Posted on 08/28/2014 6:16:01 AM PDT by cotton1706
Constitutional conservative Mississippi Senate Candidate Chris McDaniel told Tim Constantine on TPNN’s Capitol Hill Show on Wednesday, that Republican establishment-backed, 76-year-old Senator Thad Cochran’s campaign stole the recent runoff election in Mississippi, that he had proof, and hoped his current court challenge will not only overturn the election, but will allow people to see the “ugly, ugly under belly of some element of the Republican Party.”
McDaniel, who defeated Cochran, nicknamed the “King of Pork” in the prior Mississippi Senate primary, but failed to avoid a forced runoff vote because neither he nor Cochran passed the fifty percent threshold.
“They did steal the election, there’s no question about that,” McDaniel told Constantine. “They basically brought in 40,000-plus Democrats into a Republican primary. And that’s called Party Raiding,” he claimed.
McDaniel said that the Cochran campaign utilized “illegal votes” in the run-off election, and when his campaign presented the evidence to the Mississippi Republican Party’s executive committee, which is the process required, they refused to look at the evidence.
“Once we found the evidence, we attempted to take that evidence before the state Republican executive committee, which is what statue demands what we do,” McDaniel explained. “We took the information before the State Republican Executive Committee, and they refused to hear it, because it was too politically difficult, I’m assuming,” he charged.
(Excerpt) Read more at tpnn.com ...
The Establishment's attitude has been "conservatives can exist and we want their votes but but conservatives MUST NOT be represented in the national legislature! They must be thwarted at all costs, to the extent of helping elect democrats if necessary."
McConnell is eyeball deep in this effort too. Ditch Mitch.
Jack Kerwick wrote an article on May 24, 2011 titled The Tea Partier versus The Republican and he expressed some important issues that I agree with. Both of these criticisms are, at best, misplaced; at worst, they are just disingenuous.
At any rate, they are easily answerable.
Let’s begin with the argument against “purism.” To this line, two replies are in the coming.
As for the second objection against the Tea Partier’s rejection of those Republican candidates who eschew his values and convictions,
it can be dispensed with just as effortlessly as the first.
Every election season—and at no time more so than this past season—Republicans pledge to “reform Washington,” “trim down” the federal government, and so forth.
Once, however, they get elected and they conduct themselves with none of the confidence and enthusiasm with which they expressed themselves on the campaign trail,
those who placed them in office are treated to one lecture after the other on the need for “compromise” and “patience.”
Well, when the Tea Partier’s impatience with establishment Republican candidates intimates a Democratic victory,
he can use this same line of reasoning against his Republican critics.
My dislike for the Democratic Party is second to none, he can insist.
But in order to advance in the long run my conservative or Constitutionalist values, it may be necessary to compromise some in the short term.
For example,
I already saw the ugly underbelly of the GOP courtesy the backstabbing treatment given Palin. Watershed moment for me. Lost every bit of faith, trust and respect for the Republican Party then and there. Ended my lifelong support and affiliation the GOP.
All these things that have followed, from Cucinelli in Virginia to McDaneil in Mississippi, to the nomination of Romney, has just solidified my disgust and revulsion.
McDaniel may lose his legal challenge because the judge may be owned by Haley Barbour.
Should that happen, I hope Chris McDaniel begins an aggressive write-in campaign. If he is not eligible, then his wife should run, as she would have name recognition.
In the past I voted for McCain, and Romney nationally, and for Scott Brown in Massachusetts. But I guess it depends on your belief in how far gone this nation is, and what it will take to restore it, assuming that is even possible at this point.
Personally, I now believe that the only way to save this nation now (assuming such a thing is still possible) is to put conservatives in political offices and enact an agenda based on free markets, limited government and the rule of law. As long as we have a Republican party that actively opposes those ends (and we do, obviously), then I believe our only (slim) hope is drastic action.
As long as the Republican Party establishment believes that it can continue to survive by being Democrat-lite, and that it can continue to maintain power while actively fighting against the core principles of liberty, free markets and Constitutional law, it will never make the necessary change of direction.
Only when the Republican party understands that it must change or die can we hope to turn this country around. Our too-long-serving entrenched establishment politicians can still enjoy their comfy lifestyles, their wealth, power and prestige as members of a minority party. So why should they bother to change direction?
Surely a John Boehner (or an Eric Cantor -- had he not been defeated -- or a Mitch McConnell) would be just as happy to be minority leaders if the election cycle didn't go their way. Yes, they would prefer to be majority leaders, but what good would it be to them if a conservative Republican Party won the majority and then threw them out of their cushy positions and all those perks, replacing them with real conservatives?
Ask yourself -- which do you think Mitch McConnell would prefer -- a majority Republican party in which he was stripped of his position by a conservative majority, or a minority Republican party in which he could remain Senate minority leader because the majority of Republican senators were RINOs?
You may argue that we have no time to wait for the Republicans to realize that their only choice is to change or die as a viable party. But if we don't have time for that, then what makes you think we have time to wait for the RINOs and the GOP-e to pursue a "moderately marginal" course of action designed only to maintain their personal fiefdoms at the expense of a free America operating under the rule of Constitutional law?
The GOP had majority power in the House and Senate, and occupied the White House, 10 years ago. What did all that power do to move the agenda of liberty forward? Answer: nothing.
A GOP that cannot even sell liberty, limited governments and free markets to the American people is worse than useless. It is a party of tyranny enablers, and I will have none of it.
Unbelievably, today we are facing once again the stark choice between liberty and death.
Once again, these are the times that try men's souls. Conservatives need to be waging aggressive war against the totalitarian leftist tyrants on all fronts -- in the branches of government at the federal and state level, in academia, in the media, through public demonstrations, and in the voting booth.
Many argue that we must continued to vote for "the most electable conservative," which means "vote for the RINO if no conservative is running." But I respectfully disagree with that choice. I am done enabling.
If we really are to lose the greatest country in the history of the world, then let's at least be fighting for it when it goes down.
And who knows, maybe -- just maybe, if we show sufficient resolve and conviction -- divine Providence will once again provide the support that gave our founders their unlikely victory in 1776, and grant us once again the "new birth of freedom" that Lincoln called for a century later.
The Republican party does not care about small government, a strong economy, liberty, or any other thing it pretends to care about. It only cares about attaining (and retaining) power for power's sake alone.
Compromising with bad policy is like adding a little sewage to your drinking water.
That is precisely why we need TERM LIMITS, NOW AND FOREVER!
term limits give total power to the career bureaucrats and the k street lobbyists.
Term limits should extend to bureaucrats contemporaneously.
Also all federal judges should NOT come from the DOJ.
Thad Cochran is a festering pustule. Good to expose him.
you have to have control in order to isolate the rinos
you have to have control to block the next uqualified “Sotomayor”
you have to have control to control the money.
Lobbyists should be a thing of the past with one simple move: require that all political donations be ANONYMOUS. Lobbyists buy influence from politicians by underscoring the largesse of their clients. Pay to play, bribery in a word.
Being able to support a party or candidate of your choice, in an amount you choose is FREEDOM. Being able to BUY them is criminal. The politcos can’t sell influence if they don’t know who is buying. It should be a felony to disclose or attempt to discover the identity of any donor.
Will some cheat? Sure, it’s inevitable. But a few packing off to the federal pen should minimize that.
As for career bureaucrats, frequent transfers from agency to agency where their skill sets are needed will keep them under control. And closing down about 2/3 of the “bureaus” couldn’t hurt!
Mississippi ping
First of all, despite all the nonsense to the contrary, an Article 5 convention is not some revolutionary thing that would completely overturn our government. It is a part of our government. Its job would be proposing of amendments to the Constitution. You correctly state that the Republicans controlled the House and Senate in the 2000’s and failed to do anything. (Control of the Presidency and Supreme Court are actually irrelevant to the amendment process). That, however, is the whole point of the Article 5 convention. The option of the Article 5 convention exists precisely because the Founders realized that there might come a time when amendments were needed that would not be proposed by Congress because such amendments were contrary to the interests of the members of Congress.
Just an example, suppose it is determined that term limits for Congressmen and Senators are needed (I’m not stating that I agree with this; this is just an example). Certainly very few Congressmen or Senators would even think about proposing such an amendment. Why would they? They would essentially be voting themselves out of a cushy job. That’s what an Article 5 convention is for. Assuming that the public came to the widespread belief that term limits were a good idea, the state legislatures would petition Congress for an Article 5 convention. Said convention would then meet and propose the necessary amendment. Any amendment proposed by the convention would then be sent to the states for ratification in the same manner as amendments proposed by Congress.
The Republican party on the national level would have very little to do with such a convention. This method gives states essentially all the power. Of course, you might argue that the Republican party in the states is just as bad, if not worse than the national party. I would not necessarily argue with that. The remedy, then, would be abandoning the party and starting a new one. If that could be done first on a grassroots, local level, and built up to become powerful in enough states, an Article 5 convention could be successful.
I would not put ford in that mix.
His only goal was that of speaker of the house. His interviews and bio he said that specifically.
The reason he ran against carter was because he had to in order to prevent a total route after he did what he had to do in pardoning Nixon.
History has born out his decision as correct.
Ford knew any GOP candidate was going to be toast against any democrat.
Good points. In addition I suppose democrats will do nothing. So it would a RINOS and democrats deciding on what changes are made. Wouldn’t that be great (sarcasm)
Face it - we have almost no representation. Until we install conservatives in places of power all we have are Internet blogs.
If that were possible, an Article 5 convention wouldn't be necessary. We could simply have our elected representatives pass useful laws to run the country.
Is this Ian Anderson of Jethro Tull? How about Gillian Anderson instead?
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.