Posted on 02/20/2014 4:18:41 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
"...................................In 1980, Tennessee Senator Howard.....Baker—who had won the nickname “The Great Conciliator” and supported President Carter’s giveaway of the Panama Canal—ran for president. Reagan, of course, had famously opposed Carter on the Panama Canal issue and incurred the wrath of the GOP establishment by going from one end of America to the other saying “we built it, we paid for it, it’s ours and we should tell Torrijos [then Panama’s ruling military dictator] we are going to keep it.” Baker lost resoundingly to Reagan. During the 1980 GOP Convention in Detroit, Howard Baker was spotted standing at the rim of the Convention Floor, studying the enthusiastic Reagan delegates. Said Baker in a tone of puzzled astonishment: “These aren’t my people.”
And so they weren’t. Any more than those grassroots Americans preparing to give Senator Cruz a hero’s welcome are not “the people” of the GOP establishment that is today so furious with Ted Cruz that a reporter suggests Cruz needs a “food taster” to attend lunch. There is a disconnect here. A big one. A disconnect between the grassroots base and the establishment. At this point in American history, it should be crystal clear that the reason the GOP has its minority status in the Senate—not to mention that come 2016 it will have been locked out of the White House for—is precisely because it rolls over and effectively plays politically dead when push comes to shove.
Simply put, Ted Cruz—like Ronald Reagan before him—understands what it takes to make a majority. And he’s doing it. Over the vociferous objections of the same kind of people who kept warning Republicans that if they listened to Ronald Reagan they would get clobbered. Which is exactly why Ted Cruz is being greeted as a hero.....
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Senator Cruz understands the value of attacking the enemy at multiple points of weakness.
RINO politicians, consultants, strategists, advisors, donors, volunteers, supporters and RINO voters do not understand this, as they tend to focus on one or two points of attack for the entire election campaign.
In this manner, the RINOs ignore the day to day fluctuations of opponent revealed weaknesses, and plod on to their usual, and very comforting defeat.
For example, in 2008 Loser Emeritus “Wacko Birds” McCain publicly admonished those who questioned the validity of then Senator Obama’s sealed birth certificate, thus assuring McCain of another very successful RINO-Style Defeat.
Another example is when RINO Speaker Boehner just last week chose to cave in to his overriding personal phobia of being bad-mouthed by the Left Stream Media, and took off the House calendar the necessary House Debate on the size of the National Poverty Debt Limit, thus guaranteeing the Conservative Democrat and Republican voters will from then on know that RINOs really stand for unlimited Federal Spending.
BTW, notice how many times RINO Rove says: “Republicans should let that go and concentrate on this one point.”
Senators Cruz, Lee and sometimes Rand Paul are wise enough to attack on many fronts, and the double down whenever a weakness is detected.
RINOs have refused to learn that the first rule in Federal Politics is to attack, Attack, ATTACK!
The second rule in Federal Politics is to savagely attack ALL weaknesses as they are revealed.
The third rule of Federal Politics is to accept, without question, that “ALL FEDERAL POLITICS IS NATIONAL.”
Newt, for a brief moment in time, used that wisdom to construct his very successful National “Contract with America.”
Newt’s wisdom soon quickly rejected by the rank and file RINO failure leadership.
No political Wing of any political party has ever enjoyed losing as much as the now obsolete, failed RINO Wing of the Republican Party.
House Member elected, House Sobber Boehner even lends a Soap Opera touch to many RINO cave in losses by sobbing frequently.
Democrats and all RINOs still believe the “Tipsy’” O’Neal failed con slogan which states: ‘All politics is local.’
Democrats and RINOs have used this failed slogan with great success to expand the number of non-working, non-taxpayers on their ballooning Welfare Plantation, paid for by borrowing to increase the National Poverty Debt.
In summary, RINOs belong in the Museum of Failed Politicians, (MOFP), and not on the taxpayer’s payroll.
Make 2014 the year of the extinct Federal RINO!
At this point I’m no longer a “conservative.” I don’t want to “conserve” the current status quo. Instead, I want the current status quo rolled back. I want change.
Sowell is a dinosaur. So is Rove. They are already extinct and do not know it.
Ted Cruz Ping!
If you want on/of this ping list, please let me know.
Please beware, this is a high-volume ping list!
http://spectator.org/articles/57876/ted-cruz-majority
Milliken ? What a joke. He was Coleman Young’s personal bitch.
I didn’t even know Milliken was still alive.
He and George Romney were both owned by the left. Its crazy how they make Rick Snyder seem almost conservative but Snyder is pretty progressive and his opposition to things like gay marriage are purely fiscal issues.
Good point. And now we're approaching a point at which we're all set up for an 1824-style ultra-nasty political contest, like the one they had between the America of the Atlantic coast's "deferential" society and the rip-roaring Real Americans of Andy Jackson's buckskin yeomanry, who'd killed bears with their bare hands and conquered half a continent, and weren't about to listen to a bunch of Yankee cookie-pushers tell them what they couldn't do.
As Davy Crockett would say just a little later, "You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas!"
It's a counterrevolution, I would say instead. It's been waged by thoroughly-domesticated East Coast urbanites who, from the 1850's to today, never ever really got a flavor for what America was, or is. They're half-American, half-European, and half-Communist. Their thinking and cultural values are dominated by the values, such as they are (Ayn Rand knew and despised them), of Atlantic coast megalopolitan "parlor pinks" who play at ideology and have no care what it costs others who are not comfortably bathed in a warm, steady stream of bond coupons, preferred-stock dividends, and tenured-faculty compensation. They're set and they're smug, while all around them other people eat all the caltrops they strew around the highway of life in the form of regulations and taxes required to make their heavily-managed "society" function the way they want it to.
They're Europeans who think they're Americans, when they're not even close, because they never ventured out of their cities to see the land and the real people who actually made it the greatest country on earth.
They're hothouse parasites, horse-stable ticks.
But they're not Real Americans.
No wonder the Communists do so well among them.
There, I said it.
I copied your post. It was that good. Thanks
Well, thank you very kindly. Appreciate it.
How is that? The culture wars are all about Marxism and its idolators' battle for moral supremacy, and Marx was nothing if not a moral scold. His "theory" was just clothing for his moral posturing, and its whole purpose was to arm him intellectually with the means to upbraid capitalists.
Nineteenth-century Marxism's roots reach back into the Middle Ages. How is it not, then, "old European"?
The Marxist/Gramschi/Kinsey revolution has just as much to do with certain kinds of American moderns as with the European scribblers of the 19th century.
What is an "American modern", if he is not also a socialist? Granting that such a thing may exist, has it ever in fact existed? Can you give me an example of an "American modern" who was not also trendily socialist, and actually modern enough, radically and immiscibly modern, that he would never be confounded with 19th-century Americans of e.g. the New England intellectual set of the 1830's and 1840's?
[Your reply] Ayn Rand's Soviet-style atheism infected her soul and crippled her thinking; this Russian transplant CERTAINLY does not reflect the soul of America as she was founded.
By opposing the example of Ayn Rand, who knew "socialism" well enough to discourse on it as a survivor, to the American "parlor pinks", I do not mean to assert an equation between Rand and non-Marxist 19th-century Americans. I mean only to point out that that which "parlor pinks" esteem, Rand had experienced live and in-the-round, and she hated it.
That is an interesting inference, and I did not intend to deprive Spanish Phalangists and royalists of their heritage, by pointing out that their Republican adversaries also shared it, notwithstanding they were French syndicalists, anarchists, or even Stalinists.
Or George Orwell, a fellow-traveling Englishman who learned his lesson very well, when the Stalinists shot his friends and tried to kill him, too.
Those kinds have been around forever, and for all of their bad influence, it generally stayed within their own circles. Not so much anymore. Their's is the Revolution.
Here I regret to say that I agree with you completely.
Well-said bump. Let’s go there.
That's not impossible, but it's impossible that nobody has ever tendered the same thought. Marx and all the other idealists and romantics hark back to Thomas More and his Utopia, do they not? Imagineering (to borrow a 20th-century word) a place of peace, harmony and justice -- and death to dissenters -- based on ..... what? Nothing?
No, on Aristotelian concepts of society retooled for a better model based on, inevitably, Socrates and Plato. That's all More had to work with, after all. And Marx pointed backward to More, and to the ideal of the Holy Roman Empire, a universal and holy suprastatal realm that aspired to dispense divine justice along with temporal policy.
Or have I missed something?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.