What difference is there between the two main political parties anyway? That’s a question that’s come up a time or two recently. Today we have the latest example as Speaker of the House John Boehner states he will support President Obama’s request for Congressional authorization of the use of force on Syria in light of recent chemical weapon attacks. Naturally, many are outraged, including myself and it led the great Matt Drudge to opine:
Why would anyone vote Republican? Please give reason. Raised taxes; marching us off to war again; approved more NSA snooping. WHO ARE THEY?!
— MATT DRUDGE (@DRUDGE) September 3, 2013
It’s a fair question, but I think we need to step back a bit and look at the big picture.
It’s time for the conservative base of the GOP to take the electorate back to school and hit them with the message that while the GOP has lost its way in many respects, it is the only political party that offers intellectually honest debate on the issues of the day. The Democrats has shown their true colors like never before in the run up to this Syrian disaster in the making. While George W. Bush was called the devil for taking us to war in Iraq, the concerns the Democrats had then are now gone. The reasons for supporting a strike on Syria are the same reasons so many “neocons” supported striking Iraq. Bottom line: it doesn’t matter what the facts on the battlefield are…it’s about who is in power at home. A Democrat is in the White House, so military action is okay.
And it’s okay with the GOP leadership in Congress. Unlike their Democrat counterparts, they aren’t so much loyal to their party as they are to the system. Boehner, Cantor, McCain, Graham and the rest see themselves as Philosopher Kings and see the Democrats more as peers than as political enemies. Boehner holds firm on the old tenants of “politics ends at the water’s edge” and all that. Despite the fact he gets stabbed in the back at every turn, he is loyal to his religion which is manifest in being a part of the ruling elite. The Democrats are loyal to their religion, manifest in their own power, no matter what the costs, intellectually or otherwise.
I welcome a 2016 GOP presidential debate that consist of Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, and Chris Christie. All three have different views on foreign policy. The smartest thing one or all of them can do is turn to the camera during one of them disagreements and say “Look at what’s happening here. We Republicans have many different intellectual views on these important issues. You won’t see this in the Democrat debates. That’s because they are intellectually dead as a political party. We make mistakes, have inter-party squabbles, but it’s always over what is best for our country, not what’s best for the party.”
I’ll grant you the hue on this hypothetical is a bit rose-colored (I seriously question the intellectual honesty of Chris Christie, but whatever), but now is the time to make these points . It’s also a good time for the conservatives in the Congress to challenge their party leadership, not just on the issues, but for leadership post. It won’t be successful, but timing is everything when you’re trying to make an impression on the public.
So yesterday there was a big floor battle over the changing of some RNC rules that some say would squelch the grassroots and give more power to the beltway insiders of the party. Many were shocked (shocked!) at this power-grab the establishment wing of the party at a time when unity is needed to defeat Obama. To me, it’s not much of a surprise.
Erick Erickson over at RedState floated an interesting theory.
I’ve been talking to some of the older delegates who have been around for a while. They have a theory that only people who’ve been in politics at this level for a very long time could come up with.
Back in 1992, John Sununu had been pushed out of the White House as Chief of Staff, but was still a committed partisan for George H. W. Bush. Ben Ginsberg was a lawyer with the Republican Party.
In 1992, Pat Buchanan challenged George H. W. Bush, forced his way into the convention as a speaker, and lots of conservatives rallied to him. It was a very bad year for Team George H. W. Bush and to this day social conservatives and Pat Buchanan get blamed.
This year, John Sununu and Ben Ginsberg are with Mitt Romney. They saw an upstart campaign from Rick Santorum, who rallied social conservatives like Pat Buchanan did in 1992. He got himself onto the convention stage with a speech, tonight, on welfare that a number of prominent Republicans are worried about.
The Republican Party has been in a state of civil war for at least 50 years. Back in Goldwater’s day he was fighting a Republican establishment that was “New Deal Light” thus leading to his campaign slogan “A Choice, Not An Echo.” And like those Republicans in the 1960s that weren’t overly concerned about LBJ, many of them today are not as concerned about Obama as they might let on. And why should they be? They are part of the elite and when you’re in that club the rules don’t apply to you. For them, it’s about the game, having a seat at the table. Even if our worst fears are realized with Barack Obama, John Sununu and Ben Ginsberg aren’t going to have to worry about losing their house(s) or standing in an unemployment line. They’re concerned about having a piece of the action and the prestige that comes with it and in some cases, yes, about settling scores. Sununu has been an excellent surrogate in the media for Mitt Romney but many of us will never forget that he is the one responsible for Supreme Court Justice David Souter; a mistake that has had lasting effects. I’m sure Sununu associates the Tea Party with the Pat Buchanan crowd of yesteryear, but the Tea Party isn’t just social-cons; it’s also libertarians like myself who have eyes and know what they’re for.
Bottom line, the GOP civil war is not going to be won or lost by the changing of minds; it’s all about the numbers. Until there’s more of us than there are of them, we don’t have a chance of controlling the party. We’ve made inroads but you see how people like Senator Ron Johnson, who refuse to tow the elitist’s line, get punished with stories planted in the press about “difficulty” and the like. So, to combat this we have to send more Ron Johnsons to Washington. It’s as simple as that. Until we send enough of the right people to Washington, guys like John Boehner will run the party. Don’t get mad, get to work.
I don’t begrudge Hollywood stars having their own political views or expressing them. It’s their right as Americans (try that in your beloved Cuba geniuses!), but you have to wonder about the rationality of a person whose livelihood depends on the movie-going public telling the movie-going public that he hates 50% of them.
Morgan Freeman is a liberal. No surprise, I assumed it. It’s cool. It never bothered me. I enjoyed Shawshank Redemption as did millions of others. Freeman’s role in that film is one for the ages, parodied in pop culture to the point that even if you haven’t seen the film, you at least know the gist. Yet, Freeman seems to believe that while millions of people enjoy his work in countless films (and the “Electric Company”), they also kinda wish he would hang from a tree.
Puzzling, to say the least. There are countless theories on why Hollywood celebrities think the way they do. One strong theory is that it all comes down to guilt. You make millions of dollars pretending to be someone else on camera, you live the high-life, so you feel you must become a warrior for the downtrodden, the environment, anyone that seems to be in opposition to America, etc. Another theory is that when you live in a pretend world, you lose all sense of reality. Or maybe to be a good actor, you just need to be a elitist jerk.
Whatever the case, it’s gonna be hard for me to take Freeman seriously in his future endeavors. It’s one thing to know that the actors you watch on screen don’t agree with you politically, it’s quite another to know that they hate your guts.
The great Erick Erickson breaks down the odds on the GOP field for President this morning at RedState and offers up some very interesting information on Rick Perry and his campaign team:
Carole Strayhorn ran against Perry in the GOP primary in 2006. She and her consultants had their butts handed to them by Perry and his team.
Karl Rove was a key player, despite his occasional denials, in Kay Bailey Hutchison’s defeat at Rick Perry’s hands last year in the Republican primary for Texas Governor.
Even Obama’s campaign guy, David Axelrod, has been crushed by Rick Perry.
So you have these guys, the Romney camp, and all their related friends on the left and the right trying to settle every score they can with Perry and his consultant, Dave Carney.
This, by the way, is why the attacks are coming fast and furious right now. This is why Republicans are leaking to reporters that Perry is too out of control or has, as Alex Castellanos put it on CNN last night, “Mad Cowboy Disease.”
Because so much of the consultant class will be shut out of the White House should Rick Perry win, their livelihoods depend on Rick Perry losing either now or in November. And frankly, for a few in the GOP consultant class, they’ll gladly see Perry lose in November just to ensure they are not shut out of a Republican White House.
Sadly, D.C. is all about making sure you’ve got a place at the table and if not, taking revenge on those who would deny you. This is an example of where the parties merge and form the ruling elite. This both scares the hell out of me and make Rick Perry all that more attractive as a candidate. Erickson says we’ll have to see how he and his team whether the storm in the coming months to see if he can go the distance. True enough.
The thing you have to remember about any journalist, celebrity or politician that breaches “saving the planet,” is that they’re not talking about themselves, they’re talking about everyone else.
Just recently U2’s Bono was being picketed for moving his record company out of Ireland to avoid the country’s heavy taxes. This is the man that calls on everyone, everywhere in the world to give more, to help the third-world by forgiving their debt, and to take care of the needy with more government services. Someone has to pay for it…he wants us to do it.
Then take New York Times columnist Tom Friedman (Hat tip: Gateway Pundit) who when he’s not salivating over the totalitarian model that the Chinese have made “work” so well is telling us we need to have less material goods and concentrate on more non-material “happiness.” In other words, our consumer-driven growth economy is a problem and it needs to stop. However, this is how Tom Friedman helps his planet:
If Friedman is ready to sell his estate and move into a one-bedroom apartment…I’m ready to listen. Until then…
Andrew, ever since I ran into a spot of bother in Canada, I’ve found myself giving speeches in defense of freedom of expression in Toronto, London, Copenhagen, etc. I did not think it would be necessary quite so soon to take the same stand in the land of the First Amendment against craven squishes of the political class willing to trade core liberties for a quiet life. I have no expectations of Harry Reid or the New York Times, but I have nothing but total contempt for the wretched buffoon Graham.
A mob of deranged ululating blood-lusting head-hackers slaughter Norwegian female aid-workers and Nepalese guards — and we’re the ones with the problem?
I urge you to read the whole thing.
Joe Miller and Renee Ellmers need help and the party is AWOL. Absolutely ridiculous.
If these establishment Republicans think we’re taking our ball and going home on November 3rd, they’ve got another thing coming. Bad move, gentlemen.
The junior senator from Tennessee told the gathering of donors not to worry about the incoming class of “crazier Republicans” because the majority of Senate Republicans, especially minority leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had no intention of repealing the president’s health care bill. They instead planned to fix only the “bad parts” of the law, Corker reportedly told the group.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Now can everyone stop calling him a conservative.