News from the Front for Jan 27 2014

There appeared a column in Red State over the weekend that reports on the continuing internal civil war between the ‘Pub establishment in Washington and the party’s core constituents. In this latest report, Red State discloses the plan for the establishment to roll-over on immigration.

This is What the GOP Establishment Thinks of You

Daniel Horowitz (Diary)  | 

It is very easy to avert our eyes from the painful reality that is confronting us within the Republican Party.  We would all love to cheer on a GOP victory in the midterm elections, win back the Senate, and live happily ever after.  But as Republicans gear up for the week of amnesty, they have made it clear that the entire purpose of a Republican majority is to push the most important priority of the Democrat Party.

This is why we need to change the party in the primaries.

GOP leadership is now fully aware of our growing effort to elect Republicans who believe in the party platform, and according to the Wall Street Journal, they will time their amnesty bills accordingly:

“House leaders hope to bring legislation to the floor as early as April, the people close to the process said, after the deadline has passed in many states for challengers to file paperwork needed to run for Congress. Republican leaders hope that would diminish chances that a lawmaker’s support for immigration bills winds up sparking a primary-election fight.”

So this is what the party leaders think of the people who rebuilt the party since 2010 after it was destroyed during the Bush years.

There is only one obvious response to this malevolent attitude on the part of party leadership.  If they want to pass amnesty after the primaries under the pretense that we will already be on the plantation, we must commit to withholding support from any amnesty supporter even in a general election.

For years, I’ve always felt that no matter how low the GOP has sunk it was still worth voting for any Republican in a general election.  Whenever my dad would suggest that we stay home in the general, I would always have something to point to – some horrible policy that would evolve from Democrat control of government unless Republicans remained in power. But that time has passed.

What will happen if the Democrats are in charge?  We already have Obamacare, and Republicans have committed to preserving it.  We already have record debt, and Republicans have committed to raising the debt ceiling.  And now Republicans are pushing the most destructive Democrat policy of all – perennial open borders, a permanent Democrat majority, and the ballooning of the welfare state.

This pending amnesty push, which will also double our record low-skilled legal immigration, will change our economy and society forever.  There is no way we could overcome the electoral juggernaut engendered by open borders.  At some point we need to draw a line in the sand and fight back against this cynical ploy.  If the undocumented Democrats in our party wish to pass amnesty after the primaries, we should not grant them amnesty in the general election.

What’s the worst that can happen?  A Democrat majority?

That’s exactly where we are headed if we don’t fight this maniacal push for immigration deform.

Game on.


Red State provided the list below of conservative candidates who are running, in the upcoming primaries, against establishment ‘Pub politicians. Let’s help all of these conservatives beat their establishment opponents.

We all strongly believe in the rationale for a viable second party.  We can’t function with an oligarchy.  That is why we must all spend the next 4-7 months fully engaged in the primaries.  This is our party and it’s time to take it back.  Here are some candidates we can support and send a big message in the primaries:

  • Kentucky Senate: Matt Bevin challenging GOP establishment king, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (donate here)
  • Kansas Senate: Milton Wolf challenging Senator Pat Roberts (donate here)
  • Mississippi Senate: Chris McDaniel challenging Senator Thad Cochran ( donate here)
  • Louisiana Senate: Rob Maness challenging Democrat Senator Mary Landrieu and establishment Republican Bill Cassidy (donate here)
  • Idaho House District 2: Bryan Smith challenging RINO Mike Simpson (donate here)
  • Georgia Senate: Paul Broun running against a number of establishment candidates (donate here)

From Red State.


If you read my posts last week and read the news, you’ll remember the RNC held a strategy meeting at a ‘secret’ location. The meeting, supposedly, was to plan a strategy to win this year’s congressional elections. Instead, they chose to discuss plans for the 2016 election and came up with a plan to lose win that one.

Reince’s Solutions Miss the Mark

By C. Edmund Wright, January 27, 2014

In typical establishment fashion, Reince Priebus and the wizards at the RNC have looked at the last presidential nomination cycle and learned the wrong lessons.  They have concluded that not allowing Mitt Romney a smooth coronation was the problem, and they are out to make sure their anointed one never has to face that again.  As such, the prescriptions for change recently announced by Priebus will only make things worse.  This is what happens when a national party is isolated from — and igorant of — its nation.

Yes, the debates did become a series of shameless food fights as the process unfolded — and something should be done about that.  But what exactly?  One might think that the establishment consultants would look in the mirror and figure out that it was they, and their candidates, who made it so.  As long as the debates were focused on the problems of Obama and liberal judges, liberals in Congress, liberal academics, liberal unions, and liberals in the media, the debates were awesome.  We needed more of those debates.  Of course, only Herman Cain, and at two different times Newt Gingrich, had this figured out.

It was precisely this strategy that propelled each to the lead in the national polls — Cain in November and early December 2011, and then Newt once in December of 2011 and again during the South Carolina primary week in 2012.  Both men hammered only the opposition, while the others threw food at each other.  Who can forget the absurd over-the-top attacks from Michele Bachmann on Rick Perry’s vaccination program, not to mention the argument Perry and Romney had about  who was mowing whose yard?

Had any of these candidates, or their overpaid, under-observant consultants, taken a big-picture look at what was going on, it would have been obvious that the voters were craving only two things: a plan for beating Obama, and then a plan to undo his damage once that was accomplished.  Cain and Newt, neither with any money, both rocketed to the top of the heap by doing just this and by complimenting the other Republicans.  Newt was especially effective, often taking down self-righteous journalists like Juan Williams and John King in the process of exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of liberalism.

The other campaigns?  Not so much.

The Mitt Romney money machine, which spent 99% of its ad budget in Florida savaging Newt — while ignoring the word “Obama” and even the name “Mitt” — was primarily responsible.  But then again, so were Ron Paul, Rick Santorum, Bachmann, Perry, and Jon Huntsman once Newt had gained a 14-point lead in Iowa.  Unfortunately, Newt responded to this surreal 6-against-1 attack poorly, too, resorting to the foolish “Bain Capital” attack ads in Iowa and New Hampshire — and then joining Romney in the gutter in Florida.

So what happened in between New Hampshire and Florida?  South Carolina happened.

And in the Palmetto State, the path to victory was demonstrated.  The week of the campaign, including the Monday/Thursday debate schedule, was a week-long attack by conservatism against liberalism.  Newt stole the show, simply because he is better at this than any of the others, but Newt is not the point.  The message is the point, and they all were on message in South Carolina.  The result was a 13-point win for Newt, but more than that, it was a win for the GOP.  Turnout and interest skyrocketed, with the former exceeding 2008 by 35%.  They all won.  Conservatism won.  Liberalism lost.

The message of South Carolina was the winning message, and had Romney — or any candidate — carried that message into November, Barack Obama would likely be retired in Hawaii by now.  Perhaps this is why Republicans gain the White House only when they nominate the S.C. winner.  The message in S.C. was also similar to the organic message of the 2010 midterms, and not far from the 1994 midterm message as well.  (For the record, those were the two best elections for Republicans in modern history.)

In Florida two days later, at the Monday debate, that message was totally jettisoned.

In fact, Florida, and the entire campaign thereafter, showed the GOP establishment at work in typical form: using shock and awe against conservatives while tiptoeing around the real opposition.

The column continues at the website. You can read it all…here.

Instead of attacking the democrats, their policies and agenda, the GOP is planning to repeat the failures of the past. It wasn’t their attacks on fellow GOP candidates that lost the election. No, it was the date of the convention. Romney didn’t have enough time to campaign against Obama.

Reince Pridbus conveniently forgot Romney had nearly 18 months to campaign against Obama. Instead, following the orders from the RNC, he chose to campaign against fellow ‘Pubs.

Once again, the GOP is planning to fail.


It seems almost obligatory to review last night’s debate.  Frankly, I’m not all that enthused. The outcome was exactly as I expected. Romney faced two debaters—Obama and Crowley. The moderator was biased. We knew that going in. Obama lied and Crowley supported the lies. That was expected as well. The MSM claims Obama won. ‘Pub pundits like Charles Krauthammer agree. The rest of us disagree.

I think Ed Morrisey writing for Hot Air said it best.

Video: Luntz focus group unloads on Obama after debate

posted at 8:41 am on October 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

In my estimation, last night’s debate was a draw.  Both men did what they needed to do for the debate, but neither had enough of a breakout performance to make much of a difference in the race. I’d expect to see very little impact to the Mitt-mentum that developed after the first debate, for reasons which I’ll address in a moment.

That wasn’t the conclusion reached by Frank Luntz’ focus group of former Barack Obama voters, and now undecideds, in Nevada.  That panel overwhelmingly chose Mitt Romney as the winner, with observations about Romney’s presidential mien and Obama’s defensiveness and lack of vision for a second term.  But one woman, whom (as Luntz jokes) bears a strong resemblance to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, neatly sums up the status of many undecideds, as well as Obama’s big problem with these debates:

“I was not undecided between Obama and Romney.  I was undecided between Romney and not voting.”

That’s the problem for any incumbent President in the final days of the election.  They get almost four years to make the case for another term.  If voters are still undecided with three weeks left to go, the best an incumbent can hope to do is convince them not to vote at all.  That has been the explicit campaign strategy of Team Obama since Romney wrapped up the nomination in May — to make him so toxic that the protest vote against Obama stays home.

Unfortunately, that strategy collapsed after the first debate, and its collapse made the strategy obvious enough to be offensive.  Last night, Obama finally decided to show some passion about wanting a second term, but he still hasn’t explained why he wants it or what he’ll do with it, even during last night’s debate.  The only case he offered was that he wasn’t Mitt Romney, the same argument that Obama used before the first debate.  And he spent most of the evening speaking with an oddly high-pitched tone, as if he was offended that he even needed to go that far.

Obama gave those undecideds no reason last night to vote for him or to stay home on Election Day.  That’s why nothing that happened in the debate will change the trajectory of the race.

Meanwhile, if you’re unimpressed with a Fox focus group, you can always balance that out with MSNBC’s focus group of undecideds from last night.  Final score there: Obama 1, Romney 1, with the other six abstaining from a choice until after the next debate:

That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement for an Obama victory claim.

‘Nuff said.


The world came close to nuclear war fifty years ago this week. That crisis was known as the Cuban Missile Crisis.  I was in high school at the time in Southern Illinois and I  remember those times well.

I was reminded of this with the arrival of today’s Morning Bell from the Heritage Foundation that spoke of the anniversary of that crisis. That e-mail caused me to remember the runup to that crisis—of reports of Russian bombers and then IRBM missiles being based in Cuba. Those reports were followed by the release of reconnaissance photos by our Ambassador to the UN, Adlai Stevenson.

As the crisis grews, we examined the missile coverage mapped in our local daily paper. I remember noticing St. Louis, 90 miles to our northwest was within range of those missiles. Our local Red Cross distributed plans for building fallout shelters and a number of our neighbors built them.

We also practiced “duck and cover” in school…handy during tornado season but that practice suddenly acquired new meaning. I remember standing in our yard one clear, cool afternoon and watched four B-52s circling far overhead. during lunch-time at school we brought our maps to see where there were likely targets in our area.

To say that everyone was tense was an understatement.

If it weren’t for the events last week, those memories would be just that—a remembrance of a long past event. But, now, we see just how important it is to have competent people as our national leaders. Joe Biden’s maniacal antics last week brought that home.

This idiot—Joe Biden—is next in line to lead us in a crisis!?!?

For all the multitude of reasons to remove Obama, Biden and the democrats from power, the revelation of Joe Biden’s instability is sufficient reason why the nation must wrest power away from the democrats.  We fear that it’s likely in a crisis Obama will do nothing. On the other hand, if Joe Biden rose to the Presidency, he, in a crisis, would do anything!

The revelation of Joe Biden has helped change the trend of this election. That trend shifted after the first Presidential Debate. Biden’s arrogance, disrespect and strange behavior during the VP Debate increased that trend. We all hope and pray that tomorrow’s 2nd Presidential Debate will accelerate the trend towards a ‘Pub win three weeks from tomorrow.

With the increased tensions in the Middle-East, with a resurgent, militaristic Russia, with continued Chinese resource imperialism in the South China Sea, the last thing we need is continuing incompetence in the White House.

Events and Issues

Quote of the Day: “First of all, let’s not forget that four years ago, well after Romneycare was put into place, four years ago you not only endorsed me, you went on Laura Ingraham and said, ‘this is the guy who is really conservative and we can trust him.’ Let’s not forget that you said that,” Mitt Romney said to Rick Santorum at tonight’s debate in Arizona after the former Penn. Senator questioned the former Governor’s conservative credentials.  GOP Debates, Mesa, AZ, February 22, 2011.

Romney finally admits he isn’t a conservative. Else, why would he attack Santorum’s conservative credentials by attacking Santorum’s endorsement of Mitt Romney in the 2008 campaign?  Only if you think that Santorum was endorsing Romney’s non-conservatism.

In either case, I don’t see how Romney can win that particular argument.


Half of the people in the U.S. didn’t pay any income tax last year. Well, make that almost half, 49.5% according to reports. These are the folks dependent on government either through the various welfare programs or through the “Earned Income Tax Credit.”  I’ve heard one description of the Earned Income tax scheme as the Negative Income Tax. The Negative Income Tax is were the government pays you for not working.  Oh! Wait!  That’s welfare isn’t it?

151.7m people – 49.5% of the U.S. population – paid no federal income tax in 2009, figures show

By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 11:21 PM on 22nd February 2012

Only half of U.S. citizens pay federal income tax, according to the latest available figures.
In 2009, just 50.5 per cent of Americans paid any income tax to the federal government – the lowest proportion in at least half a century.
And the number of people outside the tax system could have climbed even higher since as the economic downturn has continued to bite and unemployment has remained high.

These are the people Obama is depending upon to win his re-election for a second term in the White House.
Sellout?  During the debates last night in Mesa, AZ, Ron Paul appeared to be tag-teaming with Romney against Rick Santorum.  There have been rumors for awhile of a possible deal between Romney and one of the other GOP candidates to nail down Romney’s nomination for President.
Now it appears a deal has been made.  Ron Paul focuses his attacks on Rick Santorum, diverting attention from Romney’s faults and flip-flops, and in return Ron Paul’s son, Rand Paul, is Romney’s pick for Veep.  I guess it’s one way for a Paul to get into the White House. Ron Paul certainly won’t.

Rand Paul says ‘it would be an honor to be considered’ as Romney’s veep (this explains a lot)

By February 22, 2012
On Wednesday, Chuck Todd, NBC News’ political director and host of MSNBC’s “Daily Rundown,” rhetorically asked: “Just what has Romney promised Ron Paul.”
Nobody knows if some sort of bargain has been made, but it is interesting that Rep. Ron Paul has never really attacked Mitt Romney, yet he has frequently attacked more conservative candidates at just the moment they were beginning to pose a threat to Romney. (For example, consider his latest ad, attacking Rick Santorum.)
The timing has been noticeable.
Now, a Kentucky media outlet, WFPL News, might be offering us a clue:

Kentucky’s junior senator says it would be an honor to be considered as a possible running mate for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

… After a speech in Louisville today, [Sen. Rand] Paul held that door firmly open, saying he wants to be part of the national debate.

… “I don’t know if I can answer that question, but I can say it would be an honor to be considered,” he said.

Of course, this could be much ado about nothing — just a politician answering a question. On the other hand, it is sure to spark more speculation that some sort of deal may be in the works between the Romney and Paul camps. It’s not as if Ron Paul’s campaign hasn’t stoked speculation. As the Dallas Morning News reported, Paul’s national campaign chairman, Jesse Benton, recently said: “Any Republican should have Rand Paul on his short list.”

On the surface, tapping Paul as veep might not make sense. But conservatives are refusing to go along and eat the dog food with Romney — and adding Rand Paul to the ticket would fire conservatives up – and ensure that Ron Paul drops any plans to launch a 3rd party challenge. And just imagine if Romney arrives at the GOP convention needing some of Paul’s delegates to win the nomination?

It’s not an absurd idea.

No, it isn’t an absurd idea at all.

County Straw Poll

We had a combined meeting last night of the Cass County (MO) Republican Central Committee and the Cass County Young Republicans.  Instead of the regular monthly meetings, the combined meeting last night was a Debate Watch and Straw Poll.

I made a note during the debates that this time the candidates resisted moderator attempts to create dissension in the ranks of candidates.  The candidates supported one another.  Ron Paul made some remarks about the economy and the Federal Reserve and later Perry said he supported those particular items.  Newt was great.  Every time a moderator asked a loaded question, he had a zinger ready. Even Cain, amid all the allegations this week, was applauded often, more so when he called Pelosi a Princess for her autocratic management of the House when she was the Speaker.

It was time the candidates remembered who their opposition is during these debates. It isn’t one another, it’s the moderators who will attempt to make fools of them at every opportunity.

Romney, unlike Perry who forgot the third department he would abolish, made no gaffs. Neither was he inspiring. In fact, he was mostly a ghost, echoing points from others. At least this time he didn’t make any egregious attacks on the others. 

Huntsman tried to make the point that he was the only governor to actually pass a flat tax.  I’ll have to research this a bit because my memory seems to say that flat tax was passed over Huntsman’s objections and that he was forced to sign it.

One moderator, Jim Cramer of CNBC, acted in his usual infantile manner, screaming and shouting, interrupting the responses from the candidates and in general acting like an idiot on steroids.  Newt blocked his attacks every time. It was great.

After the debate we had a straw poll. Here are the results from the top down.

Herman Cain:       35%
Newt Gingrich:     26%
Mitt Romney:        19%
Ron Paul:                 6%
Rick Santorum:      3%

Perry, Bachmann and Huntsman received no votes. Perry, during the debate last night didn’t come off well.  His memory lapse can be understandable. I’ve lost my train of thought in mid-sentence as well.  But overall his presentation seemed…amatuerish.

Personally, I tossed a mental coin on voting for Herman Cain or Newt Gingrich.  I can support either. I think Newt would make a great president. In fact, I think Newt, failing to achieve the Presidential candidacy, would do well in any cabinet office.

I can see Cain doing well as President.  He has a number of people to choose for various offices who can give him knowledge and expertise in those areas he is admittedly deficient.

The libs and State media crow how unprepared Cain is to hold office.  Even if all that criticism is correct, he is more qualified now to be President than Obama is after being in office for almost three years.  In fact, any of the ‘Pub candidates are more qualified to be president, even Paul and Romney, than Obama.

It was a great evening. My wife and I enjoyed it. 


The second ‘Pub debate occurred last night.  It was hosted by the Tea Party Express and CNN (!?!?!).  Yes, CNN and Wolf Blitzer. The cable company and liberal media talking head who called the Tea Party racist.  Talk about opposites.

Romney attacked Perry for calling Social Security a ponzi scheme.  Perry was correct. It IS a ponzi scheme. If an individual or a company does what the government does with Social Security, we send them to jail. Ever hear of Bernard Madoff? What is legal for the government is illegal for everyone else.

Romney, however, took his attacks from liberal talking points saying Perry wants to shut down Social Security and citing Perry’s book as proof.  Romney lied.

I’ve followed Perry’s statements. I’m not a Perry follower, but he has, in a short time, placed himself well in the lead of the pack.  Perry has proposed returning control of Social Security to the states.  He likes the Ryan plan and has said so.

Ryan’s plan keeps those currently on Social Security as-is.  No change.  Ryan’s plan does provide alternatives for those who are years from retirement.  Eventually, Social Security will change, but not immediately. 

Perry’s book, touted by Romney as proof, does not propose ending Social Security.  It does propose changes that will over time, shift the entitlement into a self-managed plan, not a governmental monolith out of control. 

Bachmann attacked Perry, correctly, over signing the defunct HPV bill that forced teen-aged girls to take immunizations for a cancer that was only transmitted via a STD.  Yes, it had an opt-out option but the whole idea of forcing such an action is untenable and contrary to the concept of personal freedom and responsibility. 

Perry had reversed himself and the HPV bill was rescinded in 2007.  He admitted he was wrong.  

Perry also said that the executive order was a mistake and he should have worked with the legislature instead of issuing it. He also noted the order gave parents the right to opt their children out of the vaccination. — CNN.

That goes far in my book—being able to recognize and admit a mistake.  Too often, politicians will attempt to hide mistakes thinking they can deceive the public.  They fail.  It’s better to admit a mistake in public and let it go. 

Romney’s actions last night, however, was disgusting.  When you have to use liberal talking points to score against another ‘Pub, it proves you’re a RINO and aren’t fit for elected office.  As I said above, Romney was disgusting last night.