Andrew Klavan on the Tea Party

Klavan's take is the closest I've ever read to my own position on the Tea Party vis-à-vis the Republican establishment.

"Purity or Strategy: The Debate We Need to Have"

Others Say Smart Stuff Too - Part XLII

The Democrats have made a lot of stew out of the supposed "unconstitutionality" of the Republican House's actions regarding funding the government. The Republicans have been described as anarchists, terrorists, hostage takers, and other names less savory. Critics say, "Obamacare was passed by both (Democrat) houses of Congress, signed into law by the (Democrat) President, and ruled Constitutional." (My notes added to improve accuracy.) The overall Democrat theme is "How dare Republicans use funding in this way?"

The answer lies in the words of James Madison, America's fourth President, and the man often referred to as "The Father of the Constitution." Here's what he had to say about the House of Representatives and funding (Some emphasis is mine):

"The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of Government. They, in a word, hold the purse; that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the People gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the Government.

"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon, with which any Constitution can arm the immediate Representatives of the People, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - James Madison, Federalist Papers #58 (1788)

As the closest representatives of the people (the majority of whom oppose Obamacare) it is the House's duty to use the power of the purse to fulfill the people's wishes. Refusing funding, reducing the prerogatives ("excesses") of other branches of government, and redressing ("remedying") the grievances of the people are right in line with what the Founders had in mind when they wrote the Constitution.

Who's the bully?

Associated Press writer Connie Cass, in her story "Why can't Washington compromise? They're too human," chides House Republicans for "bullying" Obama and Democrats over the cuts scheduled if and when sequestration takes effect. She even quotes Barbara Coloroso, an expert on bullying. 

"Bullying is about contempt for the other person," Coloroso said. "Do you see how that fits with some of the people in Congress? Utter contempt, bullying, wanting to bring somebody down. You cannot resolve a major issue like a budget with name-calling, with disdain for the person you're supposed to be working with."

Some thoughts: 

• Barack Obama to Republicans questioning his stimulus plan, 2009: "I won." 
• Barack Obama to Republicans, 2009: "Shut up and get out of the way." 
• Republican input into the Obama stimulus plan and Obamacare, orchestrated behind closed doors and rammed through by Democrats when they controlled both houses of Congress: Zero.

Obama's and other Democrats' contempt and disdain -- bullying -- of Republicans was on fine display the last four years. Like "bipartisanship," such terms only get tossed around in the media when Democrats don't automatically get everything they want.

Obama's "same tired rhetoric"

The Republican National Committee has produced a video showing Barack Obama giving speeches about financial issues...a year apart. The odd thing?  The speeches are virtually identical.  Watch:

Where's that vaunted Obama "articulateness" and "eloquence" his supporters bragged about? (In fairness, I guess they never said anything about "originality.")

Reductio ad Klanum, in the mainstream media*

MSNBC "award winning journalist" and anchor Thomas Roberts reported that Mitt Romney's slogan "Keep America America" is similar to one the Ku Klux Klan used in the 1920s.  The report includes a graphic stating "ROMNEY'S KKK SLOGAN?"  Roberts made sure to include the fact that the slogan was "a rallying cry for the group's campaign of violence and intimidation against blacks, gays and Jews."  That darn Mormon Romney must have the same intentions, right?  At least that's what MSNBC implied.




* Or at least as mainstream as MSNBC can claim to be with its couple of dozen viewers.

The Fantastic Republican Field

The narrative being put forth by the media and Democrats (technically separate groups, but the same) is that the Republican field of presidential candidates is weak. Here's what I had to say in another forum:

Republican candidates include a governor, two US Representatives, three former governors, a former Speaker of the House, and a former US Senator. This field is at least the equal of the '08 Democrats.

Having made that declaration, I took a look back at the Democrat field of 2008:
- Barack Obama - US Senator for only two years before starting his campaign for President. Survived being a member of Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years without hearing any of the sermons; associate of terrorist William Ayres and convicted felon Tony Rezko. The claims of "lack of experience" by his opponents subsequently being proved true.
- Hillary Clinton – Elected US Senator of a state where she didn’t live because she was the wife of a popular ex-President.  No prior elected office, but author of universal healthcare debacle and Travelgate scandal of 1993, while serving as wife of a popular President.
- John Edwards – Indicted on six felony charges related to his extramarital affair, facing 30 years in prison and a $1.5 million fine.
- Bill Richardson – Currently the subject of a grand jury investigation around his allegedly paying $250,000 to quiet a woman who had threatened to file sexual harassment complaint. The money came from donations raised for his presidential campaign, a federal no-no. (What? You hadn't heard about this?)
- Dennis Kucinich – Greatest claim to fame is being considered the most extreme Liberal in Congress.
- Joe Biden – Dropped his candidacy in 1988 after being busted for plagiarizing a speech. Most well known for his verbal gaffes. (Example: Urged a wheelchair-bound veteran to “stand up and take a bow.”) Chosen as Obama’s VP.
- Mike Gravel – Unknown Senator from Alaska. He’s most famous for this “artistic” campaign video:

- Christopher Dodd – Beneficiary of a sweetheart loan from disgraced mortgage lender Countrywide; defended Fannie Mae as “fundamentally sound;” authored a provision that allowed AIG executives to take government-provided “bailout” money as bonuses. The government gave AIG $170 million; executives took $165 million as their bonus. Most famous for a notorious sexual attack of a waitress (along with Ted Kennedy.)

- Tom Vilsack – Best known for tying for the title of the least scandalous of 2008 Democrat presidential candidates.

- Evan Bayh – According to the Washington Post, “wasn’t a particularly distinguished senator…an ordinary politician.” Outstanding in not taking a stand. Tied with Vilsack.

In comparison, today's offering of Republican presidential candidates don't look so bad. Not bad at all.

Gingrich kills again

The best debater in the world, and the smartest man in any room he walks into, guts the MSNBC moderators and the media at the Republican debate.

Now THIS was a debate

The dog-and-pony shows trotted out recently and called "Republican Presidential candidate debates" have been shameful.  Shameful to the candidates, shameful to the media for treating it seriously, and shameful to the American public for accepting something so far from an actual debate.

One of the masters of debate was William F. Buckley Jr., who for over three decades engaged his guests in spirited discussions on his television show Firing Line.  Besides weekly conversations, Buckley also occasionally sponsored formal debates. 

In 1978 two giants of the American conservative movement disagreed over whether or not the U.S. should relinquish control of the Panama Canal Zone. Instead of ignoring their differences on this issue, Ronald Reagan and William F. Buckley Jr. conducted a live debate to present their arguments to the public. With this, they set the standard of how to handle disagreements over ideas and issues in public policy – in other words, how to debate.

Below are two videos.  One is the introduction of the participants by Senator Sam Ervin.  The other is a video of Buckley's closing argument for his point (that the Senate should ratify the treaties giving the Panama Canal to Panama.)  Copyright issues prevent posting sections of the meat of the debate, but the entire two-hour debate is available on C-Span here.

"Leading on reporters at press conferences is not leadership"

Republican Paul Ryan doing it again.

Rhetoric vs. Reality

A quick break for me - State of the Union response

A break from doing the writing that I get paid to do, that is.


Barack Obama is to give his State of the Union speech tonight.  The Republican response will be delivered by Representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin.  I've heard of Ryan, but had never really paid enough attention to see him in action.  Boy, was I surprised.


Here is Ryan at the "bipartisan summit" on healthcare legislation last year.  He surgically vivisects all the tricks and gimmicks in the Democrat plan.  It didn't affect the outcome of the vote, but boy did he do a good job.

Well, well, well...sometimes it takes a while

Politics daily headline, September 21, 2010:  "GOP prepares to unveil new 'Contract with America'"

The article begins with "Republicans are going back to their '90s playbook as Election Day approaches..."  The author then goes on to delineate how Republicans are making promises about what they will do, such as freezing tax rates, cutting back on spending, and a repeal of Obamacare.

I referenced the appeal of the 1994 Republican "Contract with America" previously, in 2005.  One of the points that I raised was that such a contract would hold politicians acountable.  They will either do what they agree to, or they won't. 

In the current political environment everyone wants to appear Conservative -- Democrats are running ads that they opposed Obama, and John McCain reversed his longheld position on border security (now he's for it.)  Politicians will say anything to get elected.  A scorecard will make it easier to see if they keep their word.

But what if they don't?  Senators stick around for six years, and Representatives for two.  They can do a lot of damage before we have a chance to evict them.  Politicians lie.  (72% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of members of Congress, according to a Rasmussen survey.)  If Republicans win in November, as current projections show, their feet need to be held to the fire.  If -- or when -- they divert from what they agreed to do while campaigning for the job, they need to be blasted by their constituents.  Lying politicians should not have a moment's peace.

Tom Delay cleared of corruption charges

This story got by me, but former Republican House leader Tom Delay was cleared of corruption charges in relation to his association with Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist found guilty of bribing politicians.  From the  Wall Street Journal:

"Former Majority Leader Tom DeLay was the kingpin in the Democrats’ 2006 “culture of corruption” campaign that helped force the Texas Republican out of office—and swept Democrats into power....But after a lengthy federal probe, the Justice Department has dropped its investigation, according to DeLay’s attorney, Richard Cullen."

Delay still faces charges in Texas for money laundering and conspiracy.  These charges were brought in 2005 by Democrat prosecutor Ronnie Earle.  The trial is actually scheduled to start in October of this year. That's a five years wait, folks.  Seems like if the prosecution had a case, this should have been tried a long time ago.

This is the kind of tactic that makes me believe within the next six weeks we're going to see a flurry of Republican "scandals" hit the media.  Passing notes in class, spitting on the sidewalk, removing the tag from a mattress -- no Republican transgression is so small that the media can't make a major news story out of it before an election.

Republican Smackdown

Maybe NJ Governor Chris Christie will teach other Republican politicians how to act.

Kamikaze Democrats?

Andrew C McCarthy has written a column that proposes a very scary scenario; to wit, that Congressional Democrat leaders are willing to sacrifice their majorities in the House and Senate so as to get their healthcare legislation passed before November. The thinking is that, once they have rammed through sweeping control over Americans via nationalized healthcare, the machinery will be in place, and the government will have unsurpassed power even when Democrats are not in power.

Democrats know that anyone who votes for the legislation will likely face tremendous blowback from voters come election time. The Democrat leadership (Obama, Pelosi, Reid) are willing to accept such self-destructive losses to accomplish their bigger goal of transforming America.

This strategy only works if Republicans don't have the guts to repeal healthcare legislation once they are in office. This question needs to be asked of every candidate who runs in November:

"If elected, will you vote to repeal Democrat healthcare legislation?"

Who Lost My Invitation?

Yahoo News reports that Obama attended a dinner party at George Will's home, where a bunch of "Conservative" columnists were in attendance. Larry Kudlow confirmed that besides himself and Will, Peggy Noonan, Paul Gigot, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer "and others" were there. Kudlow reported that it was a smoochfest (my word, not his) and that all of them were impressed with the President-elect and "wish him the best."

There are so many things going on here. First, with the possible exception of Krauthammer and some of those unnamed, the "Righties" were all part of the Rockefeller Republican set who believe that the Republican party must be more like the Democrats in order to win electiions. They all want to be "reasonable" when dealing with politics. This in spite of the fact that the Republican candidate who just got trounced in the presidential election has been one of the most conciliatory and compromising Senators imaginable. Obama chose his audience carefully, slumming among the friendliest foes he could find. The tone was reported to be extremely cordial and polite, with discussion but no antagonistic conversation.

Now, imagine if Bush had tried something similar with any of the Liberal media anywhere along the way. First, no Liberal media figures have been even remotely friendly or even forgiving of George W. Bush. They have been in attack mode for eight years, except for a brief honeymoon after 9/11. (For example, Bush was heavily criticized for his "extravagant" inaugural expense of $50 million in 2005. Compare that to the media love lavished on Obama's $120 million inauguration this year.) Bush would have been lucky to escape without bloodshed.

There is a rift in the Republican party between those who are mired in Washington DC political and social circles, and who will accept defeat in elections and principle to keep their place on the guest list, and those who believe that Republicans stand for a certain set of principles (such as smaller government and fiscal responsibility) who desire to defeat Democrats politically, socially and in the battle of ideas.

For those of us who want Republicans to do battle, these are cold times indeed. President Bush, despite his rhetoric when campaigning for President, proved to be one of the "Rockefeller" Republicans, rather than the more populist "Goldwater" Republicans. The Republicans who were at that party were, for the most part, those who are willing for Republicans to bend a principle in order to win an election. The flaw with that philosophy was demonstrated in the 2006 and 2008 elections.

This is How It's Done

Michelle Malkin writes about a Pennsylvania candidate who is running as a pure Conservatve, and trouncing his oppostion -- incumbent Democrat Jack Murtha.

From candidate William Russell, Republican:

"I am a Conservative. I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty. … I believe that no one owes me anything just because I live and breathe."

Maybe there's hope for Republican politicians after all.


Learn more about William Russell's campaign at http://www.russellbrigade.com/

Delwin Jones, and Deceiving District 83

Republican Delwin Jones, incumbent District 83 State Representative, has campaigned hard against his challenger Joe Hnatek. Radio ads presenting Hnatek getting his funding from "down state" and as chosen "by the I-35 crowd" are effective. I've written about the District 83 race and Delwin Jones's non-conservative record before.

Now, from radio host Robert Pratt, I get an e-mail with this information:

* 77% of Delwin Jones contributions come from Austin ($35,056 of $45,381), or other "down state" addresses (I've been very generous and included all the way to San Angelo as West Texas.) http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366264.pdf

* 78% of money spent by Delwin Jones came from "down state" ($45,020.28)
Hnatek had only 42% of his funding and spending from Austin, or "down state". Of that 42% of funds used that came from "down state", 100% of it was for in-kind campaign work - none was cash. Other spending was from Hnatek's own pocket. http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366238.pdf

* 84% of Empower Texans PAC funding is from West Texas - NOT "down state" or from the I-35 crowd. This is the group, which includes donors from the district, helping Hnatek. http://txprod.ethics.state.tx.us/public/366028.pdf

"So we now see the truth: Delwin Jones is being funding primarily from Austin and Joe Hnatek from right here in West Texas.

By the way, Jack Bush, who is also the mayor of Idalou, and advertising man, and who appears in Jones' latest radio advertisement running down Hnatek and claiming he's pushed by the I-35 crowd, was paid $2250.00 in this filing by Delwin's campaign for "media production" - no kidding!"

My thanks to Robert Pratt for sharing this information. I cast my own vote for Joe Hnatek this afternoon in early voting.

My Presidential Pick

Over the last year I put forth several times my reason to select Newt Gingrich as my choice for President. Because it would have been illegal under current campaign laws for him to remain the head of American Solutions and run for President, Newt withdrew his name from consideration.

I had to find another candidate to support.

Human Events recently endorsed Fred Thompson as their choice for President, based on his Conservative record. In the endorsement statement they quoted Ronald Reagan: “A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency or simply to swell its numbers."

Several weeks ago I decided that Thompson best fit my concept of what conservatism is, based in part on his interview with Charlie Rose:

Thompson states that his stance on particular issues derive from guiding principles, embodied in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Beginning in late spring of last year, I read, studied and considered The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. It's an immense, dense work, and it took me a long time to read it. A basic definition Kirk uses of conservatism is the same concept as Thompson uses -- that our institutions (such as the church) are based on hundreds years of established practices and beliefs, and that they should not be discarded based on a popular idea or the latest fad.

None of the other candidates have struck me as having the same principled basis; instead they seem to have arrived at particular positions based on political expediency. They claim the "Conservative" label, but not with the same credibility that Thompson possesses.

Fred Thompson for President in '08.

Newt: "I'd be willing to be president."

Lloyd Grove has an article in the Washington Post today, giving one of the better-balanced pieces I've ever seen about Newt Gingrich.

Some highlights from the article:

On running for President: He says he'll give his final answer by Oct. 1.

On waiting so late to announce his candidacy: Gingrich, for his part, dismisses warnings that October will be too late for a non-billionaire to jump into the race and raise the necessary cash. "Do you know the approximate size of the U.S. economy? About $14 trillion. ... if you assume we live in a country of 300 million people, a substantial number of whom will not have contributed to anybody, we'll have to see. Assume for a minute that one of the three [Republican] front-runners collapses. How many supporters does that make available?"

On Mitt Romney and Rudy Giulani: Gingrich has been carefully cultivating key Republican constituencies, especially Christian activists who might balk at nominating a formerly liberal Mormon who claims to have seen the light or a pro-abortion rights, pro-gun control, occasionally cross-dressing, thrice-married Yankees fan.

On John McCain: "I like John," Gingrich says, "but the combination of McCain-Feingold [the widely despised campaign finance law] and McCain-Kennedy [the hated immigration bill] is a tad heavy."

On Fred Thompson: "I think he becomes the establishment alternative," Gingrich says. "I've been fond of Fred ever since 'The Hunt for Red October.' I think he was totally convincing as an admiral."

On his marital infidelities: [Newt] had already taken the extraordinary step of going on right-wing evangelical leader James Dobson's radio show to admit committing the sin of adultery..."It's like talking to your mom. There are things in life you just don't want to go home and tell mom. But it was my intuitive judgment that this was a room I had to walk through. If I never walked through it, I'd always be on the other side of the door."

Newt has huge ideas about changing government, and the presidency is only a small part, a possible step in that process: "I want to make sure by the time we're done that in 511,000 elective positions" -- apparently the whole of U.S. officialdom -- "there are people who understand the 21st century, understand American civilization, and have fundamentally changed government at all levels."

"And if, in that process, I become president -- that's fine."