Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservatism. Show all posts
Saturday, January 9, 2016
Tuesday, September 8, 2015
An Open Letter To Jonah Goldberg – RE: The GOP and Donald Trump
September 7, 2015
by sundance
A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion. Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.
While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.
The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.
I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.
On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.
The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.
Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.
Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.
Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.
Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.
From your own writing:
Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.
If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.
Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?
We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.
Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.
We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?
Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.
Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities. I digress.
Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?
Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?
Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?
Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.
Perhaps you forget. We do not.
Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.
You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.
Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?
Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.
What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.
Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.
You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners?
While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?
That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)
What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.
But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.
The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012.
And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.
The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.
This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.
Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?
As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.
This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.
Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:
• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?
Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:
The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!
That’s a strategy?
That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?
THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?
Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.
And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?
….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?
Seriously?
Conservative Treehouse
by sundance
A few days ago I took the time to read your expressed concerns about the support you see for Donald Trump and the state of current conservative opinion. Toward that end I have also noted additional media present a similar argument, and I took the time to consider.
While we are of far lesser significance and influence, I hope you will consider this retort with the same level of consideration afforded toward your position.
The challenging aspect to your expressed opinion, and perhaps why there is a chasm between us, is you appear to stand in defense of a Washington DC conservatism that no longer exists.
I hope you will indulge these considerations and correct me where I’m wrong.
On December 23rd 2009 Harry Reid passed a version of Obamacare through forced vote at 1:30am.
The Senators could not leave, and for the two weeks previous were kept in a prolonged legislative session barred returning to their home-state constituencies. It was, by all measures and reality, a vicious display of forced ideological manipulation of the upper chamber. I share this reminder only to set the stage for what was to follow.
ADVERTISEMENT
Riddled with anxiety we watched the Machiavellian manipulations unfold, seemingly unable to stop the visible usurpation. Desperate for a tool to stop the construct we found Scott Brown and rallied to deliver $7 million in funding, and a “Kennedy Seat” victory on January 19th 2010.
Unfortunately, the trickery of Majority Leader Harry Reid would not be deterred. Upon legislative return he stripped a House Budgetary bill, and replaced it with the Democrat Senate version of Obamacare through a process of “reconciliation”. Thereby avoiding the 3/5ths vote rule (60) and instead using only a simple majority, 51 votes.
Angered, we rallied to the next election (November 2010) and handed the usurping Democrats the single largest electoral defeat in the prior 100 years. The House returned to Republican control, and one-half of the needed Senate seats reversed. Within the next two election cycles (’12 and ’14) we again removed the Democrats from control of the Senate.
Within each of those three elections we were told Repealing Obamacare would be job #1. It was not an optional part of our representative agreement to do otherwise.
From your own writing:
[…] If you want a really good sense of the damage Donald Trump is doing to conservatism, consider the fact that for the last five years no issue has united the Right more than opposition to Obamacare. Opposition to socialized medicine in general has been a core tenet of American conservatism from Day One. Yet, when Republicans were told that Donald Trump favors single-payer health care, support for single-payer health care jumped from 16 percent to 44 percent. (link)With control of the House and Senate did Majority Leader Mitch McConnell or House Speaker John Boehner use the same level of severity expressed by Harry Reid to put a repeal bill on the desk of Obama for veto? Simply, NO.
Why not? According to you it’s the “core tenet of American conservatism”.
If for nothing but to accept and follow the will of the people. Despite the probability of an Obama veto, this was not a matter of option. While the method might have been “symbolic”, due to the almost guaranteed veto, it would have stood as a promise fulfilled.
Yet you speak of “core tenets” and question our “trust” of Donald Trump?
We are not blind to the maneuverings of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and President Tom Donohue. We are fully aware the repeal vote did not take place because the U.S. CoC demanded the retention of Obamacare.
Leader McConnell followed the legislative priority of Tom Donohue as opposed to the will of the people. This was again exemplified with the passage of TPPA, another Republican construct which insured the Trans-Pacific Trade Deal could pass the Senate with 51 votes instead of 3/5ths.
We are not blind to the reality that when McConnell chooses to change the required voting threshold he is apt to do so. Not coincidentally, the TPP trade deal is another legislative priority of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
Yet you question the “trustworthiness” of Donald Trump’s conservatism?
Another bill, the Iran “agreement”, reportedly and conveniently not considered a “treaty”, again we are not blind. Nor are we blind to Republican Bob Corker’s amendment (Corker/Cardin Amendment) changing ratification to a 67-vote-threshold for denial, as opposed to a customary 67 vote threshold for passage. A profound difference.
Yet you question the “ideological conservative principle” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps your emphasis is on the wrong syllable. Perhaps you should be questioning the “ideological conservative principle” of Mitch McConnell, or Bob Corker; both of whom apparently working to deny the will of the electorate within the party they are supposed to represent. Of course, this would force you to face some uncomfortable empirical realities. I digress.
Another example – How “conservative” is Lisa Murkowski? A senator who can lose her Republican primary bid, yet run as a write-in candidate, and return to the Senate with full seniority and committee responsibilities?
Did Reince Preibus, or a republican member of leadership meet the returning Murkowski and demand a Pledge of Allegiance to the principles within the Republican party?
Yet you question the “allegiances” of Donald Trump?
Perhaps within your purity testing you need to forget minority leader Mitch McConnell working to re-elect Senator Thad Cochran, fundraising on his behalf in the spring/summer of 2014, even after Cochran lost the first Mississippi primary?
Perhaps you forget the NRSC spending money on racist attack ads? Perhaps you forget the GOP paying Democrats to vote in the second primary to defeat Republican Chris McDaniel. The “R” in NRSC is “Republican”.
Perhaps you forget. We do not.
Yet you question the “principle” of those who have had enough, and are willing to support candidate Donald Trump.
You describe yourself as filled with anxiety because such supporters do not pass some qualified “principle” test? Tell that to the majority of Republicans who supported Chris McDaniel and found their own party actively working against them.
Principle? You claim “character matters” as part of this consideration. Where is the “character” in the fact-based exhibitions outlined above?
Remember Virginia 2012, 2013? When the conservative principle-driven electorate changed the method of candidate selection to a convention and removed the party stranglehold on their “chosen candidates”. Remember that? We do.
What did McConnell, the RNC and the GOP do in response with Ken Cuccinelli, they actively spited him and removed funding from his campaign. To teach us a lesson? Well it worked, we learned that lesson.
Representative David Brat was part of that lesson learned and answer delivered. Donald Trump is part of that lesson learned and answer forthcoming – yet you speak of “character”.
You speak of being concerned about Donald Trump’s hinted tax proposals. Well, who cut the tax rates on lower margins by 50% thereby removing any tax liability from the bottom 20% wage earners?
While simultaneously expanding the role of government dependency programs?
That would be the GOP (“Bush Tax Cuts”)
What? How dare you argue against tax cuts, you say. The “Bush Tax Cuts” removed tax liability from the bottom 20 to 40% of income earners completely. Leaving the entirety of tax burden on the upper 60% wage earners. Currently, thanks to those cuts, 49% of tax filers pay ZERO federal income tax.
But long term it’s much worse. The “Bush Tax Cuts” were, in essence, created to stop the post 9/11/01 recession – and they contained a “sunset provision” which ended ten years later specifically because the tax cuts were unsustainable.
The expiration of the lower margin tax cuts then became an argument in the election cycle of 2012.
And as usual, the GOP, McConnell and Boehner were insufferably inept during this process.
The GOP (2002) removed tax liability from the lower income levels, and President Obama then (2009) lowered the income threshold for economic subsidy (welfare, food stamps, ebt, medicaid, etc) this was brutally predictable.
This lower revenue higher spending approach means – lower tax revenues and increased pressure on the top tax rates (wage earners) with the increased demand for tax spending created within the welfare programs. Republicans focus on the “spending” without ever admitting they, not the Democrats, lowered rates and set themselves up to be played with the increased need for social program spending, simultaneously.
Is this reality/outcome not ultimately a “tax the rich” program?
As a consequence what’s the difference between the Republicans and Democrats on taxes? All of a sudden Republicans are arguing to “broaden the tax base”. Meaning, reverse the tax cuts they created on the lower income filers? This is a conservative position now? A need to “tax the poor”? Nice of the Republicans to insure the Democrats have an atomic sledgehammer to use against them.
This is a winning strategy? This is the “conservatism” you are defending because you are worried about Donald Trump’s principles, character or trustworthiness.
Here’s a list of those modern conservative “small(er) government” principles:
• Did the GOP secure the border with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Did the GOP balance the budget with control of the White House and Congress? NO.
• Who gave us the TSA? The GOP
• Who gave us the Patriot Act? The GOP
• Who expanded Medicare to include prescription drug coverage? The GOP
• Who created the precursor of “Common Core” in “Race To the Top”? The GOP
• Who played the race card in Mississippi to re-elect Thad Cochran? The GOP
• Who paid Democrats to vote in the Mississippi primary? The GOP
• Who refused to support Ken Cuccinnelli in Virginia? The GOP
• Who supported Charlie Crist? The GOP
• Who supported Arlen Spector? The GOP
• Who supported Bob Bennett? The GOP
• Who worked against Marco Rubio? The GOP
• Who worked against Rand Paul? The GOP
• Who worked against Ted Cruz? The GOP
• Who worked against Mike Lee? The GOP
• Who worked against Jim DeMint? The GOP
• Who worked against Ronald Reagan? The GOP
• Who said “I think we are going to crush [the Tea Party] everywhere.”? The GOP (McConnell)

And, you wonder why we’re frustrated, desperate for a person who can actually articulate some kind of push-back? Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are what the GOP give us? SERIOUSLY?
Which leads to the next of your GOP talking points. Where you opine on Fox:
“Politics is a game where you don’t get everything you want”Fair enough. But considering we of questionable judgment have simply been demanding common sense, ie. fiscal discipline, a BUDGET would be nice.
The last federal budget was passed in September of 2007, and EVERY FLIPPING INSUFFERABLE YEAR we have to go through the predictable fiasco of a Government Shutdown Standoff and/or a Debt Ceiling increase specifically because there is NO BUDGET!
That’s a strategy?
That’s the GOP strategy? Essentially: Lets plan for an annual battle against articulate Democrats and Presidential charm, using a creepy guy who cries and another old mumbling fool who dodders, knowing full well the MSM is on the side of the other guy to begin with?
THAT’S YOUR GOP STRATEGY?
Don’t tell me it’s not, because if it wasn’t there’d be something else being done – there isn’t.
And don’t think we don’t know the 2009 “stimulus” became embedded in the baseline of the federal spending, and absent of an actual budget it just gets spent and added to the deficit each year, every year. Yet this is somehow smaller fiscal government?
….And you’re worried about what Donald Trump might do?
Seriously?
Conservative Treehouse
Labels:
Conservatism,
GOP,
Republicans,
Trump
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Newsmax Highlights Five ‘Hurdles’ to a Palin Presidential Run
December 29 2014
By: Steve Flesher
As you know, Newsmax is currently profiling many individuals who are recognized as potential presidential candidates for 2016. iizthatiiz reported on their showcasing of Governor Palin’s positions on many issues. As such, Newsmax has followed up their original article with a presentation of what is perceived as being Governor Palin’s strongest hurdles that she’d likely face if she chooses to announce a run for president. They are listed as follows with my responses:
If these are her hurdles, she’s in pretty good shape to run if and when she chooses.
Conservatives 4 Palin.
By: Steve Flesher
As you know, Newsmax is currently profiling many individuals who are recognized as potential presidential candidates for 2016. iizthatiiz reported on their showcasing of Governor Palin’s positions on many issues. As such, Newsmax has followed up their original article with a presentation of what is perceived as being Governor Palin’s strongest hurdles that she’d likely face if she chooses to announce a run for president. They are listed as follows with my responses:
1.) The mainstream media. "The mainstream liberal media has Sarah Palin in their sights and are eager to shoot her down at the slightest opportunity. There appears to be no line the media and entertainment liberals will not cross."The mainstream media is a problem for any presidential candidate who runs on the GOP ticket. Do "binders full of women" or "war on women" ring any bells? It’s true, there is "no line the media and entertainment liberals will not cross" when it comes to Governor Palin which has always said more about them and their obvious perception of her as a political threat to their peaceful world of good old boys than it says about her. I guess one can call this a "hurdle" but one could also call it an asset for two reasons. First, Governor Palin is more vetted than any candidate ever, her skin is thicker than any potential GOP candidate one can name, and she continues to make great achievements despite the media’s attempt to assassinate her strong record of reform and accomplishment. Second, it might not be a bad idea to have a stark contrast for the American people to see during a national election when they compare how the media will treat a liberal woman like Elizabeth Warren versus what we know to expect from them where a conservative woman is concerned. Additionally the media’s attempt to slander Governor Palin during a presidential run would ultimately have to boil down to a regurgitation of old talking points which have become pretty weak sauce at this point. The real story here is how attacks fire her up and strenghten her as opposed to discouraging her.
2.) Communication style. "Sarah Palin’s unique vocalisms are often the target of detractors who cannot get past her folksy manner of speech."Well perhaps her "detractors" are elitists who run candidates like Mitt Romney or hope for candidates like Jeb Bush. Her "folksy manner of speech" combined with her undeniable record of accomplishments speaks volumes and connects to millions of ordinary hardworking Americans who love this country and want to see Obama’s fundamental transformation of the country they love stopped in its tracks. It’s who she is — a straight-shooting reformer who calls it like she sees it. Again, this is an asset, not a "hurdle."
3.) Divided conservatives. "Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure in that people seem to either love her or hate her. While she has a very large and devoted conservative base, which includes the Tea Party, conservatives are divided on what role Sarah Palin should play."They then go on to quote a piece from an article written over at The Week (who should probably consider changing their name to The Weak). Just yesterday I posted a new poll from CNN/ORC reflecting Jeb Bush as the new frontrunner for the GOP yet highlighted how the same respondents don’t seem to agree with him on any issues. I think it’s probably safe to assume that some of these "conservative" writers at The Week are probably among the few that do agree with him on those. They go on to quote a Red State article that says:
"Sarah Palin like Ronald Reagan understands that presidential elections are won in the grassroots campaign trenches found in Ohio counties and Pennsylvania coal fields … America’s conservatives know full well that Sarah Palin also knows how to use a microphone. Much like, Reagan, Palin is committed to let millions across the nation speak through it in 2016!"One gets the impression that The Week would have had very little good to say about Ronald Reagan who faced the establishment favorites in his own primaries. To say Governor Palin faces a hurdle because of this also acknowledges that the same would occur in the case of Senator Cruz or Joni Ernst who’ve both been endorsed by Governor Palin and have overcome them. Her unwillingness to go along to get along with the GOP’s establishment is an asset to the majority of grassroots voters.
4.) 2008 election: "Some conservatives say John McCain’s pick of Sarah Palin as his running mate cost him the election and gave America Barack Obama. Former McCain advisor Nicolle Wallace has repeatedly trashed Palin. However, Breitbart reports this as an attempt to cover up Wallace’s inept campaign advice that contributed to the election loss."The only time McCain’s numbers went above Obama’s in the general election of 2008 was right after the convention and the introduction of Governor Palin as his running mate who ultimately carried the weight of that ticket’s momentum on her shoulders. Ultimately her star was used inappropriately as many staffers clutched onto its coattails and went on to sell her out for their own gain. For example, Nicolle Wallace’s continued bashing of Palin has reaped rewards for the failed staffer with attention at MSNBC and a spot on ABC’s The View. That’s the same media described above who view Governor Palin as a political threat. Incidentally after Wallace was brought on to The View, ratings took a "drastic plunge."
5.) Overexposure: "Sarah Palin was the governor of Alaska and the 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee. She has been a Fox News contributor, has written three New York Times best-selling books, is the executive editor of the Sarah Palin Channel, the host of "Amazing America" on the Sportsman Channel, and Time Magazine listed her as one of the 100 most influential people in the world. While these are all impressive accomplishments, the media has continuously targeted Sarah Palin and her family, and her detractors have an arsenal of vitriol to use against her in a political campaign."One thing they failed to mention is her political action committee and her continued activism which has taken up as much (if not more) of her time as her other projects have. Accordingly, Governor Palin has spent more time on the ground talking with Americans in flyover country than most D.C. politicians. She does this while she honors vets, speaks at various conservative events, and campaigns for candidates that she endorses. In 2008, the narrative on Governor Palin suggested that she didn’t know enough about the lower 48 or international affairs to be VP. Now that she has given speeches in Hong Kong, met with Netanyahu in Israel, and has probably been in every state across this nation multiple times since then, it looks like the critics who viewed her as an unknown in 2008 are prepared to punish her unique talent for tapping into pop culture as a famous conservative by claiming she’s been overexposed. The bottom line is no conservative has defied the intentional attacks of the mainstream media, fully represented the grassroots on issues, desires to reform the corruption in DC from top to bottom, connects to average hard working Americans, can get so many good conservatives elected to office, and successfully utilize pop culture to their advantage like Governor Palin has done.
If these are her hurdles, she’s in pretty good shape to run if and when she chooses.
Conservatives 4 Palin.
Labels:
Conservatism,
Constitution,
Palin
Saturday, December 27, 2014
American Achiever of 2014: Sarah Palin
December 27, 2014
By M. Joseph Sheppard
It would be the height of churlishness for even the most inveterate leftist to deny the import of someone who made Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People" list, and then the Smithsonian Institution's "100 Most Significant Americans Of All Time" list. Both affirmations were earned by former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
To then accept Governor Palin as "American Achiever of the Year 2014" would be for most, if not all on the left (and to be fair, many in the GOP) no doubt a bridge too far. However, such partisanship should not stand in the way of a general acknowledgement of what was a remarkable year for Palin.
Palin achieved what such luminaries as President Obama did not: a place in the Smithsonian's prestigious "Most Significant" list. After being written off by many in the media, and especially the left, as "irrelevant" and predicted by MSNBC's Krystal Ball as "not going to have an effect on the [2014] midterms," Palin's record of success of her endorsed candidates was nothing short of phenomenal.
Governor Palin endorsed 22 candidates for various offices during the midterm finals, including senators, governors, lieutenant governors, congressmen, and attorneys general. Of those so endorsed, an incredible 20 were elected – contrasted with, for example, Hillary Clinton's record of 8 wins out 24 endorsed candidates.
Beyond the success of her endorsed candidates lies a much deeper reason for Palin being seen as "Achiever of the Year": those Palin endorsed in their respective primaries who then went on to win the general election battles. As in the past with, among others, senators Ted Cruz, Kelly Ayotte, and Deb Fischer, and Governor Nikki Haley, who owe their elections in their primary campaigns to Palin's endorsement at a critical juncture, so too could new senators Ben Sasse and Joni Ernst, and new Alaska governor Bill Walker (and, remarkably, his Democrat lieutenant governor Byron Mallott) be considered to owe all or a substantial part of their nominations to Palin's endorsement. For all her detractors’ cries of "irrelevance" and "she's just a reality show entertainer" (those two being among the nicer epithets), Palin goes on, election cycle after election cycle, populating Congress with her endorsed candidates in a cost-effective manner, and in such numbers that the likes of Karl Rove with his 1% success rate can surely view only with hidden admiration, if not downright envy.
In what is perhaps the most interesting aspect of Palin’s year of achievement, in instance after instance where Palin was ridiculed for a straightforward statement (e.g., "death panels" or the true history of Paul Revere), her most strident critics have agreed, in whole or in part, with her views. But 2014 saw the most impressive of this historical revisionism.
After Russian president Putin invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea, video surfaced of Governor Palin's 2008 speech where she predicted exactly that occurrence should then presidential candidate Barack Obama be elected. Palin sounded a deserved note of triumphalism in March:
"Yes, I could see this one from Alaska," Palin posted on Facebook, saying she said "told-ya-so" in the case of her "accurate prediction being derided as 'an extremely far-fetched scenario' by the 'high-brow' Foreign Policy magazine."
"Here’s what this 'stupid' 'insipid woman' predicted back in 2008," Palin said. "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."
Palin's post has been shared by more than 16,000 Facebook users and "liked" by more than 70,000.
American Thinker
By M. Joseph Sheppard
It would be the height of churlishness for even the most inveterate leftist to deny the import of someone who made Time magazine's "100 Most Influential People" list, and then the Smithsonian Institution's "100 Most Significant Americans Of All Time" list. Both affirmations were earned by former Alaska governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin.
To then accept Governor Palin as "American Achiever of the Year 2014" would be for most, if not all on the left (and to be fair, many in the GOP) no doubt a bridge too far. However, such partisanship should not stand in the way of a general acknowledgement of what was a remarkable year for Palin.
Palin achieved what such luminaries as President Obama did not: a place in the Smithsonian's prestigious "Most Significant" list. After being written off by many in the media, and especially the left, as "irrelevant" and predicted by MSNBC's Krystal Ball as "not going to have an effect on the [2014] midterms," Palin's record of success of her endorsed candidates was nothing short of phenomenal.
Governor Palin endorsed 22 candidates for various offices during the midterm finals, including senators, governors, lieutenant governors, congressmen, and attorneys general. Of those so endorsed, an incredible 20 were elected – contrasted with, for example, Hillary Clinton's record of 8 wins out 24 endorsed candidates.
Beyond the success of her endorsed candidates lies a much deeper reason for Palin being seen as "Achiever of the Year": those Palin endorsed in their respective primaries who then went on to win the general election battles. As in the past with, among others, senators Ted Cruz, Kelly Ayotte, and Deb Fischer, and Governor Nikki Haley, who owe their elections in their primary campaigns to Palin's endorsement at a critical juncture, so too could new senators Ben Sasse and Joni Ernst, and new Alaska governor Bill Walker (and, remarkably, his Democrat lieutenant governor Byron Mallott) be considered to owe all or a substantial part of their nominations to Palin's endorsement. For all her detractors’ cries of "irrelevance" and "she's just a reality show entertainer" (those two being among the nicer epithets), Palin goes on, election cycle after election cycle, populating Congress with her endorsed candidates in a cost-effective manner, and in such numbers that the likes of Karl Rove with his 1% success rate can surely view only with hidden admiration, if not downright envy.
In what is perhaps the most interesting aspect of Palin’s year of achievement, in instance after instance where Palin was ridiculed for a straightforward statement (e.g., "death panels" or the true history of Paul Revere), her most strident critics have agreed, in whole or in part, with her views. But 2014 saw the most impressive of this historical revisionism.
After Russian president Putin invaded the Ukraine and annexed the Crimea, video surfaced of Governor Palin's 2008 speech where she predicted exactly that occurrence should then presidential candidate Barack Obama be elected. Palin sounded a deserved note of triumphalism in March:
"Yes, I could see this one from Alaska," Palin posted on Facebook, saying she said "told-ya-so" in the case of her "accurate prediction being derided as 'an extremely far-fetched scenario' by the 'high-brow' Foreign Policy magazine."
"Here’s what this 'stupid' 'insipid woman' predicted back in 2008," Palin said. "After the Russian Army invaded the nation of Georgia, Senator Obama's reaction was one of indecision and moral equivalence, the kind of response that would only encourage Russia's Putin to invade Ukraine next."
Palin's post has been shared by more than 16,000 Facebook users and "liked" by more than 70,000.
American Thinker
Labels:
Conservatism,
Constitution,
Palin
Saturday, May 24, 2014
Sunday, December 29, 2013
2013 Year in Review: Tea Party Beats Washington
by
Matthew Boyle
The past year has by far been the best for the Tea Party movement in its short history. In 2013, the five-year old conservative grassroots upsurge has grabbed Washington, D.C. by the collar, tearing the city colloquially known as “Boomtown” in a conservative direction for the first time in decades. As the Tea Party movement matures, it is getting more professional in its political activism. The way the Tea Party won 2013 is by entrenching itself in Washington warfare and fighting for conservative victories by connecting powerful grassroots activists directly with lawmakers in decision-making positions. What has happened is the movement has matured, and learned how to manipulate the ways of Washington to promote conservative policies while defeating liberal ones.
In the short months after President Barack Obama’s re-election, a core group of conservative House Republicans--many of whom were elected in 2010 or 2012--developed a plan to attempt to unseat House Speaker John Boehner on the House floor. While the early January vote was ultimately unsuccessful, the 12 House conservatives willing to stand up to Speaker Boehner scared him as he began the 113th Congress.
That 12 of his own members were willing to vote against the Speaker was unprecedented in modern times, and given that only 17 votes were needed to actually remove Boehner, it put the veteran Ohio Republican leader on notice that any caving in 2013 would have drastic consequences for his future as Speaker. The narrative had been set: The Tea Party runs the House, and by extension, Congress.
Meanwhile, a little more than a month after Obama won re-election, Adam Lanza opened fire to kill 20 children and six staff members at Connecticut's Sandy Hook elementary school. Obama, emboldened coming off re-election, deputized Vice President Joe Biden to seize the opportunity to lead a push for gun control in 2013. Conventional wisdom in D.C. would have had most Americans believe that gun control was going to happen.
The left’s plan was to pass legislation out of the Senate, garnering some GOP support, then force Boehner to cave and push some kind of gun control measure through the House.
But the president’s allies in Congress did not count on three conservative U.S. Senators--two of whom were elected in the Tea Party’s 2010 electoral surge and one of whom was elected in 2012 --to stamp out their prospects of limiting Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) emerged to defeat gun control in the Senate.
How did they do it? They harnessed the power of the grassroots, energizing ordinary Americans while connecting the grassroots with their efforts in the Senate. Paul, Lee, and Cruz wrote to Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in early March 2013 to inform him of their intent to filibuster any effort to limit Americans’ rights as established by the Second Amendment.
Then, they rallied Americans against the efforts of the political elite using petitions and social media. While NBC News, New York Times, and CNN reporters inside the beltway wooed politicians in Washington into believing Americans supported restrictions to the Second Amendment, Paul, Lee, and Cruz systematically shut down the phony appearance of support for gun control and utilized Senate procedures available to the minority to kill any chances of a vote that would limit Second Amendment protections for Americans.
Grassroots leaders grew emboldened. Dustin Stockton of Western Representation PAC (formerly of TheTeaParty.net), for instance, hatched a plan to hold about 100 rallies in cities across America, and thousands of Americans lined up to come out to show their support for the Second Amendment. Stockton’s “Day of Resistance” rallies fired up the conservative grassroots against more than just gun control: they focused in on the Obama administration’s failure to tell the truth about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, their refusal to cooperate with the congressional investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and the failure of Obamacare.
By early spring, Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) were ready to cave on gun legislation for months. Toomey even co-wrote a watered down gun control bill with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) that would have pushed for more stringent background checks--something that, if passed by Congress, would have been seen politically as a victory for the president. But, with the public firmly against any gun control measures and a cadre of three Tea Party leaders in the U.S. Senate willing to put it all on the line to defend Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, momentum for new gun control legislation fizzled.
In late December 2013, more than a full year after the Sandy Hook tragedy that Democrats attempted to seize to push gun control, National Public Radio’s Ailsa Chang reported that “2013 was a disheartening year” for gun control lobbyists. Chang’s report detailed how gun control groups now admit defeat and acknowledge that defeat came at the hands of the powerful grassroots across America.
Earlier in December, as Breitbart News’ AWR Hawkins reported, Biden and the White House signaled they will lay off gun control and focus instead on mental health issues.
Defeating gun control was hardly the only time the Tea Party movement has grappled with, and beaten, the Obama administration in 2013. Amid the beginning of the 2013 gun control fight, Sen. Rand Paul launched another Tea Party-driven offensive, this time against the Obama administration’s use of drones. Paul took to the U.S. Senate floor for an epic 13-hour filibuster that forced the Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, to admit in writing that it did not have the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with a drone.
Paul’s filibuster brought Tea Party-minded Senators like Cruz, Lee, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to the floor to back him up; after it became clear his bold move would spark a victory for conservatism and libertarianism in America against the Obama administration, GOP leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined him on the floor. As such, Paul’s filibuster also meant something bigger than just another defeat of the Obama administration by the Tea Party movement: the GOP establishment was forced to rally around the Tea Party, rather than around leftists and Democrats.
Shortly thereafter, the biggest fight of 2013 commenced over immigration reform. Rubio had joined Democrats like Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Republicans like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) to draft a bill that would drastically increase legal immigration numbers to America and grant amnesty to America’s at least 11 million illegal aliens. Despite claims to the contrary, the “Gang of Eight” bill would not secure the border and would not result in an increased ability for America’s law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law.
Obama backed the bill and even sent White House staff over to U.S. Senate office buildings to help write it. Comprehensive immigration reform would have been seen politically as Obama’s big second term agenda item if it were to pass into law. It would be equivalent in scale and importance to Obama’s legacy and agenda as Obamacare has been.
Billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, and Paul Singer financed a campaign to push for the bill’s success. Big business allies like the Chamber of Commerce teamed with big labor interests like the AFL-CIO to attempt to force it through to final passage.
The bill was introduced in April 2013 to much fanfare in the media and cheers from the political class in Washington. Conventional beltway wisdom would have had most Americans believe the bill was supposed to pass the U.S. Senate much faster than it did, which it ultimately did in late June but only after conservatives debunked much of the talking points put forward by the Gang of Eight members.
While the bill actually did pass the Senate thanks to a rushed last-minute process by Reid and a fig leaf amendment from Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND), the appearance of popular support for granting any legal status to any illegal alien was shredded weeks before the Gang of Eight bill saw a final vote in the Senate.
Conservative workhorse Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) worked with Tea Partiers like Cruz, Lee, and Paul to diminish the establishment-created appearance of support for comprehensive immigration reform. Much like how gun control prospects were doomed by popular opposition to them, grassroots leaders like Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots, Leah Durant of the Black American Leadership Alliance, Rosemary Jenks of NumbersUSA, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, and many others brought the grassroots troops to the battle against amnesty. They worked alongside Sessions, Cruz, Paul, and Lee to fight to prove the establishment wrong on the intellectual battlefield of immigration policy and show the widespread American opposition to amnesty via rallies like Durant’s March for Jobs event in Washington and NumbersUSA’s and Tea Party Patriots’ various rallies around the country.
While it initially appeared that Boehner was going to cave after the Senate passed its immigration bill and allow a bill or series of bills to pass the House and go to conference committee with the Senate, the work of Sens. Sessions, Lee, Cruz, and Paul continued throughout the summer into the fall. House conservatives like Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Pete Olson (R-TX), Matt Salmon (R-AZ), and many more vocalized their opposition to any strategy by House GOP leadership to attempt to pass amnesty through the House or go to a conference committee with the Senate bill.
The conservative outrage knocked Rubio’s previously stellar polling numbers into the gutter, forcing him to reverse course and come out in public opposition to any conference committee that would be used to save the bill he helped champion through the Senate. Shortly thereafter, conservatives forced Boehner and the rest of House GOP leadership--save for House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is in the process of writing an amnesty bill at this time--came out in public opposition to any conference committee on immigration.
While the issue is far from dead--given the well-financed lobbyists driving for amnesty, and the political leadership pushing for it from both parties--the fact that no amnesty has passed the Congress whatsoever in 2013 is, as USA Today’s D.C. Bureau Chief Susan Page said, nothing short of an amazing victory for the Tea Party movement in America. Page said on CNN that the “biggest loser” in 2013 was “immigration reform.”
“That was the thing that was going to pass this year with the pathway to citizenship for the millions of people who are here as [illegal] aliens and that has not happened,” Page said.
After the summer’s push for amnesty faded into a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign with momentum waning, Sens. Cruz and Lee hatched their next plan: defund Obamacare.
Initially viewed by the political establishment as a pipe dream that had no chance of going anywhere, Cruz and Lee worked alongside House conservative members to organize a rebellion in the House. Conservative Republicans refused to vote for any stopgap government spending bill, a continuing resolution, that had even a single penny of funding for Obamacare. House conservatives like Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Raul Labrador (R-ID), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Graves (R-GA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and many more rallied around Cruz’s and Lee’s message. Boehner crumpled and reluctantly agreed to pursue the defunding strategy.
Martin of Tea Party Patriots, Brent Bozell of ForAmerica, and other conservatives leaders throughout the movement toured the nation to round up grassroots support for the effort. Cruz’s political stock skyrocketed less than a year into his first term in the U.S. Senate, as he systematically led an intellectual destruction of the president’s healthcare law.
Like Paul had done for 13 hours to target Obama’s drone usage earlier in 2013, Cruz took to the Senate floor for a 21-hour speech (although technically not a filibuster) to systematically prove Obamacare’s destructive nature. Grassroots support swelled across the country. Twitter exploded with the hashtag of Cruz’s main message: #MakeDCListen. Millions of Americans expressed support for Cruz, while Washington politicians bashed him; when he returned to Texas afterwards he received a hero's welcome. “After two months in Washington, it's great to be back in America,” Cruz said to massive applause.
After Democrats in the Senate refused to compromise on Obamacare and Senate Republicans failed to unite behind Cruz and Lee like House Republicans did, the government shut down. Even so, shortly before the 16-day shutdown began, Democrats like Manchin had publicly said they would be willing to compromise on Obamacare enough to support a year-long delay of the law.
While the fight to defund Obamacare was, like the effort to unseat Boehner earlier in 2013, ultimately unsuccessful, it showed that the Tea Party movement runs the Congress. Nineteen Senate Republicans voted with Cruz and Lee on the key cloture vote on the funding of Obamacare, effectively abandoning their leader Mitch McConnell, who had worked against Cruz, and all of House GOP leadership worked with the Tea Party movement under pressure from the conservative grassroots.
Meanwhile, Cruz, Lee, and the rest of the Tea Party were proven right about Obamacare time and again over the subsequent weeks as the rollout of the president’s healthcare law has been an abysmal failure. Obama’s claim that Americans could keep their plans if they liked them has been proven to be PolitiFact’s “lie of the year.” Americans are losing their healthcare plans in droves, and those who have been lucky enough to keep their plans have seen spikes in their premiums. Even people who wanted to sign up for Obamacare have run into difficulty as the program’s website has crumbled and Americans’ personal information is at risk because of security flaws in healthcare.gov’s coding.
Congress rounded the year out by passing a budget deal Ryan cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). The deal has infuriated conservatives throughout the base, and while it passed the House with a swath of GOP support--169 Republicans voted for it-- Ryan systematically misled his House GOP colleagues to win their support for it, as Breitbart News has shown time and again over the course of a series of investigative pieces.
The bill actually raises spending and increases the deficit and, according to Sessions, uses Obamacare-style double counting budgeting gimmicks to make it appear fiscally responsible. It also cuts pensions of military veterans to make it appear as though it does not increase spending as much as it does, something that is likely to be the first fertile battlefield of 2014, followed shortly thereafter by a battle over amnesty that Ryan will also likely lead.
Piece by piece, Obama’s agenda was stopped dead in its tracks throughout 2013. The Tea Party movement’s effectiveness has garnered it new enemies even among those on the right, with the Chamber of Commerce and business community developing plans to attempt to eviscerate it in 2014. This list of political and policy victories does not even include the impressive cultural Tea Party wins--from A&E's reinstatement of Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty after originally placing him on "indefinite" hiatus under pressure from GLAAD to Brad Paisley's and Carrie Underwood's Country Music Awards performance of "Obamacare by Morning."
The question moving forward is whether the Tea Party can maintain its control of the conservative message and its stance against the left’s and the establishment’s agenda. At this point, it looks like the movement is just getting started.
Big Government
The past year has by far been the best for the Tea Party movement in its short history. In 2013, the five-year old conservative grassroots upsurge has grabbed Washington, D.C. by the collar, tearing the city colloquially known as “Boomtown” in a conservative direction for the first time in decades. As the Tea Party movement matures, it is getting more professional in its political activism. The way the Tea Party won 2013 is by entrenching itself in Washington warfare and fighting for conservative victories by connecting powerful grassroots activists directly with lawmakers in decision-making positions. What has happened is the movement has matured, and learned how to manipulate the ways of Washington to promote conservative policies while defeating liberal ones.
In the short months after President Barack Obama’s re-election, a core group of conservative House Republicans--many of whom were elected in 2010 or 2012--developed a plan to attempt to unseat House Speaker John Boehner on the House floor. While the early January vote was ultimately unsuccessful, the 12 House conservatives willing to stand up to Speaker Boehner scared him as he began the 113th Congress.
That 12 of his own members were willing to vote against the Speaker was unprecedented in modern times, and given that only 17 votes were needed to actually remove Boehner, it put the veteran Ohio Republican leader on notice that any caving in 2013 would have drastic consequences for his future as Speaker. The narrative had been set: The Tea Party runs the House, and by extension, Congress.
Meanwhile, a little more than a month after Obama won re-election, Adam Lanza opened fire to kill 20 children and six staff members at Connecticut's Sandy Hook elementary school. Obama, emboldened coming off re-election, deputized Vice President Joe Biden to seize the opportunity to lead a push for gun control in 2013. Conventional wisdom in D.C. would have had most Americans believe that gun control was going to happen.
The left’s plan was to pass legislation out of the Senate, garnering some GOP support, then force Boehner to cave and push some kind of gun control measure through the House.
But the president’s allies in Congress did not count on three conservative U.S. Senators--two of whom were elected in the Tea Party’s 2010 electoral surge and one of whom was elected in 2012 --to stamp out their prospects of limiting Americans’ Second Amendment rights. Sens. Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) emerged to defeat gun control in the Senate.
How did they do it? They harnessed the power of the grassroots, energizing ordinary Americans while connecting the grassroots with their efforts in the Senate. Paul, Lee, and Cruz wrote to Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in early March 2013 to inform him of their intent to filibuster any effort to limit Americans’ rights as established by the Second Amendment.
Then, they rallied Americans against the efforts of the political elite using petitions and social media. While NBC News, New York Times, and CNN reporters inside the beltway wooed politicians in Washington into believing Americans supported restrictions to the Second Amendment, Paul, Lee, and Cruz systematically shut down the phony appearance of support for gun control and utilized Senate procedures available to the minority to kill any chances of a vote that would limit Second Amendment protections for Americans.
Grassroots leaders grew emboldened. Dustin Stockton of Western Representation PAC (formerly of TheTeaParty.net), for instance, hatched a plan to hold about 100 rallies in cities across America, and thousands of Americans lined up to come out to show their support for the Second Amendment. Stockton’s “Day of Resistance” rallies fired up the conservative grassroots against more than just gun control: they focused in on the Obama administration’s failure to tell the truth about the terrorist attack in Benghazi, their refusal to cooperate with the congressional investigation into the Operation Fast and Furious scandal, and the failure of Obamacare.
By early spring, Republicans like Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) were ready to cave on gun legislation for months. Toomey even co-wrote a watered down gun control bill with Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) that would have pushed for more stringent background checks--something that, if passed by Congress, would have been seen politically as a victory for the president. But, with the public firmly against any gun control measures and a cadre of three Tea Party leaders in the U.S. Senate willing to put it all on the line to defend Americans’ right to keep and bear arms, momentum for new gun control legislation fizzled.
In late December 2013, more than a full year after the Sandy Hook tragedy that Democrats attempted to seize to push gun control, National Public Radio’s Ailsa Chang reported that “2013 was a disheartening year” for gun control lobbyists. Chang’s report detailed how gun control groups now admit defeat and acknowledge that defeat came at the hands of the powerful grassroots across America.
Earlier in December, as Breitbart News’ AWR Hawkins reported, Biden and the White House signaled they will lay off gun control and focus instead on mental health issues.
Defeating gun control was hardly the only time the Tea Party movement has grappled with, and beaten, the Obama administration in 2013. Amid the beginning of the 2013 gun control fight, Sen. Rand Paul launched another Tea Party-driven offensive, this time against the Obama administration’s use of drones. Paul took to the U.S. Senate floor for an epic 13-hour filibuster that forced the Obama administration, particularly Attorney General Eric Holder, to admit in writing that it did not have the authority to kill a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil with a drone.
Paul’s filibuster brought Tea Party-minded Senators like Cruz, Lee, and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to the floor to back him up; after it became clear his bold move would spark a victory for conservatism and libertarianism in America against the Obama administration, GOP leaders like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell joined him on the floor. As such, Paul’s filibuster also meant something bigger than just another defeat of the Obama administration by the Tea Party movement: the GOP establishment was forced to rally around the Tea Party, rather than around leftists and Democrats.
Shortly thereafter, the biggest fight of 2013 commenced over immigration reform. Rubio had joined Democrats like Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Republicans like Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) to draft a bill that would drastically increase legal immigration numbers to America and grant amnesty to America’s at least 11 million illegal aliens. Despite claims to the contrary, the “Gang of Eight” bill would not secure the border and would not result in an increased ability for America’s law enforcement officers to enforce immigration law.
Obama backed the bill and even sent White House staff over to U.S. Senate office buildings to help write it. Comprehensive immigration reform would have been seen politically as Obama’s big second term agenda item if it were to pass into law. It would be equivalent in scale and importance to Obama’s legacy and agenda as Obamacare has been.
Billionaires like Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, and Paul Singer financed a campaign to push for the bill’s success. Big business allies like the Chamber of Commerce teamed with big labor interests like the AFL-CIO to attempt to force it through to final passage.
The bill was introduced in April 2013 to much fanfare in the media and cheers from the political class in Washington. Conventional beltway wisdom would have had most Americans believe the bill was supposed to pass the U.S. Senate much faster than it did, which it ultimately did in late June but only after conservatives debunked much of the talking points put forward by the Gang of Eight members.
While the bill actually did pass the Senate thanks to a rushed last-minute process by Reid and a fig leaf amendment from Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and John Hoeven (R-ND), the appearance of popular support for granting any legal status to any illegal alien was shredded weeks before the Gang of Eight bill saw a final vote in the Senate.
Conservative workhorse Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) worked with Tea Partiers like Cruz, Lee, and Paul to diminish the establishment-created appearance of support for comprehensive immigration reform. Much like how gun control prospects were doomed by popular opposition to them, grassroots leaders like Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots, Leah Durant of the Black American Leadership Alliance, Rosemary Jenks of NumbersUSA, Phyllis Schlafly of Eagle Forum, and many others brought the grassroots troops to the battle against amnesty. They worked alongside Sessions, Cruz, Paul, and Lee to fight to prove the establishment wrong on the intellectual battlefield of immigration policy and show the widespread American opposition to amnesty via rallies like Durant’s March for Jobs event in Washington and NumbersUSA’s and Tea Party Patriots’ various rallies around the country.
While it initially appeared that Boehner was going to cave after the Senate passed its immigration bill and allow a bill or series of bills to pass the House and go to conference committee with the Senate, the work of Sens. Sessions, Lee, Cruz, and Paul continued throughout the summer into the fall. House conservatives like Reps. Ron DeSantis (R-FL), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), Pete Olson (R-TX), Matt Salmon (R-AZ), and many more vocalized their opposition to any strategy by House GOP leadership to attempt to pass amnesty through the House or go to a conference committee with the Senate bill.
The conservative outrage knocked Rubio’s previously stellar polling numbers into the gutter, forcing him to reverse course and come out in public opposition to any conference committee that would be used to save the bill he helped champion through the Senate. Shortly thereafter, conservatives forced Boehner and the rest of House GOP leadership--save for House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), who is in the process of writing an amnesty bill at this time--came out in public opposition to any conference committee on immigration.
While the issue is far from dead--given the well-financed lobbyists driving for amnesty, and the political leadership pushing for it from both parties--the fact that no amnesty has passed the Congress whatsoever in 2013 is, as USA Today’s D.C. Bureau Chief Susan Page said, nothing short of an amazing victory for the Tea Party movement in America. Page said on CNN that the “biggest loser” in 2013 was “immigration reform.”
“That was the thing that was going to pass this year with the pathway to citizenship for the millions of people who are here as [illegal] aliens and that has not happened,” Page said.
After the summer’s push for amnesty faded into a behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign with momentum waning, Sens. Cruz and Lee hatched their next plan: defund Obamacare.
Initially viewed by the political establishment as a pipe dream that had no chance of going anywhere, Cruz and Lee worked alongside House conservative members to organize a rebellion in the House. Conservative Republicans refused to vote for any stopgap government spending bill, a continuing resolution, that had even a single penny of funding for Obamacare. House conservatives like Reps. Mark Meadows (R-NC), Mick Mulvaney (R-SC), Raul Labrador (R-ID), Louie Gohmert (R-TX), Tom Graves (R-GA), Jim Jordan (R-OH), and many more rallied around Cruz’s and Lee’s message. Boehner crumpled and reluctantly agreed to pursue the defunding strategy.
Martin of Tea Party Patriots, Brent Bozell of ForAmerica, and other conservatives leaders throughout the movement toured the nation to round up grassroots support for the effort. Cruz’s political stock skyrocketed less than a year into his first term in the U.S. Senate, as he systematically led an intellectual destruction of the president’s healthcare law.
Like Paul had done for 13 hours to target Obama’s drone usage earlier in 2013, Cruz took to the Senate floor for a 21-hour speech (although technically not a filibuster) to systematically prove Obamacare’s destructive nature. Grassroots support swelled across the country. Twitter exploded with the hashtag of Cruz’s main message: #MakeDCListen. Millions of Americans expressed support for Cruz, while Washington politicians bashed him; when he returned to Texas afterwards he received a hero's welcome. “After two months in Washington, it's great to be back in America,” Cruz said to massive applause.
After Democrats in the Senate refused to compromise on Obamacare and Senate Republicans failed to unite behind Cruz and Lee like House Republicans did, the government shut down. Even so, shortly before the 16-day shutdown began, Democrats like Manchin had publicly said they would be willing to compromise on Obamacare enough to support a year-long delay of the law.
While the fight to defund Obamacare was, like the effort to unseat Boehner earlier in 2013, ultimately unsuccessful, it showed that the Tea Party movement runs the Congress. Nineteen Senate Republicans voted with Cruz and Lee on the key cloture vote on the funding of Obamacare, effectively abandoning their leader Mitch McConnell, who had worked against Cruz, and all of House GOP leadership worked with the Tea Party movement under pressure from the conservative grassroots.
Meanwhile, Cruz, Lee, and the rest of the Tea Party were proven right about Obamacare time and again over the subsequent weeks as the rollout of the president’s healthcare law has been an abysmal failure. Obama’s claim that Americans could keep their plans if they liked them has been proven to be PolitiFact’s “lie of the year.” Americans are losing their healthcare plans in droves, and those who have been lucky enough to keep their plans have seen spikes in their premiums. Even people who wanted to sign up for Obamacare have run into difficulty as the program’s website has crumbled and Americans’ personal information is at risk because of security flaws in healthcare.gov’s coding.
Congress rounded the year out by passing a budget deal Ryan cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA). The deal has infuriated conservatives throughout the base, and while it passed the House with a swath of GOP support--169 Republicans voted for it-- Ryan systematically misled his House GOP colleagues to win their support for it, as Breitbart News has shown time and again over the course of a series of investigative pieces.
The bill actually raises spending and increases the deficit and, according to Sessions, uses Obamacare-style double counting budgeting gimmicks to make it appear fiscally responsible. It also cuts pensions of military veterans to make it appear as though it does not increase spending as much as it does, something that is likely to be the first fertile battlefield of 2014, followed shortly thereafter by a battle over amnesty that Ryan will also likely lead.
Piece by piece, Obama’s agenda was stopped dead in its tracks throughout 2013. The Tea Party movement’s effectiveness has garnered it new enemies even among those on the right, with the Chamber of Commerce and business community developing plans to attempt to eviscerate it in 2014. This list of political and policy victories does not even include the impressive cultural Tea Party wins--from A&E's reinstatement of Phil Robertson on Duck Dynasty after originally placing him on "indefinite" hiatus under pressure from GLAAD to Brad Paisley's and Carrie Underwood's Country Music Awards performance of "Obamacare by Morning."
The question moving forward is whether the Tea Party can maintain its control of the conservative message and its stance against the left’s and the establishment’s agenda. At this point, it looks like the movement is just getting started.
Big Government
Labels:
Conservatism,
TEA Party
Sunday, November 3, 2013
A Proven Local Method for Conservatives to Take Back the Republican Party
by
Daniel J. Schultz
3 Nov 2013
“We the [Conservative] People” can restore our government by first reclaiming the Republican Party. Not hard. Here’s how. It’s been five years since the American people elected President Obama and we’re almost a year into his disastrous second term. On every issue, President Obama seems to choose the option that is the worst one for Americans.
“We the [Conservative] People” can restore our government by first reclaiming the Republican Party. Not hard. Here’s how. It’s been five years since the American people elected President Obama and we’re almost a year into his disastrous second term. On every issue, President Obama seems to choose the option that is the worst one for Americans.
Want to do something about it?
If I provided you with a strategy and plan that only took a couple of hours of your time every month and then three or four hours at primary and general election times, and that guaranteed increased voter turnout for the best conservative candidates, would you at least consider investing that amount of time for that desired outcome? If so, please read on.
Using this strategy, and investing a couple of hours a month, and three or four at the time of the primary and general elections, I’ve been able to, in my precinct, with my conservative cohorts, double Republican turnout in a local mayoral race, as compared to the city-wide average turnout for all voters, and achieve an 86+% Republican voter turnout in the 2012 general election. If conservative Republicans had done what we did in every precinct in America, Mitt Romney would have been handed a landslide victory by conservatives in spite of his campaign’s failure to spend money on a “boots on the ground” Get Out The Vote (GOTV) strategy and plan.
Additionally, using this strategy, we conservatives have completely changed the Republican Party in terms of who has been elected to the Party local district, county, and state committee officer positions. More on that below, but let’s get back to how to win the elections.
So what’s the key for changing the outcome of elections? And, at the same time, transforming the Republican Party into a conservative election-winning powerhouse? The key is YOU. Where you live. With other conservatives.
The key is you and your fellow conservatives attending your local Republican Party committee meeting every month (that takes about two hours a month) where you can learn how to become a voting member of the Party--a precinct committeeman. Then, in the weeks leading up to the primary and general elections, you will be in a position, using the GOP Data Center software provided by the Republican National Committee to the state parties, to target the “low information, low propensity” Republican voters and gently nudge them to the polls with a quick, personal phone call followed up by a literature drop consisting of a filled out sample ballot and literature provided by the Republican candidates.
In the 2012 mayoral race in my city, Tempe, Arizona, using this strategy, my fellow conservative precinct committeemen and I, investing just three to four hours of time, doubled Republican turnout in our precinct as compared to the city-wide turnout of all voters. City elections, by statute, in Arizona, are “non-partisan;” that is, candidates cannot inform voters as to which political party they are affiliated. Thus, many “low information” Republican voters do not know which candidates to vote for. That’s where the precinct committeemen can fill the gap. Using the GOP Data Center software, those who vote 50% or less of the time in past elections, can be identified and targeted. That’s about 35% of the Republican voters. We did not bother contacting those who voted 75% or 100% of the time because they were very likely to vote without a “nudge” from us.
Using this same strategy and plan, in the 2012 general election, as I already mentioned, we achieved a Republican turnout of 86+% in my precinct as compared to a state-wide average of 74% turnout. Again, if we conservatives had organized and united for real political action where we live, “inside” the Republican Party as precinct committeemen, and then carried out our own GOTV efforts, we would have won the election for Mitt Romney in spite of his reluctance to recruit conservatives into the precinct committeeman ranks (as I had advised him and his campaign to do).
By conservatives becoming Republican Party precinct committeemen, not only will we start down the path to winning elections for our conservative Republican candidates in the all-important, traditionally-very-low-turnout primary elections, and then the general elections, but we’ll also be in a position to elect greater numbers of conservatives to the officer slots of the Party. Currently, it’s estimated about 400,000 Republican Party precinct committeeman slots exist nationwide. Only about 200,000 of these slots are filled. And they’re split, approximately 50-50, between conservatives and moderates. We see that split manifested every two years when the RNC Chairman is elected by the RNC members (consisting of the state chairman and one national committeeman and one national committeewoman from each state).
Who elects the RNC members? Indirectly, the precinct committeemen elect them. Precinct committeemen ARE the Party.
For example, in Arizona the precinct committeemen in each of the thirty legislative district committees elect, every two years, one state committeeman for every three precinct committeemen in their district (which is an incentive for the conservative precinct committeemen in each district to recruit more conservatives into the vacant precinct committeeman ranks). These state committeemen attend an annual state committee meeting where they elect the state chairman and the other officers. Every four years, the precinct committeemen in each legislative district elect delegates to the state presidential nominating convention. Those delegates elect the national committeeman and the national committeewoman. So, the greater number of elected conservative precinct committeemen the Party has, the greater likelihood the state chairman and the national committeeman and national committeewoman will be conservatives.
Majority rules. Create a conservative majority of precinct committeeman in your local Party committee, and you’ll be able to elect conservative committee officers.
Here in Arizona, after the 2008 primary election, less than one-third of the allotted Republican Party precinct committeeman slots were filled and were split about 50-50 between conservatives and moderates. That ideological split was reflected in the elected officer ranks of the legislative district committees, the county committees, and the state committee. Because I and other conservatives began recruiting conservative Republicans at tea party gatherings, 9.12 group meetings, etc., we’ve swelled the PC ranks in Maricopa County to about 55% strength and have almost completely “changed out” the moderates in the Party committee officer ranks. This strategy works.
Here in Arizona, each party gets one precinct committeeman for each precinct and then an additional one for every 125 registered voters of the party residing in the precinct--or majority portion thereof. My current precinct has twelve precinct committeeman slots, and all twelve are filled with conservatives. We’ve divided the precinct into 12 sectors, and we are each responsible for a sector. Because we only target the 35% of the voters who fall into the “low propensity to vote” category, it only takes us a few hours at the time of the primary and general election to call them and provide them with a sample ballot and candidate literature. Our GOTV strategy works. It’s just common sense.
And how does one become a precinct committeeman? The requirements vary in each state, but none are onerous. Here in Arizona, the registered voters of each party elect their precinct committeemen in the even-numbered year primary elections. To get on the ballot, a precinct committeeman candidate has to gather just ten signatures or fewer from registered voters of his party or non-affiliated voters. The Party will supply the candidate with the nominating petition and a walking sheet for his precinct identifying those houses containing registered members of his party and the non-affiliated voters. It takes me about 45 minutes to gather the ten signatures. I’ve compiled what I’ve been able to find on the internet regarding each state’s requirements here.
There’s a reason precinct committeeman has been called “The Most Powerful Political Office in the World”--because it really is. And if conservatives would organize and unite where they live, inside the Republican Party, by becoming voting members of the Republican Party--precinct committeemen--we’d begin the process of restoring our Republic as envisioned by our Founding Fathers. Because about half of these precinct committeeman slots are vacant, on average, in every locale, the Party is there for the taking by conservatives if conservatives will fill up all of the vacant precinct committeeman slots.
So why haven’t you heard about this? Because most incumbents, even the conservative incumbents, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo inside the Party. If everything stays the same, they’ll probably win their next primary election and then the general election. If they recruit more conservatives into the vacant precinct committeeman slots, they might sow the seeds of their own primary election destruction if someone “more conservative” than they are runs against them. All politics truly are local, and, therefore, most “national” advocacy groups would prefer you not discover this fact. Your time and money is best spent where you live, increasing voter turnout through the best, most effective method: neighbor-to-neighbor by calling your fellow Republicans in your precinct and then dropping off a sample ballot and candidate literature to help them make informed votes. And changing the Party from within--making it “more conservative” by increasing the number of conservatives “inside it.”
Simply put, the reason the Republican Party is not “conservative enough” for some complaining conservatives is because not enough of those same complaining conservatives are “inside” the Republican Party where they live--as precinct committeemen.
You can carve out a couple of hours a month to do this, no? And three or four hours at the time of the primary and general elections, no? For your future and your kids’ and grandkids’ futures?
You can.
And I hope and pray you will. (Plus, it’s fun and interesting. Really. And personally rewarding in many ways as you’ll find out.)
So now you know what to do.
Thank you.
Daniel J. Schultz served as an Army Human Intelligence Officer and now practices law. He has been a Republican Party precinct committeeman since 2007 and this year was a co-winner of the Conservative HQ Liberty Prize. State-specific and other information relating to The Neighborhood Precinct Committeeman Strategy can be found at http://precinctproject.us. He can be reached at acoldwarrior@gmail.com.
Big Government
Labels:
Conservatism,
Republicans
Friday, October 18, 2013
Why Obama wants to delay Obamacare, but can’t
October 18 2013
By: Doug Brady
I’m not going to argue with the preponderance of the recent polling data which clearly indicates the GOP brand took it on the chin (with the predictable assist from the media) for Obama’s decision to shut down the government over Obamacare. But will this really do damage to the Republicans and revive Obamacare the long run? I think not. Though perhaps unintentional, the much-maligned GOP tactics of the past three weeks will not only hasten the end of the Democrat’s cherished health care debacle, but discredit the concept of government-run health care in general.
Suppose conservatives in Congress hadn’t decided to go to the mattresses over Obamacare. Suppose they hadn’t made any noise over it at all. This was in fact the strategy suggested by many in the Republican Establishment. Ignore Obamacare and let it fail on its own. This was probably the safe route as Obamacare is an unmitigated catastrophe and will undoubtedly collapse sans any help from the GOP. But the magnitude of the disaster for the Democrat Party would have been muted to some extent had Republicans taken this path.
Given all the recent information that has come trickling out since the October 1st launch, it’s easy to envision Obama delaying the individual mandate on his own. Without any constitutional or statutory authority, he’s essentially rewritten the law to suit his political interests already. His decisions to unilaterally delay the employer mandate and waive the requirement that applicants verify their eligibility for subsidies are just two examples. If he thought the exchanges were anywhere close to being ready, he wouldn’t have taken either of these actions. And if the GOP had ignored Obamacare, he would have been free to delay the individual mandate with little or no political repercussions. Who would have argued with him?
Why is it in Obama’s interest to delay the individual mandate? Given the colossal magnitude of the problems at healthcare.gov, the only way Obamacare has even a remote chance at long term survival is to scrap the entire architecture of the website and start over. To be clear, for reasons that go way beyond the technical "glitches" at the aforementioned website, Obamacare will collapse anyway as I’ve explained many times in the past four years on these pages. But let’s play along and assume that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al., have a clue how insurance markets work and that Obamacare is a well-conceived plan that just needs a few minor technical tweaks here and there.
In a recent article at Bloomberg Megan McArdle, nobody’s idea of a conservative, described why it’s imperative for the success of Obamacare that its implementation be delayed if the government exchanges aren’t working — and working well — right now:
I suspect Obama knows this. But now, given the events of the past three weeks, it’s politically impossible for him to delay Obamacare despite the gathering and overwhelming evidence that he must. If he does, whatever short-term political victory he thinks he’s achieved with his shut-down theatrics will evaporate overnight. And with Obama, politics trumps all else. Even with the media’s loyal assistance, I don’t see how he manages to get away with delaying Obamacare after claiming to have saved America from those evil, hostage-taking Republicans for … wanting to delay Obamacare. He’s not Bill Clinton.
Some are already speculating that Obama will sooner or later be forced to announce a delay, but I don’t see how he can do it politically. If past is prologue, he’ll merely dig in his heels and insist all is well. That’s what he does.
There are plenty of people to whom I’ve spoken who believe Obama had intended Obamacare to collapse all along, that it was part of his master plan to nationalize the entire health care industry. That’s not implausible, but I’m skeptical. I simply don’t believe Obama’s that bright. But that’s irrelevant. As I noted at the beginning of this post, the Obamacare debacle will inflict incalculable harm on the notion that government can or should be put in charge of our health care system or anything else. Pre-Obamacare, roughly 85% of Americans were insured, the overwhelming majority of which were satisfied with their coverage. Obamacare was ostensibly designed to deal with the 15% who weren’t. Obama promised no pain to the 85%. Not only would we be able to keep our current plan, but we could look forward to a $2500 cut in our annual premiums as well. None of this turned out to be true. Quite the opposite.
Thus Obama wreaked havoc on the 85% in order to cover the remaining 15%. But even that won’t happen. As the WaPo notes, even if Obamacare goes according to plan, an estimated 31 million Americans will still be without coverage in 2023. How is such ineptitude and dishonesty by the government an argument for an even greater role for government? In light of the immense incompetence they’ve demonstrated in implementing their partial takeover of the health care system, why would anyone outside of the Daily Kos or MSNBC entrust them with the whole thing? The question answers itself. Even Kos has their doubts about Obamacare. So, no, I’m not worried that Obamacare’s inevitable collapse will necessarily lead to nationalization of 18% of our economy.
Obamacare is an epic example of government overreach and incompetence. Obama, even with his breathtakingly misplaced arrogance, must be aware of the fact that his signature "achievement" is a clusterfark and that its only chance for survival is to delay and attempt to fix it so there’s at least a small chance that those elusive young people will mitigate the death spiral. But now he can’t delay it: He just shut down the government because the Republicans wanted to delay it. Irony.
Had conservatives followed the advice of establishment Republicans and not made Obamacare an issue in the debt-ceiling and budget negotiations, Obama would probably delayed it on his own by now. Indeed it’s conceivable, likely even, that he would have delayed it until January 2015, thus depriving the GOP of a red-hot issue in the 2014 mid-terms … not unlike the establishment’s choice of Mitt Romney deprived Republicans of the issue in 2012. But thanks to conservatives, that didn’t happen and Obamacare will be front and center in 2014. That can’t possibly be good for Democrats.
Update: No worries, Obamacare fans. HHS claims the system is working great and Nancy Pelosi sees no reason for delay. (I wonder if she’s read it yet.)
Conservatives 4 Palin
By: Doug Brady
I’m not going to argue with the preponderance of the recent polling data which clearly indicates the GOP brand took it on the chin (with the predictable assist from the media) for Obama’s decision to shut down the government over Obamacare. But will this really do damage to the Republicans and revive Obamacare the long run? I think not. Though perhaps unintentional, the much-maligned GOP tactics of the past three weeks will not only hasten the end of the Democrat’s cherished health care debacle, but discredit the concept of government-run health care in general.
Suppose conservatives in Congress hadn’t decided to go to the mattresses over Obamacare. Suppose they hadn’t made any noise over it at all. This was in fact the strategy suggested by many in the Republican Establishment. Ignore Obamacare and let it fail on its own. This was probably the safe route as Obamacare is an unmitigated catastrophe and will undoubtedly collapse sans any help from the GOP. But the magnitude of the disaster for the Democrat Party would have been muted to some extent had Republicans taken this path.
Given all the recent information that has come trickling out since the October 1st launch, it’s easy to envision Obama delaying the individual mandate on his own. Without any constitutional or statutory authority, he’s essentially rewritten the law to suit his political interests already. His decisions to unilaterally delay the employer mandate and waive the requirement that applicants verify their eligibility for subsidies are just two examples. If he thought the exchanges were anywhere close to being ready, he wouldn’t have taken either of these actions. And if the GOP had ignored Obamacare, he would have been free to delay the individual mandate with little or no political repercussions. Who would have argued with him?
Why is it in Obama’s interest to delay the individual mandate? Given the colossal magnitude of the problems at healthcare.gov, the only way Obamacare has even a remote chance at long term survival is to scrap the entire architecture of the website and start over. To be clear, for reasons that go way beyond the technical "glitches" at the aforementioned website, Obamacare will collapse anyway as I’ve explained many times in the past four years on these pages. But let’s play along and assume that Obama, Pelosi, Reid, et. al., have a clue how insurance markets work and that Obamacare is a well-conceived plan that just needs a few minor technical tweaks here and there.
In a recent article at Bloomberg Megan McArdle, nobody’s idea of a conservative, described why it’s imperative for the success of Obamacare that its implementation be delayed if the government exchanges aren’t working — and working well — right now:
If the exchanges don’t get fixed soon, they could destroy Obamacare — and possibly, the rest of the private insurance market. The reason that the exchanges were so important was that they were needed to attract young, healthy people into the insurance system. The worry was that if insurance is hard to buy — if you have to do your own comparison shopping and then call the insurance company, and fax in some paperwork and two years of tax returns — that the young and the healthy simply won’t do it. Sick people and old people who were getting huge subsidies — and maybe the ability to buy insurance on the private market for the first time in a long while — would overcome any obstacles, because if you’re spending $15,000 a year on health care, it’s worth a lot of your time to make sure that you have insurance. But if your biggest annual health-care expense is contact lens solution, you may just decide to skip it and pay the fine.
The administration estimates that it needs 2.7 million young healthy people on the exchange, out of the 7 million total expected to apply in the first year. If the pool is too skewed — if it’s mostly old and sick people on the exchanges — then insurers will lose money, and next year, they’ll sharply increase premiums. The healthiest people will drop out, because insurance is no longer such a good deal for them. Rinse and repeat and you have effectively destroyed the market for individual insurance policies. It’s called the “death spiral,” and the exchanges, like the mandate, were designed to keep it from happening…
Once the death spiral happens, it’s very difficult to recover from. That’s why if the exchanges don’t work soon, we need to hit the reset button and try again next year.And nobody outside of the Obama White House bubble believes there’s any chance the exchanges will work properly any time soon, regardless of how you define the word "soon". 4-6 months is one guess, and that’s just to test the existing system. If, as is more likely, they have to uproot it and start over, it will take significantly longer than that. The National Review’s Yuval Levin expands on McArdle’s point about the insurance death spiral and how the onerous exchanges make it inevitable:
One key worry is based on the fact that what they’re facing is not a situation where it is impossible to buy coverage but one where it is possible but very difficult to buy coverage. That’s much worse from their point of view, because it means that only highly motivated consumers are getting coverage. People who are highly motivated to get coverage in a community-rated insurance system are very likely to be in bad health. The healthy young man who sees an ad for his state exchange during a baseball game and loads up the site to get coverage—the dream consumer so essential to the design of the exchange system—will not keep trying 25 times over a week if the site is not working. The person with high health costs and no insurance will.And even if the "healthy young man" to whom Levin refers does persevere and is eventually lucky enough to make it through the byzantine healthcare.gov maze. He’ll have the privilege of enrolling for a government approved health insurance plan costing him several hundred dollars per month in premiums with an annual deductible in the neighborhood of $4,000. Why would he willingly sign up for this? I’m not sure how, precisely, you define "young", but my guess is that the type of individual Obama needs to sign up for this boondoggle has annual medical expenses equal to less than the cost of one month’s Obamacare premium, if that. In an average year, this individual may have an annual wellness visit, a flu shot and, if he’s particularly unlucky, a trip to the local urgicare center for stitches from cutting his finger while trying to clean leaves out of his gutter. Wouldn’t it make more economic sense to pay the $95 fine and self-insure? And if some catastrophic disease or accident does befall him, Obamacare’s nonsensical requirement that insurers cover pre-existing conditions eliminates the rationale for him (and everyone else) to purchase insurance in the first place. My point: The aforementioned insurance death spiral will happen anyway, it’ll simply happen a lot sooner if the unusable Obamacare exchanges aren’t delayed and fixed.
I suspect Obama knows this. But now, given the events of the past three weeks, it’s politically impossible for him to delay Obamacare despite the gathering and overwhelming evidence that he must. If he does, whatever short-term political victory he thinks he’s achieved with his shut-down theatrics will evaporate overnight. And with Obama, politics trumps all else. Even with the media’s loyal assistance, I don’t see how he manages to get away with delaying Obamacare after claiming to have saved America from those evil, hostage-taking Republicans for … wanting to delay Obamacare. He’s not Bill Clinton.
Some are already speculating that Obama will sooner or later be forced to announce a delay, but I don’t see how he can do it politically. If past is prologue, he’ll merely dig in his heels and insist all is well. That’s what he does.
There are plenty of people to whom I’ve spoken who believe Obama had intended Obamacare to collapse all along, that it was part of his master plan to nationalize the entire health care industry. That’s not implausible, but I’m skeptical. I simply don’t believe Obama’s that bright. But that’s irrelevant. As I noted at the beginning of this post, the Obamacare debacle will inflict incalculable harm on the notion that government can or should be put in charge of our health care system or anything else. Pre-Obamacare, roughly 85% of Americans were insured, the overwhelming majority of which were satisfied with their coverage. Obamacare was ostensibly designed to deal with the 15% who weren’t. Obama promised no pain to the 85%. Not only would we be able to keep our current plan, but we could look forward to a $2500 cut in our annual premiums as well. None of this turned out to be true. Quite the opposite.
Thus Obama wreaked havoc on the 85% in order to cover the remaining 15%. But even that won’t happen. As the WaPo notes, even if Obamacare goes according to plan, an estimated 31 million Americans will still be without coverage in 2023. How is such ineptitude and dishonesty by the government an argument for an even greater role for government? In light of the immense incompetence they’ve demonstrated in implementing their partial takeover of the health care system, why would anyone outside of the Daily Kos or MSNBC entrust them with the whole thing? The question answers itself. Even Kos has their doubts about Obamacare. So, no, I’m not worried that Obamacare’s inevitable collapse will necessarily lead to nationalization of 18% of our economy.
Obamacare is an epic example of government overreach and incompetence. Obama, even with his breathtakingly misplaced arrogance, must be aware of the fact that his signature "achievement" is a clusterfark and that its only chance for survival is to delay and attempt to fix it so there’s at least a small chance that those elusive young people will mitigate the death spiral. But now he can’t delay it: He just shut down the government because the Republicans wanted to delay it. Irony.
Had conservatives followed the advice of establishment Republicans and not made Obamacare an issue in the debt-ceiling and budget negotiations, Obama would probably delayed it on his own by now. Indeed it’s conceivable, likely even, that he would have delayed it until January 2015, thus depriving the GOP of a red-hot issue in the 2014 mid-terms … not unlike the establishment’s choice of Mitt Romney deprived Republicans of the issue in 2012. But thanks to conservatives, that didn’t happen and Obamacare will be front and center in 2014. That can’t possibly be good for Democrats.
Update: No worries, Obamacare fans. HHS claims the system is working great and Nancy Pelosi sees no reason for delay. (I wonder if she’s read it yet.)
Conservatives 4 Palin
Labels:
Conservatism,
Democrats,
GOP,
Obama,
Obamacare
Monday, October 7, 2013
David Horowitz: "Fight Fire With Fire"
by Jeffrey
Below is the transcript of a speech David Horowitz recently delivered at the Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit in Orlando, Florida.
I’m pleased to be here. I want to thank Tim Phillips for inviting me to this gathering, and the Koch brothers for organizing it. Most of you probably know that I grew up in a Communist family and had a misspent youth as a Marxist leader of the New Left in the 1960s. In later years, when I reflected on the damage our “revolution” had inflicted on our country, I would ask myself, “Where was the ruling class? Why didn’t they defend the System from these modern day Luddites and America haters? Why didn’t they expel us from the schools we tried to shut down? Why did they give us platforms to advance our agendas? What were they thinking?”
As the years progressed, and the radicals first infiltrated and then took over the Democratic Party, I found myself asking, “Where is the ruling class? Why don’t they see the threat this radicalized party is posing to their interests and the country’s? Why isn’t the ruling class mobilizing its resources to oppose an assault that is threatening the free market system and the very foundations of our democracy?”
And then, last year, I was invited to this event, and here you are. Except that I no longer believe there is a ruling class or that you are one. America is — as it has always been — a pluralistic society with competing centers of power. Moreover, as Jacob Laksin and I have shown in our book The New Leviathan the preponderance of political wealth is on the left, and has been put in the service of parties and causes that are anti-capitalist. As Jacob and I showed, progressive foundations engaged in political activities are more than 10 times wealthier than their conservative counterparts, and are able to deploy resources for political ends that are greater by far than even that.
Historically the movers of radical transformations have always been drawn from the ranks of the upper classes. The French Revolution was initiated by French aristocrats; Karl Marx was funded and promoted by a capitalist factory owner. And the Obama socialists who today threaten our way of life are swimming in wealth up to their eyeballs. The purpose of these observations is first to underscore how important you as creators of wealth are to the battle facing us; and second, how much catching up you have to do in order for us to prevail.
If the last five unhappy years have taught us anything, it is these two things: First, elections have consequences. The left’s last two electoral triumphs have already had a devastating impact on our nation and its future. America is now a great power in steep decline, a by-stander in world events, where once it shaped them. Our president is set on a course that actively encourages our enemies, weakens our friends and diminishes our military strength. At home his policies have impelled us towards national bankruptcy and constitutional disorder. And worse. Until the IRS and NSA scandals and Obamacare revealed the power that the Obama radicals are acquiring, I myself did not realize how close we were to the prospect of losing our democracy and actually becoming a totalitarian state. If you control all that information about individual lives and you have all that power over their finances and health, you can destroy any opposition and you do not need a secret police to enforce your will.
The second thing we have learned is something that everyone knows but no one wants to admit: well-designed character attacks can have a crucial impact on electoral outcomes; well-designed character attacks overpower well-crafted messages.
In the last election, Romney had a good message and an obvious one: Obama’s economic recovery has been a sorry failure; 23 million people still are jobless; many more are underemployed; if you want jobs and economic opportunities, support the job creators and innovators and deregulators.
But a critical majority of the voting public never heard Romney’s message. The reason? A $200 million smear campaign successfully portrayed him as a heartless job destroyer, a mouthpiece for the selfish rich, someone whose words you can’t trust.
What was the answer of Obama’s opponents to this killer attack? They didn’t have one. There was no $200 million campaign dedicated to destroying Obama’s credibility and undermining his message. Obama’s opponents didn’t have a message discrediting his character and neutralizing his attacks.
Would it have been difficult to do this? Obama is arguably the most brazen and compulsive liar ever to occupy the White House. He is an absentee executive — invisible at the budget negotiations in Washington and the withdrawal negotiations in Iraq, missing in crisis after crisis. While Egypt and Syria burn, he golfs. His endless dithering and misguided interventions in support of the Muslim Brotherhood have set the entire region aflame. Meanwhile, he and his wife carry on like French royalty, lavishing tens of millions of taxpayer funds on their family and dog while tens of millions of Americans suffer historic levels of deprivation because of the policies Obama put in place.
How is it possible that his opponents have not buried him under his own disasters? How did two successive presidential candidates, McCain and Romney, characterize this selfish, malicious leader — selling hope while delivering misery — as a “good man,” and someone who only lacked experience for the job? How about a moral conscience?
The answer is obvious to everyone but no one will say it out loud.
No one will confront Obama the way he deserves to be confronted because he is black. Actually he is half black, raised by whites and one Indonesian but no matter, since racist liberals have made the color of one’s skin decisive. It is because Obama is a minority that no one will hold him to a common standard; or confront him with what he has actually done. Any political consultant will tell you that you can’t. This is how race conscious and race-prejudiced our country has become.
This is why Republicans lose elections. Because what is true of Obama is true of the Democratic Party and the socialists generally. They present themselves as the party of minorities, whom they use as human shields whenever they are attacked, portraying their critics as indecent and racist. If we can’t hold Obama accountable, how can we hold any Democrat, any liberal or any socialist accountable? Because this is how they fight, and will do so until a counter-strategy is put in place.
My purpose in coming here today is to outline such a strategy, one that will take down the socialists at election time, and between election times, and defend the market-based democracy we all hold dear. Defend it when we are attacked as racist, insensitive and unfair. Which is how they will always attack us.
Their campaign narrative goes like this: We are the defenders of the underdog, and the champions of equality and fairness. If you attack us you attack minorities, women, children, and the poor. If you oppose us you are racists; you are the people who supported segregation and lynching. Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, has actually said this about opponents of Obamacare, glossing over the fact that segregation, like slavery, was a Democratic Party platform.
To begin to devise a counter-strategy, to expose their hypocrisy and impugn their character and neutralize their attacks, you have to ask yourself this question: How is it that Democrats liberals and socialists can pose as defenders of the poor?
Obama has created more poor people than all the presidents since World War II put together. Today, forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps and 100 million on government handouts. In Democrat monopolies like Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington DC and a dozen other major urban blight areas, liberal socialists have damaged and destroyed the lives of more African Americans than all the Republicans since the creation of the Republic. Yet every four years – and in between – they are able to persuade voters that they are defenders of minorities and the poor.
How do they do it? Not by actually helping minorities and the poor, but by attacking the rich. They portray rich people as the enemies of minorities and the poor who refuse to pay their fare share. They demonize wealth. That is what allows them to pretend they are friends of the poor.
Conservatives often fail to appreciate the cynical basis of the attacks on them. Conservatives are earnest – too earnest. They aim their messages at the head instead of the heart. They appeal to reason instead of the emotions. That’s why they lose. Democrat socialists don’t actually hate rich people or believe they are oppressors of the poor. In fact Democrat socialists want to be rich. In fact they are rich. Just ask George Soros, Jon Corzine, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton and the White House couple. They want to be filthy rich. As far as socialists are concerned rich people are OK — if they support the socialist agendas. It’s cynicism on steroids. It’s all about power. It’s a strategy to win. Attack the rich to show you are friends of the poor. And politically it works.
How can we who believe in individual rights and free markets fight this? How can we neutralize the slanders and show that we are the real defenders of minorities, the poor, the little guy, working Americans, the middle class? How can we turn the tables on them?
It’s not rocket science. You can counter their attacks by turning their guns around. You can neutralize them by fighting fire with fire.
In the real world, Democrat socialists have made the lives of poor Americans worse, much worse. You need to shove this fact in their faces every time you speak. Here is the reality: In every inner city of size in America, the selfish exploiters of the poor are liberals – what I am calling Democrat socialists;they are the ones who fatten themselves off the votes of minorities and the poor while blocking their opportunities for a better life, and throwing them crumbs in return.
Detroit is a city Democrat socialists have run as a political monopoly for 52 years. For twenty of those Detroit’s Democrat mayor, Coleman Young, was also a member of the Communist Party.
In 1961 before their rule, Detroit had the highest per capita income in the United States; Today, it is
the poorest large city in all fifty states.
In 1960 Detroit was the fourth largest city in America with nearly 2 million inhabitants. Today two-thirds of Detroit’s population is gone. This human flight was the direct result of the government’s attacks on wealth and private companies, and on white people. It was a direct result of the rampant corruption among its political rulers and their draconian restrictions on what private individuals and entrepreneurs could do.
The city currently owes $14 billion in long-term debt, primarily driven by unfunded government union pension and retirement healthcare obligations.
Today Detroit’s median household income is $28,000 – slightly more than half the median income of the state of Michigan or the United States.
Nearly half of Detroit’s population is either unemployed or no longer looking for work. Its poverty level is 36 percent or more than twice that of the state level. Over a third of its inhabitants are on food stamps. Three out of every four of its children are born out of wedlock. A third of its school children don’t graduate and nearly half of those who do are functionally illiterate.
In one generation the Democrat socialists reduced America’s number one industrial city to the level of a third world nation.
Did I mention that eighty-two percent of Detroit’s population is African American?
This is a social atrocity committed by liberals and Democrat socialists against African Americans. If we spoke like they do, we would have no compunction about calling this the most appalling racist atrocity against African Americans since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts.
Now consider this: This historic assault on Detroit’s African American population was absent from all the speeches and all the political ads of all the actors supporting free market solutions in the 2012 elections. The word “Detroit” wasn’t mentioned.
This atrocity is not just being committed in Detroit. The government of every major inner city in America has been 100% controlled by Democrat socialists for the last fifty years. Everything that is wrong with America’s inner cities that policy can affect, liberals, Democrats and socialists are responsible for. They have their boot heels on the necks of poor black and Hispanic families. But we are all too polite to mention it.
Some Republicans have complained that Democrats win because they hand out goodies to minorities and the poor. Yes, they do. But the goodies they hand out are chump change compared to what they’ve destroyed for all Americans and especially for the poor. Would you rather live on food stamps and handouts or be able to pay for what you need and want? I don’t think there are many Americans who would have trouble making that choice.
So here’s the strategy, remembering that the best defense is a good offense:Attack the Democrat socialists for their wars against minorities and the poor. Expose their empty promises and question their character and undermine their message by portraying them as hypocrites who cannot be trusted. In attacking them as enemies of minorities and the poor we show that we care what happens to minorities and the poor. We put them on the defensive, and we neutralize their malicious and unfair attacks.
There is one more lesson to be learned from the last election: By well-placed attacks, we can change the story line of the national debate to our advantage.
Republicans planned to make the 2012 election about Obamacare, because there was a Republican landslide in 2010 around that issue. But two things happened on the way to the election that changed the subject. First, Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate so the details of Ryan’s plan to fix everything – including Medicare – became targets that were used to neutralize and divert the Republican attack.
Second, and far more importantly, a movement called Occupy Wall Street went on a rampage in American cities attacking the so-called 1% and the allegedly unfair distribution of wealth. Occupy Wall Street was a criminal mob supported by Obama and Pelosi, orchestrated and financed by the socialist government unions. Overnight, this changed the national debate from Obamacare to “fairness.” It cast anyone opposing more taxes as a selfish defender of the rich, and put Republicans on the defensive.
We don’t have the presidency, and we don’t have the union network or the national media to shift the debate to subjects that will give us that advantage. But we do have independent expenditure campaigns, and we do have the Tea Party grassroots to promote the message. And this is what the message should be:
They say we’re anti-woman because we don’t want to finance contraceptives for upper middle class academic women. Our answer to this attack should not be to argue about contraceptives, which will lose us a lot of single women votes. Our answer should be: After 5 years of Obama rule there are 16 million women on food stamps. Two out of every five single mothers are on food stamps. Under Obamacare family health care costs are about to skyrocket. This is Obama’s war on women.
They say we’re anti-Hispanic. After 5 years of Obama rule, there 8 million Hispanics on food stamps, and 20 million Hispanics who are unemployed or no longer looking for work. This is Obama’s war on minorities.
They say we don’t care about blacks. Look at America’s inner cities. They are run by Democrats and socialists and have been for fifty years. This is their war on African Americans and the poor.
And so on. As I said, it’s not rocket science. It’s about turning the guns around. It’s about having the moral fiber to do so.
Finally, I don’t want to leave you with the idea that campaigns are won on negatives alone. The negatives I have proposed are designed to blunt the opposition attacks and put them on the defensive. But people need hope, and are looking for change. These are basic elements of any campaign message. In crafting the message the positive elements should be designed so that they also dramatize the negative: how the opposition hurts minorities, working Americans and the poor. In opposing parties that oppress these underdog classes we demonstrate that we care about what happens to them. It’s a simple equation. But our side doesn’t get it yet.
Here’s one example of how it could be done:
Let’s take the education dollar that taxpayers now give to the bureaucrats who don’t care about their children, and give it back to the taxpayers. Let’s voucherize all the school systems in the country from kindergarten to college. Conservatives are always talking about abolishing the Department of Education. This is not the way to go about it. Voters will be told that conservatives are against education.
Instead of calling for the abolition of the Department of Education call for a fundamental change in its mission. Take its $50 billion or so budget and require that the money be spent on a voucher program for all Americans – from kindergarten through college. Let’s put the education dollars in the hands of every poor and middle class person in America. And let’s launch this effort with a $100 million TV ad campaign to tell Americans how the liberal socialists in every major urban school system have destroyed the lives of poor, mainly black and Hispanic children, who can’t afford the private schools that liberal legislators send their own kids to.
Let’s put hope in the hands of people who can’t afford to send their kids to schools that will teach them.
Let’s change the way the educational economy works, so that individuals are empowered – not government – so that competition is restored and standards are raised. Let’s take the second biggest part of the government economy and return it to the people. Let’s create a model of the kind of society we want — a free market society, a society based on individual achievement, not government defined collectives.
This is just one possible campaign. Even if this particular campaign doesn’t win the first or second time around it will eventually change the perceptions of everyone in politics. We will no longer be seen as the defenders of the rich; we will be seen as the defenders of minorities and the poor; and our opponents will be seen as their oppressors. If campaigns like this are conducted in the right way they will change not only the way conservatives frame their message; they will change the political landscape of the country and the prospects for our nation’s future.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
David Horowitz Freedom Center
Below is the transcript of a speech David Horowitz recently delivered at the Americans for Prosperity Defending the American Dream Summit in Orlando, Florida.
I’m pleased to be here. I want to thank Tim Phillips for inviting me to this gathering, and the Koch brothers for organizing it. Most of you probably know that I grew up in a Communist family and had a misspent youth as a Marxist leader of the New Left in the 1960s. In later years, when I reflected on the damage our “revolution” had inflicted on our country, I would ask myself, “Where was the ruling class? Why didn’t they defend the System from these modern day Luddites and America haters? Why didn’t they expel us from the schools we tried to shut down? Why did they give us platforms to advance our agendas? What were they thinking?”
As the years progressed, and the radicals first infiltrated and then took over the Democratic Party, I found myself asking, “Where is the ruling class? Why don’t they see the threat this radicalized party is posing to their interests and the country’s? Why isn’t the ruling class mobilizing its resources to oppose an assault that is threatening the free market system and the very foundations of our democracy?”
And then, last year, I was invited to this event, and here you are. Except that I no longer believe there is a ruling class or that you are one. America is — as it has always been — a pluralistic society with competing centers of power. Moreover, as Jacob Laksin and I have shown in our book The New Leviathan the preponderance of political wealth is on the left, and has been put in the service of parties and causes that are anti-capitalist. As Jacob and I showed, progressive foundations engaged in political activities are more than 10 times wealthier than their conservative counterparts, and are able to deploy resources for political ends that are greater by far than even that.
Historically the movers of radical transformations have always been drawn from the ranks of the upper classes. The French Revolution was initiated by French aristocrats; Karl Marx was funded and promoted by a capitalist factory owner. And the Obama socialists who today threaten our way of life are swimming in wealth up to their eyeballs. The purpose of these observations is first to underscore how important you as creators of wealth are to the battle facing us; and second, how much catching up you have to do in order for us to prevail.
If the last five unhappy years have taught us anything, it is these two things: First, elections have consequences. The left’s last two electoral triumphs have already had a devastating impact on our nation and its future. America is now a great power in steep decline, a by-stander in world events, where once it shaped them. Our president is set on a course that actively encourages our enemies, weakens our friends and diminishes our military strength. At home his policies have impelled us towards national bankruptcy and constitutional disorder. And worse. Until the IRS and NSA scandals and Obamacare revealed the power that the Obama radicals are acquiring, I myself did not realize how close we were to the prospect of losing our democracy and actually becoming a totalitarian state. If you control all that information about individual lives and you have all that power over their finances and health, you can destroy any opposition and you do not need a secret police to enforce your will.
The second thing we have learned is something that everyone knows but no one wants to admit: well-designed character attacks can have a crucial impact on electoral outcomes; well-designed character attacks overpower well-crafted messages.
In the last election, Romney had a good message and an obvious one: Obama’s economic recovery has been a sorry failure; 23 million people still are jobless; many more are underemployed; if you want jobs and economic opportunities, support the job creators and innovators and deregulators.
But a critical majority of the voting public never heard Romney’s message. The reason? A $200 million smear campaign successfully portrayed him as a heartless job destroyer, a mouthpiece for the selfish rich, someone whose words you can’t trust.
What was the answer of Obama’s opponents to this killer attack? They didn’t have one. There was no $200 million campaign dedicated to destroying Obama’s credibility and undermining his message. Obama’s opponents didn’t have a message discrediting his character and neutralizing his attacks.
Would it have been difficult to do this? Obama is arguably the most brazen and compulsive liar ever to occupy the White House. He is an absentee executive — invisible at the budget negotiations in Washington and the withdrawal negotiations in Iraq, missing in crisis after crisis. While Egypt and Syria burn, he golfs. His endless dithering and misguided interventions in support of the Muslim Brotherhood have set the entire region aflame. Meanwhile, he and his wife carry on like French royalty, lavishing tens of millions of taxpayer funds on their family and dog while tens of millions of Americans suffer historic levels of deprivation because of the policies Obama put in place.
How is it possible that his opponents have not buried him under his own disasters? How did two successive presidential candidates, McCain and Romney, characterize this selfish, malicious leader — selling hope while delivering misery — as a “good man,” and someone who only lacked experience for the job? How about a moral conscience?
The answer is obvious to everyone but no one will say it out loud.
No one will confront Obama the way he deserves to be confronted because he is black. Actually he is half black, raised by whites and one Indonesian but no matter, since racist liberals have made the color of one’s skin decisive. It is because Obama is a minority that no one will hold him to a common standard; or confront him with what he has actually done. Any political consultant will tell you that you can’t. This is how race conscious and race-prejudiced our country has become.
This is why Republicans lose elections. Because what is true of Obama is true of the Democratic Party and the socialists generally. They present themselves as the party of minorities, whom they use as human shields whenever they are attacked, portraying their critics as indecent and racist. If we can’t hold Obama accountable, how can we hold any Democrat, any liberal or any socialist accountable? Because this is how they fight, and will do so until a counter-strategy is put in place.
My purpose in coming here today is to outline such a strategy, one that will take down the socialists at election time, and between election times, and defend the market-based democracy we all hold dear. Defend it when we are attacked as racist, insensitive and unfair. Which is how they will always attack us.
Their campaign narrative goes like this: We are the defenders of the underdog, and the champions of equality and fairness. If you attack us you attack minorities, women, children, and the poor. If you oppose us you are racists; you are the people who supported segregation and lynching. Kathleen Sebelius, Obama’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, has actually said this about opponents of Obamacare, glossing over the fact that segregation, like slavery, was a Democratic Party platform.
To begin to devise a counter-strategy, to expose their hypocrisy and impugn their character and neutralize their attacks, you have to ask yourself this question: How is it that Democrats liberals and socialists can pose as defenders of the poor?
Obama has created more poor people than all the presidents since World War II put together. Today, forty-seven million Americans are on food stamps and 100 million on government handouts. In Democrat monopolies like Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Washington DC and a dozen other major urban blight areas, liberal socialists have damaged and destroyed the lives of more African Americans than all the Republicans since the creation of the Republic. Yet every four years – and in between – they are able to persuade voters that they are defenders of minorities and the poor.
How do they do it? Not by actually helping minorities and the poor, but by attacking the rich. They portray rich people as the enemies of minorities and the poor who refuse to pay their fare share. They demonize wealth. That is what allows them to pretend they are friends of the poor.
Conservatives often fail to appreciate the cynical basis of the attacks on them. Conservatives are earnest – too earnest. They aim their messages at the head instead of the heart. They appeal to reason instead of the emotions. That’s why they lose. Democrat socialists don’t actually hate rich people or believe they are oppressors of the poor. In fact Democrat socialists want to be rich. In fact they are rich. Just ask George Soros, Jon Corzine, Nancy Pelosi, Rahm Emanuel, Terry McAuliffe, Bill Clinton and the White House couple. They want to be filthy rich. As far as socialists are concerned rich people are OK — if they support the socialist agendas. It’s cynicism on steroids. It’s all about power. It’s a strategy to win. Attack the rich to show you are friends of the poor. And politically it works.
How can we who believe in individual rights and free markets fight this? How can we neutralize the slanders and show that we are the real defenders of minorities, the poor, the little guy, working Americans, the middle class? How can we turn the tables on them?
It’s not rocket science. You can counter their attacks by turning their guns around. You can neutralize them by fighting fire with fire.
In the real world, Democrat socialists have made the lives of poor Americans worse, much worse. You need to shove this fact in their faces every time you speak. Here is the reality: In every inner city of size in America, the selfish exploiters of the poor are liberals – what I am calling Democrat socialists;they are the ones who fatten themselves off the votes of minorities and the poor while blocking their opportunities for a better life, and throwing them crumbs in return.
Detroit is a city Democrat socialists have run as a political monopoly for 52 years. For twenty of those Detroit’s Democrat mayor, Coleman Young, was also a member of the Communist Party.
In 1961 before their rule, Detroit had the highest per capita income in the United States; Today, it is
the poorest large city in all fifty states.
In 1960 Detroit was the fourth largest city in America with nearly 2 million inhabitants. Today two-thirds of Detroit’s population is gone. This human flight was the direct result of the government’s attacks on wealth and private companies, and on white people. It was a direct result of the rampant corruption among its political rulers and their draconian restrictions on what private individuals and entrepreneurs could do.
The city currently owes $14 billion in long-term debt, primarily driven by unfunded government union pension and retirement healthcare obligations.
Today Detroit’s median household income is $28,000 – slightly more than half the median income of the state of Michigan or the United States.
Nearly half of Detroit’s population is either unemployed or no longer looking for work. Its poverty level is 36 percent or more than twice that of the state level. Over a third of its inhabitants are on food stamps. Three out of every four of its children are born out of wedlock. A third of its school children don’t graduate and nearly half of those who do are functionally illiterate.
In one generation the Democrat socialists reduced America’s number one industrial city to the level of a third world nation.
Did I mention that eighty-two percent of Detroit’s population is African American?
This is a social atrocity committed by liberals and Democrat socialists against African Americans. If we spoke like they do, we would have no compunction about calling this the most appalling racist atrocity against African Americans since the passage of the Civil Rights Acts.
Now consider this: This historic assault on Detroit’s African American population was absent from all the speeches and all the political ads of all the actors supporting free market solutions in the 2012 elections. The word “Detroit” wasn’t mentioned.
This atrocity is not just being committed in Detroit. The government of every major inner city in America has been 100% controlled by Democrat socialists for the last fifty years. Everything that is wrong with America’s inner cities that policy can affect, liberals, Democrats and socialists are responsible for. They have their boot heels on the necks of poor black and Hispanic families. But we are all too polite to mention it.
Some Republicans have complained that Democrats win because they hand out goodies to minorities and the poor. Yes, they do. But the goodies they hand out are chump change compared to what they’ve destroyed for all Americans and especially for the poor. Would you rather live on food stamps and handouts or be able to pay for what you need and want? I don’t think there are many Americans who would have trouble making that choice.
So here’s the strategy, remembering that the best defense is a good offense:Attack the Democrat socialists for their wars against minorities and the poor. Expose their empty promises and question their character and undermine their message by portraying them as hypocrites who cannot be trusted. In attacking them as enemies of minorities and the poor we show that we care what happens to minorities and the poor. We put them on the defensive, and we neutralize their malicious and unfair attacks.
There is one more lesson to be learned from the last election: By well-placed attacks, we can change the story line of the national debate to our advantage.
Republicans planned to make the 2012 election about Obamacare, because there was a Republican landslide in 2010 around that issue. But two things happened on the way to the election that changed the subject. First, Romney picked Paul Ryan as his running mate so the details of Ryan’s plan to fix everything – including Medicare – became targets that were used to neutralize and divert the Republican attack.
Second, and far more importantly, a movement called Occupy Wall Street went on a rampage in American cities attacking the so-called 1% and the allegedly unfair distribution of wealth. Occupy Wall Street was a criminal mob supported by Obama and Pelosi, orchestrated and financed by the socialist government unions. Overnight, this changed the national debate from Obamacare to “fairness.” It cast anyone opposing more taxes as a selfish defender of the rich, and put Republicans on the defensive.
We don’t have the presidency, and we don’t have the union network or the national media to shift the debate to subjects that will give us that advantage. But we do have independent expenditure campaigns, and we do have the Tea Party grassroots to promote the message. And this is what the message should be:
They say we’re anti-woman because we don’t want to finance contraceptives for upper middle class academic women. Our answer to this attack should not be to argue about contraceptives, which will lose us a lot of single women votes. Our answer should be: After 5 years of Obama rule there are 16 million women on food stamps. Two out of every five single mothers are on food stamps. Under Obamacare family health care costs are about to skyrocket. This is Obama’s war on women.
They say we’re anti-Hispanic. After 5 years of Obama rule, there 8 million Hispanics on food stamps, and 20 million Hispanics who are unemployed or no longer looking for work. This is Obama’s war on minorities.
They say we don’t care about blacks. Look at America’s inner cities. They are run by Democrats and socialists and have been for fifty years. This is their war on African Americans and the poor.
And so on. As I said, it’s not rocket science. It’s about turning the guns around. It’s about having the moral fiber to do so.
Finally, I don’t want to leave you with the idea that campaigns are won on negatives alone. The negatives I have proposed are designed to blunt the opposition attacks and put them on the defensive. But people need hope, and are looking for change. These are basic elements of any campaign message. In crafting the message the positive elements should be designed so that they also dramatize the negative: how the opposition hurts minorities, working Americans and the poor. In opposing parties that oppress these underdog classes we demonstrate that we care about what happens to them. It’s a simple equation. But our side doesn’t get it yet.
Here’s one example of how it could be done:
Let’s take the education dollar that taxpayers now give to the bureaucrats who don’t care about their children, and give it back to the taxpayers. Let’s voucherize all the school systems in the country from kindergarten to college. Conservatives are always talking about abolishing the Department of Education. This is not the way to go about it. Voters will be told that conservatives are against education.
Instead of calling for the abolition of the Department of Education call for a fundamental change in its mission. Take its $50 billion or so budget and require that the money be spent on a voucher program for all Americans – from kindergarten through college. Let’s put the education dollars in the hands of every poor and middle class person in America. And let’s launch this effort with a $100 million TV ad campaign to tell Americans how the liberal socialists in every major urban school system have destroyed the lives of poor, mainly black and Hispanic children, who can’t afford the private schools that liberal legislators send their own kids to.
Let’s put hope in the hands of people who can’t afford to send their kids to schools that will teach them.
Let’s change the way the educational economy works, so that individuals are empowered – not government – so that competition is restored and standards are raised. Let’s take the second biggest part of the government economy and return it to the people. Let’s create a model of the kind of society we want — a free market society, a society based on individual achievement, not government defined collectives.
This is just one possible campaign. Even if this particular campaign doesn’t win the first or second time around it will eventually change the perceptions of everyone in politics. We will no longer be seen as the defenders of the rich; we will be seen as the defenders of minorities and the poor; and our opponents will be seen as their oppressors. If campaigns like this are conducted in the right way they will change not only the way conservatives frame their message; they will change the political landscape of the country and the prospects for our nation’s future.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.
David Horowitz Freedom Center
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)