Posted on 06/07/2014 2:49:42 AM PDT by dignitasnews
As the 2014 primary season draws to a close and focus shifts to the November general elections, the GOP is poised to capitalize on a demoralized Democratic Party, beset by scandal and a legislative agenda that has been largely proven a failure in improving the lives of Americans both nationally and on state and local levels. With most polls pointing to huge gains for the party of Lincoln, including a better than even-money shot at taking the Senate, Democrats have little to pin their hopes to other than an escalation of inner-party turmoil in the so-called GOP "civil war." This should serve notice to both establishment "RINO's" and Tea Part enthusiasts alike, and a call to arms for all Republicans that the only victor when we devour our own is Progressive-liberalism.
While the heated rhetoric of primary election season generally gives way to clearer heads and a spirit of common cause among conservative and moderate Republicans, there does come a certain level of drop in enthusiasm level for the activist base who have devoted months of effort, and their heart and souls, into advocacy for their chosen candidate only to come up short and see what is considered a lesser individual move on to the November election. While this occurs on both sides of the Republican divide, the feeling tends to run stronger in the more conservative wings of the GOP. In just the past few days Ive seen this evidenced, particularly in my home state of California. Without question the winner of our Tuesday gubernatorial "primary," Neel Kashkari, is less conservative than Tim Donnelly, who he ultimately prevailed against. I've personally had conversations with fellow Republicans and Donnelly supporters who in their anger at the results, vowed to cast their ballot for the American-Independent candidate, or sit out the November elections all together. I will go on record as stating that I supported Tim Donnelly in the June elections, and while I personally tend to side in primaries for the candidate with greater conservative "bona fides" I thoroughly reject the notion that Jerry Brown is a better alternative for California than Neel Kashkari or that a moderate Republican is no different from a Democrat.
I have, ironically enough, had my own conservatism questioned for the exact statement as that above. To the contrary, I seriously question not only the sanity but the very patriotism of someone who can soberly state euphemisms such as "Boehner is worse than Pelosi" and the similar comments made by my fellow conservatives. It makes me further question if such a person is truly committed to the long-term advancement of conservatism, or merely a wolf in sheep's clothing whose desire is to fracture the movement. I likewise reproach more moderate, establishment "RINO" types that bemoan the rise of the Tea Party activist base, who complain that their firebrand style and calls for ideological purity will be the "death of the Republican Party" and rightfully scold them for mimicking this left-wing hyperbole. The fact of the matter is that our intellectual diversity is a strength, something that provides us a vitality and political inertia that Democrats cannot match. It is only when we fall prey to the fears the left-wing media is all-too-happy to instill us with that this strength becomes a liability.
What our Progressive adversaries understand far better than we is that politics is a form of warfare. We are not engaged in a sporting competition where you win some, lose some and go on to fight another day. Politics is the pursuit of power and the direction of the nation. The left has made it perfectly clear, in case you haven't noticed, that they would have no problem utterly destroying out credibility, our power and our ability to freely compete in the political arena with attempts to silence our voice, be it through "Fairness Doctrines" or IRS skullduggery. It is high time we come to honest terms with the desires and strengths of our opponents and respond in kind, with all the legal arsenal we have at our disposal, of course the greatest weapon being truth.
Being the eternal optimist that I am heart, I sincerely feel we are the verge of a great awakening in this country. The incompetence, failures and lies of the Progressive-left are so great that even with the advantages they hold within the media, culture and academia, their web is beginning to unravel. As the primary mission of Dignitas News Service is to spread the gospel of conservatism to the core constituents of the Democratic Party, I have seen firsthand that our message of self-determination and limited government is one that is well received if properly voiced. The mythical Democrat "Maginot Line" of the inner-cities, the black, the Hispanic and the "urban white hipster" vote is a line we can crack and once penetrated will pave the way for the ultimate assault on Progressive-liberalism and its iPhone-friendly version of Bolshevism. I somewhat lament that the end of the Cold War occurred as it did, so that the world was unable to fully grasp the evils of Marxism, and it was allowed to evolve into more benign variants at home and abroad, and did not rightfully meet a similar end as did National Socialism.
That last statement alone should make it clear to all that my goals and vision are far from "moderate" in their scope, and in fact probably casts me as radical as they come. But I am not so mad as to believe that a nation as complex as ours can be saved, or run, with a strict adherence to a political dogma with no room for divergent opinion and solutions. Nor am I arrogant enough to believe that I, or any individual in our movement, has everything figured out. If I agree with eight positions of a given candidate or official, but happen to disagree with two or three of his or her positions, even if these are of high importance to me, I do not consider this person an enemy or a "traitor," particularly if I myself am not as an expert on this issue and possibly have not weighed all the implications, both strategically and as practical policy.
To all aspects of the Republican Party, I wish to point out that we are on the verge of something truly historic. On a national level, we certainly place priority on gaining a majority of seats in the US Senate and maintaining our advantage in the House of Representatives, but we need look further on the state level to find an equally important aspect of November's elections. Consider first, if you will, the text of Article V of our Constitution:
Here is where we begin to recognize and appreciate the combined strength of the Republican coalition. While many in the Tea Party and on the right, myself included, grumble about the often feckless nature of some in our congressional leadership, it would be foolhardy to dismiss the success that John Boehner, Mitch McConnell & company have had in navigating some very treacherous waters during the Obama era, at a time when his popularity and his allies within the media threatened to derail the national gains conservatives have made and place us back into the minority, least of all in the House. And to the country-club set I would point out that, although it garners far less attention, it is on the state house level where the Tea Party influence has been most pronounced and their success has been key to the GOP’s current dominance in this arena. To date, Republicans hold full control of 26 state houses, compared to only 18 under Democrat control. Five states are split between the state legislatures and state Senates, while Nebraska holds non-partisan elections for these offices, although this is widely considered “Republican country.”Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
What has Democratic Party officials particularly nervous is not just the race for the US Senate, but the very real possibility that Republicans, led by the insurgent Tea Party movement, will emerge from the primary season even stronger and together with establishment candidates will sweep to victory in a number of contested state house seats and have an insurmountable majority following November battles. Democrats are in danger of losing their slim majorities in eight key states, particularly West Virginia, Nevada and Colorado. Among the five states currently with a split in party majorities Kentucky, Iowa and New Hampshire appear to be leaning toward a GOP takeover. Should just these six states move over to the Republican column, they would hold full control of 32 state governments, with Nebraska giving them a virtual 33rd given their voting tendencies.
Consider these possibilities and how they correlate with the aforementioned discussion of Article V. If we are somehow able to gain the numbers needed to call a Constitutional Convention, for those with a sincere confidence in the superiority of conservatism then ultimate victory is but a fait accompli. Even with all the power they hold in the press, in Hollywood and other aspects of culture, such a historical event is something none in this generational has ever experienced. They will be unable to utilize hyperbole and rhetorical deception in such a forum as this truly national debate would provide. We have always bemoaned that the left will not engage us in a battle of ideas and methods, but rather falsely attacks our motives as to cast fear in the American people as to our intentions, thereby rendering our voices unheard. They will be unable to do so, and we are left only with having to explain how our direction will provide positive change for the men, women and children of this nation, and draw four or five of the remaining "split states" into our corner. With these numbers we can also aggressively pursue justice for the American people, in relation to the numerous scandals of not only the Obama Administration, but the seemingly unending acts of illegality that has been perpetrated by Democrats in our states and cities. In the short history of Dignitas News Service, we have numerous articles documenting Democratic Party wickedness here in California. We will have the opportunity to save American from this culture of corruption and the certain destruction that 50 years of the Progressive-left "Great Society" has put us on the path to and brought us to our current state of malaise.
This is why each and every race this November is of vital importance. The historic opportunity that we find before us is more than realistic, but a mathematical certainly if we don't somehow find a way to let it slip through our hands. While I do not begrudge any Republican who passionately defends and advocates positions they hold so dear to their hearts, to the contrary I have the utmost respect for this, I also recognize the danger that Progressive-liberalism poses to the nation I love so dear and one that will be inherited by my eight-year-old daughter and all of our children. Rather than dwell on the disappointments of the spring primaries, should look to the historic opportunities that Republican victories in November would bring to serve as a call to arms (and sanity) for moderates, conservatives, Tea Party enthusiasts and RINO's alike.
Opinion by Paul M Winters Editor in Chief, Dignitas News Service
Sources:
DignitasNewsService DignitasNewsService TheAnimals (via Paul Winters YouTube) BIPAC RealClearPolitics
*cough* LOL! *running*
I’ll make it reeeeel simple:
NO MORE RINOS!!
Rinos INSIDE the tent, but also pi$$ing inside—are MUCH WORSE than any outside trying to p in.
So—keep them outside the tent.
I don’t necessarily agree with your conclusions, but I guarantee you that the responses you’ll get to this article will illustrate the circular firing squad that forms between the Tea Party and the establishment GOP in this very thread.
Meanwhile, the allegedly demoralized Democratic party has a few months to figure out their message and try to get their people motivated.
Never underestimate the power of infighting.
No more RINOs or lesser evils. It’s Conservative or nothing, and to hell with the backstabbing GOP-E.
Bump what you said. I remember distinctly whispering to myself back circa 2004, "I don't have a party". I am suspicious of Tea Party candidates (Rubio anyone?) and downright distrustful of the rest. The Article V idea is great, but are we just being bamboozled?
Ping for later.
Because I cant respond to all individually, My retort is this. What you are saying is you are more than willing to let a HISTORIC opportunity to have the political numbers to call a CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION pass us by because of your aversion to the RINO-wing of OUR party. A party that by the nature of the REALITY of American politics must have a coalition of support to have any leverage whatsoever.
What you are saying is that you dont have an objection to seeing this nation be left in the hands of the the Progressive-left. That you would rather see Marxism obtain complete control than caucus with, Ill admit, self-serving right-of center politicians. What you are saying is that it does not bother you that a possibly once in a lifetime opportunity is going to pass us by. An opportunity by the way, that would be driven first from the statehouse level, where we have more conservative sway...then passed on to a Senate and House where the most talented voices and only ones capable of leading the debate in a forum such as a Constitutional convention will be the likes of Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy and others. They would DOMINATE that forum.
Why are we involved in politics? I am involved in politics for one basic reason....I wish to destroy Progressive-liberalism and all forms of quasi-Marxism. We have an unprecedented opportunity to drive a stake in the heart of this wickedness. Once this is accomplished, we can deal with the self-serving elements in our party, because then it will truly be our party. Right now it is not, and dont ever allow yourself to believe otherwise. But it can be, because conservatives are the true talent in the GOP...they need only be unleashed.
I implore go back and read Article V. Then consider the political map again. A constitutional convention will be the ultimate “OJ trial” in the sense that eyes will be glued to the television. Eyes that normally dont watch politics closely and are easily swayed by the lies of the left-wing media and their cultural companions. Imagine what can be accomplished in the span of a few months with a constitutional directive at our disposal, and the conservative voices who will be on that television, DOMINATED the discussion. Those eyes will see Ted Cruz, for the first time direct and without commentary, appealing to the righteousness of our cause and direction. They will see Mike Lee, Tim Scott, Trey Gowdy, John Barrasso, Trent Franks, Cory Gardner, Tim Huelskamp, Jim DeMint and others speak about amnesty & immigration policy, abortion, the minimum wage, monetary policy, marriage, 2nd Amendment issues and we can once for all re-establish the path a the republic this nation was meant to be.
But what you are saying is you dont want this. You would rather see that witch Pelosi get the speakers gavel back, see Reid hand-picked successor control the Senate and Hillary Clinton get the White House. That is exactly what you are endorsing. You are apparently perfectly comfortable in seeing our children inherit a nation where they are told what to eat, what to say, what to think how much will they pay for things, who they must take contracts from and what they must pay their employees and before we know it...who they may or not worship. Because at its heart, Progressive-liberalism is a movement led by a forced stronger than Pelosi or Obama. It is a force led the adversary of man since the dawn of time. And if I have to hold my nose to caucus with those I disagree with on some things, or men and women that I know deep down are simply serving their own interests, if it will help achieve the goal of destroying Marxism, so be it.
We can deal with them after the fact. But Ill be damned if I will sit back, shake my fist in the wind and watch a once in a lifetime opportunity pass us by and spend my remaining years waxing poetically at how I “stayed true to my principles” while I wait in line at the DMV to file my paperwork to purchase my state-mandated Prius.
Call me all the names you wish, that’s exactly what the Progressive-left wants. The Progressives that you apparently are more than comfortable being ruled by.
In reference to Schwarzenegger, I have some serious problems with him, particularly his last term. But I will say this, he went out on a limb and he tried to take on the Unions, and I will respect him for that alone. Do you recall the slate of ballot initiatives he tried to get passed? That was California’s last chance to avoid the reality of what we see today.
Its interesting you mentioned him, because I see that in a similar light as the possible Article V implications I mentioned in the article. This is 2005 Im speaking of. Had those passed, the Unions would forever have been crippled in California and some sort of sanity could have been achieved in terms of pension reform and scaling back an out of control bureaucracy. And I joined in on that campaign. I knocked on doors, made phone calls, passed out flyers, etc. But our numbers were incredibly small. And many I tried to enlist came with the same objections as we see here, that “Arnolds a RINO, IM not lifting a finger for anything he is involved with.” Meanwhile, the Unions poured in millions upon millions and a force a ground troops that steamrolled us and EACH of those initiatives got defeated. And the Unions maintained their power. And California is in the shape it is in today.
And that is what bothers me about our ideological litmus tests. Because it only strengthens the power of the far-left. And after the spanking his initiatives in 2005 took, yes, he made a bee-line to the left to save his own skin, regrettably so. But if we are going to expect politicians to be pure of heart, ours will always get broken, because they are what they are.
I remember those initiatives. I also remember how when they failed he capitulated completely and never fought for anything conservative again. I remember how he vetoed gun control bills and gold dredging bans, only to turn around and sign them later with no justification for the change. I remember he supported spending billions on green energy scams, stem cell research and the crazy train, and called anyone who is skeptical global warming “Neanderthals”. Mostly he was dishonest and unreliable. I supported him early on, but he was one of the biggest political disappointments of my lifetime.
Jerry Brown is a liberal, but at least he’s honest and pragmatic. He tells you what he believes and doesn’t flip flop like a weather vane. And he’s actually accomplished more in balancing the state budget and reigning in the unions Ahnold ever did. I may not like most of his policies, but at least I respect him, unlike just about every other Democrat and RINO. Just my personal opinion, FWIW.
I concur 100% on your feelings about Arnold, dont get me wrong. But he is gone. And Jerry Brown will be gone, as will be the case with nearly every elected official in office today, in 30 years or so. But had we won the anti-Union initiatives, because they are not “Arnold’s” but the people of California. I put absolutely no faith in individual politicians, other than what they can do, in a given moment, to assist this country in chipping away and ultimately destroying Progressive-liberalism, which is without argument the most dominant force in our lives today.
You have not, so dont think this reproach is directed you, but others on this board are calling me a “RINO” for what....advocating a strategic policy to place us in a position to destroy liberalism? I challenge anyone on this board to read through anything I’ve written and find a policy in which we disagree. And if I were somehow able to hand-pick leaders in DC and the States, the Boehners and Arnolds would NOT be getting phone calls...but none of us has that luxury.
I supported Donnelly, and I am sorry he lost, I truly am. but a Kachkari win means so much more than the one man. Its about who fills those offices in Sacramento..and who gets moved out. It means an opportunity for some young 22 year old conservative somewhere in our state to get valuable experience who may parlay that into becoming the next Ted Cruz. It means more GOP lawyers running around with more clout, so that we see more cases like the City of Bell, Leland Yee, Ron Calderon, Rod Wright, etc get traction. If you ask me, the entire Democratic Party in California is one big RICO case waiting to happen.
And I concur with you, in terms of being genuine, I can respect Brown. Hell, on that same note, I respect Bernie Sanders more than many of them, because at least he is true to his beliefs and speaks them openly. But I revile what he wants to accomplish and will fight him tooth and nail to prevent the socialism he honestly espouses.
Yes. Next question.
President Obama and George Soros thanks you wholeheartedly for your support.
I totally sympathize and empathize with your passion for fighting liberalism and leftism. Your arguments are based on rationalizations I've subscribed to for decades.
But the function of voting operates on as mean a law as gravity. Gravity is cold, stubborn, hard; if you seek an easier way and defy the law of gravity by jumping off a building instead of taking the elevator, gravity cares squat about your intentions. Same with politics. When you vote for leftists (if Kashkari is at all like Romney, who endorsed him, he's a leftist), regardless of your intentions, you accomplish one thing: you advance leftism.
When is what you advise, voting for the likes of Kashkari, going to pay off? Because Heaven knows it's had it's chance over the past 25 years as most Republicans have adopted the familiar, conventional "wisdom" that you so freshly express in your piece. We've BEEN doing it your way. I voted for Meg Whitman, as leftist a liberal as Romney, registered as a Republican. I voted for her with my eyes wide open!! And it was unspeakably STOOOOOPID of me!
Sorry, JRandom FReeper, I'm getting to be a pest but I must give credit where due. Dignitas, regarding JRF's words, wash, rinse, and repeat until it sinks in: If you vote for liberals, you're a liberal. It is a fact, the same as a rectangle is a square. I had to FACE that truth in myself -- I voted for Whitman, for God's sake!
If you vote for liberal Republicans, you promote liberalism. It's like gravity. There whether you like it or not.
Seriously, the bottom line is that the only thing that matters is what you're voting for. You argue that by voting for leftist Republicans, we're voting for the chance, the hope, the strained-for outcome, of some folks to the right of them gaining access and power. In realty, you're voting for more leftism in the Republican party.
I had to face that. You do, too.
I was VERY skeptical when I first started reading this article. But I understand exactly what you are saying. Im not a big fan of Boehner but for anyone to think he is worse than Nancy Pelosi is ridiculous. And I had no idea the GOP had that many states, or had even considered the Article V thing. I’m sold!
I dont disagree with you, in the sense that voting for liberals like Whitman or Kashkari is a quasi-endorsement for. And I certainly appreciate your kind words.
But I did mean what I wrote about viewing politics as warfare. And no war has ever been won with purity. We teamed with absolute monster, Stalin, to take out Hitler, before we took him on. As I lamented, its a shame that the Cold War didnt end the same way WW2 did. But the fact remains, we teamed with him to take out the more immediate threat. And thats exactly how I view this. I am terrified about the country may 8 year old daughter may one day inherit. Having grown up “behind the lines” in El Monte, California, Ive seen first hand how progressive-liberalism seduces the individual into forfeiting their self-determination and dignity and how they played off of our own mistakes and infighting to dominate this state and spread even more misery than the California of my youth. I am terrified they will do this to the entire nation, as paints my particular perspective. The Boehners of the world are easy to deal with. If we seize the political pulse and conversation of the nation, they will fall in line quicker than you can blink. They are opportunists, and will gladly follow the Gowdy’s and Mike Lee’s so long as their bread gets buttered. But we need the numbers to hoist men like this to power. And its not going to come if we spend the fall re-fighting the battles of spring.
Im under no illusions that Kashkari will somehow evolve into a Reagan. And he wont be my primary focus of activism this fall by any means. But Im not going to do anything to sabotage him because he beat my guy Donnelly. I’m not advocating that we acquiesce the fight for the GOP’s soul...far from it. But there is a time for that...for 2014, that time is now over. We count our victories and come to grips with our defeats and now we deal with the more immediate threat, which is a Democratic Party who will utilize any tactic or exploit any advantage to crush us.
And thats really all Im saying.
Excuse me, but voting for Whitman, voting for Romney, was not a "quasi endorsement" in function, though those who cast such votes no doubt intended them to be. The "quasi-endorsement" is pretend, a tooth fairy.
A vote for Whitman, a vote for Romney as a vote for Kashkari (if he is on the same page as Romney), was and will be a vote FOR what they stand for, no "quasi" about it.
You speak of "immediate threats," and all I see are the same threats that have gradually grown larger and larger. They are as "immediate" now as they were in Reagan's time. I have learned, and by thinking in terms of what I am voting "for" instead of voting "against" (the crux of what you advocate, in that your regard these liberal faux Republicans as place-holders, pieces in a chess game, whose hold is primarily defensive "against" the opposition, the Democrats). Your "against" is imaginary; if they lose (which they most often do), the Democrat wins; if the liberal Republican wins (which they have to ill effect in CA and in Massachusetts), this "placeholder" uses his position to pull -- and push -- everything left.
The "purity" argument is one hundred percent false and destructive. Purists are pretty much imaginary; what are legion are people who accuse others of being purists.
I would have voted for Gingrich. Believe me, he is very, very far from "pure," but I'd have voted for him. I refused to vote for Romney. To consider my stand that of a "purist" is flat erroneous.
Romney -- and by extension anyone he supports or who supports him, his camp in the Republican party -- is so fundamentally collectivist leftist, so far off the mark in not understanding out the gate, for example, that nationalized health insurance is contrary to conservatism, that compromise is neither asked nor expected. One hundred percent capitulation is demanded. To that, I finally said and say, "Nuts."
And THAT, more than partnering with Stalin, is how we won World War 2.
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.