So you’re not persuaded by my arguments that Ted Cruz style truth-telling is a good thing and damn the consequences? OK, then here’s Instapundit on the possible political fallout from going after Tea Partiers: MILT WOLF PHOTOS OF GUNSHOT VICTIMS’ X-RAYS: Scandal, or tempest in a teacup? I note that on twitter the NRSC is clearly hoping it’s enough to knock Wolf out of the race and save incumbent Pat Roberts. UPDATE: Okay, by NRSC, I really mean the NRSC’s Brad Dayspring. I follow him, and I like his tweets. But he’s been hammering this all day and it’s a dreadful, dreadful mistake. I accept his claim that he’s just interested in making sure the seat goes GOP. But when the NRSC gets out and attacks a Tea Party challenger — and that, make no mistake, is what’s going on — it poisons the well. There’s basically no trust for the GOP establishment among the base. If they stay home in 2014 like they did in 2012 because they feel betrayed by the establishment, what should be a wave election won’t be. Given the importance, in particular, of a GOP Senate in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy, doing anything to foster such a state of events is criminal incompetence. The blogger you’re reading used to be one of those people, like you still are, who worried about Republican electoral prospects. Now, the blogger you’re reading just wants people like Ted Cruz standing tall. But I might still vote for Republicans in particular races — might , I said — if I think they will promote the principles of limited government, the free market, putting people back to work, and reining in spending to minimize the immediate damage of the coming fiscal collapse. My vote is no longer automatic. I used to describe myself as an independent who almost always votes Republican — which, let’s face it, is really a Republican. Now, I am an independent, period. I am no longer a Republican. If the GOP attacks Tea Party candidates, that does not make me more excited about voting for a Republican party that I have already departed. I am not alone, I guarantee you that. There are a lot more people like me, boys. Keep that in mind.
Here is the original post:
Attacking Tea Partiers: Not Good for Republicans Generally
I am an admirer of Thomas Sowell, but here , I think he just doesn’t get it. Read it all and then return here for the criticisms. Sowell begins his piece by, essentially, arguing that Ted Cruz sure does talk purdy, but so did Barack Obama, and where did that get us? Sowell then quickly arrives at the crux of his argument: Senator Ted Cruz has not yet reached the point where he can make policy, rather than just make political trouble. But there are already disquieting signs that he is looking out for Ted Cruz — even if that sets back the causes he claims to be serving. Those causes are not being served when Senator Cruz undermines the election chances of the only political party that has any chance of undoing the disasters that Barack Obama has already inflicted on the nation — and forestalling new disasters that are visible on the horizon. Sowell goes on to emphasize the stakes. ObamaCare has fundamentally restructured the relationship of the government and the individual. Hear, hear. I have said that in this space often. The new FCC plan to monitor how media makes news is another federal intrusion on freedom. Hear, hear. I noted this here days ago. The basic, brutal reality is that the federal government can do whatever it wants to do, if nobody stops them. The Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision shows that we cannot depend on them to protect our freedom. Nor will Congress, as long as the Democrats control the Senate. Until recently, I might have agreed. After all, who is going to stop Obama, if not Republicans? But here is the problem, Mr. Sowell: Republicans have not done a damned thing to stop this. None of them voted for it, true. But that was not good enough. It was still passed. And now, what are we doing to stop it? Are we dreaming that we will retake the Senate and the Presidency and keep the House — and then, if we do, that it will mean something ? Tell me, Mr. Sowell: when Republicans last controlled Congress and the Presidency, precisely what did they accomplish to rein in the size and oppressive ubiquitous power of the federal government? During those golden years from 2003 to 2006, what government excesses were ended? Did we reform Social Security or Medicare? I don’t seem to recall that we did. Here’s what I do remember: we passed a new prescription drug benefit. We passed some tax cuts but did not rein in spending; instead, we ran deficits of half a trillion dollars per year or more. So yes, Mr. Sowell: the Republican Party is the only party that could put a stop to what Obama is doing — but the fact that they could does not mean that they will . It does not matter too much who gets elected if they’re not going to do anything when they get there. So what is Cruz doing to hurt Republicans’ prospects? Remarkably enough, Sowell doesn’t tell us. But you don’t have to guess, because (if you didn’t already know) I will tell you. For one thing, he is holding Republicans accountable for their decision to continue the temporary abolishment of the debt ceiling: Texas Sen. Ted Cruz sat with eyes glued to his mobile device as the chaos he provoked ensnared his Republican leaders on the Senate floor. Legislation to raise the nation’s borrowing authority with no strings attached was short of the 60 votes it needed to advance — a threshold Cruz demanded — and without a few conversions, Republicans would be blamed for its failure. The stock market was watching. [ Actually, borrowing authority was unlimited before the vote and is still unlimited; the real issue was whether to re-impose the debt ceiling, which was suspended last year and was re-suspended earlier this month. I got this wrong several days ago and had to correct my post; this is probably worth a post of its own. There is no debt ceiling in effect right now; it is suspended and the country can spend anything it wants. -- P ] After what seemed like an eternity, a grim-faced Sen. Mitch McConnell, the party leader who faces a tea party challenge back home, finally voted yes. An equally grim-faced Sen. John Cornyn, the party’s No. 2 leader and Cruz’s Texas colleague, changed his vote from no to yes. Cruz showed no mercy in exposing Republican leaders to widespread criticism from their primary challengers over a procedural vote on the debt limit after their pronouncements about the imperative of spending cuts. It could have been a simple 50-vote requirement, with Democrats delivering the votes to lift the debt limit, but Cruz insisted. Pressed after the vote about what he made his leaders do, Cruz was unapologetic. “It should have been a very easy vote,” he told reporters. “In my view, every Senate Republican should have stood together.” He added that the verdict on McConnell “is ultimately a decision … for the voters in Kentucky.” That is called holding Republicans accountable. You want to give Barack Obama free rein to spend anything he likes? Put your name down on that blank check so we can all see it. The rest of Sowell’s piece goes from unconvincing to just plain bizarre: The most charitable interpretation of Ted Cruz and his supporters is that they are willing to see the Republican Party weakened in the short run, in hopes that they will be able to take it over in the long run, and set it on a different path as a more purified conservative party. Like many political ideas, this one is not new. It represents a political strategy that was tried long ago — and failed long ago. In the German elections of 1932, the Nazi party received 37 percent of the vote. They became part of a democratically elected coalition government, in which Hitler became chancellor. Only step by step did the Nazis dismantle democratic freedoms and turn the country into a complete dictatorship. The political majority could have united to stop Hitler from becoming a dictator. But they did not unite. They fought each other over their differences. Some figured that they would take over after the Nazis were discredited and defeated. Many who plotted this clever strategy died in Nazi concentration camps. Unfortunately, so did millions of others. What such clever strategies overlook is that there can be a point of no return. We may be close to that point of no return, not only with Obamacare, but also with the larger erosion of personal freedom, of which Obamacare is just the most visible part. Yes, we are at that point. We are at a desperate point. And the silly Nazi analogy only serves to reinforce that Cruz is doing the right thing. Sowell portrays Cruz as the one who wants to wait, but Sowell is the one who wants to wait: he wants to wait until we “control” the Senate with 50+ Republicans, plenty Republicans in name only, who won’t dare pass anything that means a damn. Cruz says, by contrast, we have power NOW. We have the House NOW. Let’s use that power. If Sowell wants to go full Godwin on us, then Sowell waiting for the Senate to go GOP is Stauffenberg waiting to assassinate Hitler until he gets Himmler in the room too. Cruz says: we have the bomb NOW, and if we’re not going to set it off when we have it, then we may end up having to wait until we’re in a room with some damned fool who kicks it with his leg. Why wait? If the situation is desperate then we fight NOW, and those who refuse to fight must be named and shamed. I’m sorry, Mr. Sowell, but as much as I like you, this piece is rambling, odd, and totally unconvincing.
Trying to rewrite his memories? Via Mediaite A panel on CNN’s At This Hour on Tuesday tore into Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas’ politically incorrect recollection of his youth. Thomas courted controversy on Tuesday when he said that the issue of race “rarely” came up while he was a child in Georgia in the 1960s. […]
Go here to read the rest:
CNNers Rip Into Clarence Thomas’ Politically Incorrect Childhood Memories
Nobody churns out death better than Planned Parenthood. Via LifeNews: The Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion research group, made headlines this week with a media release and report saying that, in 2011, national abortions decreased to their lowest point since 1973—the year the Supreme Court decriminalized abortion through its Roe v. Wade decision. Certainly, if the Guttmacher numbers are reliable, this […]
This op-ed is gold from start to finish. Three cheers to Texas for electing this guy. Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the president’s persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat. On Monday, Mr. Obama acted unilaterally to raise the minimum wage paid by federal contracts, the first of many executive actions the White House promised would be a theme of his State of the Union address Tuesday night. The president’s taste for unilateral action to circumvent Congress should concern every citizen, regardless of party or ideology. The great 18th-century political philosopher Montesquieu observed: “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates.” America’s Founding Fathers took this warning to heart, and we should too. Above: King Obama Cruz goes on to detail how Obama has unilaterally decided to “cease enforcing the laws: in areas like immigration, “federal welfare law, drug laws and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.” But Cruz saves his biggest guns for Obama’s rewriting of clear statutory directives in ObamaCare: delaying the employer mandate; changing who the law applies to; twisting the law’s language to exempt Congressional staffers from ObamaCare; and forcing companies to create plans the laws declare illegal. In the more than two centuries of our nation’s history, there is simply no precedent for the White House wantonly ignoring federal law and asking private companies to do the same. As my colleague Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa asked, “This was the law. How can they change the law?” Similarly, 11 state attorneys general recently wrote a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius saying that the continuing changes to ObamaCare are “flatly illegal under federal constitutional and statutory law.” The attorneys general correctly observed that “the only way to fix this problem-ridden law is to enact changes lawfully: through Congressional action.” The problem is that many citizens, not being steeped in constitutional history or in the Supreme Court’s views on these matters, simply assume that if Obama’s actions are illegal, a court will come along and say so. Under the standing rules developed by the courts, however, this is unlikely to happen. The cure for these power grabs lies in the separation of powers: Congress can withhold money from a rogue executive — or, in extreme cases, impeach him. As I noted yesterday, Congress cannot order around people with guns. Only the executive can do that. So if the executive accomplishes power grabs, then we’re headed that much closer to being ruled by a king: a guy who gets to make the rules by himself . . . and enforce them. I don’t want a King Obama. And as Cruz notes, it should not be a partisan issue. If Ted Cruz were elected president, Democrats probably would not want a King Cruz. So honest Democrats should stand up with me and Ted Cruz and say “no more” to these power grabs.
Follow this link:
Ted Cruz on Obama’s Imperial Presidency