Tuesday, November 27, 2012
The GOP Establishment's War on Conservatives Continues
Once again, the GOP establishment seems to be telling conservatives to sit down and shut up and just to nominate whoever they choose will be most "electable", whether or not they share our conservative principles. Check out Jennifer Rubin's piece yesterday attacking the Club for Growth and Jim DeMint (who she refers to as "far right" like extreme leftists do) for not supporting Shelley Moore Capito for the soon to be vacated Senate seat in West Virginia:
Oh my, a whole 70.27 lifetime rating from the ACU?!? Clearly the Club for Growth doesn't know what they are talking about as she is clearly a principled conservative! Or maybe they do. John McCain, who was a darling of the left at times and is by no means a small government Republican, has a lifetime rating of 82.52. So Shelley Capito is by far more liberal than John McCain. The worst thing is that in 2011, her rating was only 60!
I also love how Jennifer Rubin brings up Richard Mourdock and Sharron Angle (while skipping Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who the Club for Growth also supported). Oh the establishment has never backed candidates who have lost general elections. Ha! Mitt Romney was essentially crammed down our throats under the guise of electability. Fox News, National Review and hacks like Jennifer Rubin would constantly nitpick over everything in a conservatives history but would leave Romney, who had Romneycare and other skeletons completely alone. Remember when they made an issue about what was written on a rock on land that Rick Perry leased? Or Newt's consultant contracts? Jennifer Rubin even attacked Herman Cain's 999 plan because it made the tax system less progressive (as if that was a bad thing!). Then they screamed socialism when Newt attacked Romney's Bain history, attacks that might have prepared Romney for the general if his lackeys hadn't done all the heavy lifting for him in the primaries. I also love the fact that she seems to assail the conservative candidate for "beating up" the establishment candidate, Tommy Thompson in the Wisconsin Senate primary, as if that is what cost him the election. See, conservatives should just take what we get in those back room deals. If the establishment has been courting someone for years to run, well they just know better. We only cause trouble when we try to have a say. Guess what? Thompson lost mainly because the establishment candidate at the top of the ticket didn't get the base to come out. Romney's received 46.1% of the vote in Wisconsin and Thompson got 45.9% with his percentage only being lower because of the 2% that went for the Libertarian candidate. 2 lame establishment candidates lose in the general and somehow the establishment can't possibly be to blame. Nope, it's the conservatives fault!
Anyway, here is more from Jennifer Rubin:
Oh see, we are just being unreasonable now. It can't possibly be a sin to vote for Paul Ryan's budget can it? That nonsensical budget that reformed little and would have raised taxes on the middle class. And No Child Left Behind? Everyone was doing it, it couldn't possibly be wrong! Oh yes it could. Irresponsible Republicans are as much or even more at fault for the mess we are in than Democrats because Republicans are supposed to know better and campaigned on smaller government, not more federal government largesse. And of course Jennifer Rubin is, as usual, being dishonest about Shelley Capito's voting record. There are far more problems than just those two. As I mentioned before, her ACU rating in 2011 was only 60%. That means that 40% of the time, she voted either for liberal legislation or against conservative legislation. The ACU rating is based on 25 votes, so her 60% score means that she voted the wrong way on 10 of them. Let's take a look at how she voted:
Jennifer Rubin finished her piece by quoting a Republican insider who used to work for Cantor, supporting Capito and criticizing the Club for Growth. Oh my, she found an inside the beltway type that supports her way of thinking. Shocking.
The battle for the soul of the Republican Party is clearly on. The establishment wants to move the party even further to the left by nominating more RINO's and by attacking conservatives (like Rand Paul who was criticized recently by one of Jennifer Rubin's former colleagues for not attending a speech by Bibi because he was busy filibustering legislation and for not disavowing his own father).
After years in which prominent Republicans courted her to run for the Senate, the popular Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.) announced today that she will run for the Senate in 2014, when Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) may retire. She has statewide name recognition and a 70.27 lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union.
But lo and behold the Club for Growth — which backed such stellar (not!) Senate candidates as Richard Mourdock in 2012 and Sharron Angle in 2010 and losers like Mark Neumann (who did a good job beating up eventual nominee Tommy Thompson in the Wisconsin Senate primary) and Don Stenberg of Nebraska — comes out to blast Capito for voting for "big government."
Oh my, a whole 70.27 lifetime rating from the ACU?!? Clearly the Club for Growth doesn't know what they are talking about as she is clearly a principled conservative! Or maybe they do. John McCain, who was a darling of the left at times and is by no means a small government Republican, has a lifetime rating of 82.52. So Shelley Capito is by far more liberal than John McCain. The worst thing is that in 2011, her rating was only 60!
I also love how Jennifer Rubin brings up Richard Mourdock and Sharron Angle (while skipping Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, who the Club for Growth also supported). Oh the establishment has never backed candidates who have lost general elections. Ha! Mitt Romney was essentially crammed down our throats under the guise of electability. Fox News, National Review and hacks like Jennifer Rubin would constantly nitpick over everything in a conservatives history but would leave Romney, who had Romneycare and other skeletons completely alone. Remember when they made an issue about what was written on a rock on land that Rick Perry leased? Or Newt's consultant contracts? Jennifer Rubin even attacked Herman Cain's 999 plan because it made the tax system less progressive (as if that was a bad thing!). Then they screamed socialism when Newt attacked Romney's Bain history, attacks that might have prepared Romney for the general if his lackeys hadn't done all the heavy lifting for him in the primaries. I also love the fact that she seems to assail the conservative candidate for "beating up" the establishment candidate, Tommy Thompson in the Wisconsin Senate primary, as if that is what cost him the election. See, conservatives should just take what we get in those back room deals. If the establishment has been courting someone for years to run, well they just know better. We only cause trouble when we try to have a say. Guess what? Thompson lost mainly because the establishment candidate at the top of the ticket didn't get the base to come out. Romney's received 46.1% of the vote in Wisconsin and Thompson got 45.9% with his percentage only being lower because of the 2% that went for the Libertarian candidate. 2 lame establishment candidates lose in the general and somehow the establishment can't possibly be to blame. Nope, it's the conservatives fault!
Anyway, here is more from Jennifer Rubin:
Among her supposed sins are voting for the budget of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), rather than the Republican Study Committee's budget, and No Child Left Behind legislation, which numerous conservative Republicans supported.
Oh see, we are just being unreasonable now. It can't possibly be a sin to vote for Paul Ryan's budget can it? That nonsensical budget that reformed little and would have raised taxes on the middle class. And No Child Left Behind? Everyone was doing it, it couldn't possibly be wrong! Oh yes it could. Irresponsible Republicans are as much or even more at fault for the mess we are in than Democrats because Republicans are supposed to know better and campaigned on smaller government, not more federal government largesse. And of course Jennifer Rubin is, as usual, being dishonest about Shelley Capito's voting record. There are far more problems than just those two. As I mentioned before, her ACU rating in 2011 was only 60%. That means that 40% of the time, she voted either for liberal legislation or against conservative legislation. The ACU rating is based on 25 votes, so her 60% score means that she voted the wrong way on 10 of them. Let's take a look at how she voted:
- Voted against cutting funding for the wasteful Legal Services Corporation
- Against expanding the federal pay freeze to raises due to seniority, meaning she is in the pocket of SEIU and government workers at the expense of the rest of us
- Against a measure that would have limited funding for enforcement of "prevailing wage" requirements on federal projects, which always inflate the cost of these projects. Again, she is clearly in the pocket of the unions and government employees.
- Against the conservative Republican Study Committee Budget
- Against barring funds for abortion training
- Against forcing the government to try terrorists before military commissions
- Against eliminating the Foreign Agricultural Service
- Against eliminating wasteful electric car subsidies
- For raising the debt limit and for the omnibus appropriations bills which were negotiated in secret
Jennifer Rubin finished her piece by quoting a Republican insider who used to work for Cantor, supporting Capito and criticizing the Club for Growth. Oh my, she found an inside the beltway type that supports her way of thinking. Shocking.
The battle for the soul of the Republican Party is clearly on. The establishment wants to move the party even further to the left by nominating more RINO's and by attacking conservatives (like Rand Paul who was criticized recently by one of Jennifer Rubin's former colleagues for not attending a speech by Bibi because he was busy filibustering legislation and for not disavowing his own father).
Monday, November 26, 2012
Jonathan Tobin Thinks Rand Paul Should Have to Answer For Ron Paul's Views on Israel
In his latest anti-Rand Paul piece in Commentary, Jonathan Tobin tries to make an issue of Ron Paul's views on Israel as a way to veto Rand Paul's ascendence in the GOP. He seems to provide no evidence that Rand actually shares his father's views (Rand Paul voiced support for Israel in Commentary just a couple of weeks ago) yet still believes that:
Really? He needs to clearly oppose his father? Since when is that a standard for selecting a nominee? Did John McCain have to oppose his father's advocacy of incursions into Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam war? Or has Obama have to oppose his father's Marxism? Or how about Al Gore's father's votes against the Civil Rights Act? Opposing one's father is a big personal move that has enormous emotional ramifications and it's uncalled for to force it on someone, especially short of some family history of mass murder.
Tobin is grasping at straws trying to torpedo Rand Paul just like he tried to torpedo the non-Romney's in 2012 (and look how that worked out!). Just a couple of weeks ago, Tobin tried to make an issue of Rand Paul not attending a speech by Bibi (he was performing a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type filibuster against some Harry Reid supported legislation). Tobin should start focusing on what the other side is doing wrong, not trying to torpedo real conservatives/libertarians from gaining power. Would we really be well off with a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush as the nominee? I don't think so.
"So long as the senator fails to clearly oppose his father's ideas about the Middle East and the role of the U.S. in the world, friends of Israel won't believe what he says about Israel. Nor should they."
Really? He needs to clearly oppose his father? Since when is that a standard for selecting a nominee? Did John McCain have to oppose his father's advocacy of incursions into Laos and Cambodia during the Vietnam war? Or has Obama have to oppose his father's Marxism? Or how about Al Gore's father's votes against the Civil Rights Act? Opposing one's father is a big personal move that has enormous emotional ramifications and it's uncalled for to force it on someone, especially short of some family history of mass murder.
Tobin is grasping at straws trying to torpedo Rand Paul just like he tried to torpedo the non-Romney's in 2012 (and look how that worked out!). Just a couple of weeks ago, Tobin tried to make an issue of Rand Paul not attending a speech by Bibi (he was performing a Mr. Smith Goes to Washington type filibuster against some Harry Reid supported legislation). Tobin should start focusing on what the other side is doing wrong, not trying to torpedo real conservatives/libertarians from gaining power. Would we really be well off with a Chris Christie or a Jeb Bush as the nominee? I don't think so.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Rand Paul for President!
I know that most people would think that Rand Paul would be the last guy a vehemently pro-Israel Jew would want as President, especially given the knee jerk anti-Israel comments coming from his father (that was one reason I NEVER even considered supporting him in the primaries this last go around). Well, luckily, Rand Paul is not his father and is actually pretty pro-Israel. Sure he doesn't think that we should be giving Israel $4 billion a year to the Jewish state but he doesn't think that we should be giving $6 billion to its neighbors either. I'm starting to come around to that way of thinking. Sure, it would be ideal if the US would JUST give aid to Israel and not to countries like Egypt, Syria or even Gaza (which it does). But absent that, cutting off all aid might be preferable. Israel has $242 billion in annual GDP and can surely live without the assistance that the US gives them. They also have a homegrown defense industry which makes Israel not totally dependent on US weapons systems (though obviously they help, especially the munitions). The Israeli main battle tank is no longer a US Army castoff, but the Merkava. Israel has also developed some of the most advanced drones in the world. Conversely, Israel's arab neighbors are almost 100% dependent on the US for any sort of modern weaponry. The US has given Egypt 1,130 M1A1 Abrams main battle tanks, advanced tanks which might now be used against Israel thanks to the Muslim Brotherhood taking power in that country. Also, Saudi Arabia has a state of the art air force and air defenses thanks to the United States and they have essentially closed off the southern route for any assault upon Iran. See what I'm getting at? As Rand Paul wrote to Commentary (the very pro-Israel neocon publication):
So why Rand Paul and not Jindal, Ryan or Rubio? Because the United States is in serious trouble financially. The former Chief Economist of the Office of Management and Budget (and a current Treasury Official), recently wrote that there soon won't be enough foreign buyers to fund US debt. Foreigners would have to hold the equivalent of 20% of their GDP for us to fund our debt by 2020, up from less than 5% less than a decade ago. We are on the road for a real sovereign debt crisis and soon. China has already reduced its US Treasury Debt holdings by $115 billion in the last year. Rand Paul just seems like the candidate who is most serious about cutting spending and getting government out of our lives. That is exactly the kind of person we need in the White House. Not just someone who is going to fiddle around the edges like I fear the other potential candidates will.
Anyway, let's keep our fingers crossed. In the last 88 years, the GOP has only sent two believers in small government and individual liberty to the White House, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, the rest were just lite Democrats who believed in government solutions. I think we're about due.
Makes sense doesn't it? His thinking would be leagues better than what we have now. I can tell you Rand Paul would never strong arm Israel into accepting a ceasefire when it has Hamas on the ropes, as Obama has just done. He would let them do what they think needs to be done.Israel is a strong and important ally of the United States, and we share many mutual security interests. I believe we should stand by our ally, but where I think sometimes American commentators get confused is that I do not think Israel should be dictated to by the United States. I think that has happened too often, and it has been to the detriment of Israel. Too often we have coerced Israel into trading land for peace, or other false bargains. When President Obama stood before the world in 2011 to demand that Israel act against her own strategic interest, I denounced this as unnecessary meddling. As I wrote in May of that year: "For President Obama to stand up today and insist that Israel should once again give up land, security and sovereignty for the possibility of peace shows an arrogance that is unmatched even in our rich history of foreign policy."
Israel will always know what's best for Israel. The United States should always stand with its friends. But we should also know, unlike President Obama, when to stay out of the way.
Foreign aid is another example of how our meddling often hurts more than its helps. In my proposals to end or cut back on foreign aid, some have made accusations that my proposals would hurt Israel. Actually, not following my proposals hurt Israel. We currently give about $4 billion annually to Israel in foreign aid. But we give about $6 billion to the nations that surround Israel, many of them antagonistic toward the Jewish state.
Giving twice as much foreign aid to Israel's enemies simply does not make sense. Our aid to Israel has always been to a country that has been an unequivocal ally. Our aid to its neighbors has purchased their temporary loyalty at best.
These countries are not our true allies and no amount of money will make them so. They are not allies of Israel and I fear one day our money and military arms that we have paid for will be used against Israel.
So why Rand Paul and not Jindal, Ryan or Rubio? Because the United States is in serious trouble financially. The former Chief Economist of the Office of Management and Budget (and a current Treasury Official), recently wrote that there soon won't be enough foreign buyers to fund US debt. Foreigners would have to hold the equivalent of 20% of their GDP for us to fund our debt by 2020, up from less than 5% less than a decade ago. We are on the road for a real sovereign debt crisis and soon. China has already reduced its US Treasury Debt holdings by $115 billion in the last year. Rand Paul just seems like the candidate who is most serious about cutting spending and getting government out of our lives. That is exactly the kind of person we need in the White House. Not just someone who is going to fiddle around the edges like I fear the other potential candidates will.
Anyway, let's keep our fingers crossed. In the last 88 years, the GOP has only sent two believers in small government and individual liberty to the White House, Calvin Coolidge and Ronald Reagan, the rest were just lite Democrats who believed in government solutions. I think we're about due.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)