Avatar of carlos

by carlos

RNC Rule 12 Power Grab is a Threat to All Grassroots Activist – Update

August 29, 2012 in Anarchy, DICTATORSHIP, Election by carlos

Romney’s “RNC Power Grab”: What Really Happened

 

By Dean Clancy on August 29, 2012

The noes clearly had it, but the party bosses gaveled the dissenters down, shutting off the microphones and ignoring cries of “Roll call! Roll call!”

 

Yesterday, the Republican National Committee in Tampa adopted some rules changes that shift power from the state parties and the grassroots to the RNC and the GOP presidential nominee. Former Governor John Sununu of New Hampshire touted the new rules as providing “a strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years. But in fact the new rules should be very troubling and disappointing to conservative grassroots activists, because they move the national Republican Party away from being a decentralized, bottom-up party toward becoming a centralized, top-down party.

 The Romney rules effectively disenfranchise grassroots delegates, and will thus tend to weaken and splinter the party over time. They specifically represent a blow to the Tea Party and the Ron Paul movement, and force grassroots conservatives of all stripes to contemplate their future within the GOP.

Party sage and long-time RNC member (and conservative activist) Morton Blackwell led a last-minute effort to stop the changes — an effort the FreedomWorks For America strongly supported, together with

Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann. Phyllis Schlafly and RNC for Life also got involved, while Michelle Malkin, Mark Levin, and Rush Limbaugh helped sound the alarm. But the Romney camp and RNC insiders won the day, successfully imposing their will with the help of their control of the gavels and superior knowledge of the process, and perhaps some dirty tricks. The conservative “rebels” won the moral victory, however, taking their fight to the Rules Committee and the full Convention floor and arguably winning the voice vote there to stop the rules, only to be gaveled down by Speaker John Boehner [view video from 1:08 minutes].

Yesterday’s fight offers a sobering glimpse of what life will be like for conservatives in a Romney Administration. It proves once again that sometimes we have to beat the Republicans before we can beat the Democrats.

 In Terms of Substance

 last Friday, August 24th, longtime GOP lawyer and Romney advisor Ben Ginsberg surprised Rules Committee members by proposing three basic changes clearly intended to head off a conservative challenge to President Romney and/or tamp down the Tea Party and Ron Paul movements in 2016.

The proposed changes would do two main things:

1. Amend existing Rule 12 to hand national party officials, for the first time, the power to change the party’s rules between national conventions, which take place every fourth year. Three-fourths of RNC members must approve a proposed change for it to take effect. This is unprecedented. It would enable top GOP officials to circumvent rules adopted by state and grassroots leaders at the National Convention. One can imagine how it might be used to shape and control the delegate-selection process to the advantage of insiders and special interests.

2. Amend existing Rule 15 to allow the presumptive presidential nominee to “disavow” duly elected delegates and force state parties to hold new elections to replace any delegate or alternate deemed unacceptable by the presumptive presidential nominee. One can imagine the influence this change would give a presumptive nominee over any delegate that doesn’t toe the line. He could, in effect, choose the people who are to choose him. It’s not hard to imagine the temptation a campaign would feel to use this power to intimidate delegates and to reward friends, supporters, and campaign contributors. The proposal also contained a provision altering the method of allocating delegates, in order to front-load and shorten the primary calendar.

Unfortunately, the proposed change to Rule 12 passed. Thankfully, the proposed changes to Rule 15 were stopped. But an “insiders’ compromise” version of the “disavowal” provision did pass.

Under the “compromise,” a new Rule 16 was added to stop an alleged “faithless elector” problem — delegates who run claiming to support one candidate but then vote for another at the Convention.

The new Rule 16 requires that a delegate who attempts to violate his binding pledge to a candidate under state law or state party rules shall be deemed to have resigned and the Secretary of the Convention must record the improper vote as it should have been cast based on state law or party rule. This compromise was supported by conservative stalwart James Bopp, as well as Ron Kaufman and Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

Blackwell opposed the compromise because it retained the Rule 12 change. As long as the RNC can change the rules between conventions, the proposed changes to Rule 15 that we managed to stop could easily be revived at any time, without a vote at a National Convention. Since the RNC usually follows the lead of its Chairman, and the Chairman has powerful incentives to go along with an incumbent Republican President, it should be easy for Team Romney to change the party rules pretty much any time at their pleasure. This should trouble every Republican.

At a minimum, the effect of the new rules will be to empower insiders over the broad party electorate and to discourage grassroots activists from taking part in the process. The new rules will thus have a chilling effect on intra-party debate, including debate over the National Platform and, of course, on future rules changes. The “Inner Circle” has scored quite a coup.

In Terms of Process

After Ginsberg’s proposed changes were presented in the RNC Rules Committee, Blackwell circulated a letter denouncing them and vowing to resist them by means of “minority reports,” which can be offered for votes on the Convention floor and, if adopted, would have the effect of defeating the proposed changes.

Over the next four days, we worked feverishly to kill the rule changes, sending out a national call to action and urging our activists to lobby the party chairs and Rules Committee members from their state about the issue. We lit up facebook and twitter (using the hashtag #RNCpowergrab) and burned up phone lines with hundreds of calls. We filled up people’s voicemail inboxes. We caused an avalanche of emails.

We irritated the heck out of some people. But the pressure had a decisive effect. Negotiations began on the so-called “insiders’ compromise.” We knew we were fighting an uphill battle. Blackwell laid the groundwork for a floor fight by obtaining more than the requisite number of signers on each of the two minority reports. (Twenty-eight signatures  are required.)

As the Rules Committee meeting neared, Team Romney worked hard to peel signers off the minority reports. When the committee finally met, Blackwell was absent, and we have conflicting reports about whether he still had the requisite number of co-signers. One report suggests he did, but that the committee basically disregarded the minority reports because he was not there to defend them.

Why was Blackwell absent? This was out of character for the veteran, battle-scarred activist.

Did the insiders pull a Nixonian trick to make sure the leader of the opposition wasn’t present during the crucial meeting? Here’s how CNN explained his absence:

… [S]ome [rules] committee members suggested meddling was at play. A bus full of Virginia delegates arrived at the committee meeting — after it had adjourned. “The bus that was supposed to pick up the Virginia delegation arrived an hour later than it was supposed to,” explained Virginia delegate Morton Blackwell, a prime opponent of Rule 16 [a.k.a. the insiders’ compromise on delegate “disavowal”].

Blackwell continued: “And then when we went downtown, we went around the same series of blocks repeatedly – twice. And then the bus took out away from downtown, went about a mile and a half, and then did a u-turn and came back. And did another circuit, of the same place where we had been before.” And at that point, the Virginia delegates demanded, “‘Stop the bus. And we’re going to walk.’ And we did.”

Mike Rothfeld, a Virginia delegate also on the bus, went further. “They pushed us around for 45 minutes and then we missed the meeting,” Rothfeld said. “We were in the security perimeter, they pushed us out of it three separate times. They moved us around until the meeting was adjourned.”

[Colorado delegate Florence] Sebern claimed the snafu was “deliberate.”Neither she nor the others recalling the story would say who they were directing their anger at. And  none could provide proof to back up their claims.

Other examples of possible dirty tricks:

1. Florida activist Laura Noble informed us that both of Florida’s Rules Committee members, Peter Feaman  and Kathleen King, were removed from the Rules Committee and replaced with Romney-appointed delegates.

2. Some Rules Committee members were physically barred from entering the room, despite having proper credentials.

3. Some delegates were told that Blackwell was trying to use the situation as an excuse to reopen a settled debate that he had lost four years ago regarding Rule 12. Not true.

4. Some delegates were told Romney personally knew nothing of the matter and it was just his overly aggressive lawyers acting beyond their authority and there was nothing to worry about, he would put a stop to it once he found out what was happening.

5. Some delegates seem to have believed that the rules fight was really just a proxy fight in the larger

battle being waged between the Romney and Ron Paul camps over who would represent certain states on the convention floor. This assumption may have discouraged some Rules Committee members from supporting the minority reports. Governor Sununu chaired the meeting. Governor Barbour strongly urged “unity” and the need for everyone to set aside “differences” to “defeat Barack Obama.”

The rules package, containing the insider’s compromise, passed by a decisive vote of 78 to 14.

Unfortunately, the Rule 12 change (permitting the RNC to change the rules between conventions) remained in the package, unaltered.

The package then went immediately to the full Convention for approval. On the convention floor, Governor Sununu offered it as a “strong governing framework” for the party over the next four years, and with no debate or even mention of the controversy over Rule 12, Speaker Boehner then called for the ayes and noes. The crowd roared loudly, on both sides of the question. Despite the “noes” being (in this hearer’s estimate) louder than the “ayes,” Boehner hastily gaveled the matter closed. 

Boehner’s declaration that “The ayes have it” provoked cries from the crowd of “No!”, “Boo!”, and “Roll call!”  view video starting at 1:08 minutes]. But apparently — and to our surprise and disappointment — the microphones had been turned off and delegates were denied a chance to call for a recorded vote from the floor. We were given no recourse.

Had we been able to force a roll-call vote, it would have delayed the day’s proceedings by several hours. We had been counting on this fact to provide us with leverage, since we knew Team Romney would have done almost anything to avoid such an embarrassing logistical foul-up on the Convention’s first night. But alas, it seems, that possibility had been foreseen, and the grassroots revolt was forestalled.

After the disappointing outcome, FreedomWorks released the following statement from Matt Kibbe:

I believe that the Republican Party has made a huge mistake by effectively disenfranchising grassroots activists who want to be a part of the party process. If the party sincerely wants the support of citizens, shutting them out of the process is not the way to do it. Sooner rather than later the Republican establishment needs to come to terms with the decentralized nature of grassroots organization circa 2012. The terms of engagement can no longer be dictated from the top-down.

The new rules strongly suggest the insiders don’t think they need the grassroots to win in 2012, despite the critical role grassroots voters played in the historic 2010 wave election. Despite this setback, we’re proud to have come so close to victory on such short notice and while operating under such severe disadvantages, relative to the insiders. This episode confirms just how powerful grassroots action can be in today’s world — and we hope the party insiders are taking note of this fact. The RNC power grab has succeeded. For now. We’ll be back.

The Upshot

We expect Democrats to be top-down, but it’s disappointing when the Republicans, who claim to be bottom-up, act just like Democrats. Perhaps this centralization of power in the RNC is simply a logical development in the present era — a “progressive” era, when all institutions, under the pressure of unlimited, centralized government, tend, over time, to reflect and become servants of that government. It’s another sign that the retaking of Washington by the American people will be a “hostile” takeover.

What does Romney’s RNC power grab mean for the future? At least three things:

1) As of today, the GOP is now much less representative of state parties and voters than it was yesterday, and thus more representative of whichever interests are smart and powerful enough to dominate the RNC.

2) Grassroots activists will now have to add “Monitoring the RNC” to their “eternal vigilance” list.

3) FreedomWorks will have to add “Influencing — and when necessary, fighting — the RNC” to our

“Hostile Takeover” strategy. We must fire Barack Obama. We must show up on election day 2012. But the conservative grassroots must also decide whether and to what extent they want to remain engaged in a Republican Party whose establishment clearly still does not get them.

Dean Clancy is FreedomWorks’ Legislative Counsel and Vice President, Health Care Policy

MORE INFORMATION

Michelle Malkin: RNC power grab: the aftermath (2012-08-29)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Original Mass Tea Party Post from August 28:

The Following Message is from Freedom Works

Dear Patriot:

As you may be aware, the RNC and the Romney campaign are pushing a massive change to Republican Party rules which will, in part, allow the Presidential nominee to choose delegates and allow the RNC to change rules relating to the party platform and delegate selection whenever they like.

Anger Erupts At Convention Due To GOP Corruption

Please call your state’s Rules Committee delegates here and ask that they oppose the “compromise” on Rule 15, oppose Rule 12, and support the full Minority Reports on the Rules.

Call the Rules Committee delegates now.

Rule 12 is a threat to all grassroots activists. If this rule goes through, all the hard work you’ve done at the county level, congressional district level, and state level will be nullified by a few Party Elites at their discretion alone. No longer will the grassroots choose who represents them.

Morton Blackwell and his Virginia delegation are leading the charge to fight this power grab.

We need you, especially if you are a delegate in Tampa, to call the Rules Committee to stop this takeover of the party.

The top men at the RNC and Team Romney are not going to give up their effort to centralize the delegate process and turn our bottom-up efforts upside down. It is up to you, the grassroots, to stop them.

Do not let all the hard work we’ve done since 2009 go to waste. Stand up for our democracy right now.

In Liberty,

Matt Kibbe Signature

Matt Kibbe

 

Breaking News! RNC Tightens Noose On Delegates In Last Minute Rule Change

where delegates just received a copy of yet another proposed rule change by the RNC.

This is the shot being fired over the bow that everyone has known would be coming. The question now is, will some delegates still nominate Ron Paul or another candidate? Does it matter that even though many of us are bound by our state caucus or primary rules to vote for Romney, we’re only nominating a candidate – not voting for them? How many delegates will risk being evicted from the floor of the convention?

“You guys get kicked out, I’m going with you,” said one delegate from Nevada bound for Ron Paul, who wouldn’t be at risk for removal.

Right now states are maneuvering, will there be the five needed for Paul to have the plurality he needs for nomination? Tomorrow afternoon, all will be revealed, but in the meantime, read the rules change below, the latest from “The Party of Unity.”
To the Members of the Republican National Committee and the Convention Committee on Rules:

The undersigned are very pleased to announce that the leadership of the Republican National Committee and the Romney for President campaign has heard the concerns of the conservative grassroots voices in our party and has crafted an amendment to the Rules adopted on Friday to address these concerns.

At the same time, the revised language closes a loophole in our party rules, which previously failed to include a penalty for delegates who break their promise to vote for a particular Presidential candidate as required by state law or state party rules.

We are pleased that our party has come together to fashion this compromise. This will allow Republicans of all stripes to come to the Convention united and focused on defeating Barack Obama in November.

The Convention is our party’s opportunity to energize our supporters and activists. It would be unfortunate to squander the opportunity fighting an internal battle which we have now been able to successfully resolve and which will accomplish the goals of all parties involved.

The resolution that we have reached is straightforward. It simply prevents a bound delegate from nominating or casting a vote for a different presidential candidate than the one to whom the delegate was legally bound by state law or state party rule.

Instead, under this new provision, a delegate who attempts to violate his binding pledge is deemed to have resigned and the Secretary of the Convention will record the improper vote as it should have been cast based on state law or party rule.

It leaves the actual selection of delegates completely to state parties under state law and state party rules.

We are pleased that we were able to reach an acceptable resolution and urge the members of the Convention Rules Committee to adopt the revised Rule tomorrow to be included in their report to the Convention.

Text of the Rule:

Rule 16(a)(2).

For any manner of binding or allocating delegates under these Rules, if a delegate

(i) casts a vote for a presidential candidate at the National Convention inconsistent with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule,

(ii) nominates or demonstrates support under Rule 40 for a presidential candidate other than the one to whom the delegate is bound or allocated under state law or state party rule, or

(iii) fails in some other way to carry out the delegate’s affirmative duty under state law or state party rule to cast a vote at the National Convention for a particular presidential candidate,

the delegate shall be deemed to have concurrently resigned as a delegate and the delegate’s improper vote or nomination shall be null and void. Thereafter the Secretary of the Convention shall record the delegate’s vote or nomination in accordance with the delegate’s obligation under state law or state party rule. This subsection does not apply to delegates who are bound to a candidate who has withdrawn his or her candidacy, suspended or terminated his or her campaign, or publicly released his or her delegates.

Signers:

James Bopp Jr. NCM IN Vice Chairman Republican National Committee Cindy Costa NCW SC
Bob Bennett Chairman Ohio Republican Party
John Ryder NCM Tenn.
Ron Kaufman NCM Mass.
Henry Barbour NCM Miss.

Editor’s note: It is our desire to make sure that people are fully informed of what is going on at the convention. Nomination is not delegate voting. It is not the same thing. Mrs. Kennedy has been trying to keep people aware of what is taking place behind the scenes. If this is such an issue, then let us ask ourselves why do we send delegates if their vote will just be recorded as it should be and not as it is cast? Why not just skip all of that and enter a vote without the expense of travel and accommodations? I’ll leave that up to the reader to decide. By the way, this doesn’t just apply to Ron Paul. Promoters of Sarah Palin are also eager to put her name into nomination as well.
Read more: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/08/rnc-tightens-noose-on-delegates-in-last-minute-rule-change/#ixzz24rUeanXy

Avatar of Admin1

by Admin1

The Real stakes for the November 6th Election – The Supreme Court

August 29, 2012 in The Stakes for the 2012 Election by Admin1

Columnist Andrew McCarthy gives us what probably is the most important reason to vote against Barack Hussein Obama on November 6th.

For my friends who have hesitation on this score, I’d just ask you to keep four things in mind

1.  Justice Scalia is 76

2.  Justice Kennedy is 76  

3.  Justice Breyer is 74  

4.  Justice Ginsburg is 79
 
 


In addition,
 
Justice Ginsburg has had Pancreatic Cancer and has stated that the Court’s work was helping her cope with the death of her husband and suggested she would serve until at least 2012 when a painting that used to hang in her office is due to be returned to her. She also expressed a wish to emulate Justice Louis Brandeis, who retired at 82,an age that Ginsburg would attain in 2015.

 
Justice Stephens who is 92, has already said he would retire and is just waiting for Obama to be reelected.

 

The next president will appoint at least one Justice who could swing court decision for years or decades to come.

 

Additionally he will appoint hundreds of other life-tenured federal judges, all of whom will be making momentous decisions about our lives also for decades to come.

Can you imagine ERIC HOLDER as a Supreme Court nominee? And if he failed the confirmation hearings,  DEVAL  PATRICK  as a backup nominee!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Electing a new president and a new Supreme Court majority

April 29th, 2012, 3:02 am ·  · posted by 

Brian Callein

The stakes in this year’s election are higher than normal because the next president may have the unusual opportunity to impact the ideological direction of the Supreme Court, untypical of any one presidential term.

During the next presidential term, starting in January 2013, of the nine Supreme Court justices, “three of the justices will be in their 80s,” notes Clint Bolick, author of the new book, “Two-Fer: Electing a President and a Supreme Court.”

“[W]hoever is elected in November may have the rare chance to reinforce or alter the courts balance,” he said.

And with Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United in 2010 – and perhaps the upcoming decisions on Obamacare and the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s illegal-immigration law –  hinging on the opinion of a single justice and setting longstanding precedents, the court’s balance ought to be top of mind for voters in November.

There is no guarantee when a justice will retire nor can they be forced to do so. Supreme Court justices are constitutionally guaranteed a life term and can serve for as long as they wish to.

Of those justices reaching their eighties in the next presidential term, two of the three are regarded as being on the conservative side of the court. Among the liberals, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg turns 80 in 2013. Conservative Antonin Scalia, 76, turns 80 in 2016. Anthony Kennedy, often portrayed as the swing vote on the typically divided court, turns 76 this summer and 80 in 2016.

President Barack Obama was able to make two Supreme Court nominations is his first 16 months in office, Justices Sonia Sotomayor in 2009 and Elena Kagan in 2010. Should he be reelected this year, he may have the ability to shift ideological balance of the court, which most people now believe to be generally a 5-4 conservative majority. Conversely, if a Republican were to win the White House, he would conversely have the same opportunity.

The president is first and foremost the commander in chief, that is to say, most of the autonomous powers of the presidency are over the military and foreign policy. Domestically, because Congress is assigned the power to make laws, the president’s most significant authority is in nominating justices to the Supreme Court, a power, Bolick notes, often overlooked in terms of its importance when selecting a president.

Bolick argues that in presidential campaigns, the power to appoint federal judges and nominate high court justices plays almost an “invisible role,” though it gives the president the ability to affect generations of Americans. The court-appointment authority is even more powerful today than it had been in previous generations.

“The average term length for a Supreme Court justice is 25 years,” according to Bolick. Also, justices are being appointed at younger ages and living much longer, “so life tenure is a bigger prize than it was when the Constitution was ratified.” For example, Justice Clarence Thomas was 43 when he was appointed by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. On the current court, Justice Kagan is the youngest member, having just turned 52 on April 28.

In the past few years the Supreme Court has decided some pivotal cases down ideological lines in 5-4 rulings. One was the Citizens United decision in 2010 when the court ruled that corporations and unions had First Amendment rights allowing them to spend unlimited money on political speech.

This year, many legal scholars suspect the court will align in similar fashion against Obamacare, or at least the health care law’s mandate that all Americans buy government-approved health insurance. And just last week, the justices gave Solicitor General Donald Verrilli a flogging during oral arguments for the Obama administration’s lawsuit against Arizona’s controversial illegal-immigration law.

If the balance of ideology of the Supreme Court were shifted even by a single vote, the social and political impacts would be vast.

In the presidential term following the 2016 election, Justice Stephen Breyer will turn 80 (Aug. 15, 2018), meaning whoever is in the Oval Office the next two terms could potentially nominate nearly half the court.

This year’s presidential election and the next one may, in fact, be “two-fers,” allowing the American electorate to simultaneously choose a president and influence the future for generations of Americans whose lives are affected by rulings from the Supreme Court.

 

 

Avatar of Admin1

by Admin1

Hey Mitt: Fight Or Go Home!

July 9, 2012 in 2nd Amendment, Anarchy, Election, Michele obama, ObamaCare, Presidential Candidates, Restoring Courage, Romneycare by Admin1

Guest Re-Post from Iron Mike’s  Rabid Republican Blog

@ http://rabidrepublicanblog.com/2012/07/07/hey-mitt-fight-or-go-home/

 

Hey Mitt: FIGHT Or Go Home!

Posted July 7th, 2012 by ironmike

ATTENTION MITT ROMNEY:
This election is NOT about YOU!

YOU don’t matter – so long as you promise to reverse the damage caused by this Kenyan imposter.

BUT, you DO HAVE TO FIGHT  for the CHANCE.

Stop being a Mormon Choir Boy; get on your stump and start fighting!

 

From Sun TzuUnderstand yourself
– then understand the enemy.

We get it – you grew up a pampered rich kid – but then you made your own money by virtue of your own hard work. You and Ann raised a good family.
BUT, is there fire in your belly for this fight?

 

Your enemy – OUR enemy is a manically clever utterly ruthless anti-American / anti-colonialist would-be dictator. His intentions are clear – to weaken and humble America in an act of anti-colonial revenge.

 

He lives in an imaginary world – but a very sick world.

His ugly, snarling wife shares his hatreds - so there is no mellowing effect. She enjoys the perks of royalty so much that she personifies the nouveau riche.

Together they are surrounded, aided, and abetted by a cartel paid for by George Soros. You are up against a ruthless mega-billionaire!

 

 

GAWD-DAMNIT – START CAMPAIGNING!

The American People are just waiting to accept you as their champion, – if you can prove you’re up to the job. But this isn’t like rushing a fraternity at Harvard. We want to see if you have the meat and the mettle to fight for us.

Start giving the voters a clear picture of America under your leadership.

 

-  Talk about bringing jobs back from China and India.

-  Talk about a TAX REFORM PLAN for the next 20 years.

-  Talk about repealing ObamaCare andREPLACING it with a system

- which allows Americans to buy insurance across state lines,

- which will include MASSIVE TORT REFORM,

- which will FUND QUALIFIED young people – mostly veterans – to go to MEDICAL SCHOOL.

- Talk about fixing Medicare

- Talk about fixing Social Security

- Talk about FOREIGN POLICY to include Russia, China, the ‘Arab Spring’, Israel, and Iran.

                   Prove to us that you know something about our military.

- Talk about REAL energy independence – not Obama’s ‘phony green agenda’

 

Talk about appointing a REAL Attorney General and a REAL Secretary of Homeland Security.

- Talk about SEALING our Southern Border, and a guest-worker program with biometric ID cards.

- Talk about prosecuting those who allowed Fast & Furious to start, and to continue.

 

- Talk about ENDING VOTER FRAUD and WELFARE FRAUD, – and sending guilty officials to prison.

Talk about auditing the Federal Reserve!!!

- Talk about PROTECTING our INTERNET and our 2nd Amendment Rights.

- Talk about ending the litigious tyranny of fringe minority groups.

Talk about the short list you have for the Supreme Court.

 

Willard, if this isn’t in you – or if this just ‘isn’t you’ – then please go to Tampa and tell the assembled delegates that you’re ‘out of it’ – and encourage them to vote for Newt Gingrich on the First Ballot. Newt isn’t afraid of this fight.

In other words: Fight for us – or go the f**k home!

We can’t afford to lose this election because some panty waist wants to play by Marquess of Queensbury Rules!

/s/ Iron Mike
Old Soldier, – Still Good for Parts!

 

 

 

 
Avatar of mike

by mike

Mitt Stiffs Conservatives Again

April 25, 2012 in Presidential Candidates, Presidential Candidates on the Issues, Restoring Courage, Tea Party by mike

  By  R ichard A. Viguerie 
 www.ConservativeHQ.com
  4/25/12

Just when the bruises from a tough primary were beginning to heal, and some conservatives were starting to give Mitt Romney a second look in the aftermath of yesterday’s five-state primary sweep, comes word the moderate former Massachusetts Governor has the same policy as President Obama does on federally subsidized student loan interest rates.

House Republicans have said the estimated $6 billion annual cost of extending low-interest rates for student loans isn’t affordable without offsetting cuts, but that they are still deciding whether to support a temporary extension. Obama has started pushing Congress for the extension and planned a three-state tour this week to warn students of the potential financial catastrophe they will face if Congress fails to act.

Apparently Romney’s strategy for the fall campaign will be, “if you can’t out bid Obama, at least join him.”

Romney’s announcement that he supports an extension of the cheap interest rate on federal student loans pulls the rug out from under conservatives in the House who have been trying with little success to reduce spending and balance the budget – even if it takes 30 years via the Ryan Plan.

We have a bit of sympathy for young people who were sold a bill of goods by an education industry that convinced them there is actually a job market for degrees in folklore and performance art and who are now stuck with student loans that run to six figures.

However, Romney’s attempt to out-Obama Obama on student loans is a perfect illustration of how Greece got where it is, and why we are headed in the same direction. 

In Greece, until the meltdown, practically everybody got a subsidy or a paycheck for something from the government.  The politics were such that the trend was ever upward – once the subsidies started they could never be reduced or even slowed due to political pressure.

We have the same problem here in the U.S. and at some point soon some principled patriots will have to make the case to their fellow Americans that it has to stop.  Having offsetting cuts doesn’t end or slow the student loan subsidy, but at least it doesn’t allow it to increase our ruinous deficit and debt.

No doubt Romney and his establishment Republican advisors think of this as “moving to the center” for the fall election.  We call it stiffing the conservatives in Congress and pandering on the road to fiscal perdition – as well as a perfect illustration of why conservatives should remain deeply skeptical of the Romney candidacy.

Avatar of mike

by mike

Top Romney Aide: We’ll ‘Etch-A-Sketch’ His Conservatism Soon

March 22, 2012 in Presidential Candidates by mike

“There’s no problem about Mitt Romney taking conservative positions during the primary that may upset the liberal media;  come this fall, he can erase them and start all over again.

That’s the word from Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior campaign aide to Romney, who told CNN Wednesday that after his candidate’s big win in Illinois Tuesday he can still change course.”

Avatar of mike

by mike

GOP Establishment Has Declared War on The Tea Party – Was the First Shot Fired Against MA Tea Parties?

February 1, 2012 in Tea Party by mike

In a post on Real Clear Politics on October 13th, 2011, Rush Limbaugh declared that the GOP Establishment had declared War on the Tea Party.  Nowhere was this more evident than in MA where, the Romney Machine sprinkled money and influence around the MAGOP State Committee and thereby managed to install a former Bain Capital employee/ loyalist as Chair of the MAGOP while crushing the campaign of Tea Party Reformer Frank McNamara.

At least one local Tea Party group defended Maginn by hiding or deleting facebook  posts on their site by other Tea Party group leaders  who simply posted the fact that Maginn, a nominee for the GOP Chair, had donated $2400 to NY’s far leftist Senator Chuck Schumer’s re-election campaign in 2010. Subsequent to his election, additional improprieties came to light about Maginn’s conduct. Namely that he had provided Deval Patrick with the maximum legal donation of $500 for his 2010 election campaign,   hired Peter Blute (Who considered  running  for the GOP chair ) and peter Torkildsen (a former GOP Chair), as consultants at his software strategies company Jenzabar   one week before the November 30th election!  Peter Blute was also subsequently named Deputy Chair of the MAGOP by bob Maginn,

Now a new story surfaces in MassPolitic Profs that states that Bob Maginn has hired another GOP operative, Rob Willington (who has been hired to update the Mass GOP’s “digital media plan,” and also works for Scott Brown’s campaign) as a Consultant in his Jenzabar company.

You can read the Rush Limbaugh story here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/10/13/rush_limbaugh_gop_establishment_declares_war_on_tea_party.html

and the continuing saga about Maginn here: http://www.masspoliticsprofs.com/2012/01/31/mr-maginn-or-mr-magoo/

 

Avatar of Admin1

by Admin1

Romney adviser Norm Coleman predicts GOP president won’t repeal health law

January 24, 2012 in ObamaCare, Presidential Candidates by Admin1

By Julian Pecquet – The Hill
 01/24/12 10:51 AM ET

Mitt Romney adviser Norm Coleman, a former senator from Minnesota, predicted the GOP won’t repeal the Democrats’ healthcare reform law even if a Republican candidate defeats President Obama this November.

“You will not repeal the act in its entirety, but you will see major changes, particularly if there is a Republican president,” Coleman told BioCentury This Week television in an interview that aired on Sunday. “You can’t whole-cloth throw it out. But you can substantially change what’s been done.”

Coleman’s remarks are remarkable because every Republican candidate — including Romney — has vowed to make repealing the law a priority. Coleman is also the chairman of the American Action Network, which has urged the courts to strike down the law’s individual mandate and its Medicaid expansion.

Read the entire story here: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/206077-romney-adviser-norm-coleman-predicts-republican-president-wont-repeal-health-law

 

Avatar of mike

by mike

Mark Levin contends Romney using dirty tricks while trying to appear squeaky clean:

December 9, 2011 in Presidential Candidates by mike

You  simply have to listen to this fiery monologue from Mark Levin about Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and the presidential race!

 

Levin: “Publicly Romney himself is remaining above the fray. That’s what I cannot stand. That’s what I cannot stand. The two faced aspect of this. All smiles while behind the scenes he is telling his lieutenants and his surrogates to take the guy [Newt Gingrich] out.

I don’t give a damn about Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich. I’m worried about the future of my country! The country has gone to hell. The President of the United States is out of Control. This isn’t about Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich; it’s about you the American People.

 

And I’m a little concerned, to be honest with you, that Mitt Romney is so hell bent on becoming the President of the United States that he will lower himself as low as he needs to go. Pretending to you that he is not even involved.”

 

We must support a Conservative.  Not pretenders and so forth

 

There is only 1-way that this country can be saved. With a Conservative with a Conservative. “

 

Listen to the entire audio segnet Here: 

http://rope.zmle.fimc.net/player/player.html?url=http://podloc.andomedia.com/dloadTrack.mp3?prm%3D2069xhttp://podfuse-dl.andomedia.com/800185/podfuse-origin.andomedia.com/citadel_origin/pods/marklevin/Levin12082011.mp3

 

Avatar of mike

by mike

Mark Levin’s Insightful Interview with Jeff Katz Regarding Romney, Republicans, Obama and other Issues of the Day

October 6, 2011 in Politics by mike

Mark Levin: To be honest with you, we have to keep our eye on Romney. I’m not supportive of a particular candidate or not. But he is running around the country sounding like chuck Schumer now on Social Security. And I’m thinking that , now wait a minute, you folks in MA. You get to live under this nirvana named RomneyCare. So I’m a little concerned about him. In Fact, I’m a lot of concerned about him. And I’m also concerned that I am not sure. I just haven’t focused in on,on somebody to defeat him yet.

Jeff Katz: You make a very clear distinction between those who are Conservatives and those who you know who like to put on the team jacketevery once and awhile and take a lap, but are willing to sell us out as easily as someone wearing the other uniform.

Listen to the rest of this provocative audio interview here:

http://www.talk1200.com/player/?station=WXKS-AM&program_name=podcast&program_id=interviews.xml&mid=21466375