In November, it’s all about the conservative Congressional body count *UPDATED*

My mother has announced her voting position this November, and it can be summarized as “a plague on both their houses.”  A Democrat since she came to this country, she is disgusted by the Obamites, and cannot in good conscience vote the Democratic ticket.  However, she told me that she believes that Republicans are virtually indistinguishable from Democrats, so why bother to vote for them either?  She is therefore thinking of sitting this election out.  I suspect she represents the new Independents, who have become so independent that they can’t be bothered with voting at all.

My take on things is that my mother, bless her heart, is dead wrong.  Sure, the game of politics, as played by both politicians and wannabes, is the same as always, complete with jockeying for both power and money.  Given the superficial sameness that afflicts all politicians (same talking points, same power suits, same cant phrases, and canned speeches), it’s really no wonder that my mother looks at Congress as it is, and looks at the new candidates who want to join that club, and thinks that her so-called “choices” merely mean that she can have any colored car, so long as it’s black.

This superficial similarity, however, hides profound ideological differences that are usually hidden when the money is rolling in and security is strong.  When money is scarce, however, and national security is a grave concern, those ideological differences come to the fore, and it matters greatly which party in our two-party system, has the majority:

1.  Republicans do not believe that government is the solution to every problem.  This is true despite the fact that Republicans in Congress regularly take your and my tax dollars to pay for government programs in their home states, all with the hope that they will be reelected.  The fact is that, even though these Republicans believe in greed and power for their own benefit, this does not mean that they buy into the whole Big Government theory.  When the chips are really down, as they were with ObamaCare, Republicans (with the exception of a small, but horribly damaging, handful of RINOs) are able to pull back from the Big Government abyss.  Thus, when it wasn’t just a matter of a freeway or an airport or a museum that would carry their name, they were able to distinguish between garden-variety greed for power and money, on the one hand, and an unconstitutional government takeover of individual freedom, on the other hand.  The fact that they were the minority party, however, made their principled stand ineffectual and irrelevant.

2.  Republicans believe in American exceptionalism.  Whether they are rich or poor, or in between, they think America is a great place.  They believe in the Pledge of Allegiance; they believe in the virtues of America’s capitalist system; they believe in the Constitution; they believe that America is a force for good in the world; and they believe that the American people are good folk.  Because they have been the minority party in Congress since 2006, however, the bills and policy statements emanating from Congress reflect, not the Republican belief in American greatness, but the Democratic belief that America is a spoiled, bullying nation, peopled by racist ignoramuses.

3.  Republicans understand that radical Islam, whether in the form of weapons-carrying jihad or word-carrying Islamist propaganda, is a threat to America and to all of Western civilization.  Even though the average wishy-washy Congressional Republican will usually yield to the liberal media when the “R” word comes out (that would be “racist”), that same Republican still understands that, if you love America, and believe in the Constitution, you ultimately must take a stand against a group of people who hate America and who are quite vocal about their goal of replacing the Constitution with the Koran.  This is why Republicans are a reliable vote for keeping our military well-funded and supporting its missions in Afghanistan and Iraq.  They know that, unless we want this existential war fought on American soil, we’re going to have to fight it abroad — because, one way or another, we’re going to have to fight it.  Unfortunately, what with being the minority party in Congress since 2006, and with having a president who is deeply hostile to American exceptionalism and American values since 2008, Republicans in Congress are increasingly hamstrung and ineffectual when it comes to holding the line against radical Islam.

4.  Israel.  Despite the Jews’ blinkered affiliation with the Democratic party, that party is increasingly hostile to Israel.  The Republican party is consistently supportive of Israel.  While the president may get to be in the driver’s seat for foreign policy, having a Congressional majority that is strongly supportive of Israel matters when it comes to money and morale.  The last two years have amply demonstrated how fragile is Israel’s security when Washington, D.C., is controlled entirely by Democrats.

Bottom line:  Republicans en masse are better than Democrats, because Republican beliefs and values are profoundly different from Democrat beliefs and values.  This is completely separate from the fact that any mass of Republicans is going to have some weak sisters who can be bullied by a majority of Democrats, or by the fact that any mass of Republicans can have some members who have unpleasant behaviors or personal belief systems.

I freely concede every bad thing about O’Donnell — I think she’s a fruit loop, but she’s our conservative fruit loop.   Her election will make the difference between a Republican majority or a continued Democratic majority in Congress.

This is no longer about an individual candidate; this is about a numbers game:  If the good Republicans in Congress are to make a difference, they must have a majority.  Without that, they are useless, and we are in for another two years of unbridled far Left Progressivism emanating from Washington, D.C.  Sadly, it’s not entirely clear to me that the U.S. can handle that strain.  At this point, O’Donnell’s individual merits, which are admittedly few, are infinitely less important than the fact that she, just by being a warm Republican body, may be the pebble that, finally, diverts the Democratic stream.

UPDATE:  I got an email from an astute friend who understands, better than just about anyone, the way votes play out.  He does not think O’Donnell can win — and he’s certainly right on the merits.  Moderate conservatives will run a mile from her, tossing Delaware to the Democrats.  But I’m trying to say that moderate Republicans must get over their revulsion.  Now that the primaries are over, and moderates voted their conscience by trying for a Castle win, I see only three ways for Delaware voters to go:

1.  Vote for O’Donnell, which is a vote to get turn Congress over to the Republicans (which, presumably, is what conservatives, and worried Independents want).

2.  Vote for the Democrat what’s-his-name, which is a vote to keep Congress in the hands of the Democrat party.

3.  Abstain, which is also a vote to keep Congress in the hands of the Democrat party.

In other words, now that the primary is over, this is not about O’Donnell; instead, this about which party controls Congress.  There were a lot of people who, in 2008, refused to hold their noses and vote for McCain, and look at how well that turned out.  Sometimes pragmatism has to override principle.

Be Sociable, Share!
  • jj

    If being a Froot Loop was a dis-qualifier it would be time to turn the capital into condos.

  • Ymarsakar

    It ends up as, “either you are with us or against us”.
    Excuses no longer work for politicians. This is no longer a compromise situation.

  • Oldflyer

    Commented on another blog that if O’Donnell is described as a “flawed” candidate she should fit into the Biden seat perfectly.  Just as Angle should in the Reid seat.
    I don’t know much about O’Donnell.  I have heard repeatedly that she is flawed; had financial troubles when younger, etc.  Does that mean she forgot to pay her taxes?  I didn’t know anyone cared about that.  Certainly, those who vote for Rangel, or tolerate Geitner, do not.
    I do know that O’Donnell was chosen to be the GOP candidate from Delaware in a free and fair election.  She won in a small state in which the electorate certainly had access to everything they needed to know about her. She won despite the opposition of the local and national establishment.  Apparently the people preferred her.   I have no use for any Republican Official who does not support her candidacy.

  • Don Quixote

    Note that this is a test run for the media’s treatment of Palin.  Having nothing substantive to say against candidates, the media resorts to calling the candidate unelectable and dismissing them as not people to be taken seriously.  I hope O’Donnell proves the media wrong and I think Palin just might as well.  Wouldn’t the left dearly love to define OUR candidates as too far out on the fringe when, in reality, its’s the leftists themselves who are out of the mainstream?

  • Don Quixote

    P.S. the same thing was said about Obama, remember?  Hillary Clinton was the safe electable one and the country wasn’t ready for a black president.  We see what that got us.  No one (well, maybe no one since McGovern and Goldwater) is unelectable until the votes are counted.  Go for it!

  • jj

    The problem is, Don, it isn’t all being said by the leftists, or the liberals – and it wasn’t the media that called her unelectable.  That was the Delaware GOP, and the comment that: “she couldn’t be elected dogcatcher” was uttered by that estimable intellect Tom Ross, GOP chair in Delaware.  With jackasses like this around, the media doesn’t have to say anything: these clowns will say it themselves.
    Book avers – essentially, if I read her right – that virtually anyone with an “R” after their name is preferable to anyone with a “D.”  Okay, we’d all like to have a majority of “R’s” in office, sure – but we’ve been there before, and what did it get us – or the country?  If you have a majority, but your majority is Castle, McCain, Graham, Crist, Collins, Snowe, Murkowski – what the hell have you got?  John McCain has been in the senate since the beginning of time, and has yet to notice that for all the times he likes to talk about that he’s crossed the aisle to “get something done” – incidentally stabbing his own party’s agenda in the back – not once has any democrat yet crossed back in the other direction to work with him.  NOT ONCE!  And he’s either so damned dumb he hasn’t yet noticed that, or he’s so enamored of his splendid press as a “maverick” he doesn’t care.  Either way, he’s worthless.
    Csatle actually said that losing Lisa Murkowski was a terrible thing, because most of the democrat senators liked working with her.  What the hell does anyone suppose that to mean?  That she has zero principles and will do it their way at the drop of a hat?  She’s not in the senate so democrats, or the press, will like her.  If she’s your majority – you don’t have one.  If Castle’s your majority – you don’t have one.  If Graham, Snowe, Collins etc. are your majority – you don’t have one.
    I can remember when, not so long, there was a virtual tie in the senate, back in the 90s.  A virtual tie, but not a real tie – the republicans had one vote, but Gore was the tie-breaker in case of a tie.  The democrats suggested that there should therefore be a “power-sharing” arrangement in the senate.  Now, this is exactly the kind of crap you’d expect the democrats to come up with, but the part of it that kills is that the worthless republicans actually considered doing it! Is there anyone on the planet who suspects that if the situation had been reversed and it had been the republicans who proposed power-sharing in the senate, they’d have gotten the words all the way out of their mouths before the democrats had said no?
    We don’t need these people.  We have no use for these people.  The country neither needs nor can it afford these people any more.  The fact that you have an “R” after your name is long since not remotely good enough.
    And the fact that it was precisely these people whose first reaction to O’Donnell’s win was to belittle her, call her names, and refer to her as unelectable just means that maybe it isn’t simply the candidates – maybe Steele and every single state chair needs to get canned, too.  They’re evidently useless – along with being way too full of themselves and in the habit of extraordinarily overestimating their own importance.

  • Bookworm

    Book avers – essentially, if I read her right – that virtually anyone with an “R” after their name is preferable to anyone with a “D.”

    That’s what I’m saying this time around, jj.  I agree that a confederacy of fools and incompetents is always bad, whether they’ve got an R or a D after their name.  But the way our system is set up (at least until California casts the insane vote for open primaries) is that, within a party, the party members get to pick their favorite — then they’re all supposed to shut up and vote for their party’s selectee in the state or national election.

    In this year of all years, I’d rather have awful Rs than apocalyptically horrible Ds in Congress.  O’Donnell is just one R, but she might be the tipping point R, marking the difference between two more years of almost unbridled Obamaism versus two years of stalemate between President and Congress during which, at the very least, the nation can lick its wounds and stagger somewhat upright.

    As I said, I hold no brief for McCain, but the template we’re seeing here is precisely that which we saw in 2008:  Unlike Dems, who seem to be remarkably committed to winning without pesky little principles interfering, Repubs keep putting their principles ahead of winning.  This meant that, instead of the marginal McCain, we ended up with the awful and dangerous Obama, who was not a brake on, but rather encouraged, the most Leftist Congress in American history.

    This “I refuse to hold my nose” approach to voting might be fine during the flush years, but during crisis years, you have to play your principles out as far as you can; and then you have to go for functional pragmatism.  In this case, if you’re not a Tea Partier but devoutly dislike Obama, functional pragmatism in Delaware means casting an O’Donnell vote in November.

  • Gringo

    I  voted third party for years after I left the Democrats, but eventually came to the decision that ABD- anyone but a Democrat- was best implemented by voting for a Republican.
    Politics in this country has a strong strain of voting for the least bad choice. These days, that is nearly always going to be a Republican. The Democrats engaged in a smart strategy in 2006 when they elected moderate “blue dog” Democrats in swing districts.While those candidates would be palatable to independent /centrist voters, most of them would toe the Pelosi line in voting.
    Conclusion: ABD.

  • Danny Lemieux

    I am with y’all on this. I don’t know much about Christine O’Donnell but when Rove and others tried to make an issue of her not paying back her student loans for 12 years…my sympathy for her went way up? How dare she not have a rich daddy or trust fund to pay her way for school (ditto for Sarah Palin, who had to self-fund 100% of her education).
    I am ABD all the way. Our own (Illinois) candidate for U.S. Senate (and former representative) Mark Kirk is a RINO who (despite a very respectable military career) goes wussy on all kinds of issues, depending upon from whence the wind blows. I did not vote for him in the Primary but will vote for him unhesitatingly in November.

  • Earl

    I remember when Marco Rubio couldn’t win the Florida primary against Charlie Crist, and we were all urged not to be fooled and waste our vote.  I also remember when Rubio won (was it MY $10.00 that made the difference?) and suddenly he was a sure loser to the Democrat in the race.  And THEN, that Republican stalwart, governor Charlie Crist, bolted the party and ran AGAINST the Republican Party that had backed him against the insurgent Rubio.  And that was supposed to be the kiss of death for Rubio’s candidacy.  Three times dead that man……
    Anyone noticed what the polls are saying today?
    I want to know the specifics of Christine O’Donnell’s “Froot-Loopian” tendencies – not vague allusions, or mentions of student loan problems, or whatever.  WHAT IS IT that our Republican elitists think makes her unacceptable?  I’ve sent my $10.00 to Christine (was it MY donation that crashed her server?) and I know this for certain — if all Republicans will go into this election full-bore to elect a Republican Senator from Delaware, we’ll have one.
    Of course, y’all will have already read that 46% of Castle’s voters have said in polls that they’ll be voting for the Democrat, and Castle won’t support the candidate of “his party”.  Ooops!  Maybe “his party” never has been the Republicans at all…..did Karl Rove stop to think of that?
    We need to purge the elitists and the RINOs (but I repeat myself) from the GOP, and if that means losing an election here and there, so be it.  But the American people are pretty consistent, by and large, about voting for smaller government and lower taxes — it’s just that the bastards they keep sending to D.C. somehow don’t manage to get it done once they’re ensconced.  Well, this election season may indicate that “the people” have found a new way to get things done.
    I’m hoping, praying, and donating my $10.00 wherever I can to see that it continues and grows.

  • Zhombre

    ABD — I’m good with that!  I used to vote Standard Liberal, or Brain Dead Liberal to borrow David Mamet’s phrase, but no more and never again.  I may dislike many even most Republicans — especially the Republican establishment that is about as subtle as the politboro in dealing with Tea Party insurgents — but I actively despise most Democrats. This woman in Delaware won the primary — and Castle’s geriatric pique and Rove fretting like a distressed hen contemplating a bad egg are appalling.  Pat Caddell has described the mood of the electorate as pre-revolutionary and I suspect we are seeing an incipient peoples rebellion against the “political class”, both the liberal regnancy and Republican complacency.  I think voters are willing to take risks with candidates that run against the grain, since it’s becoming obvious the grain is actually thin veneer and it’s in the process of cracking up.

  • Bookworm

    My fruit loop problem, Earl, is the sexual discrimination lawsuit she filed.  I hate those lawsuits.  I’m a defense lawyer all the way, and 9/10 of those suits that I’ve seen have simply used the legal system for greenmail.  I know that there are real cases of discrimination out there — I just haven’t seen any.  I’ve seen whiners who want to screw their employers.

  • TommyC

    I really don’t care for talk about ‘purges’.  But the simple fact of the matter is that the establishment GOP seems to be having a hard time listening to the rank-and-file.  Just who should be running the show?  The Republicans in Delaware made their choice and it is just tough s**t that it didn’t come out as the party elite had planned.  That is and has been the whole problem with the GOP for years.  You sheep just follow us leaders who know what is best for you.
    I have plenty of problems with O’Donnell, but if the party hadn’t anointed Castle, we might have had a better candidate. I probably would have voted for Castle if I lived in Delaware, but I’d probably be regretting it already.  The big mucky-mucks in the Republican Party had better get it into their thick skulls that this time around it isn’t going to be good enough to do things the old way.  Expectations are high and if they don’t get on board the Tea Party Express, they are going to be left behind at the station.
    Yes, this election I’m going all (R).  Book is right.  This is an election where making a statement critical.  Going all (R) is the best way to make that statement.   But if they don’t do their job, I’m going to try to see that they go the way of Castle, Murkowski, Bennett, and Crist.

  • Mike Devx

    A blogger at another site wrote:
    > You play the game and lose, you bow out gracefully. Murkowski and Castle are showing all the grace of a 2-year-old in need of a spanking and a nap.

    And the same is true of the Delaware GOP establishment.  They refused to support McDonnell after her win.  Mike Castle refused to support her.  John Cornyn, of my own state of Texas, running the national funding for Senatorial campaigns refused to support her, and many of his aides in that godforsaken office disparaged her to the media.

    The GOP Elite does not like her because she is outside their elite.  This *IS* the elite against the rest of us.  There is absolutely no doubt any longer.  They did it to Sarah Palin.  Now they are doing it to Christine McDonnell.  They did it to Joe Miller, too, before the outrage caused Senator A@##^hole Cornyn, from my own state, to stop his organization’s assault against Joe Miller while it was still building.

    These are all conservatives.  The national gop DOES NOT LIKE CONSERVATIVES.  The national gop finds weaknesses among the conservatives and promotes the weaknesses.  This is called submarining them.  This is called doing the enemy’s work.  You can call it doing the devil’s work.  I will call it that.

    If you examine McDonnell’s win solely along the lines laid out by the national gop, then you will have bought their agenda, hook, line, and sinker.  The truth is, her win will have unexpected ramifications.  It could lead to a wellspring of support for conservatism in a wide array of OTHER races, fueling unexpected results across the board!  I’ve always said, beware the law of unintended consequences.

    But why should I be so negative?  Why pronounce, with dire tones, the word “Beware!”.  Why darkly mutter of “consequences”?  Better to say: Expect the unexpected and you won’t be surprised!  There WILL be unexpected consequences!  Unexpected reactions!

    A losing team suddenly goes on a six game winning streak.  The number of fans in the stadium for each game suddenly DOUBLES. TRIPLES.  Where did they all come from?  “We’ve always sort of liked them”, explains one fan who had never shown up before.  “But now I’m EXCITED about them, and I’m proud to be a fan!”

    Unexpected results can come out of nowhere.  I’m not joining with the nauseating gop establishment on McDonnell.  She’s flawed?  I’m flawed.  Do her flaws matter?  How much?  I’m excited by what’s going on out there.

  • Mike Devx

    The honest debate in this election cycle seems to be based on one of two choices:
    1. Vote in such a way as to achieve the targeted political result of creating as many GOP seats as possible in 2010.
    2. Vote in such a way as to promote a long-term conservative resurgence in America
    In some ways these two goals are mutually supportive, but in other ways they are not.  Especially they are often not mutually supportive when voting in a primary, as can most starkly be seen in the Delaware contest between Castle and McDonnell.
    A voting philosophy of #1 almost requires you to vote for Castle, as he *is* in the GOP, and is mildly conservative some of the time, and was almost guaranteed to deliver that seat to the GOP, where-as McDonnell is almost guaranteed to lose it to Coons (note I said “almost guaranteed”).  The damage is long-term: A vote for Mike Castle guarantees a seat is held by someone who is an ardent foe of true conservatism, as can be evidenced by his disgust for the Tea Party movement and McDonnell.
    A voting philosophy of #2 almost requires you to vote for McDonnell, who disregarding other considerations was the clear choice for conservatism, and who articulates her core conservative values very well.  She’s a bedrock conservative who could be counted on to be absolutely reliable.  The damage is short-term: Control of the Senate continuing on with the Democrats – but even there we may very well see a surprise.  I certainly think it’s possible McDonnell can beat out Coons. Difficult even if she runs a masterful campaign, but possible, and for me worth the risk.  But I see it that way because I am a #2 voter.
    If I were a resident of Delaware, I’d have voted for McDonnell.  If she’d lost, I’d then face a choice between Castle and Coons, and clearly I’d vote for Castle, given that as my choice.  You fight it out in the primaries; you come together for the general.  Too bad the establishment is so dismayed and disgusted by the rising revolution that they are fighting it, and the revolution is fighting back against the gop establishment now too.
    What’s unique about the Tea Partiers (in general) is that they are not wide-eyed innocents.  Many are people with highly productive, very very busy personal lives who have finally decided they cannot remain apart from the political process any longer.  Their busy lives are no longer an excuse; they’re compelled out of anger and deep concern to get involved.  And boy oh boy, have they gotten involved – and they are bringing their successful-business-vision, guts, determination and wisdom to the table with them.  The qualities that make their lives and their businesses successful are KEY to what is making their political involvement successful.  You can think of them as being “street-wise” and having “street-cred” in that they have no illusions and, because they’ve basically been winners all their lives due to their qualities, those qualities continue to make them winners – except now their winning is with the Tea Party movement, and it is in the arena of politics, not business.

  • Ymarsakar

    The solution is simple, get rid of Democrats and purge the Republicans.
    People like to proclaim virtue in neutrality because they know they can’t beat either side, let alone both put together.
    So if you want to beat both put together, then you’ll need some fire in the belly.

  • Ymarsakar

    I once said years ago here at Bookworm that the solution to corruption is to hang the bureaucrats and conduct a purge.
    I’m very accessible to opening the net to politicians and the political/senate class as well.
    In the end, you’re either fighting for the US Constitution or you’re fighting for the political class of no good oligarchs and aristos. There is no “pox on both their houses”, unless you want to die, like Mercutio.

  • Don Quixote

    First let’s get the Democrats out of power, then let’s worry about cleaning up the Republican house and making it a fit place for conservatives to live.

  • BrianE

    What we need is to purge Washington of Kenseyians.
    Everything else will take care of itself.

  • suek

    >>Unlike Dems, who seem to be remarkably committed to winning without pesky little principles interfering, Repubs keep putting their principles ahead of winning.>>
    Lots of thoughts.  If the GOP was as stringent about keeping their members in line like the Dems do, I’d agree with you.  But they’re not.  Those same principles prevent them from doing so, and you end up with “mavericks”.  They’re also required by their principles to be “graceful” winners, and to show the same courtesy to the losing team that they’d like shown to them.  We’ve seen that.  So it seems to me that having a GOP majority just isn’t as convincing as having a Dem majority in getting things done the way you want them done.  On the plus side, that means it will be possible to elect conservative members and actually have an effect.
    The second thought is whether we really _want_ a majority.  I’m not sure it’s such a good idea, as long as we don’t have a veto proof majority – which is unlikely.  Maybe it’s a better idea to let the Dems take the weight of responsibility for the full time O is in office, and just continue to be the party of No.
    >>First let’s get the Democrats out of power, then let’s worry about cleaning up the Republican house>>
    I don’t think this will work.  The strength of the incumbents is too great, and if you don’t change the political attitude of the GOP, we’ll end up with the same thing as before…”New team same as the old team” and an aggravated citizenry will just switch majority parties ad infinitum.  I like the idea, but I think you actually have to see changes in the GOP before people are going to accept that it isn’t just more of the same.
    Another angle is one mentioned by my husband last night.  On Hannity’s Panel, the Dem made a comment about “yup…you Conservatives are purging the party of anyone who doesn’t meet your “purist” standards”.  My husband agreed, and said that’s a sure way to lose, that there weren’t enough solid conservatives in the country to support a majority Conservative party.  Which got me thinking – but no answers.
    I think he’s wrong.  First, there are two kinds of Conservatives (basically).  Fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.  Most social conservatives are also fiscal conservatives, but not necessarily vice versa.  I think there are _lots_ of the fiscal conservatives (because it includes both types) – because when you have a fiscally conservative government,  things work better for everybody.  The social conservatives tend to be among the moral majority, which can be a problem – but even the moral majority doesn’t really push for a great deal of regulation of personal actions.  The only really big one is abortion – and most moral majority folks just want that decision regulated by the states instead of the feds.  Of course, they think they can ban abortions on a statewide basis, but that in itself is instructive – people have less control when laws are federal, more control when they’re local.  That’s why Dems want so much federal control, and Conservatives prefer State control.  Federal control makes it easier to seize total control.
    The “big tent” idea is to include all conservatives.  The social conservatives will go along at least until fiscal conservative goals are reached.  At that point, there may be a split along the social engineering goals – but first they’ll unite to achieve fiscal conservancy.
    If he’s _not_ wrong, then there isn’t much point in having a party with conservative goals.  If he’s _not_ wrong, what does the GOP stand for?  If GOP doesn’t stand for “conservative”, what _does_ it stand for?  Is it just “the opposite team”?  In that case, what’s the point?  My position at the moment is that Glenn Beck is right – the problem is “Progressives”, and there are the “fast track” Progressives – the Dems – and the “gradual slide” Progressives – the GOP.  What Conservatives are trying to do is _STOP_ the slide.  If the majority of the country isn’t in agreement, then Socialism, here we come!

  • MacG

    I just posted this in the comments ofthe IJ letter for Thursday and wanted to share:

    Yeah the Libs don’t get it.  Now with their heads in the sand they are saying the TEA party is causing “civil war” with in the Republican party and they are canabalizing it.  What they miss is that the TEA party are the TEA cells that are knocking off the RINO Virus restoring the body of the Rebublican party to health.

  • Ymarsakar

    The Tea Party originates from de-centralized freeholds where the members are beholden to none that is not up to their standards. Thus Sarah Palin is their leader not because she tells them what to do, but because she is the most effective platform from which the Tea Parties can get their interests applied. If she stops working for their goals, then she is no longer their leader. By their decision, not hers.
    This has been called the Freehold. Individual and self-sustaining members that decide themselves what cause and organization they will devote their power, blood, and will to. Other names you may be familiar with would include Army of Davids. Or Flight 93 de-centralized security contingency vs Singapore type centralized control theory.

    Book is right to posit that the two party system is both too well grounded in institution to be changed when we also have to defeat domestic insurgencies and enemies of the Constitution residing with us in the USA at the same time. Since there is no solution to a “third party” that challenges both the Demonrats and the GOP at once, the only option is to take over the institution of the GOP from the ground up. Leftists did it to teacher unions, auto unions, the media, the universities, etc. over decades. If we can’t beat them at their own game, we have no real stature to declare ourselves the victor. The US Constitution requires strength to be defended and weaklings that can’t even beat the Left at their own game, cannot be considered strong. They may be lucky. They may be rich and influential and free because their forefathers gave them that inheritance, but they are not by their own arms, strong.
    Currently many Republican politicians are satisfied with the status quo, because they’re not hurting from the economy. They have their sources of wealth and they can get even more if they work with Democrats to game the system. Their interests do not lie with helping poor Americans. Poor Americans r blacks don’t even vote Republican. The political system is out of balance. Correct the balance of powers, else there is no such thing as “constitutional” government.
    Democrats are a centralized plantation-tyranny, which functions much like a cult. They have cannon fodder members that are the fanatics and sacrificial pieces which propel the “cult leaders” to mass influence and power. Then there are the “Favored Souls” which serve the cult leaders and have the “inside info” that are used to keep the “grass” under control. Look up Jim Jones. The members of his cult tried to get away. Several did. But Jones had armed guards keeping the sheep in. Until the slaughter. More convenient that way don’t you think.
    They are all of the same “cult” just as Democrats are part of the Left, whether they want it or not. They didn’t have a choice in joining the cult and they won’t have a choice in leaving it either.
    The Tea Party is the true future of a Republican party that wishes to defend the Constitution of the United States of America, created and maintained by centuries of blood and honor. Not because of any special person, but because the concept of the Freehold, rather than centralized tyranny and command economy, is what keeps the Constitution alive.
    Remember, the Left means the opposite of what they say. They said Bush was a fascist and Obama was a messiah cum hero. The Left said they wanted the Constitution to live. They lied.

  • Danny Lemieux

    MacG says the TEA party are the TEA cells that are knocking off the RINO Virus restoring the body of the Rebublican party to health.”


    The real battle ground isn’t the Republicans, it is the independents who are disgusted with both parties for not living up to their own rhetoric. To get the independents, we need to clean house and restore confidence in the Republican party. Even a lot of Democrats I know are in favor of fiscal discipline – they just don’t believe the Republicans are willing to fight for it.

  • Michael Adams

    I had to laugh when I read the phrase “My mother, bless her heart.” Book, you lived too long amongst us in the South, and we have marked you. Y’all come back  now, any time. Ya hear?
    As for a supposed disconnect between, or even alliance with, “Social Conservatives” and “Fiscal Conservatives,” Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, and  Anarchism, and a host of less political movements have one goal, the one set by Rousseau, the destruction of the Bourgeoisie. That is why, among other things, there has been a Cloward-Piven attack on the churches, to get them to ordain homosexuals. I have certainly known ministers who were gay or bisexual, in rather conservative denominations. They worked out OK, most of the time.   However,  Neither the Army, nor the Army of God, are so hard up for recruits that they must accept those who bring the possibility of what Clauswitz called ‘friction’. Perhaps I ought to have cited a less inflammatory example, but the flame is the point. The church is not that desperate.  There is no horde of disappointed homosexuals out there trying to get into the seminaries. The purpose is simply disruption. The church, marriage, families, free enterprise, are the institutions of the Bourgeoisie. We are the chosen enemy of the Rousseavians, and they only need to pick the front on which to attack us. We do not, in fact, form an uneasy alliance.  We are, rather, under attack by the same forces.

  • Ymarsakar

    The organization called the Republican party cannot be trusted. People who don’t know politics, how it works and the difficulties inherent in limiting government power vs the power of the people, think it’s alright to just let these big organizations do whatever they feel benefits them. That’s not the path to victory. That’s just the path to an oligarchy.
    The same people who can’t depend upon the Republican party, after leaving the Democrat guaranteed voter rolls, only know the Republican party from what the Democrat propaganda said. It’s not reliable and nor is their judgment. Yet, at the same time, those individuals would never have been fooled so easily by Democrat propaganda if the Republican party had put up as hard a fight against Dems as they put up against Palin and Tea Party candidates.
    That tells me something important. It’s not a choice between fighting one enemy overseas or fighting another enemy at the home front. It’s both. They’re there over there and they’re here as well. If you beat the Democrat party, what’s going to fill the vacuum? Quislings paid by the Democrat party, are those individuals dependable to put in charge of the recovery from the Democrat damage. I don’t think so.
    So it’s really a matter of which is the more immediate goal that can be accomplished first, allowing the long term goal greater success. People don’t start with 10 year goals and expect to do it in 1 month. Since defeating the Democrat party will take decades, purging the Republican party, which doesn’t take decades, is the more immediate goal.
    Although, of course, the upcoming elections are the most recent in terms of immediacy. But elections come and go. And you can’t just go passive after one.

  • Mike Devx

    The dynamic I still see at play is mostly this:

    1. The more conservative you are, the more the media launches into a feeding frenzy of boiling hatred

    2. The more religious you are, the more the media launches into a feeding frenzy of boiling hatred

    Actually, it’s not “the more religious you are”, it’s if you are even somewhat truly religious.  The only people in this country who are *not* to be tolerated are the religious.  I can see this clearly perhaps because, being utterly agnostic but not hostile, I’m on the outside looking in.

    The media also carries the water for the feminists – or as Rush used to call them, the Feminazis.

    Perhaps that explains why Sarah Palin and Christine McDonnell in particular are suffering media vitriol unlike we’ve ever seen before.  Conservative. Religious. Female but not a part of the Feminazi far-left movement.  They are a huge threat and must be taken down any way possible.  Sharron Angle and Michele Bachmann are conservative and female but not so religious… they therefore less heat.

    It’s the overt and proud religious convictions that are the catalyst for the profound hatred that explodes at these women.  Bad enough to be conservative – that’s a big enough threat.  Add “religious” to the mix, and now you are a threat that must be utterly destroyed – your flesh boiled away from your bones, mashed into genetic particles, disassembled into atomic particles, and then even dequarked into non-existence.  They hate conservative religious women so much.

    And it must be noted that the same is true of the GOP establishment, only the vitriol is less intense.  Make no mistake though, the hatred is THERE, even among the GOP.

    My final point would be that the fiscal conservatives need to remember that they will utterly lose if they abandon the religious conservatives (aka the traditional values voters).  I keep seeing worrisome signs that the religious conservatives are supposed to make common cause with the fisccal conservatives, but the fiscal conservatives don’t HAVE to make common cause with the social conservatives.  It’s true everywhere, even but subtly here in Book’s comment land.  It’s a terrible, grotesque mistake that could doom us.  The values conservatives, the religious conservatives, are just as important and just as wonderful and just as GREAT for us as the fiscal conservatives, and I don’t think anyone should forget nor refute that.

    To forget it or deny it will be to our great peril as we move through 2010 into 2012 and beyond.

  • MacG

    Mike just a point of order the term Feminazi refers to the small minority of feminists that think that all sex is rape and any “unwanted” pregnancy must be aborted if I remember his definition correctly.

  • Mike Devx

    Oops – Here for ten years I thought Rush was simply referring to the out of control stridency and tactics of the far-left feminist movement!

  • Mike Devx

    A coupla links:

    DefundIt is new web site dedicated to repealing ObamaCare.  The main page is basically two side-by-side forms:
    1. A form where each of us as a citizen can pledge that we support the repeal of ObamaCare.
    2. A form where a POLITICAN can register that he or she will attempt to repeal ObamaCare!
    Go there and sign the pledge!  Then tell everyone to go there too!

    Ace Of Spades has this blog entry where he lists some reasons the McDonnell win can be viewed as a good thing.
    He says he has reservations about it – he was a strong Castle supporter due to the need to take the seat to the GOP – but he seems to be ready to change his mind about the whole thing.  To which I say, YEAH!