► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Archive for the ‘Republican Party’ Category

Trump-a-palooza In Phoenix!

by The Osprey ( 84 Comments › )
Filed under Business, Elections 2016, Free Speech, immigration, Immigration, Media, Patriotism, Politics, Racism, Republican Party, RINOcracy at July 12th, 2015 - 3:39 pm

In the wake of his controversial, some say “RAAAAACIST™” comments decrying illegal immigration, Donald Trump has become a lightening rod in the Republican Party, who has RINOS everywhere scurrying for cover. Nowhere was that more apparent than here in Arizona, where the staunchly conservative Maricopa County Republican Committee, against the wishes of the RINOfied State GOP leadership, invited Trump to speak. The usual suspect RINOs such as John “My Friends” McCain rushed to disavow any connection with Trump, while the popular and controversial Sheriff Joe Arpaio made clear his support for Trump’s opposition to illegal immigration, although he has not endorsed him as a candidate.

I got a text from PHXGirl on Friday that Trump was coming to AZ, and as of noon on Saturday, when he was due to appear in the Phoenix Convention Center at 2:00PM, over 9000 invites had been given out via EventBrite. Due to some personal commitments I got to the convention center late, at around 2:21, but the line of people waiting to get in to hear “The Donald” speak stretched around the south, east and north side of the Phoenix Convention Center North complex.

And of course, the opposition was there as well, on the Southwest corner of the building there was a small knot of Anglo Leftist hipster teenagers and LaRazanistas, including an odd looking hipster chick who was selling “Joe Arpaio Voodoo Dolls”. At that point I was figuring out how to get into the event so I hurriedly transited through the south end of the building to the southeast corner outside patio, and missed the opportunity to snap a pic of hipster chick.

As the line of people moved along the east side of the building, a security guard with a walkie-talkie informed us that the ballroom where Trump was speaking was full, that the fire marshall and decided not to allow any more people in for safety reasons. As we turned the corner to the north side of the building, there were the largest group of the protestors, again a mixed crew of Anglo Leftists and LaRaza types. The protestors were on the North side of Monroe street, making a racket with the typical stale old Lefty “hey hey, ho ho, (fill in the blank here – in this case Trump and Arpaio) has got to go!” chant and blasting noisy freon horns. A police street barricade fence was down the middle on the closed street, and on the south side of Monroe in the shade of the portico of the building were those of us who were still trying to get in to the event and a line of Phoenix PD with riot gear at the ready. The crowd of protestors was small compared to the amount of people wanting to hear Trump, maybe a few hundred at the most but they were noisy and aggressive. Several people from the Trump side tried to engage in polite dialog with them but were shouted down.

The pro-Trump crowd was predominantly White and middle-class looking, but there were at least as many non-Whites mixed in among the pro-Trump crowd as there were protestors, but they were more varied. There were Hispanics, Blacks and Asians among the pro-Trump crowd, while the protestors were exclusively Anglo and Hispanic.

As it became clear to me that I was not going to be able to get into the event, I decided to “Zombie” style, take pics of the “rojos”, as I had not seen this many Leftists out on the streets of Phoenix since the AB1070 protests a few years ago.

This fellow says Trump is a “Tyrannical Racist Unscrupulous Monster Pig!” and a Confederate Flag fan to boot! OMG! And here I thought he was a damnyankee from New York City!

Trump confed

These two vatos locos in the bandanas were screaming obscenities at the pro-Trump crowd…”Trump you can suck my…” well, you get the picture. Curious about the red and blue bandanas…Sureños y Norteños unidad contra “El Donald”?

Vatos 1

Vatos 2

Mexico? It’s about 200 miles south, sweetie.

Mexican flag

Hipsters against Trump!


Phoenix’s finest keep a watchful eye on los rojos.


Trump owns Dell Computers now?


The ginger-haired guy with the glasses in the blue shirt with his back to the camera was trying to dialogue with the protestor blond haired woman in front of him. He was so soft-spoken I could not hear what he was saying, I’m guessing it had something to do with the military since the woman kept shouting that she was Mexican and her son was in the USMC. And your point is? If you are here legally and your son is serving in the Marines, then you are not the problem Trump is talking about!

ginger guy

Trump supporters hoping to get in and Phoenix PD
trump supporters and phx pd

Devo fans for Trump!


Donald Trump: Bringing more cowbell to the GOP!


Rumsfeld: Democracy in Iraq was a mistake

by Husky Lover ( 7 Comments › )
Filed under George W. Bush, Iraq, Progressives, Special Report, Tranzis at June 10th, 2015 - 8:47 am

Although the Iraq War was justified as is any war against any Islamic entity is, the aftermath was just plain stupid. In a bout of Naivete the Bush administration led by Wilsonian Progressives actually believed that Iraqis wanted Democracy. As it turned out, the Shias wanted an Iranian puppet regime and the Sunnis eventually threw in with the Islamic State. Donald Rumsfeld admits trying to install democracy in Iraq was a mistake.

Washington (CNN)Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insisted in an interview with CNN Tuesday that his recent comments about being skeptical about creating a democracy in Iraq did not contradict his previous positions about the Iraq War.

Rumsfeld also called the Times of London’s report over the weekend — which suggested his views were critical of his old boss, President George W. Bush — “ridiculous.”

“When we went in (to Iraq), my view — and I thought it was a broadly held view — was that the goal was to have Saddam Hussein not be there, and to have what replaced Saddam Hussein be a government that would not have weapons of mass destruction, that would not invade its neighbors, and that would be reasonably respectful of diverse ethnic groups — meaning the Sunni, the Shia, the Kurds,” Rumsfeld told CNN in a phone interview Tuesday afternoon. “And that was kind of the understanding I had and I thought everyone had.”

In a story titled “Bush was wrong on Iraq, says Rumsfeld,” Rumsfeld told The Times that “the idea that we could fashion a democracy in Iraq seemed to me unrealistic. I was concerned about it when I first heard those words … I’m not one who thinks that our particular template of democracy is appropriate for other countries at every moment of their histories.”


Rumsfeld, who served as Bush’s defense secretary from 2001 to 2006, also told The Times that removing former Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was a mistake because it destabilized the region.

Sadly many in both parties particularly the GOP think imposing Democracy should be done at all costs.

I would have said something entirely different

by coldwarrior ( 289 Comments › )
Filed under Open thread, Republican Party at April 15th, 2015 - 7:00 am

This is about handling the press, not about who is the best candidate. They all need to learn:

And it’s a fill in the blank, see below:

The Press is a hostile entity and should be treated as such. Rubio was being nice, but he missed an opportunity to slap Stephanopoulos:

“I think this country’s at a generational moment where it needs to decide not what party it wants in charge but what kind of country are we going to want to be moving forward,” Rubio said. “I think the 21st century can be the American century, and I believe that I can lead this country in that direction. I can help lead it there from the Senate. I can lead it there as president.”

Stephanopoulos asked if the first-term senator was the most qualified to be president, to which Rubio replied he “absolutely” thought so.

“We’ve reached a moment now, not just in my career, but the history of our country, where I believe that it needs a Republican Party that is new and vibrant, that understands the future, has an agenda for that future,” Rubio said, “and I feel uniquely qualified to offer that. And that’s why I’m running for president.”

OK, stock answer. Here is how I would have handled this:


“I think this country’s at a generational moment where it needs to decide not what party it wants in charge but what kind of country are we going to want to be moving forward,” Rubio said. “I think the 21st century can be the American century, and I believe that I can lead this country in that direction. I can help lead it there from the Senate. I can lead it there as president.”

Stephanopoulos asked if the first-term senator was the most qualified to be president, to which Rubio replied: “What an intersting and provocative question Goeroge, Yes, I am qualified. And I wonder, George, why you guys in the press never asked that amazingly insightful question question of Obama? I’ll wait for your answer George…*long uncomfortable pause*(One would have to see how George answered, possible responses are below)

Ok, well, let me help you George, Most of the Press in this country are a bunch of ______________ . Furthermore, ___________________ .

“We’ve reached a moment now, not just in my career, but the history of our country, where I believe that it needs a Republican Party that is new and vibrant, that understands the future, has an agenda for that future,” Rubio said, “and I feel uniquely qualified to offer that. And that’s why I’m running for president.”

Being nice to the press just invites them to be more hostile toward the Right. When will the Right learn that lesson? Maybe take the offensive instead? Change the dynamic for a change, get inside their OODA loops and humiliate them.

What would yinz have like to said to Stephy?

2015 NRA Annual Meetings

by lobo91 ( 4 Comments › )
Filed under Conservatism, Elections 2016, Headlines, Politics, Republican Party, Second Amendment at April 11th, 2015 - 6:00 pm

It’s that time again. This year’s NRA Annual Meetings are being held in Nashville, and as usual, a record crowd is on hand to see the latest in guns and outdoor gear, conduct some business, and hear from a number of leaders on the right side of the political spectrum.

The main venue for political speeches is the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum on Friday afternoon, and this year was no different. Follow the links below to see each of the main speakers (in no particular order):

Governor Scott Walker

Governor Bobby Jindal

Former Governor Rick Perry

Sen. Marco Rubio

Sen. Lindsey Graham

Sen. Ted Cruz

Former Gov. Mike Huckabee

Former Gov. Jeb Bush

Former Sen. Rick Santorum

Sen. Bob Corker

Sheriff David Clarke

Donald Trump

S.E. Cupp

Dr. Ben Carson

Wayne LaPierre

Chris Cox

Larry Potterfield


Goldwater Honored

by coldwarrior ( 106 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, History, Open thread, Progressives at March 2nd, 2015 - 7:00 am

Barry Goldwater was honored in Statuary Hall in Congress. No one covered it. Not the Leftymedia, not the Rightymedia. This is not surprising as no one on the Left would dare take Goldwater to heart, nor would half of the Right. The progressive infiltration of the GOP over the past 30 years has been sad to watch and hopefully it can be battled back. The Democrats, i fear, are lost forever.

State’s Rights over Fedgov, Smaller government all  round, more Liberty for everyone…

Those ideas cause fear in the Progressives both on the Left and the Right. It means that they lose power over you, they lose power to control you, they lose the power that hobbles America. We are drowning in regulations, bureaucracy, and debt placed by both parties. We lose liberties to Progressives in both parties  who think they know better than you how to live YOUR life.

Barry Goldwater, a Conservative Icon Cast in Bronze


WASHINGTON — One of the most important symbolic moments of the new Congress occurred earlier this winter and you almost certainly don’t know a thing about it.

Before several hundred people on the second floor of the Capitol — but virtually ignored by major media outlets — congressional leaders unveiled a statue commemorating the life of an ideologically rigid lawmaker who bent with the breezes of the time; a viscerally partisan political figure who drew pride from his work with opponents; a military aviator dedicated to peaceful pursuits, especially nature photography; and a presidential nominee whose campaign ranks among the most futile of all time but which nonetheless spawned a vigorous political creed.

The remarkable thing about this mere hour during the bitterly divided 114th Congress is that there on the stage were House Speaker John Boehner and minority leader Nancy Pelosi, and both were speaking affectionately, kindly, even sentimentally, about a man who lost both their states in the 1964 presidential election but who won their respect in the half-century that followed.

The unveiling of this 1,700-pound bronze statue in honor of Barry Goldwater was a special symbolic moment, not because the onetime senator from Arizona is regarded as the founding father of modern conservatism, not because he was an early and sometimes lonely supporter of contemporary causes such as gay rights and not because the hard edges of political personalities almost always get worn away by the passage of time. This was an important moment because the unveiling won praise from men and women who seldom agree on anything, and whose view of our national passage — from Mr. Goldwater and Lyndon Johnson to the Tea Party and Barack Obama — run along parallel lines that do not meet.

But in Mr. Goldwater’s time — we tend to think of that era as John Kennedy’s time or Lyndon Johnson’s time, but now we know it was Mr. Goldwater’s time as well — politics wasn’t gentler, but it was kinder. This is no misty reminiscence of times past, a reverie on good old days burnished over the decades. At the moment of JFK’s assassination, Mr. Goldwater said he had had more debates with Mr. Kennedy than with any other man. Then he added:

“He was a gentleman. He was the kind of antagonist that I’ve always enjoyed. He would fight like a wildcat for his points and his principles, but there was never anything personal about it.”

It was Ms. Pelosi, the former House speaker and an accomplished Democratic pugilist, who looked across the statues from all 50 states — two for each — and noted that they “celebrate the full breadth of ideas and principles that have blossomed within America’s democracy.” At the moment she was saying that during a ceremony honoring a conservative icon, I noticed that I was scribbling down her remarks while leaning against the statue of Robert LaFollette, the Wisconsin crusader who was a leader of the Progressive movement, a pioneer in establishing direct primary elections, an opponent of American involvement in World War I and an unsuccessful third-party candidate for the presidency exactly 40 years before the Goldwater campaign.

The Goldwater acceptance speech at the Cow Palace in San Francisco is remembered principally for his much-misinterpreted proclamation that “extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” (Read that carefully and you might wonder whether in the age of the national security state and the Ferguson riots Mr. Goldwater might have a point.)

Yet from the distance of time and the perspective of 21st-century politics, this might be the more appropriate excerpt:

“The beauty of this federal system of ours is in its reconciliation of diversity with unity. We must not see malice in honest differences of opinion, no matter how great, so long as they are not inconsistent with the pledges we have given to each other in and through our Constitution.”

Mr. Boehner, no stranger to political pressures from right and left, saluted Mr. Goldwater by saying that “the beaten path and the same old b.s. — it was not for him.”

Well, maybe the beaten path wasn’t, but Mr. Goldwater actually had a flair for the old b.s. He was, after all, the fellow who suggested the United States lob a nuclear weapon into the men’s room of the Kremlin and who said that listening to one of his political rivals, Hubert Humphrey, speak was like “trying to read Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages.”

He railed against Social Security and was no friend of the civil rights legislation of 1964, though he may have been the only one in the Capitol who actually was telling the truth when he said he opposed the measure not because he opposed integration and the rights of African-Americans but because he didn’t like federal intrusion in the lives of the people.

Almost alone in his party — indeed, almost alone in Congress — he supported the right of gays to serve in the armed forces. “You don’t have to be straight to be in the military,” he said on more than one occasion. “You just have to be able to shoot straight.”

A champion of conservatism at a time when it was at its low ebb in the 1960s, he was a choice not an echo — a phrase forever identified with him but actually the title of a book by another conservative icon, Phyllis Schlafley. It was his campaign that brought Ronald Reagan to prominence, and together they changed American politics forever.

So now Barry Goldwater is back in the Capitol, standing among his peers.

Gathered with him are John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster, with opposing views of the sanctity of the Union; William Jennings Bryan, a pacifist, and George Washington, a veteran of two wars; Robert E. Lee and Samuel Adams, who both fought for national independence but of a substantially different kind; Roger Williams and Father Junipero Serra, whose views on religion differed but whose commitments to religious freedom were enduring; and Henry Clay, known as the Great Compromiser.

If they were to walk among our leaders of today — fond as they are of pointless contention, averse to mutual respect — whom might they choose as their neighbors there in Statuary Hall?

He would not be welcome in today’s so called ‘Conservative’ GOP. He would be seen as a threat to the power of the ever larger state that both parties have built.

The Case For Scott Walker

by Iron Fist ( 164 Comments › )
Filed under Elections 2016, Politics, Republican Party at January 22nd, 2015 - 7:35 am

Everybody knows my sentiments on the issue of who our 2016 Presidential Nominee should be. I came across this piece on American Thinker that details som e of the reasons for my choice:

The race for the Republican nomination has started. It is vital that Republicans nominate a conservative leader who will use Republican political strength to implement a peaceful, lawful, but revolutionary change in the way Washington does business.

Establishment Republicans like Jeb Bush and Mitt Romney do not see the need for radical change and do not have the rhetorical skills to make the case for such change. Moreover, RINO nominees have proven electoral poison in presidential elections. Scott Walker offers the best chance to win the general election and then to use a Republican Congress to transform American government.

Consider first electability. In every single presidential election in the last thirty years, Wisconsin has given the Republican candidate a smaller percentage of the popular vote than that candidate received nationally. It is a tough state for Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans, to do well in.

Scott Walker has won virtually every election, including those elections involving his surrogates in statewide judicial or legislative recall elections, since 2010. The governor has been able to consistently persuade voters in a blue state to stick with his program, despite a ferocious and sustained attack from the left.

This puts Scott Walker in a unique position. Several Republican “moderates” have won elections in blue states and Republican conservatives have won elections in red states, but only Walker has been able to win as an unapologetic conservative in an undeniably blue state. Moreover, Scott Walker is the only governor in American history to survive a recall election, and this in blue Wisconsin.

The contrast is stark. Except for Walker, only two clear conservatives who have won statewide races in states that are not red are Santorum, who lost very badly in Pennsylvania in his 2006 re-election race, and Rubio, who won with a minority of the vote in purple Florida in his only statewide run.

Candidate Walker would carry his home state of Wisconsin, and he would understand how to connect with voters in neighboring swing states like Iowa and Ohio, and perhaps even put states like Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois in play. Walker, who has won eleven straight electoral contests, certainly looks like he could win in 2016.

Electability is always the first thing you look at. If a candidate is not electable, he or she is a non-starter, no matter what their positions. That, unfortunately, rules out both Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz. I like both of them, agree pretty much lockstep with both of them on the issues, but neither one is really electable. They have both been too demonized in the press to come back, I believe. Sarah Palin never said it, but all the people think of when they here her name is “I can see Russia from my front porch”. Ted Cruz isn’t quite so bad, but he, too, has been demonized in the press. It would take a relentless campaign to clean up his name, and make him palatable to the “moderate” undecided voters that are critical to winning election. Walker is different. The Left hate him as much as Palin, but they haven’t been able to turn him into the boogeyman. He can appeal to the undecideds while maintaining a solid stance on the issues that matter most to us. Consider this:

That, of course, is only half the battle. Across the board, on social issues as well as economic issues, Scott Walker is a conservative, but could he stay true to his conservative values? The pressure on any incoming Republican president to “moderate” his views will be intense. Would President Walker resist these attacks? Everything suggests that he would. Think about all the machinations and threats that the left has used to try to thwart Scott Walker.

After the 2010 election, which not only made Walker governor, but gave Republicans control of the Wisconsin legislature, Democrat state legislators fled to Chicago to try to prevent a quorum. Then public employee union thugs swarmed the capitol. The left tried to unseat a sitting Wisconsin Supreme Court justice, Prosser, and failed. Recall elections challenged not only Walker, but members of both houses of the Wisconsin legislature and Walker’s lieutenant governor. And, of course, the left tried all it could to defeat Walker in 2014.

None of this has intimidated Governor Walker at all. Not only has he proven personally courageous against the attacks from the left on him and on his family – some of these threatened more than just political injury – but, critically, Walker has been able to lead other Republican elected officials in Wisconsin – which is precisely what a Republican president will have to do after the 2016 election if we are going to transform the nation.

We need to unify on a conservative alternative to Jeb Bush or Mitt Romney, and Walker fits the bill precisely. We don’t need to bother with Santorum, or Huckabee, or vanity candidates like Ben Carson. I like Carson on the issues, but that doesn’t mean he is right for the Presidency. We need a governor this time. Someone with a track record of actually managing government, and making it work. Ben Carson simply does not have that experience. Scott Walker is the right candidate for this season. We need to get behind him, and push him as hard as we can.


by coldwarrior ( 138 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Conservatism, Elections 2016, Libertarianism, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, Tea Parties at January 4th, 2015 - 11:00 am

Conservative….I am pretty much to the point that I don’t know what that word means anymore. There has been serious definition creep on the meaning of that word over my life time.

When I was younger, Conservative meant the Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan wing of the GOP. It meant the fiscal hawks who railed against big debts and big government. It meant that people (and too big to fail companies) should be free to choose, free to make mistakes, and free to fail without the nanny state there to ‘help’ them; Conservative meant you would fight the progressives and ‘tax and spend liberals’ to preserve freedoms enumerated in the Constitution. Goldwater’s “Conscience of a Conservative” was the lens by which Conservatives saw the world.

Recently, the mantle and definition of “Conservative” has been  twisted and abducted by those who would not have been “Conservative” in the past. George Bush is an example. Sure, he talked  good game but governed like a Progressive adding debt and government programs and in real terms, governing over 8 years negative wage growth, flat GDP growth, huge bailouts of failed entities, and debt debt debt. But, hey, he talked about God and claimed to be a Christian. Good enough to be a ‘Compassionate Conservative’ Whatever that means.


On righty blogs, anyone who is from the libertarian/fiscon Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan wing has been pushed out of the ‘Conservative Club’ for being libertarian on social issues. Its in our nature to allow people to make their own decisions and then they have to live with the consequences. If you aren’t four square against abortion, 100% behind the police, and happen to believe that states should make their own laws independent of DC then you are not Conservative, you are a libertarian Paulian Kook! So says the God Squad.

SO now, to be a Conservative all one must do is publicly natter on about Jesus and God, be totally against abortion, never believe the police can be wrong, and be OK with big government as long as the big government is doing you bidding.


Why am I on my horse? Mike Huckabee is going to run again as a ‘Conservative’.

My own frustration with President Obama is not merely the dramatic point of view that I have with him, between his liberal views and my conservative ones. It’s as much with his squandering the opportunity that he had that he do he said he would do … back in 2008. …

“Quite frankly governing is hard work. It requires the patience of Job, the strength of Samson, the courage of David, the perseverance of Noah, the intellect of Paul, the wisdom of Solomon, and the forgiveness of Jesus. And there is no substitute for time spent building relationships with people who don’t like you and who don’t want to work with you. In the words of that great political philosopher Mick Jagger, ‘You can’t always get what you want.’ …

Wrap your head around that statement that I highlighted.


[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it’s a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that’s what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards,” Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Just like in Saudi Arabia? The founders did not have Huckabee’s attitude when they wrote the founding documents. The Constitution was written by Deists, not Evangelicals. The ‘Conservative’ Huckabee governed to the Left of Clinton when he was Governor of Arkansas! Praise HIM and pass the tax and spend plate!


I’ll stop here because yinz can continue to Bing “Huckabee is no Conservative”, “Huckabee taxes”, Huckabee record” and read it yourselves.

The Huckster is my straw man for a larger problem on the right, both Scott Walker and Huckabee are called Conservative. One actually is, and one is a Progressive.

Huckabee is a Baptist Preacher, a hard core Progressive with a Bible who is convinced that his way is GOD’s way. He is not at all fiscon or for more personal liberties, smaller government, and state’s rights…you know, the things that founded this country  and ideas that USED to define one as a conservative. Now, I guess to be called ‘Conservative’ all one has to do is be a busybody like Huckabee.

More Good News From Tuesday’s Election

by Iron Fist ( 128 Comments › )
Filed under Democratic Party, Election 2014, Politics, Republican Party at November 13th, 2014 - 7:00 am

This is important:
The Election Map

Republicans had a very good Nov. 4; this much we know.

But merely looking at the GOP’s likely nine-seat gain the Senate and its double-digit gains in the House doesn’t really do its wave justice.

While the GOP is likely to control 54 percent of all Senate seats and 56 percent (or so) of the House come January, it also will now control more than two-thirds of state legislative chambers across the country — as in nearly seven in 10. And given Republicans also won at least 31 governorships, they are basically in control of the state government in 24 states. That could soon hit 25if they win the still-undetermined governor’s race in Alaska.

(Worth clarifying: These numbers include Nebraska, which technically has a nonpartisan, unicameral legislature but is, for all intents and purposes, a GOP-controlled state.)

The Democrats, meanwhile, control just six states, with a seventh likely to come when the Vermont legislature picks Gov. Peter Shumlin (D) as the winner of last week’s closer-than-expected election, in which neither candidate attained the necessary 50 percent.

That 24-6 split is actually significantly bigger than it was after 2010, when Republicans emerged from that wave election with complete control of 21 states, to Democrats’ 11 — about a two-to-one advantage, versus today’s four-to-one edge.

This is, in many ways, better news than our taking the Senate, because it is an indicator of how people want their government to be where it is closest to them. The States were intended to have more influence over your daily lives than the Federal Government. This is because those Legislatures are closer to the people they represent. Representative democracy is a wonderful thing, for all of its warts and boils. As governments go, it works better than anything else mankind has produced, if your goal is a peaceful, prosperous State. One of the reasons that Americans reject Leftism is that Leftism is not trying to produce a peaceful, prosperous State.

It gets better:

No, state legislatures aren’t the sexiest things in the world. But as a means for demonstrating a national wave, they’re about as pure an indicator as you get. That’s because they’re the lowest-profile office (i.e. people vote the party more than anything) that is pretty uniform across the country. And as of today, the GOP is dominating in an unprecedented way.

To put this in a little more perspective, I added up the number of Americans who will now be in GOP-controlled states, versus those states under complete Democratic control.

According to my numbers, across all 50 states, 49.7 47.8 percent of Americans will now be led by GOP-controlled governments with little/no ability for Democrats to thwart them. If Gov. Sean Parnell (R) pulls off his reelection run in Alaska, it will be more than 48 percent.

Not quite half of us are almost entirely free of the yoke the Democrats would put around our necks, at least as far as our State governments are concerned. Keep in mind, these numbers are for people who have utterly rejected the Leftist view of the nation. These are people in places where the Democrats have little say at all. The only yoke the Democrats can place on us is from Federal laws already passed. We have actually, to a degree, achieved the One-Party State that the Left wants for itself. This is an awesome responsibility.

We haven’t won the war with the Democrats, but we have won an important battle. Several important battles, when you look at it as a whole. Contrary to what the Democrats think, the American people aren’t stupid. We are slow to act, and slow to anger, but when we come around to it, we have a tendency to do the right thing. Now is not the time to get complacent, though. As Buzzsawmonkey points out, now is when the real work begins. We have elected Republicans. We now have to force them to govern as Republicans.

Warren G and Silent Cal and the Banker Mellon

by coldwarrior ( 216 Comments › )
Filed under Barry Goldwater, Election 2014, Elections 2016, government, History, Open thread, Politics, Progressives, Republican Party, Ronald Reagan, The Political Right at October 31st, 2014 - 6:21 am

Are we ready for Old School economics? Are there any GOPsters who dare do this in DC? Does the Right have an economic spine?

Lower taxes, Less Government? OH MY!

Good ol’ Warren G. & Silent Cal: Harding & Coolidge understood basic economics

By Amity Shlaes

Saturday, Oct. 25, 2014, 9:00 p.m.

Republicans and Democrats resemble one another too closely for voter comfort these days. Whatever their own political leanings, voters would prefer more diversity in the policy spectrum.

Consider the question of whether the federal government should increase spending. Politicians’ answers come in a broad range: “yes” or “yes, a lot.” Even candidates who talk about cuts are really only speaking about reductions in increases. In fact, politicians don’t believe they really can make cuts. No modern president has, or at least no president who took office in peacetime.

Not Bill Clinton, who told the nation the welfare era was over. Not even Ronald Reagan, the great free-market president of the postwar era. Budget cutters, the assumption runs, can’t get elected. Federal austerity, the politicians often warn, might hurt the economy anyhow. Presidents just can’t say “no.”

But there have been peacetime presidents who said “no.” Two were presidents we scarcely hear about anymore, Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge. The 29th president died amid scandal in 1923 — but not before cutting the federal budget. Coolidge then served 512 years, to 1929, a period when the population and the economy grew. Yet when Coolidge left the White House and returned to his hometown of Northampton, Mass., the federal budget was actually lower than when he came in.

How Harding and Coolidge managed to say “no” is a good story and one that couldn’t have happened without the contribution of the nation’s greatest banker, Andrew Mellon.

The story starts in 1920 and in a fiscal landscape that would seem familiar. As today, the federal debt loomed over the future. Yet tax rates, ranging into the 70s, could hardly be pushed higher. The government had expanded, but various groups were pressing for greater federal spending. World War I veterans did not all find jobs and many were disabled — they sought a pension or a bonus.

With commodity prices bouncing up and down, farmers demanded some kind of subsidy stream as well. The presidents lacked control or even oversight of the budget: Congress called the shots. Yet Harding, an ebullient senator of Ohio, and Coolidge, a quiet governor of Massachusetts, ran and won on a ticket of “no.” They would say “no” to both high taxes and government expansion.

Harding did some of the first hard work of cutting. He shepherded through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, which unified the budget process under the president and gave the White House the power to impound and sequester. Harding also cut the budget and vetoed veteran pensions and farm subsidies.

Harding appointed Mellon as Treasury secretary, and Mellon adroitly rescheduled the debt; Harding and Mellon also passed a round of tax cuts. Harding was not a “naysayer” by temperament. He disliked using the veto on his old Senate colleagues. He appointed friends, rather than professionals, to key posts. Their corruption tainted his reforms and aborted them.

Few reckoned that Coolidge could continue or complete what Harding had started. Voters figured Coolidge was a lame duck, “the accident of an accident.” The real Republican candidate would emerge in 1924. Coolidge’s colleagues in Washington didn’t expect much either: “Coolidge had little about him that was regal,” recalled George Wharton Pepper, a senator of Pennsylvania.

Still, Coolidge pushed forward where Harding had hesitated. He and Mellon sought and received several more rounds of tax cuts, bringing the top marginal income tax rate down to 25 percent, a level even lower than Reagan’s. In his years observing railroads, Mellon had noted that when you cut the toll for a rail line, you might get more business. An owner charged, as Mellon put it, “what the traffic will bear.”

Mellon thought the same principle might apply to tax rates. Perhaps lower rates would permit more business activity and therefore bring higher revenues. Today we call this philosophy “supply-side economics.”

Coolidge was not as enthusiastic. His thrifty temperament led him to obsess about the budget. In fact, the president kept twin lion cubs, which the White House named “Tax Reduction” and “Budget Bureau.” The point was that the lions were twins: Fed on steak, they weighed the same. To match Mellon’s tax cuts, Coolidge kept up with budgets. He also vowed to prevent future spending. “It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones,” Coolidge had written his father years before. As president, Coolidge “killed” 60 laws by veto, compared with Harding’s record of six.

The result of Mellon’s partnership with Harding and Coolidge pleased most Americans. Government became smaller; the number of strikes fell. Mellon had won his bet: Revenues for the government actually increased from 1924, even though tax rates were lower. The team lowered the debt by a third. Working-class families became middle-class when they found they were able to acquire new comforts such as Model Ts and Model As, electricity, and indoor plumbing. The 1920s were not the fragile illusion depicted in, say, “The Great Gatsby.” Voters knew it and rewarded the pro-austerity Coolidge in 1924 with a resounding victory.

Under Herbert Hoover, policy shifted, with the White House becoming active. This shift, indeed the whole story, is little known, in part because people blame the Great Depression of the 1930s on the 1920s. But that is misplaced. As I noted in “The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression,” the economic crash had multiple causes. Few had much to do with policies from 1920 to 1928.

Knowing about the Harding-Coolidge-Mellon record doesn’t assure us that voters will elect to the White House a candidate who says “no.” Knowledge of that forgotten record merely broadens the range of options politicians can feel comfortable offering to voters today. That is, such knowledge makes a candidate who says “no” possible. And asked whether a wider range of policy choices represents an improvement, even those who oppose such policies will probably want to answer “yes.”

Rand Paul’s Foreign Policy Speech

by coldwarrior ( 134 Comments › )
Filed under Politics, Republican Party at October 27th, 2014 - 1:00 pm

Prepared Remarks in their entirety. What do you like, what don’t you like?

It certainly is a return to realism.


Immediately before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Francis Fukuyama wrote that we are at “the end of history.”

The world, Fukuyama argued, had arrived at what he called the universal triumph of “Western liberal democracy as the final point of human government.”

Almost 25 years later, we know Fukuyama was either wrong or, at the very least, a bit optimistic.

History has not ended.

Russia slides backward vainly hoping to resurrect the Soviet Union.

Vladimir Putin justifies aggression in Ukraine as defense against decadent and hypocritical Western powers.

In East Asia, Beijing extols the remarkable rise of China as the supremacy of a one-party state capitalism.

In the Middle East, secular dictatorships have been replaced by the rise of radical jihadist movements, who in their beliefs and barbarity — represent the antithesis of liberal democracy.

These challenges are in part consequences of failing to define our national security interest in a new era.

Our allies and our enemies are unsure where America stands.

Until we develop the ability to distinguish, as George Kennan put it, between vital interests and more peripheral interests, we will continue to drift from crisis to crisis.

Today I want to share with you my views on how to address these threats and how I see America’s role in the world.

I want to spell out for you what I believe to be the principles of a national security strategy of strength and action.

Americans want strength and leadership but that doesn’t mean they see war as the only solution.

Reagan had it right when he spoke to potential adversaries: “Our reluctance for conflict should not be misjudged as a failure of will.”

After the tragedies of Iraq and Libya, Americans are right to expect more from their country when we go to war.

America shouldn’t fight wars where the best outcome is stalemate.  America shouldn’t fight wars when there is no plan for victory.

America shouldn’t fight wars that aren’t authorized by the American people, by Congress.

America should and will fight wars when the consequences….intended and unintended….are worth the sacrifice.

The war on terror is not over, and America cannot disengage from the world.

President Obama claims that al Qaeda is decimated.  But a recent report by the RAND Corporation tracked a 58 percent increase over the last three years in jihadist terror groups.

To contain and ultimately defeat radical Islam, America must have confidence in our constitutional republic, our leadership, and our values.

To defend our country we must understand that a hatred of our values exists, and acknowledge that interventions in foreign countries may well exacerbate this hatred, but that ultimately, we must be willing and able to defend our country and our interests.

As Reagan said: “When action is required to preserve our national security, we will act.”

Will they hate us less if we are less present?

Perhaps….but hatred for those outside the circle of “accepted” Islam, exists above and beyond our history of intervention overseas.

​The world does not have an Islam problem.

The world has a dignity problem, with millions of men and women across the Middle East being treated as chattel by their own governments.

Many of these same governments have been chronic recipients of our aid.

When the anger boils over as it did in Cairo, the anger is directed not only against Mubarak but also against the United States because of our support for Mubarak.

Some anger is blowback, but some anger originates in an aberrant and intolerant distortion of religion that wages war against all infidels.

We can’t be sentimental about neutralizing that threat, but we also can’t be blind to the fact that drone strikes that inadvertently kill civilians may create more jihadists than we eliminate.

The young activist Malala Yousafzai, whom the Taliban in Pakistan shot in the head at point-blank range for insisting that girls have the right to attend school, voiced this concern when she met with President Obama.

She said: “It is true that when there’s a drone attack…terrorists are killed.  But 500 and 5,000 more people rise against it and more terrorism occurs.”

The truth is, you can’t solve a dignity problem with military force. It was Secretary Gates who warned that our foreign policy has become over-militarized.

Yes, we need a hammer ready, but not every civil war is a nail.

There is a time to eliminate our enemies, but there is also a time to cultivate allies and encouragers among civilized Muslim nations.

Those of you who are familiar with me know that I deeply believe in individual liberty.

But I have learned through experience that this ideal can only be achieved by recognizing, as Bismarck said, that, policy is the art of the possible.

We need a foreign policy that recognizes our limits and preserves our might, a common-sense conservative realism of strength and action.

We can’t retreat from the world, but we can’t remake it in our own image either.

We can’t and shouldn’t engage in nation building, but we can facilitate trade and extend the blessings of freedom and free markets around the world.

Here’s how I see the most important principles that should drive America’s foreign policy.

First, the Use of Force is and always has been an indispensable part of defending our country.

War is necessary when America is attacked or threatened, when vital American interests are attacked and threatened, and when we have exhausted all other measures short of war.

While no foreign policy should preclude the use of force, Reagan understood that war should never be the first resort.

Eisenhower understood this also when he said, “Belligerence is the hallmark of insecurity.”

The war in Afghanistan is an example of a just, necessary war. I supported the decision to go into Afghanistan after 9/11.

I still do today.

America was attacked by Al Qaeda, and there was a clear initial objective: dismantle the Taliban, and deny Al Qaeda safe haven.

The invasion showcased the best of modern American military strength and ingenuity: we went in with Special Forces and heavy air power, and formed critical alliances.

The Taliban were ousted from power, and Al Qaeda fled. We kept a limited force in Afghanistan to wage counterterrorism and we understood, at first, the limits of nation building in a country decimated by over 30 years of constant war.

​Only after our initial success did the lack of a clear objective give rise to mission creep.  Today Afghanistan is more violent than when President Obama came into office.

He deployed another 50,000 troops, nearly doubling our forces in Afghanistan, and added $120 billion dollars to the deficit.

And yet, the results are discouraging. The leading cause of death among our soldiers now comes from enemies disguised in the uniforms of our allies.

1,422 troops have died since President Obama ordered the surge.

We have now spent more money in Afghanistan than we did for the Marshall Plan and yet after the killing of Bin Laden and the toppling of the Taliban, it is hard to understand our exact objective.

Stalemate and perpetual policing seem to be our mission now in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria.

A precondition to the use of force must be a clear end goal. We can’t have perpetual war.

A second principle is that Congress, the people’s representative, must authorize the decision to intervene.

Reagan’s defense secretary, Caspar Weinberger, outlined a systematic approach to sending American troops to war.

A critical component of this doctrine is support from the American public.

The Libyan war was fought without the approval of Congress or the American people.

President Obama claimed our military was “being volunteered by others to carry out missions” in Libya.  He fundamentally misunderstands our Republic.

Let me be very clear:

France doesn’t send our men and women in uniform to war, the United Nations doesn’t send our soldiers to war, Congress, and only Congress can constitutionally initiate war!

The war in Libya was not in our national interest. It had no clear goal and it led to less stability.

Today, Libya is a jihadist wonderland, a sanctuary and safe haven for terror groups across North Africa.

Our Ambassador was assassinated and our Embassy forced to flee over land to Tunisia.  Jihadists today swim in our Embassy swimming pool.

The Obama administration, urged on by Hillary Clinton, wanted to go to war but didn’t anticipate the consequences of war.

Libya is now more chaotic and America is less safe.

War should not be a unilateral decision taken in the isolation of the White House. But that is what happened.

In failing to seek Congressional authority, President Obama missed a chance to galvanize the country. He missed a chance to lead.

A President who recognizes the Constitutional limitations of power is not weakened, but actually empowered by the public debate that comes with a declaration of war.

I support a strategy of air strikes against ISIS.

Our airpower must be used to rebalance the tactical situation in favor of the Kurds and Iraqis and to defend Americans and our assets in the region.

Just as we should have defended our consulate in Benghazi, so too we must defend our consulate in Erbil and our embassy in Baghdad.

I don’t support arming the so-called Sunni moderates in Syria, though.

I said a year ago and I say it again now. The ultimate sad irony is that we are forced to fight against the very weapons we send to Syrian rebels.

The weapons are either indiscriminately given to “less than moderate rebels” or simply taken from moderates by ISIS.

600 tons of weapons have been given to the Syrian rebels, inadvertently creating a safe haven for ISIS.

Although I support the call for defeating and destroying ISIS, I doubt that a decisive victory is possible in the short term, even with the participation of the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and other moderate Arab states.

In the end, only the people of the region can destroy ISIS. In the end, the long war will end only when civilized Islam steps up to defeat this barbaric aberration.

A third principle is the belief that peace and security require a commitment to diplomacy and leadership.

Around the world we see the consequences of failed diplomacy and absence of leadership after 6 years of the Obama administration.

Military force is meaningless if our leaders cannot reinforce American diplomacy through engagement and leadership.

President Obama never invested in relationships with Congress, and the same is true of his foreign policy. To have friends, you have to be a friend.

In the run up to the Gulf War in 1991, Arab nations believed that once President Bush drew a line, he wouldn’t let Iraq cross it.

And President Bush didn’t “dance on the Berlin Wall” when it crumbled; instead he worked behind the scenes to help the Cold War end calmly.

In light of the new threat posed by ISIS, I believe it is even more imperative that Tehran and Washington find an effective diplomatic solution for limiting the Iranian enrichment program. A nuclear armed Iran would only further destabilize a region in turmoil.

Another diplomatic challenge is Russia’s military intervention in Ukraine. Putin’s actions not only threaten Ukraine, but represent a threat to the post-Cold War European order.

I support the sanctions that the U.S. and the European Union put in place against Russia.

I also agree with the measures taken at the NATO Summit to increase the Alliance’s military preparedness, especially increased European defense spending.

We need to use sanctions and defense spending to achieve a diplomatic settlement that takes into account Russia’s long-standing ties with Ukraine and allows Kiev to develop its relations both with Russia and the West.

As Kissinger put it: “If Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side’s outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them.”

Ukraine is geographically and historically bound to both regions.

We will need to understand that even with our help, Ukraine will not be able to stand up to Russian pressure unless it undertakes some fundamental reforms, such as stamping out corruption and restructuring its energy sector.

This brings me to the last principle I’d like to discuss today: we are only as strong as our economy.

Admiral Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, put it succinctly:  the biggest threat to our national security is our debt.

A bankrupt nation doesn’t project power but rather weakness.

Our national power is a function of the national economy. During the Reagan renaissance, our strength in the world reflected our successful economy.

Low growth, high unemployment, and big deficits have undercut our influence in the world. Americans have suffered real consequences from a weak economy.

President George W. Bush understood that part of the projection of American power is the exporting of American goods and culture.  His administration successfully brokered fourteen new free trade agreements and negotiated three others that are the only new free trade agreements approved since President Obama took office.  Instead of just talking about a so-called “pivot to Asia,” the Obama administration should prioritize negotiating the Trans-Pacific Partnership by year’s end.

Free trade and technology should be the greatest carrot of our statecraft.

Trade is a critical element of building a productive relationship with other nations, including China.

While our relations with China are complicated, trade has drawn us together and mutual investment can also play a constructive role. In an era in which geopolitics could drive us apart, we need to look for new areas for US-Chinese cooperation.

Promoting free markets should be a priority.

The only long-term strategy that will change the world is fostering successful capitalist economies that increase living standards and connect people through trade.

From Kiev to Cairo to Tunis, we are witnessing a historic time of protest against the injustice of overbearing, corrupt governments.

If the long war is ever to end, we must understand the frustrations of the street.

It isn’t always abject poverty or religion that motivates recruits or sets off conflict.

Often it is the despair and humiliation that comes from overbearing government.

Twenty-six year old Mohamed Bouazizi, the Tunisian street merchant who set himself afire and began the Arab Spring, was an aspiring entrepreneur foiled by a corrupt government.

Bouazizi had a dream: he’d save for a pick-up truck. But cronyism and an overbearing government stifled his dream.

Constantly harassed for money he didn’t have, Bouazizi doused himself in kerosene and lit a match.

My great-grandfather came to America with a dream not unlike Bouazizi’s. He peddled vegetables until he saved enough to purchase a truck, elevating him to what they called then a “truck farmer,” a level that allowed him to purchase a home and small bit of land.

The difference between America in the late nineteenth century and places in the Middle East…South Asia..Africa…and South America…today is that bribes and cronyism were not necessary to get a license to purchase a truck or sell vegetables.

Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto spoke to Bouazizi’s brother and asked if he left a legacy. Bouazizi’s brother responded: “Of course, he believed the poor had the right to buy and sell.”

Tonight I have outlined the principles we must remember if we are to advance security, peace, and human dignity.

These principles of conservative realism are a return to traditional Republican values that recognize our limits and realize our might.

Americans yearn for leadership and for strength, but they don’t yearn for war.

Our enemies should bear witness to the unmatched and unstoppable American force that was justifiably unleashed after 9/11 and know that terrorism will never defeat America, that terrorism will only awaken and embolden our resolve.

But the world should also know that America aspires to peace, trade, and commerce with all.

That though we will not abide injustice we will not instigate war.

That our noblest intentions are sincere and war will always be our last resort, and that “our reluctance for war must not be mistaken for lack of resolve” …

That the exceptional ideas that formed our republic unify us in the defense of freedom, and we will never back down in the defense of our naturally derived, inalienable rights.