Articles and More!: Matt

Showing posts with label Matt. Show all posts

Sunday, April 6, 2014

Glenn Beck on Matt Bevin: "I Believe That Man Was Called Of God"

Glenn Beck strongly supports Senate hopeful Matt Bevin (KY) who is challenging Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky’s Republican primary.

RealClearPolitics Video Log

Glenn Beck on Matt Bevin: "I Believe That Man Was Called Of God"

Friday, March 7, 2014

South Park creator Matt Stone on the ever-expanding boundaries of comedy

At Alternate Viewpoint, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us (See this article to learn more about Privacy Policies.). This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by Alternate Viewpoint and how it is used.

Log Files

Like many other Web sites, Alternate Viewpoint makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol (IP) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider (ISP), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user"s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons

Alternate Viewpoint does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie

Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on Alternate Viewpoint.

Google"s use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to Alternate Viewpoint and other sites on the Internet.

Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html.

These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on Alternate Viewpoint send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

Alternate Viewpoint has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. Alternate Viewpoint"s privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browser"s respective websites.

South Park creator Matt Stone on the ever-expanding boundaries of comedy

Monday, February 24, 2014

It’s Matt Miller Time!

It’s Matt Miller Time!
http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2014/02/24/it-s-matt-miller-time-longtime-radio-host-runs-for-congress/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/1393242577081.cached.jpg

Politics

02.24.14

The race to replace Henry Waxman is on, and the host of ‘Left, Right, Center’ is at the helm, looking to do more than just talk the talk.

Ira Glass for President! Robert Siegel for Vice-President! Nina Totenberg for attorney general, obviously, and then maybe those Car Talk guys can share the job of Secretary of Transportation. Fundraisers will phase away, of course, in favor of pledge drives.

The complete public radio takeover of federal government may still be a long ways off, but the Tote Bag caucus in the House of Representatives could grow by one come November when Matt Miller, the longtime host of the nationally syndicated public affairs show “Left Right and Center” hopes to be sworn into Congress, replacing the retiring Henry Waxman.

Miller, who is also a columnist for The Washington Post (and a former one for The Daily Beast), said that he had looked at getting on the other side of the microphone for a while.

“I spent a good chunk of my life writing books and columns and trying to figure out what the answers are to the biggest challenges the country faces,” said the one-time Clinton admin official in a phone interview from his home in Los Angeles, where “Left, Right Center” is based out of local public radio station KCRW. “I always thought that when Henry Waxman stepped aside I would look at this.”

Miller certainly has fluency both around a microphone and around the big ideas that campaigns are supposed to be about.

Waxman, a liberal icon who counts the Clean Air Act and Obamacare among his many achievements in a nearly four decade career, suddenly announced his retirement last month—“no one thought it would happen so soon,” Miller said. “We had to do some quick soul-searching as a family”—and the race to replace him is quickly turning into one of the most entertaining political battles of the year.

Besides Miller, there is Wendy Greuel, a former city controller who by most accounts would be the mayor of Los Angeles by now had she not run an inept race against Eric Garcetti. There is Ted Lieu, a state lawmaker who has become the quick favorite of local progressives.

California is still getting used to its “Top Two” primary system, which means that the top two vote getters—regardless of party—face-off in the general election, even if one them wins the primary in a landslide. This has provided an opening to Marianne Williamson, a New Age guru and the author of works like The Gift of Change: Spiritual Guidance for Living Your Best Life and A Course In Weight Loss: 21 Spiritual Lessons for Surrendering Your Weight Forever, who is running as an Independent. Once thought to be something of joke candidate, Angelenos say she is now gaining traction, threatening to pour some of her own career fortune as a popular guru into the race, and hiring both former Howard Dean political advisor Joe Trippi and a former longtime Wendy Greuel advisor to run her campaign.

“I am completely inspired by her,” said Howie Klein, founder and treasurer of Blue America PAC and a prominent progressive blogger. He said that the Williamson campaign has been in touch with liberal lions of the House like Alan Grayson and Keith Ellison.

“Politics for me is of a spiritual nature. A lot of us on the left have forgotten that,” he added. “Why do people call her ‘flaky’? Because she has a spiritual approach? Marianne Williamson has saved people’s lives.”

Miller then, who represents the “center” on “Left, Right and Center,” has to position himself as someone more grounded than a guru, but an outsider who doesn’t have the baggage that his other opponents, with their long careers in office, have.

“I think he will run as an alternative that is not that alternative,” said Raphael J. Sonenshein, the executive director of the Pat Brown Institute for Public Affairs. “In California politics, having the establishment behind you is really great right up until the moment it becomes a huge liability.”

Miller comes with his own advantages, including a fundraising base that stems from being a sort of local celebrity and a national voice on the need to radically modernize much of how government works. Plus, although Miller now sounds more like a candidate than a radio host who likes to provocate both left and right, he is not naïve about the challenges in winning over the Democratic base.

“It is very hard for someone who is not a career politician entering the arena to get all of the endorsements that the career politicians who have been working on them for two decades. I respect and honor all of those groups. I think [endorsements] will be a challenge, but as a practical matter I think I need to run a different kind of campaign, one that offers solutions to voters in ways that will break through the same old same old,” he said.

Miller certainly has fluency both around a microphone and around the big ideas that campaigns are supposed to be about. In the course of a brief interview, he moved easily between keeping health costs down, making the teaching profession more attractive, and the need to invest in the nation’s crumbling infrastructure, pausing only to let his dog pawing at his door in. (“My research assistant,” he said.)

To anyone who has listened to his show, it is a familiar spiel, with Miller chastising the GOP for being “retrograde and nihilist” and Democrats for being “timid and inadequate.”

“Do you know Marty Feldstein?” he said, queuing up a rant he has delivered probably hundreds of times on air. “He was a chief economic advisor to Ronald Reagan. He says we need a 200 billion dollar infrastructure plan. That is an order of magnitude bigger than the mainstream debate that Washington is talking about. Barack Obama doesn’t have a $ 200 billion infrastructure plan. The progressive caucus does. What is going on in our debate when you have the progressive caucus and Reagan’s economic advisor saying this is the magnitude of what we do to our infrastructure. But the mainstream debate isn’t there.”

Miller has often written and spoken about how some favored liberal programs like social security and Medicare need to be reformed in order for there to be money for progressive causes that address inequality. It may be a trickier dance in a primary in which the most partisan Democrats are often the only ones who show up at the polls. He mostly avoids calling himself a “centrist” now.

“I like to say that the center in Los Angeles is practically Marxist in the rest of the country. So what I try to do is move common sense solutions To. The. Center,” he said, pausing after each word to make sure his meaning was clear. “As Democrats we need to speak much more boldly about how we address inequality and not just pay lip service to these ideas.”

Likewise, Miller often had warm things to say about groups like No Labels and Americans Elect, which tried to get people into office outside of the traditional party system—a system that Miller is now trying to work to his own benefit.

“I sometimes wrote in favor of what Americans Elect was doing. I know [group founders] Nancy Jacobson and Jon Huntsman—I tried to recruit Jon Huntsman to our show and he said he agrees with me too much to be on our show! I said, ‘John I watched you in the Republican primary, I don’t think so!’—But I admire what those folks are doing and anyone who tries to bring a problem-solving lens to politics. What I was trying to do with all of my work is challenge the terms of the debate.”

There are, to be sure, other former radio pros who have been elected to Congress, including Trey Radel, the former Florida member who was recently busted for cocaine, former Arizona Rep. J.D. Hayworth, and Blake Farenthold, a Tea Party member from Texas. But polling stations are littered with the dreams of those who hoped to hop over from talking about the news to making it themselves.

Miller, though, disputed the notion that behind every political commentator is a would-be-politician waiting for their moment.

“I actually think when you are a communicator and observer you can try to influence the debate and hope people adopt your ideas. I feel very fortunate. I have written books that presidents read—you know, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and Paul Krugman and Bill Bradley and Bob Kerry all have been very generous in the praise of some of what I have written. But my wife says, you have been writing these books for 15 years and nothing has changed. Don’t you think it is time you get in there yourself?”

Upworthy

What You Can Do To Help The Planet Just One Day A Week The Science Behind Why Humans Get Bored Is Inexplicably V…Unmistakable Proof That Something’s Wrong With Our Justic…

Vulture

Tim Meadows Cast As Casey Wilson’s Dad Fox Is Making a Dennis Rodman North Korea Movie Anchorman 2 to Get Re-Released With New Jokes

CNBC

Ukraine’s ousted president wanted for mass murder US should protect privacy of all: Mozilla chair World’s biggest companies pay out $ 1 trillion in dividends

The Daily Beast – Latest Articles

Read more about It’s Matt Miller Time! and other interesting subjects concerning Commentary at TheDailyNewsReport.com

Sunday, February 23, 2014

Fmr. Bush aide Matt Dowd: Arizona anti-gay Christians are like Islamic terrorists

President George W. Bush’s former chief strategist Matthew Dowd on Sunday likened Christians in Arizona who are using religion to discriminate against LGBT people to Islamic terrorists.

Last week, Arizona’s legislature passed a bill that would allow business owners to assert religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against gay and lesbian customers.

On Sunday, ABC’s Martha Raddatz asked Dowd to predict if Gov. Jan Brewer (R) would sign the bill into law.

“I think, in the end, Gov. Brewer is probably going to veto this because it seems like an easy veto for her to do because of everything that’s going in the business economy there,” Dowd explained.

“This is one of those problems when people use religion as a way to sort of enforce discriminatory practices,” he continued. “People used religion back in the 1860s when they defended slavery. They used religion to defend slavery.”

“We’ve used religion to go to war. People have criticized Islam because they use religion to fight people and kill people. This is the problem with that [bill].”

Latest from Crooks and Liars

Fmr. Bush aide Matt Dowd: Arizona anti-gay Christians are like Islamic terrorists

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Matt Drudge Tweets Report Warning About the Suicide of the GOP

Infowars.com
February 18, 2014

Matt Drudge, editor of the Drudge Report, told his readers to tune into the Alex Jones Show today for Phyllis Schlafly’s special report by on how amnesty will destroy both the GOP and the remaining liberties of Americans.

Below is Schlafly’s full report:

Amnesty = Suicide for Republican Party

Republicans are getting a lot of unsolicited advice about how to recover from last year’s defeat, and most of it is either ignorant or coming from people who don’t have Republican Party victories in their game plan. One of the worst of these bits of advice is that Republicans should join a bipartisan push for immigration amnesty.
Amnesty advocates shrink from using the word amnesty and try hard to shroud their message in deceptive words. So let’s understand their vocabulary: reform, comprehensive, earned legal status, and path to citizenship are all code words for amnesty. Conservatives agree with Rep. Steve King (R-IA) that the essence of amnesty is to “reward them with the objective of their crime,” and agree with Ann Coulter who told CPAC that amnesty is “suicidal” for Republicans.
Promises by the amnesty advocates to secure the border after the illegals are granted residency, or even simultaneously, are unbelievable. In the famous words of Yogi Berra, an oral agreement is not worth the paper it is written on.

Rules for Addressing Amnesty

First, we want and expect a border fence to be built like the efficient, successful fence that protects the border near San Diego. That means a 12-foot-high double fence with a road in between. A fence on our southern border was required by a 2006 federal law, and signed by President George W. Bush in a well-publicized photo op. The government spent $ 2 billion on what was called a virtual fence; it didn’t work, and now is being dismantled at great expense.

Second, we want enforcement of the entry-exit system, whereby people admitted on visas are tracked to make sure they leave the U.S. when their temporary visa expires. That’s another federal law that has never been enforced.

Third, we want a law that requires employers to use E-Verify for new and current employees. This is as simple as having retailers check your credit card when you make a purchase; just put your credit card or your Social Security number in a machine and you get an immediate answer as to whether it’s valid. Americans must provide our Social Security number when we apply for a job, and immigrants should not be exempt from laws the rest of us must obey. This simple procedure would identify the illegals and thereby make many jobs available to unemployed Americans.

Fourth, eliminate all schemes for the admittance of guest workers, both the uneducated who take entry-level jobs away from our own high-school dropouts, and the H-1B and other special-purpose visas (a system rife with fraud) who take jobs away from our own college graduates because the big companies prefer to hire lower-paid foreigners.

Fifth, enforce cooperation between federal and state immigration authorities, so when a state picks up an illegal he can be immediately turned over to the feds. This cooperation should also eliminate the so-called Sanctuary Cities, where federal immigration law is ignored.

Sixth, reinstate the rule that was in effect for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who came through Ellis Island. If they had a major disease or failed to provide proof that they would not become a public charge, they were sent back to their home country.

Seventh, develop a constructive plan to assimilate the legal immigrants who have come to our country over the last 25 years. This includes using the major way earlier immigrants were assimilated: having their children in public schools taught only in English, and abolishing the unpopular, expensive hiring of teachers of dozens of foreign languages to supervise immigrant kids speaking their native language year after year, never learning English.

Eighth, stop lying to Republicans, falsely telling them that amnesty is the key to increasing their Hispanic vote. There isn’t a shred of evidence to support that notion, and there’s plenty of evidence that amnesty delivers votes to Obama Democrats because, as reported by the Washington Post-Kaiser survey, 67% of Hispanics favor a “larger federal government with many services.”

Ninth, stop peddling the false notion that amnesty is the “Christian” thing to do. Amnesty will betray Hispanics because it will encourage the entry of new illegals, mostly below the poverty line, making it impossible for legal or assimilated immigrants to achieve the American dream.

Hypocrisy of Amnesty Advocates

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results. The Ronald Reagan amnesty of 1986 was a conspicuous failure, and a virtually identical plan failed in 2007 when it was pushed by John McCain, Ted Kennedy and George W. Bush.

Now the establishment has lined up eight Senators plus a media chorus to resurrect the Reagan amnesty. That may make sense if you are seeking leftwing Democratic votes, but it is insanity for conservatives and suicide for Republicans.

The Reagan amnesty admitted twice as many illegals as expected and was riddled with fraud and cheating. It started a gigantic stream of illegal aliens to walk, swim, or bribe their way across the border into the U.S. that has continued to this day.

The amnesty pushers are counting on Americans not to remember the Reagan failure, and counting on the American people’s ignorance of arithmetic and politics. They are also hoping to make Republicans believe amnesty is the key to getting the Hispanic vote plus the key to conning religious citizens into believing amnesty is the way to practice Christian compassion.

The amnesty proposal cooked up by six Senators who claim to be bipartisan is essentially the same plan that aroused the fury of the grassroots in 2007 and covered Congressmen with a tsunami of messages. However, this time we know the cost, and that’s truly scary. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimates that this amnesty plan will cost the U.S. taxpayers “$ 2.5 Trillion above any taxes paid in” because the majority of illegal aliens who would eventually be legalized by the proposal are uneducated and poor. At least 60% are high school dropouts so they live below the poverty level and will be eligible to receive many of our 79 varieties of welfare handouts. What they may pay in income taxes will be nullified by the cash refunds known as Earned Income Tax Credit.

The entire plan should be illegal because it violates a federal law that anyone granted entry into the U.S. must be financially self-supporting and not likely to become a public charge.
Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) pointed out that “We know already that the Administration refuses to enforce existing law restricting immigrant welfare use, and in fact promotes expanded welfare use to immigrants, including food stamps, public housing, and Medicaid. . . . What good are promises of future enforcement when the Administration covertly undermines those laws now in place?”
There is no evidence that supporting amnesty will give Republicans a greater share of the Hispanic vote, and amnesty advocates are plainly dishonest when they assert the contrary. In the election following the Reagan amnesty, George H.W. Bush got only 30% of the Hispanic vote in 1988, and only 25% when he ran for reelection in 1992. We’ve been told that George W. Bush was well-liked by the Hispanics, but he got only 35% of the vote when he was elected in 2000.

When Hispanics are asked what issues they care most about, immigration usually ranks only fifth. Hispanics who come from countries where big government is a permanent fact of life and where the economic systems are based on bribery are unlikely prospects for the Republican message of limited government and restraints on government spending.
John McCain, the loudest advocate of amnesty in 2006 and 2007, got only 31% of the Hispanic vote when he ran for president in 2008. Any amnesty plan, no matter how it is dressed up, is a formula for more Democratic votes and big-government, big-spending policies.

A couple of coalitions have formed to try to convince religious groups that amnesty is a manifestation of Christian compassion to welcome the stranger. In fact, amnesty betrays the immigrants by forcing them to compete with a steady stream of new immigrants and guest workers, thereby insuring that they will never be able to rise out of poverty and achieve the American dream.
This was well understood by the famous advocate for the rights of Hispanic immigrants, Cesar Chavez. Long deceased, he is still such a Hispanic icon that the National Education Association (NEA), year after year, passes a resolution calling for a national holiday to honor Cesar Chavez, and it’s already a state holiday in California.

Chavez was vehemently opposed to illegals coming across the Mexican border because they took jobs from legal immigrants. He ordered union members to call the Immigration and Naturalization Service and report illegals working in the fields so our government could deport them. Chavez got his supporters to picket INS offices to demand a crackdown on illegals, and he offered staff to the INS to serve as volunteer border guards to keep Mexicans from sneaking into the U.S.

Tremendous Costs of Amnesty

The Senate Budget Committee reports that amnesty advocates plan to ignore Section 212 of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, which states that any immigrant is “inadmissible” who is “likely at any time to become a public charge.” After those who illegally entered the U.S. obtain legal residence and get a green card, they can access the 79 federal welfare benefits and anti-poverty programs.

The Senate Budget Committee staff estimates that costs to the U.S. taxpayers could be $ 40 billion a year just for Medicaid and ObamaCare. Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation believes that the net cost of amnesty would eventually top $ 2 trillion. One in three immigrant-headed households already participates in at least one major welfare program. Green card holders are already eligible for Medicaid, TANF, Supplemental Security Income, child care assistance, food stamps, and a variety of other welfare benefits and public aid programs.

Who will protect the taxpayers against this gigantic raid on our money and our children’s future?

The American people are demanding real border security in order to prevent the entry of a new flood of illegals. But Homeland Security officials just told Congress that they still don’t have any way to effectively measure border security. Three years ago, the Obama Administration scrapped the yardstick that was supposed to measure how many miles of the border are under “operational control.” Top Customs and Border Protection officials told Congress in March that the new system they are now working on won’t be ready for use any time in the near future.
Another setback for the Gang of Eight’s amnesty scheme was April newspaper headlines stating “A sharp drop in job growth sows new concerns.” The average Joe in America can’t support the idea of giving permanent residency to 11 million foreign job-seekers when our own labor-force participation is lower than it’s been in 25 years.

Do we really need more high-school dropouts looking for U.S. jobs? Don’t we have enough Americans trying to support their families who can’t find full-time jobs? Why should available jobs go to aliens who broke our laws instead of to American citizens?

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) gave a chilly brushoff of Senator Marco Rubio’s call for thorough legislative consideration of any immigration bill, with time for public comment and consideration of amendments. Leahy plans to bypass the usual committee process, hold only a single hearing, and push the bill through the Senate “with all deliberate speed.” Everyone recognizes those as woefully inadequate to deal with dozens of amnesty issues such as how legalization of millions of illegals will impact unemployed Americans, the short- and long-term cost to the taxpayers, and metrics for establishing border security.

Leahy appears to be planning to imitate the Nancy Pelosi model of dealing with legislation, namely, the procedure she used to pass ObamaCare: first pass the bill, and after that, “you can find out what’s in it.”

Another roadblock that no one is yet discussing is that, according to a new Rasmussen survey, the majority of American voters (54%) do not think that potential U.S. citizens should be allowed to maintain any dual citizenship. If you listen to what illegal aliens are saying, it’s rather clear that most plan to retain significant loyalty to their homeland, and some even claim that Mexico rightfully owns our southwest states. We should remind all illegal aliens that U.S. citizenship requires applicants to swear this solemn oath, which is a good way to sort out the ones who really want to be Americans.

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen.”

Autopsy for the Republican Party?

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus recently issued a 97-page political opus telling Republicans what they should do now. The document was quickly dubbed the Autopsy, which means the dissection of a body after death. Some people are hoping the Republican Party is dead, but the grassroots are raring to rise up and fight. Support for the Republican Party is down, but the number of people who call themselves conservative is holding steady. They face the same old choice-not-an-echo battle: grassroots conservative Republicans vs. the liberal, globalist Establishment RINOs (Republicans in Name Only).

The Priebus manifesto was written by Party insiders who are very Establishment so they avoided taking any blame for their disastrous election loss in 2012. They predicted their victory right up to and including Election Day.

The Autopsy included a lot of chatter about “growth” and “opportunity,” plus 30 mentions of the need to be more “inclusive,” but that warm and fuzzy invitational language doesn’t extend to those who want to do something so daring as to nominate conservative candidates who aren’t afraid to talk about the right to life and traditional marriage. The Autopsy pompously declared, “You have to have candidates who don’t make tragic mistakes.” But the worst mistakes were made by the Establishment’s own candidate, Mitt Romney, who failed to use so many issues that connect with the American people. The dozen losses of Establishment-selected candidates for President and Senate show that the people writing the Autopsy have a worse record of picking candidates than the grassroots, who have been picking winners such as Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and Mike Lee.

Democratic Party strategist Pat Caddell summed up the Republican Party’s principal problem in a hard-hitting speech at CPAC. He said, “The Republican Party is in the grips of what I call the CLEC — the Consultant, Lobbyist, and Establishment Complex,” which he defined as a “self-serving interconnected network of individuals interested in preserving their own power far more than in winning elections.” “Just follow the money,” Caddell reminded us, commenting on the hundreds of millions of dollars this group spent while losing most of their so-called “moderate” candidates. Despite their shocking losing record, and despite being so well-paid for zero results, the same Establishment strategists now have the impudence to tell us we should hire them to reform the Republican Party.

The Autopsy stated solemnly that a “healthy debate of ideas is fundamentally good for the Republican Party.” Agreed. But the Establishment is always determined to suppress all debate or discussion of social, moral, or national security ideas by Republican candidates.

The Autopsy even gave the back of its hand to Republican hero Ronald Reagan, implying that he is now ancient history. But Reagan gave us a model of defeating the Establishment candidate, George H. W. Bush, in 1980, and then going on to win two spectacular national elections.

The most insufferable part of the Autopsy is the way these Republican losers presume to tell us that the way to attract new voters is to embrace comprehensive immigration of Hispanics. All available evidence shows that endorsing any form of amnesty will produce votes for Democrats, not Republicans.

The Autopsy recommends a bunch of changes in Party rules, all of which would enhance the power of Establishment candidates, and freeze out grassroots candidates who are authentic conservatives. The Autopsy fails to encourage a commitment to traditional Republican principles, such as marriage and military superiority, which are clearly enunciated in the national Republican Platform adopted in Tampa last year. Some have forgotten that Ronald Reagan advised us to run on a platform of “bold colors with no pastel shades.”

Battle for Control of the Republican Party

Karl Rove has declared war on grassroots conservatives and Tea Parties. Rove, who had the richest Super PAC in 2012 (American Crossroads, which reportedly spent $ 300 million in the 2012 election cycle) has started a new fund called Conservative Victory Project to spend big bucks in the 2014 Republican primaries to defeat Republican candidates not approved by the Establishment.
Rove’s big-money spending last year, which was similarly designed to help only Establishment candidates, especially if they had defeated a real conservative in the primary, was notoriously unsuccessful. Of the 31 races in which Rove aired TV ads, Republicans won only 9, so his donors got little return on their investment.

Establishment losers included Rick Berg who lost in North Dakota and Denny Rehberg who lost in Montana, even while Romney was carrying both those states. Other Establishment losers were George Allen in Virginia, Tommy Thompson in Wisconsin, Connie Mack in Florida, and Heather Wilson in New Mexico.

Meanwhile, Rove was helping Harry Reid to keep control of the Senate by trying to defeat real conservatives nominated by grassroots Republicans. Rove made nasty and hurtful remarks about conservative candidates he didn’t like.

There are two reasons why Rove and his rich donors don’t like grassroots Republicans and Tea Partiers. The Establishment can’t order them how to vote, and the Establishment wants candidates to talk only about economic issues, never about social, moral, or national-security issues.

Rove is supposed to be so savvy about politics, but let’s test that. On election morning, he released his final predictions that “Romney will win Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, New Hampshire, Ohio, Iowa and Colorado.” Obama carried all but one of those states.

Establishment candidates should be called “me-too” Republicans, a label coined to describe two-time presidential loser Tom Dewey and Nelson Rockefeller who said “me too” to liberal and internationalist Democratic programs. Me-too can also be applied to recent Establishment losers: Bob Dole, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. We should revive the famous words of the late Senator Everett Dirksen rebuking the Establishment: “We followed you before, and you led us down the road to defeat.”

Fortunately, we are seeing an emergence of a new Reagan Republican Party. In 2010 and 2012, Republicans elected some real conservatives to the Senate after defeating Establishment candidates in the primaries: Rand Paul in Kentucky (who defeated Mitch McConnell’s choice), Ted Cruz in Texas (who defeated a very wealthy Establishment candidate), and Marco Rubio in Florida (who defeated Establishment candidate Florida Governor Crist, who then showed his true colors and became a Democrat).

Jim DeMint (now with Heritage) was another successful non-Establishment Republican Senator. It’s time for the grassroots to take control of the Republican Party away from the elitists who want to choose our candidates, tell them what to say, and how to vote. Next time, we want a real choice, not an Establishment echo.

This article was posted: Tuesday, February 18, 2014 at 12:29 pm

Print this page.

Infowars