemy – the left. Now, we can continue to let the left divide and marginalize us, or we can put our differences aside, so we can focus on taking down the left. Which will it be?

In Deep with Michelle Ray – Waxing Politic

In Deep with Michelle Ray

When: Thursday, Janurary 3rd, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.

Tonight: Join me as I wax politic on fiscal cliffs, exhaustion, and bejeweled. It may even make sense.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Kabuki Theater: Is the GOP “Controlled Opposition”?

kabuki

kabuki

During the entire torturous game of shadow puppets that the Republican Party and the Democrat Party played in the run-up to the disastrous fiscal cliff deal, every single conservative knew how it would play out. The president would make some outrageous demands, pretend to compromise, and get basically everything he wanted from an effectively complicit Republican Party.

This play has been run so many times in Washington the last few decades, from George H.W. Bush onward, that one has to wonder if there is any actual opposition in either party or in the mainstream media to America’s obvious lurch towards a socialist police state.

It begs the question: Is the Republican Party a legitimate opposition party? Or has the GOP been captured by socialists and is being used to promote their agenda? Seems like a bit too Robert Zemeckis for most Americans to buy, unless one can get past the slick interchange of left-wing terms like “socialism,” “progressivism,” and “liberalism.”

But why can’t it happen here? Nations all over the world have been captured by socialists: Russia, Serbia, Poland, Hungary, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, North Korea, Ethiopia, Venezuela, Cuba, Greece, Spain, Britain, and France — that’s just to name a few of the more obvious examples. It’s not to say the severity of socialism is the same: just like with diseases, peoples have varying immune responses, resistance, and coping mechanisms for dealing with the communist disorder.

America is pretty far along in its descent into collectivism. Thirty years ago, one could have said the same thing. But the Cold War kept Americans’ resistance high. Perhaps when the U.S.S.R. formally disbanded, leaving in place many of the same faces from its KGB apparatus, and the cause of radical environmentalism mysteriously appeared from out of nowhere on the UN stage, people began to lower their defenses.

The proof of the left’s effectiveness can be shown by the last few elections. President Obama has a well-explored socialist past, including but not limited to proven affiliation with the socialist New Party in Illinois. The president never had a noticeable public “coming out party,” when he rejected socialism and embraced the U.S.’ system of Constitutional government (on the contrary). Occasionally, President Obama mouths the words ‘free enterprise,’ but these empty words have no bearing whatsoever on his actions.

Yet the mainstream media, let alone the Republican Party, rarely if ever mention the president’s radical leftist associations and tendencies. Speculatively, one must consider the possibility that the GOP is being used as a willing scapegoat in a socialist ruse called “controlled opposition.”

Alternatively, another way of putting it is that there are a significant number of members of the Republican Party who pretend to be on board with Constitutional government and free economy, but who are actually leftists or so-called “progressives.” They knowingly lie about their ideological loyalties, and then vote against liberty on key issues — whether on national security items or social welfare spending. From a theoretical standpoint, the problem is thus both ideological and practical.

In order to understand the argument that the Republican Party could essentially be “captured” by socialists (whether through ideological or operative influence), a bit of background information is needed. Below is an excerpt from Theodore Skousen’s book “The Naked Communist.” The entry of 45 Current Communist Goals into the 1963 Congressional record by Representative Herlong, Jr. of Florida can be found here.

Below lists some of the major entries:

1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.

3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.

15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.

20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.

21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis. (See recent article, “Professor calls for abolition of Constitution.”)

30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”

32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture — education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.

37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.

40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.

42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“united force”] to solve economic, political or social problems.

If the Congressional record isn’t enough of a trustworthy source, one could go right to a primary document — the Communist Manifesto. Anyone with a critical mind can see most of the planks from the manifesto have been implemented with a stunning degree of success. But let’s address specifically the socialist tactic of “controlled opposition.”

Socialist regimes struggling to maintain legitimacy sometimes use the fake appearance of democracy and choice, as KGB defector Anatoly Golitsyn explains in New Lies for Old and The Perestroika Deception. This theory actually explains the behavior of Republicans much better than the alternative hypothesis that the GOP actually cares about this country and its Constitution or the null hypothesis that the Republican Party is not controlled by socialists.

When Republican politicians like Governor Chris Christie hyperventilate about a bloated Superstorm Sandy relief bill, bemoaning that Republicans don’t care about those suffering in his state, that is a perfectly socialist thing to say. When Peter King goes on CNN and sobs about this porked-up $60 billion spending bill being held up by House Republicans, and he argues like it is assumed that politicians should be visiting states like New York to buy off voters, that is also a perfectly socialist thing to say. When King slams the GOP, sabotaging its role as an opposition party from within, one that presumably disagrees with runaway spending of taxpayers’ money, again — this is all too predictable from a socialist orchestration standpoint.

The question becomes: How would lying socialists act any different?

There is the alternative explanation that these politicians are ideologically subverted and are simply unable to understand what role they are playing in this left-wing charade. Personally, this is hard to believe, because it’s all so obvious and calculated for those who know anything about socialism and communism. Witness the thousands of East European, Russian, and Cuban emigres screaming about the socialist tendencies of the Democrat Party and the new tone of American politics.

Unfortunately, there are really hardly any contradictions to the theory that the Republicans are unopposed to socialism. What would it really take for a majority of representatives in the Congress to oppose the obvious maneuver to bankrupt the country and put the infrastructure in place for a communist police state? All it takes are votes, and yet we all wring our hands as if it would be an act of bravado akin to Mission Impossible.

Government never gets reduced in size, and the budget hardly ever get seriously cut, regardless of the public outcry or danger to the public finances. Yes, politicians may be cowards, but they are also not idiots. They have children and grandchildren too, and they must assume that it is better to be in the government, than out of it.

Thus, several prominent Republicans revolting would be consistent at this Destabilization stage in what KGB defector Yuri Bezmenov called the Demoralization-Destabilization-Crisis-Normalization paradigm of communist subversion. It would be textbook salami tactics from the party infiltrators.

Those who observe Russian politics understand that there are foil parties — ultra-nationalist and communist parties that play a role in making the regime seem reasonable —  as well as fake political opposition candidates who are actually lapdogs of the Kremlin. The last election that brought back former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin into formal power from his position of de facto power is an excellent case-in-point. Billionaire Mikhail Prokhorov appeared out of nowhere to run against Putin, right in the midst or roiling protests precisely against the stage-managed farce of Russian “democracy.” (Interestingly enough, it appears that the Obama campaign even borrowed its ‘first vote’ deflower power idea from some of Putin’s more amorous ads.)

On the ideological side of the equation, the left-right dichotomy is thoroughly corrupt, as it is framed and reinforced by corporate-run mainstream media. Corporations, for the record, are not necessarily supporters of “capitalism,” as demonstrated by the bailout and stimulus spending debacles. But no longer is the fight in the main public forum between left-wing statists and Constitution-supporting freedom fighters; but rather it is between fighters for the police state on one hand, and fighters for the welfare state on the other.

It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to figure out that this deadly dance ultimately leads to a totalitarian basketcase; after both parties get through trading quid pro quo votes in fake opposition kabuki theater, the result is a massive Department of Homeland Security under the sole authority of the executive branch and a media clamoring for gun confiscation at the first sight of any inevitable mass murder or other horrific gun crime.

The two parties are blending together in an act the communists called “convergence” — which is a mind-trick that normalizes the psychological perception of behavior through false dichotomies and calculated dialectics. This incremental tactic pushes the hard left narrative ever more into the mainstream of political awareness, due to the exclusion of rational, conservative alternatives.

The university education system, for example, plays a role in this process by censoring pro-market or pro-Constitutional materials out of syllabi and class discussions. The debate is framed between the hard left and the soft left, as if those perspectives are the only two alternatives. Political correctness and intimidation guides the conversation ever more to the hard left, specifically through the use of rhetorical tactics like the Delphi Technique.

This “convergence” is also the grand strategy for (former) communist states like China and former avowedly communist states like present day former KGB-run Russia. While these states introduce cosmetic market and democratic reforms, they remove the perception of threat that comes from communist infiltration and subversion (not that these states have to do much of anything nowadays to feed this — their guy is already in place). Communism becomes an archaic concern; it is removed from visibility, and repackaged under the guise of UN-led initiatives like radical environmentalism. Pivoting from staunch Cold War foe to mutual allies in forming an unaccountable world government takes “flexibility,” which could only come from a “reset” of relations.

When one examines the United Nations, and researches who formed the body, one finds that known socialists like Lauchlin Currie, Edouard Daladier, and Vyacheslav Molotov were instrumental in the mission. With Keynesianism being institutionalized at Bretton Woods, a slow war of attrition against capitalism was ensured, using the Federal Reserve (a plank right out of the Communist Manifesto) as a transmission belt to stretch the dollar to its breaking point, meanwhile eroding property rights and other aspects of free economy.

It is such the case that the federal government effectively owns the monetary system, owns “capital,” and thus, owns “capitalism.” We are all basically slaves to this ignoble machine. The government is micro-managing the economy into foreseeable and avoidable disaster.

Conclusively, numerous politicians in both parties are pushing America towards socialism on purpose. Where is the outcry from the Republican Party? Where is the outrage at the spending? What about the police state and our rights? If these politicians actually felt something must be said or done, they would find a way to make it happen. Instead, most Republicans are silent as church mouses, folding their hands or rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

One has to hand it to the leftists — their sick, twisted plan has come off brilliantly. There are so many ignoramuses and “half-baked intellectuals” out there who are unmoved by any appeal to rational self-interest, that it doesn’t matter what kind of arguments you hit them with, they won’t ‘get it’ until a black boot kicks them in their fat bottoms.

In Deep with Michelle Ray #Caring Edition

kurt

When: Thursday, December 13th, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: In Deep with Michelle Ray on Blog Talk Radio

What: Join Social Media Director of ConservativeDailyNews.com, Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) as she discusses the issues that impact America.
caring

Tonight: I am joined by the King of #caring, Kurt Schlichter ( @KurtSchlichter), Breitbart contributor, author, Army vet, lawyer… bring your big boy pants, and a latte for Kurt.

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on Blog Talk Radio

Jim DeMint – Change in Washington Can Only Come From the Outside

220px-Jim_DeMint

Great conservatives like Marco Rubio, Mike Lee and Rand Paul can only be topped with a Senate majority. If so, it won’t be with Senator DeMint as he moves to the Heritage Foundation. The true fight in engaging Washington and politics in general is from the outside.

…you cannot change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside. That's how I got elected. That's how the biggest accomplishments like healthcare got done was because we mobilized the American people to speak out.

Barack Obama

 

Universities indoctrinate thousands of liberals annually, these indoctrinated students are painfully brought back to reality through life experiences. Some never leave their theoretical world, only to validate their flawed concepts. As universities place these misguided in powerful positions, our society begins to deteriorate.

Media and Hollywood reinforce these false concepts with keenly worded polls and convenient news to push political agendas. Bob Costa's choose gun control over Jovan Belchers' fractured family? How convenient a Small Arms treaty is awaiting ratification rather than the destruction of unwedded parents, raising a child in a dysfunctional home. You have the perfect contributions of Hollywood when you throw in cinematography, a famous actor and a great storyline.

MI protestCommunity organizations and unions drive similar messages. Life's hard lessons are the fault of greedy bankers loaning money to the poor or business owners providing jobs rather than bad legislation. In 2010, union workers made up 11.4% of the workforce; now only 7%. Unions see private businesses fall apart because they bargain for more power, squeezing every last profit out until no business has anything to fall back on. Community organizations (also referred to as Non Governmental Organizations) such as the Sierra Club, PETA or ACORN advocate for the distressed. If negotiating or the problem was solved, community organizations and unions would no longer need to exist.

Universities, unions, community organizations and media use groupthink, authority and compartmentalization to whip mobs into frenzies so they maintain their political power. These outside agencies influence our political system through subversion and power. They use individual actions to justify their broad, collective advocacy or propaganda.

In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson

     Our Constitutional Republic was created to protect individual rights from the frenzied mobs. As they lobby the collective, the repercussion destroys the individual and any opposition. Change to Washington must come from the outside. Instead of solving problems on there own, these groups demand Washington and local governments intervene through legislation.

The true power struggle is no longer in Washington DC, we must realize the front lines are in our community. Our reality and way of life is threatened as long as universities, unions, community organizations and media maintain power through manipulation and coercion. This is why Jim DeMint made a fabulous move in moving his fight to the outside.

It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions…There are men, in all ages…who mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters…

Daniel Webster

The Lonely Position of Neutral

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.29.52 AM

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.29.52 AM

I hate raising taxes.  I find high tax rates immoral.  However, we lost the election.  An increase in revenue is inevitable.  What’s perverse about this whole episode is that if we fall off the cliff – Democrats will get everything they want. They’ll get their tax increases, their revenue, and defense cuts.  They would complete their decade-long project of ending the Bush Tax Cuts and gutting of the Pentagon.  They have no incentive to meet us halfway, or negotiate in a meaningful way to make sure the markets don’t tank.  They don’t need to.  They won.  In the meantime, Americans should prepare for the worst.

Since the tax hikes from falling off the cliff are far more severe, I’ve written in previously that Republicans will have to swallow the concept of raising taxes.  However, there is latitude within this debate.  Republicans should press Democrats to increase the tax rate on those making $500,000 a year, instead of $250,000.   As George Will aptly noted on This Week a few months ago, a Chicago school principal with twenty years experience, who is married to a cop with twenty years experience, is almost rich in the eyes of the Obama administration.  Cops and school principals aren’t your typical fat cats, hence this is an area where conservatives on the Hill could construct a narrative that this tax increase – within this particular income bracket – a) isn’t really hitting the rich and b) effects professions associated with the middle class.

There’s been some movement towards pushing the amount of taxable income above the $250,000 bracket, and addressing other areas relating to federal spending.  As Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane at The Washington Post wrote on December 9, continued negotiations have produced the following:

●Fresh tax revenue, generated in part by raising rates on the wealthy, as Obama wants, and in part by limiting their deductions, as Republicans prefer. The top rate could be held below 39.6 percent, or the definition of the wealthy could be shifted to include those making more than $375,000 or $500,000, rather than $250,000 as Obama has proposed.

Obama wants $1.6 trillion over the next decade, but many Democrats privately say they would settle for $1.2 trillion. Boehner has offered $800 billion, and Republicans are eager to keep the final tax figure under $1 trillion, noting that a measure to raise taxes on the rich passed by the Senate this summer would generate only $831 billion.

●Savings from health and retirement programs, a concession from Democrats necessary to sell tax hikes to GOP lawmakers. Obama has proposed $350 billion in health savings over the next decade. Boehner has suggested $600 billion from health programs, and an additional $200 billion from using a stingier measure of inflation, reducing cost-of-living increases for Social Security recipients.

●Additional savings sufficient to postpone roughly $100 billion in across-the-board agency cuts set to hit in 2013, known as the sequester, and to match a debt-limit increase. The sequester, perhaps paired with an automatic tax hike, could then serve as a new deadline, probably sometime next fall, for wringing additional revenue from the tax code and more savings from entitlement programs.

I like the fact that liberals are willing to increase the rates on those making $500,000, which we can fix if we retake Congress in the 2014 midterms.  However, concerning the entitlement spending, I want deeper cuts that are also immediate.  Nevertheless, the dynamic is the same – and it’s no love fest.

As Meredith Shiner and Daniel Newhauser of Roll Call wrote in the early morning hours on December 11:

…the primary differences between the two sides remain. Boehner’s office said the speaker is waiting for the White House to come back to Republicans with more spending cuts. And the White House says the president is waiting for the GOP to give more on revenue. Two years of fighting over how to rein in the federal debt is now coming down to two weeks of deal-making at best and he-said/she-said at worst.

“The Republican offer made last week remains the Republican offer, and we continue to wait for the president to identify the spending cuts he’s willing to make as part of the ‘balanced’ approach he promised the American people,” said Boehner spokesman Michael Steel, who confirmed conversations with the White House “are taking place” but declined to specify the nature of those talks.

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters aboard Air Force One that Obama has offered specifics on cuts — pointing to the president’s original deficit reduction plan that has repeatedly been dismissed by the GOP. Carney added that the Republicans are the ones stalling talks by not giving more detail on what they would be willing to do on revenue.

Frankly, both deals are bad. I’m not happy with either of them.  I know that caving on our principles won’t make liberals like us better.  Yet, as in the 2012 election, it’s all about messaging and making the argument.  Barack Obama pervasively made the argument that Bush ruined the economy, and raising taxes will fix it.  Mitt Romney and his communications team, which was always on defense, never made the argument against this claim. Conservatives don’t have the high ground in this fight.

Montgomery and Kane wrote that “a Washington Post-Pew Research Center poll last week found that a majority of Americans would blame the GOP if talks between Obama and Boehner fail to avert more than $500 billion in automatic tax hikes and spending cuts set to hit in January, potentially sparking a new recession.”  Now, Pew and WaPo are left-leaning polls, but it doesn’t matter. It’s almost axiomatic that the GOP will be savaged by public opinion if we go over the cliff.  While Democrats can take cover under a cloud of legitimacy and have the sober satisfaction that they’ll get what they want anyway, even if Republicans won’t budge on tax increases.

Our movement doesn’t need anymore setbacks right now.  With the debt ceiling, that’s a different debate. But for now, we may have to hold our noses and increase taxes on people making $500,000 or more, which is the only (gulp) compromise Republicans should accept on revenue.  They should also keep pressure on the White House for more immediate cuts to federal spending.  Now, while some, like NYT’s Helene Cooper, say that Obama would own the recession if we fall off the cliff, I’m still dubious if that would happen.  Some said that Obama’s extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in December of 2010 would be an albatross around his neck during his re-election campaign.  It wasn’t.  As I’ve said, I hate raising taxes, but the alternative not to, at this time, could be more damaging than the vote for them.  It should give conservatives more incentive to win in 2014.

Right now, debt talks will probably remain in neutral as the car tumbles towards the jagged rocks below.

In short:

 

In Treatment

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.04.42 AM

Screen Shot 2012-12-12 at 2.04.42 AM

Yes, Republicans are in treatment after their catastrophic loss last November.  We kept our majority in the House due to gerrymandering, and we lost two seats in the Senate.  Romney’s loss was bad, but our inability to gain seats in the Senate was ignominious.  Democrats were tasked with defending twenty-three senate seats, and twelve of those races had eminently beatable incumbents.  However, due to some of our party members’ obsession with rape and pregnancy, we’re short two seats when the next congress convenes.

What’s becoming increasingly clear is that the conservative movement is on defense.  For the past quarter century, it’s been the opposite.  I dare say that progressives have gotten inside the conservative psyche with ruthless efficiency.  Furthermore, we have an operational deficit.  Democrats are eons ahead of Republicans concerning targeting future voters.  The era of Karl Rove is over, and an heir apparent is absent.  President Obama outspent Mitt Romney ten to one on social media in his re-election effort.  The other side gets it – and they look cool doing it.  Obama’s team is the best out there.  It’s the meanest, toughest, and most vicious collection of political minds we’ve ever faced – and we lost.  There’s not way Eric Fehrnstrom, or anyone on Romney’s team, would’ve been able to counter their skills.  So, where do we go from here?

Abby Livingston at Roll Call wrote on December 10 that RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced a new initiative to tackle the issues where Republicans are lacking.  It’s called the Growth and Opportunity Project.

There will be five chairmen of the effort. They are:

  • Henry Barbour, a national committeeman from Mississippi
  • Sally Bradshaw, a veteran senior strategist in Florida and national politics
  • Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary
  • Zori Fonalledas, a national committeewoman from Puerto Rico
  • Glenn McCall, a national committeeman from South Carolina

The objective of the group, according to a release, is “reviewing past practices and also making critical recommendations for the future” in eight areas:

  • campaign mechanics and ground game
  • messaging
  • fundraising
  • demographic partners and allies
  • third-party groups
  • campaign finance issues
  • presidential primaries
  • lessons learned from Democratic campaign tactics

Politico first reported the news and also noted that a similar self-examination is occurring with the Republican super PAC American Crossroads. And last week, CQ Roll Call reported that a similar postmortem occurred with regards to Republican digital efforts in 2012.

Yes, we all should remember the infamous Project ORCA, which was an unmitigated disaster. For example, GOTV operations were virtually paralyzed in Colorado.  The price for centralizing a decentralized campaign tactic was leaving 30,000 Romney volunteers unable to conduct strike listing, make phone calls to remind Republican voters, and turn them out in general.  Never. Again.

However, even conservative grassroots organizations, like Americans for Prosperity, have to lick their wounds.  They spent close to $120 million on this election cycle, which ended with conservative influence decreased in Washington.  Concerning the loss, I asked Stephanie Fontenot, AFP’s New Media Manager, if the organization had any plans to release more ads to put pressure on Republicans to not raise taxes during the volatile fiscal cliff negotiations.  She said “as for ads – we’re doing a lot of our reach organically, really concentrating on getting our followers and activists to push this out and put on the pressure online. Twitter gives us a unique way to get our message out in a more direct way to each member and his/her staff.”

One area that Republicans  – and conservatives  – desperately need to improve on is Hispanic outreach. We cannot continue to lose the Latino vote by a margin of 75%-23% again.  Additionally, Romney lost the Cuban vote in Florida, which paints an even bleaker picture when a once reliable bloc of voters switches sides.  To put things into perspective, Bush won 44% of Hispanics in 2004.

Fontenot said that “our [the conservative] message of economic freedom affects all Americans and we seek to reach Americans as a whole. We do recognize the need to craft that  message so that everyone is able to receive it. We are currently working on op-ed’s that will be published in English and in Spanish. Our AFP-Florida state chapter sends most of their press releases in more than one language.”  I couldn’t agree more.  However, the next step is actually putting some boots on the ground to touch voters in those communities.  Hispanics have a lot that is malleable with the Republican Party. It’s time we capitalize on that with a renewed fervor.

While AFP is looking to target Latinos and use social media to articulate conservatism to the masses, it all falls on how the establishment will take this new era.  Will they continue their efforts to moderate the party?  Will they finally decide that growing a backbone is essential in this fights?  I’m not sure.  The Republican Party’s sixty minutes aren’t up yet.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »