Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Rand Paul on Neil Cavuto: Whether Your Raise Rates or Limit Deductions, You are Hurting the Economy

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:

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
She's also voted for all the bailouts and doesn't seem to have many government programs she doesn't like.  Do we really need more Republicans like her?  Or should we at least try to get a real conservative in office?

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:

"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.

Rand Paul for President!

I'm sure with a moniker like "libertarian neocon", you might be thinking I'm just some Ron Paul groupie who is now pretending to be a conservative who supports Rand Paul.  You would be wrong.  Back in the 2012 primaries, I supported or considered supporting just about all the GOP candidates at one time or another except for two of them, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul.  My lack of support for Mitt was because of his very moderate positions on just about everything as well as his enactment of Romneycare, the precursor of Obamacare.  I didn't support Ron Paul mainly because of his blame-America-first foreign policy positions which are pretty much identical to those of left wing whackjobs like Dennis Kucinich.  I am a libertarian, especially on economic issues, but I also believe in a strong defense.  Growing up under Reagan and then seeing 9/11 with my own two eyes didn't seem to leave me with many options in that department.  So historically, I have supported those are the more conservative end of the Republican Party.  People like Phil Gramm, Steve Forbes, Jack Kemp and Fred Thompson. 

Unfortunately though, none of the people who were my first preference were ever able to gain the nomination as the GOP has nominated moderates in almost every election in the last 88 years.  The only three exceptions were Calvin Coolidge, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.  And it's because the GOP continues to nominate people who favor big government that government has been able to take more and more control of our lives.  We get government excess under the Democrats and slightly less under the Republicans.  No wonder we are going broke.  Our situation is so bad that soon there might not be enough foreign money available to even buy our debt!

This is the main reason why I am supporting Rand Paul for President.  He is willing to make the drastic changes that are necessary to actually fix this country and take back America.  I just don't have the faith that Bobby Jindal, Marco Rubio or Paul Ryan are willing to do that.  Just look at Paul Ryan's medicare reform plan, it only starts at around the time that Medicare is going to go bankrupt.  Does that make sense to anyone?  To only start reforming something when its about to run out of money?  And what about his lousy tax plan which will likely kill the real estate industry and raise taxes on most middle income earners?  And he's the conservative golden boy?  Enough is enough.  We need someone who actually knows what needs to be done and is willing to actually try to do it.

We need Rand Paul.