Perry: "Time for a Little Rebellion"

National Review Online ^ | March 7, 2014 | Andrew Johnson

[Biggirl]

Touting the contrast between red states and blue states, Rick Perry kicked off the second day of CPAC by spiritedly urging his audience to help bring back those successful conservative policies that have been absent in Washington for the last several years. “It’s time for a little rebellion on the battlefield of ideas,” the Texas governor said, paraphrasing Thomas Jefferson.

“We don’t have to accept recent history — we just need to change the presidency,” Perry continued. “We must elect the right kind of leaders to represent us to Washington.”

[okie01]

Wrong concept. We need to disempower “Washington”. We need to make it nearly irrelevant to our lives.

If you don't think we need "the right kind of leaders in Washington" in order to disempower Washington, you are sadly mistaken.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Agreed on the policy statements. 100%

Respectfully disagree on “dog whistle.” I don’t see deporting 12 million as any more feasible, logistically speaking, than building and maintaining a border fence. Is it a great idea? Hell, yeah, in theory.

How do we do it? You listed a couple of ways to attack it, but it would take decades to deport all 12 million and by then we’d have 24 million. Do we have the State National Guards go door-to-door to round them all up? Where do we put them while we’re deporting them? FEMA internment camps? How do we, logistically, get from point A to point B?

Granting them citizenship or any form of legality is not the answer, but what is the answer besides rhetoric and theory?

[Yosemitest]

It's simple.
Like any other country on Earth would do, when aliens overrun their border, you shoot, and tell them "Leave or die !''

[BuckeyeTexan]

Which countries are shooting illegals who are already within county?

[Yosemitest]

Mexico, North Korea, Russia, Cuba, ... need I go on?

[BuckeyeTexan]

All champions of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We should follow their models. /s

[Yosemitest]

You defend your country against an invasion, ~ or you don't.
Your enemy set the rules!
Get tough and get serious!

[Yosemitest]

One more thing.
ANYONE, and I MEAN ANYONE who assists an ILLEGAL ALIEN (including the one in the Oval Office) get a stiff fine, and additional jail time.

[Yosemitest]

Those would also cause me to vote AGAINST them.

"Establishment Republicans" lose everytime they're listened to.
They wouldn't care if they DO lose.
If they can't be in power, they don't want US in power.
It's just that simple.
It's WAR!

"Establishment Republicans" Want to Redefine the Term "Conservative"

"DO CONSERVATIVES WANT TO WIN IN 2012 OR NOT?"

DO CONSERVATIVES "ESTABLISHMENT REPUBLICANS" WANT TO WIN IN 2014 OR NOT?

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.

Thus far, the field of GOP presidential contenders, actual and potential, isn’t looking too terribly promising.

This, though, isn’t meant to suggest that any of the candidates, all things being equal, lack what it takes to insure
that Barack Obama never sees the light of a second term; nor is it the case that I find none of the candidates appealing.
Rather, I simply mean that at this juncture, the party faithful is far from unanimously energized over any of them.

It is true that it was the rapidity and aggressiveness with which President Obama proceeded to impose his perilous designs upon the country
that proved to be the final spark to ignite the Tea Party movement.
But the chain of events that lead to its emergence began long before Obama was elected.
That is, it was actually the disenchantment with the Republican Party under our “compassionate conservative” president, George W. Bush,
which overcame legions of conservatives that was the initial inspiration that gave rise to the Tea Party.

It is this frustration with the GOP’s betrayal of the values that it affirms that accounts for why the overwhelming majority
of those who associate with or otherwise sympathize with the Tea Party movement
refuse to explicitly or formally identify with the Republican Party.
And it is this frustration that informs the Tea Partiers’ threat to create a third party
in the event that the GOP continues business as usual.

If and when those conservatives and libertarians who compose the bulk of the Tea Party, decided that the Republican establishment
has yet to learn the lessons of ’06 and ’08, choose to follow through with their promise,
they will invariably be met by Republicans with two distinct but interrelated objections.

First,
they will be told that they are utopian, “purists” foolishly holding out for an “ideal” candidate.

Second, because virtually all members of the Tea Party would have otherwise voted Republican if not for this new third party,
they will be castigated for essentially giving elections away to Democrats.



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.


No one, as far as I have ever been able to determine, refuses to vote for anyone who isn’t an ideal candidate.
Ideal candidates, by definition, don’t exist.
This, after all, is what makes them ideal.
This counter-objection alone suffices to expose the argument of the Anti-Purist as so much counterfeit.
But there is another consideration that militates decisively against it.

A Tea Partier who refrains from voting for a Republican candidate who shares few if any of his beliefs
can no more be accused of holding out for an ideal candidate
than can someone who refuses to marry a person with whom he has little to anything in common
be accused of holding out for an ideal spouse.
In other words, the object of the argument against purism is the most glaring of straw men:
“I will not vote for a thoroughly flawed candidate” is one thing;
“I will only vote for a perfect candidate” is something else entirely.



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,

as Glenn Beck once correctly noted in an interview with Katie Couric,
had John McCain been elected in 2008, it is not at all improbable that, in the final analysis,
the country would have been worse off than it is under a President Obama.
McCain would have furthered the country’s leftward drift,
but because this movement would have been slower,
and because McCain is a Republican, it is not likely that the apparent awakening that occurred under Obama would have occurred under McCain.


It may be worth it, the Tea Partier can tell Republicans, for the GOP to lose some elections if it means that conservatives—and the country—will ultimately win.

If he didn’t know it before, the Tea Partier now knows that accepting short-term loss in exchange for long-term gain is the essence of compromise, the essence of politics.

Ironically, he can thank the Republican for impressing this so indelibly upon him.

I'm fresh out of "patience", and I'm not in the mood for "compromise".
"COMPROMISE" to me is a dirty word.
Let the RINO's compromise their values, with the conservatives, for a change.

Take a good long look at where "Establishment Republicans" ALWAYS take us.


The "Establishment Republicans" can go to hell!

[BuckeyeTexan]

That I can support.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Shooting armed invaders, yes. Shooting illegals mowing lawns and picking oranges? Reminiscent of gas chambers.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yuck. No.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I hear you. I agree. My question remains unanswered. How?

[dragnet2]

A fired-up CPAC crowd cheered as Perry told them they deserved better than the Obama administration’s recent foreign-policy failures

Has Perry been asleep for 15 years?

How about our disastrous "compassionate wars" which lasted decades, costing multiple trillions in American treasure, while borrowing trillions from the Communist?

Not enough?

All this while the borders of Texas and the entire southerner region of the U.S. resemble a Boston marathon of millions, entering illegally from foreign countries, during war time yet...

As American citizenship was been made all but pointless, Americans are forced by corrupt government agencies to subsidize the demise of their own sovereignty.

How about these foreign policies Mr. Perry?

Everyone pull their heads out and lets hear a round of applause!

[Yosemitest]

"...illegals mowing lawns and picking oranges ..."

Most of them are getting welfare in one way or another,
and if they do get a job (Tyson Chicken, for example)

they're hired as "Contractors" and don't pay ANY taxes,
and don't obey U.S. laws, of any kind.

It's an INVASION, and nothing less !

[Paine in the Neck]

Agreed on the policy statements. 100%

Respectfully disagree on “dog whistle.” I don’t see deporting 12 million as any more feasible...

How do we do it?

I say it is a dog whistle for amnesty because the underlying assumption is that the only alternative to letting them stay is the straw-man of some kind of Operation Wetback II. The real alternative is self-deportation.

The magnet that brings them here is the possibility of free stuff, of employment, and of anchor baby citizenship for their progeny. Implement my 5 immigration policy actions and the magnet gets reversed. There is no possibility of free stuff, there is no possibility of employment and there is no possibility of citizenship. The incentives to be here are gone so they'll beat feet on their own to some other more promising destination. We know this can work because we are seeing a bit of it now as the inflow has dropped with reduced job prospects in the ruined Obama economy. Cut out the free stuff and the citizenship and the outflow will take care of the rest.

[Kazan]

Ha - Perry couldn’t even remember what fed agencies he was trying to eliminate

Keep helping Chris Christie and Jeb Bush.