I didn't leave the GOP the GOP left me. Screw the GOPe to hell with them. they aren't worth the time to worry about.
The GOP will never win another presidential election again, unless the party purges the rino's! It's that simple.....rino's are worthless, just a waste of space! Get rid of the establishment, otherwise welcome to the permanent wilderness!
You were a Democrat or a Wig or a Federalist etc. etc. until you defected to Wisconsin less than a hundred years ago and drank son much milk you began slurring your words and when the rest of the traitors ask for a title for there cult you half bleched burped and Farter the sound:
Rejoin the UNION before it's too late for you!
We are trying to build a free nation again, join us or get out and rejoin our enemy!
If you didn't like the man who was never born why did you support him and let him get elected TWICE? Why isn't Pillosi in a hospital?
You Quisslings had the vote all three times!
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, fool me thrice FIX BAYONETS!
I think the problem is that the RNC and their consultants and the Beltway types at the WS and NRO don't give a crap. All they do is talk about more and more principles to ditch (so we can be more like Democrats) - but the bottom line is they're still getting a big fat paycheck no matter how many times the RINOs they promote lose. And some of these Republicans (Boehner) would be perfectly happy to be in the minority, eat the nice lunches and play golf with the Dems. I don't give money to the RNC and give directly to the candidates I like (even the ones out of state). I think we need to starve these guys (of money) out of their jobs.
I was just watching Fox News until they said Karl Rove was up next.That is when I decided it was time to visit RS.Get off the stage Karl.Your 15 minutes of fame has expired.
As much as I loathe the term, I think we are witnessing the "Balkanization" of American political philosophy and as a result "parties".
Lumping in immigrants from the past to who they are now is a mistake, like saying minorities from past decades (see Cubans) are the same is a mistake too.
Yes c4pfan, these awful new immigrants are so much worse than those old school(read white) immigrants of years past. And America was so welcoming to them like "No Irish and No dogs Allowed" signs. "WOPS" for Italian immigrants that meant "without papers" and so much more. But now they are a part of the American tapestry and so will be the new immigrants in future generations. You love the Cuban immigrants because they are proto-fascist anti-communists. Even your GOP is coming around and your ilk is the past and the browning of America is the future no matter what you think and I, for one, can't wait for that to continue.
When this WOPs grandfather went to register as a Democrat he was told that the Democrat party didn't want any stinking WOPS. Every single one of my grandfather's 12 children and their offspring aren't stinking Democrats. BIGOT!
Many come here legally still. And most of them become Americans who want to be part of the nation, not set themselves aside as a separate group within the nation. The melting pot worked. A multicultural nation doesn't work if you want a strong united country. We all became Americans with loyalty to this new land, not hyphenated Americans who want to make this part of Mexico or something.
My grandparents were Germans from Russia (Volga Germans). They had 12 kids with them, $12 in their pockets, knew no one in the new land, and knew no English. Soon my grandfather owned his own very productive farm. The proudest day of my grandmother's life was the day, after she spent many years learning English, when she was sworn in as an American citizen...in English. They quit being Volga Germans and didn't insist that the government translate anything for them into German or give them food stamps. They were proud to call themselves Americans and proud to do all they could to contribute as good citizens. THAT's another difference from the illegals.
Before we give Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California back to Mexico, we should give the American Indians back their land...since most tribes lost their land through aggressive wars too. There wouldn't be any land left for anyone else, of course...even the Mexicans were newcomers in comparison. Your idea makes about the same kind of sense as that.
The illegal immigrants came here illegally,period. Everyone has to follow rules.
Listen we were taught American History not Howard Zinn's collectivist fairytale "A People's History of the United States" social justice drivel.
It is not our fault that you were indoctrinated and dumbed down.
In the campaign for the 1986 amnesty law, Ted Kennedy, "THE SWIMMER", predicted that the law would grant citizenship to no more than 1.3 million people. “We will secure the borders henceforth. We will never again bring forward another amnesty bill like this,” he said.
Never means never.
If the allowable legal entry numbers had been the same for hispanics as they were for the Siegs then we would have around 30 million legal hispanics by now. All the Republican's would have to do to send them all back would be apply the laws against employers and fine the companies that employ these people but they won't. Wonder why not?
Excellent post, JRD1! My ancestors came from Germany in the 1890's. My great grandfather worked on the railroad in Germany, then in Burlington, Iowa. They came in thru the front door...Ellis Island. they learned English and had sons and grandsons who served, faught and died in both WW's. They loved the United States and were proud...so proud to become citizens. If you want to come here....great....get in line and follow the rules. We are, or at least used to be a nation of laws. Thanks for sharing your views. I have never heard ANYONE say immigration is bad....just illegal ones.
You're ancestors came legally because they were allowed. The hispanics come "illegally" because we don't "allow" anyone to come legally anymore. Look, I'm ready to seal the borders and deport just as soon as we give back most of Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and half of California. Remember, those lands were taken through aggressive war. Now, we can fix the broken system and do it correctly or surrender what is rightfully the property of Mexico. Those are the facts.
Previous groups immigrating came here legally. That's all the difference in the world.
No one here has any problem with people coming to America legally AND assimilating into society. My ancestors came here and learned and spoke English, not Italian.
You want to call Americans bigots because they want illegal immigrants to obey the rules. You are twisting the argument. Our ancestors came to these shores legally, so can theirs.
Every time someone tries to call out a collectivist for not abiding by the law of the land they get called childish names like, bigot, racist, homophobes. Take your spin somewhere else.
You only prove my point that previous groups immigrating to the US faced the same hostilities that hispanics face today and then go on to be Republicans, Democrats, Independents and frankly, Americans. I was not insulting Italian people as I am one-qaurter Italian and one-Qaurter Irish so I sympathize with their struggles to become part of the American fabric as I do the hispanics attempting to do the same thing.
It's spelled "Kaczynski", and he is a native of Chicago (imagine that) as for Turner owning property here, so do a lot of people. Apparently, the only point you have is the one atop your head. As I stated before, hyperbole is all you have, a mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Montana is one of the most beautiful places in the nation and home of some of the most independently minded people. I'm sure Ken DOES enjoy his state.
In reality Pat Buchanan has never been front and center of the Republican Party. That is why he is marginalized and never been elected only appointed to public office. I grow tired of the 'paleo' and the 'neo' crap. The real true problem with Republicans right now is a lack of leadership. Now the establishment may define leadership in one way but the electorate defines it entirely different. We are still looking for a warrior/s.
Here is an example: Why in the heck did Republican Senators vote for Kerry for Sec. of State? Why?
Right off of the top Democrats would have blocked any nomination a Republican put out there. Next up Kerry is a traitor. He lied under oath during a time of war about his fellow soldiers and countrymen. In my mind that disqualifies. But he could of been blocked for political reasons too. It's time to fight fire with fire.
Ditto, Laurel. There is no way Kerry should have been confirmed for dog catcher given his abhorent rants about the military. But, Hagel is worse and these incompetent democrats and maybe some republicans are going to confirm this incompetent boob just because he was one of them. Just because he was once a Senator does not make him anymore competent-look no further than the president.
And they do so at their own peril. Obama wants Hagel for several reasons. A Republican whipping boy. A Republican to blame crap on. A low IQ deviant that can be controlled. A Republican anti-Semite.
The bad PR Republicans will get from Hagel is priceless to Obama. Let's face facts...that is why he uses Colin Powell. No one on either side of the aisle respects him.
I agree with a lot you posted. There is no leadership, but there sure is a lot pandering.
The top issues are our economy and the debt, but the focus are gun control and 'immigration reform'.
The economy recovers when government gets out of the way. Gun control is permanent, and the effects of wholesale amnesty is permanent. This makes these two issues most important.
Gun control is about the most important issue there is, because it attacks our right to defend ourselves from rogue government...it is the teeth to all the other Bill of Rights.
Because Republicans are reacting to Obama instead of getting him to react to them. Any gun control legislation should never see the light of day in the house and Republicans should just say so and tell the Democrats and the media to just say "Thank you!" for saving them from themselves.
Same with immigration.
Then Republicans better start bombarding the airwaves and social media getting their message out but at this time I'm not even sure they have a message to get out.
Ahh, this dovetails nicely with my comment the other day on Rubio. Good stuff, 911Infidel!
I have a couple of things to discuss relevant to this. The first is a recap of part of what I wrote in that Rubio comment, with more development. The second is a discussion about third (fourth, fifth, etc.) parties.
1) Concerning conservatives
As I wrote the other day, the Republican party comprises several factions, among which are the following:
A) The old, "Rockerfeller" Republicans
B) Beltway "Masthead and Columnist" Republicans
D) Cotton Conservatives
E) Reagan Conservatives
F) Values Conservatives
G) Buchanan Conservatives
H) libertarian/fiscal cons
(I pointedly use the lowercase 'l' for libertarian here because I do not mean hardcore, Rothbard versus Rockwell, Libertarian Party activists and organizers.)
Without bothering to detail much about most of these groups, I want to focus on where I consider the "heart" of Conservatism to be.
Bear in mind that I am not, myself a Conservative, I merely caucus with them. (Or have, so far. I might reconsider if Restoration is not made their most significant priority.)
The folks most like Middle America are found among the Reagan, Values, and Buchanan Conservatives. These are people who know we spend too much money as a nation, we get almost nothing for it, and that the economy has not recovered since Obama took office. While many of them are well-informed, a significant number of them are not well-informed when it comes to the political realm. Alarmingly, few of them are teachers in the government schools, leaving the field wide open to the leftists.
As 911Infidel pointed out, the Buchanan Conservatives have a major problem, and hold it in common with the neo-libertarians: contempt and disdain for Israel. If you add the libertarian/fiscal cons and some Values Conservatives to that list, you also have a LOT of people who are sick of America supposedly being "the World's policeman." (Which, of course, we never were, and still aren't.) These folks want the US to bring all the troops home, and forget about defending Liberty abroad. They blame our failures on a catch-all concept called "Nation Building" which, if you believe them, either Never Works, or only worked in Japan and Germany and can never work again (for some mysterious reason). Reagan was not like these people. Let's call them the Limited-Military Coalition.
Reagan believed in logistical, tactical, and far-reaching military superiority. Not to be a "policeman," but to defend Liberty away from our shores, so we don't have to defend it here. In other words, keep our foreign outposts strong enough to deter attacks back here. His methods worked spectacularly. They worked so well that a new concept, Asymmetric Warfare, had to be developed by our enemies to counter them. The Neo-cons and the Reaganites believed correctly that Asymmetric Warfare had to be deterred by keeping our best people out in the field, making friends if possible, but at the least, serving as early warning detectors for any planned events like 9-11. Unfortunately, Bush (41) and Clinton (42) took the focus away from this strong, forward-acting, muscular defense, and started taking money away from the military, closing bases, and demoralizing the troops (which was a Clinton specialty).
The Libertarians (uppercase 'L') and the Limited-Military Coalition look at the failure of Bush(43)'s Neo-con inspired "nation building" failure in Iraq, and have somehow concluded that in the future, you go "over there," smash everything, and kill the leaders, then leave. Which is a massive tactical blunder. Reagan would never have made that blunder, and neither would George Washington. The failure was that Bush(43) listened to people who thought we could entice the Iraqis to be like us. Which is stupid, right on the face of it.
What Reagan would have done, and what any good leader would have done, is win the war, and then A) Make them sign a peace treaty, which B) Requires them to accept a government we put in place, and then C) We stick around long enough to make sure our troops can leave without incident, and that the people in the defeated country are not left in a starvation condition (which as any thinking person knows, leads to further war, just as happened with the Weimar Republic). This is NOT "nation building." It's how wars are properly concluded. Just like we did with Japan and Germany. This is what a Reagan Conservative would do, because Reagan read his history.
I spend this much attention on Reagan, and his concepts of national defense, because of two things: 1) A lot of Conservatives seem to be so demoralized by the never-ending war perpetrated by Bush(43) and Obama(44) that they are starting to listen to the Ron Paul rhetoric of just bringing all the troops home, and "avoiding foreign entanglements," (perhaps the most-abused phrase George Washington ever uttered). 2) I seek to remind Conservatvies of Reagan's belief in the timeless words attributed to Publius Flavius Vegetius Renatus: Si vis pacem, para bellum, which Reagan took to literally mean Peace through Strength. And he did not mean "strong behind our own borders only." He firmly believed in logistical and tactical, as well as Naval superiority. If Conservatives throw this concept away because of the fecklessness of the Neo-con strategy in Iraq, and the ultra-feckless, absenteeism of Obama, then they are putting us in peril of losing our privilege of sending ships of American goods and American businessmen anywhere in the world we wish to go.
This brings me to the second item I wish to discuss. Right now the turmoil on the right is causing people to wonder what to do about the Republican Party, which is, as a national organization, still in the grip of the Rockerfeller Republicans and Cotton Conservatives.
In trying to fight off the insidious, nation-sapping influence of those groups, many of us are considering alternative party structures.
2) The Libertarian Party
Glenn Beck has, in his typically quirky way of deciding things, chosen to make his new network a Libertarian network, and is evangelizing for the strengthening of the Libertarian Party. He thinks it is the home for people on the right who champion Liberty. I forsee this as a disaster for several reasons.
First, the Libertarians will not take kindly to a massive influx of Conservatives taking over their party to make it into something they do not want. If folks think we have a war going on with the Cotton Conservatives (Karl Rove's faction) and the Liberty-minded Conservatives who want Restoration, then what do they think will happen when we try to crash the Libertarian Party?
Second, Beck is now playing the role of Ross Perot. Instead of joining with Conservatives, he's broken with them, and will actually have some success in swelling the LP to a point where it will make Restoration nearly impossible for generations to come. This is the "third party syndrome" all the "smart" people keep warning us about. If the LP manages to take 5% of the vote away from Republicans in future elections, then the Dems win in perpetuity. Conservatives need to be very careful about this.
Now here's the truth: Third parties never win, until they do.
Obviously the Whigs were wiped out by the new party of Lincoln. So when the "smart" people tell you third parties cannot possibly work, they are either ignorant, or lying to you. But the only way Beck's concept would work toward Restoration would be if Sarah Palin, Jim DeMint, Allen West, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Trey Gowdy, and a host of other, more Restoration-minded, prominent Republicans ALL decided to jump with Beck and take over the LP.
And we would all have to jump with them. I'm afraid it would be very ugly, and lead to a lot of infighting. It might work, but frankly, I doubt it. Libertarians are not going to stand still for it. Not unless we form some kind of new third-party/LP coalition. It would mean essentially two parties running as one, or at least supporting each other in a coalition style reminiscent of Parliamentarian governments like Britain and Israel.
This could work in the long run, but our country is in such dire shape, I don't think we have time for it. Making the attempt would be almost the same as throwing in the towel, and deciding to prepare for the inevitable, full-scale war that will occur if Restoration does not happen.
I do not think we can start a third party, unless all of the names I mentioned above, and a lot of people with Big Money, make it happen really, really soon. The country does not have time for a party structure to get built and a primary season to be run by a fledgeling party. (This is why I suggest the "Vote West" concept. Which you can read about here.)
I'll stop at this point, since that's already too many words for one comment. I encourage others to jump into this discussion, because it's of major importance. We can develop these ideas further if more people participate.
I'll finish with this qualifier: Restoration is now our highest priority. We must restore the original intent of the US Constitution, or we will never again see the like of the America I was born in. That is why I use that term throughout my discussion here.
Americans COULD vote for the best person, even if he or she ran as an independent.
A third party could be organized over time if the GOPe allowed conservative candidates to run, otherwise more would have to run independent or a third party would have to be formed quickly. In any case, it's the candidate himself who has to sell himself as both parties become damaged.
Political parties had no part of the original founding philosophy, and we don't need them now either. I think many voters have quit having any loyalty to one party or another...maybe we're growing up enough now to find and pick the right candidates no matter what the parties do.
The main problem with anyone who runs these days is money. Political parties can raise more money for their candidates, so that is their main advantage. But all the money Romney had behind him didn't help him win. Someone who can command the loyalties of voters WILL have the money behind him (or her) when it becomes apparent that that's where the support of the people is. Contributors hedge their bets sometimes, but they really prefer to back winners.
First I am really suspicious about Beck’s move toward Libertarianism. There are so many factions there that it makes your head spin. I disagree with Libertarians on just about everything. For example , they want same-sex marriage, legalization of drugs, containment, and I can go on and on. Beck says “if it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg” then he’s not concern. Ok then, Mr. Beck! Same-sex marriage has short-term and the long-term consequences. Short-term, marriage has always been defined as between one man and one women and it has proven to be the best arrangement to support the family. If you listen to libertarians and their same-sex leads to the destruction of the family and because of that leads to the breakdown of marriage which allows the Government an opportunity to interfere with the family unit using welfare and social services. Long-term same-sex marriage will led to the destruction of the human race. Libertarians views are short term thinking only what I want now as oppose to what is best for the family unit, the community, and the society.
I think Beck must believe that we can take over the LP and "normalize" them. But Libertarians (and the lowercase 'l' versions in the Republican party) are pretty much the most informed, hardcore, political philosophy minds in the world (not the bandwagon, drug-using, latecomer, neo-libertarians).
Beck will discover that he isn't going to get them to move an inch.
As to your point about "consequences," a sizeable chunk of Libertarians recognize that communities and even states have the power and responsibility to establish laws governing things like marriage, abortion, and road use. They just want the guiding principle to be "least necessary governance."
However the ones championing "gay marriage" are simply misguided. And it doesn't matter if the person in question is as brilliant as Glenn Reynolds or not. Intelligence alone is not enough to avoid spectacular mistakes in reasoning.
Here's some Rubio articles for you to read. Rubio is a Bush insider. We got hoodwinked.
Well, that's certainly a clue that there are ties to Jeb. What I want to know is how strong are his ties to any Tea Party types? I'm guessing they are more on the order of names on a Rolodex that he consults when THEY call HIM.
I don't mind Rubio being in the Senate, and I won't even mind it too much if he becomes another McCain or Graham type. But I sure as heck don't see any reason to get behind any bid by him for the White House. Not unless he accepts the task of becoming a champion for Restoration.
Just because some liberal rag writes an article about Rubio doesn't make it true. I cannot speak with authority on Rubio's position or character, but WON'T allow the MSM to define anything for me.
"That's right shoot your mouth off and shoot the messenger instead of taking the responsibility and doing the research yourself because you need somebody else to blame when you find out you got hosed again."
A bridge too far. I don't see that going on here.
Did she really say that, Rubio knows who Tubac is?! You know we can almost count on Sean Hannity's to bring us posers or RINO. Nicole Wallace, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove, Dana (Bush's press secretary), and now Marco Rubio and on and on. And Sean wants us to beleive that he is a Conservative?
Oh really. Ronaldus Maximus said, "Trust but verify."
You remember Nicole Wallace of "Game Change" fame. Yes, that scumbag cretin who along with Steve "Schmidt for brains" ran McLame's campaign and set up Sarah Palin to be torpedoed by her friend pudgy Katie Couric. Yes, that dirtbag Nicole Wallace who worked in the Bush White House. Yes, that POS Nicole Wallace who believes all conservatives are Neanderthal idiots.
Well go find the video of "This Week with George Snuffleufagus" of this morning 2/10/13.
This is what the slimeball Nicole Wallace had to say this morning.
"Look, Rubio is everything we need and more. He's modern. He knows who Tupac is. He is on social media. He has the blessing of the old political establishment and he is close to the younger Bushes. He and Jeb and George P. Bush have kind of an Axis of Enlightenment when it comes to immigration. etc."
Wake the hell up. Bush mafia dinosaur and Romney adviser, who just made a bundle on losing the last election, Ed Gillespie is praising him. The entire Bush crime family is on an all Rubio all the time.
You want to get hookwinked again and have the Bush mafia lead you around by your nose knock yourself out with your ostrich in the sand routine.
Rubio is a Stalking Horse for the establishment to keep the Conservatives from running away from this immigration fiasco. This isn't Rubio's plan it's Jeb Bush's plan. Rubio will lure the Conservatives into a bad deal and then back away at the end to save his political hide, when in fact he will be the one who made it ALL possible.
That's right shoot your mouth off and shoot the messenger instead of taking the responsibility and doing the research yourself because you need somebody else to blame when you find out you got hosed again.
Nobody who loved Reagan would start off their political career campaigning for Bob Dole who was a thorn in Reagan's side while he was POTUS. Rubio doesn't know anything about Reagan. Rubio can talk just like Obama, BFD! Watch what he does not what he says. We don't need any Rubio drama. We need reform and Rubio doesn't have any experience with reform. Actions speak louder than words.
How many times do you have to get burnt before you learn that when you play with fire you get burnt?
Bush politics and conservatism have irreconcilable differences.
I'm done with the Bush crime family. Rubio will be forced to choose. He can't have it both ways.
You're kidding, right? Trust them? Nearly all of my trust in the news media has evaporated. Even Fox News leans left, but I can listen to them without having a constant urge to puke.
The presidential election is pretty much in the hands of about 37,000 voters. Elections are down to a science all you need is a majority in key counties in key states. Liberals are flocking to Austin and Dallas. Once there's enough to flip Texas blue, we're done. People laugh about californians leaving the state, but WHERE are these idiots going? Liberals have left NY and moved to NC, GA, and TN to get away from taxes, but push political agendas that put these state at risk and jack up taxes. There will be no place to go because the cockroaches have infested everything. So for that reason, I think electoral college votes should be portioned, not a winner take all.
We must protect our rights with a mature use of all guns. Please send this petition to our elected officials so they could concentrate regarding the true problem.
(CLICK ON BOTTOM LINK)
Sorry, there is no hope of ever having another anybody on the "right wing" side winning the presidency. The marxists have carefully worked and planned this for decades. They hold all the high ground, the universities, education, government workers, tens of millions of illegal third world immigrants who will vote for whomever promises to give them stuff, most of the young and 95% of the media are bought and paid for. The media alone is the most powerful tyranny in the country. They can either black out or ridicule to death anyone who crosses the left in any way. There is also great evidence that the marxists infiltrated into the election and vote counting area and control that, too. "Elections" are finished as a way to fairness and change. It's over. Just like 1933 in Germany. Power has passed into the hands of the few. The gates have been built and now slammed shut. The Sheeple are beginning to panic, running this and that way, looking for an exit. They will find none. It is too late. Checkmate has been called. This is only the beginning. Good luck to everyone.
What if in key moments in history, certain leaders took your attitude? Just think about how impossible it was for George Washington ... there were many times where the war with Britain was lost.
All your points are valid. But why do leaders on our side become victims of Alinsky? Maybe, its b/c people on our side don't fight and defend them. Maybe, its b/c people on our side can't take the heat when they go after one of our guys. What does the Left do? They support their own like Pelosi, Biden and Reid. Our side does the opposite and that's why we lose.
Yes, we have the culture stacked against us. But, its also our fault.
Sorry to be so blunt but, why don't you just go and pick out the coffin now?
I'm never giving up, N.E.V.E.R.
My grandparents left Europe and traveled to America in steerage not so much to give themselves or their children a better life but to give their children's children a better life.
Well, that's me.
I owe it to my grandparents for what they sacrificed for me. I'll be damned if I give in and wimp out because I refuse to confront someone or I'm too intimidated to fight off some indoctrinated statist. I can out argue, out Alyinski, and outlast any of these limp takers. As a matter of fact I have been told on several occasions by these limp wimps that I am downright intimidating because I absolutely refuse to not make them feel guilty about the particular type of government welfare they are talking up, even if they are wealthy and they are crony capitalists. I don't get angry, I laugh at them. I shame them into admitting that their ancestors would never take like them. I even tell them they should be ashamed of themselves. That fat ba$tard Tip O'neill once said, "All politics is local." You have to smack them right across the face that they are leeches. There is no nice way to do it. Bush-tard "compassionate conservatism" has intimidated you to be nice. Bullschmidt! The left ain't nice and they are not compassionate and neither are Rockefeller Republicans. Why should we fight with one hand tied behind our back?
These useful idiots don't know what you know. They are fed talking points and when you argue with them they have no specifics to back the talking points up. They try to make you defend Bush. Once you don't and tell them how much you despise the Bush mafia Rockefeller Republicans you knock them for a loop and they don't know how to react. And guess what, you've NOW got some common ground!
If you are afraid to take on your children and educate them of the REAL DEAL, shame on you. You have been blessed by your Creator with offspring. The Lord entrusted you with the responsibility to tell them the truth. The Lord didn't give you children to be their friend. He gave you children to be their parent!
If we give in, we don't deserve what the founders sacrificed for us in order that we be free, and we bring no honor to America's soldiers who fought and died that we remain free.
Get your Grrrrrr on!
You are seeing the glass as half empty. Try looking at the glass as half full.
Mark Levin, Jeffrey Lord and other members of the Reagan administration have fired an opening salvo at Tokyo Rove to expose him for the Rockefeller Republican that he is. By the time they are through anyone associated with the Bush crime family will be toast, including Bush insider Marco Rubio if he doesn't watch out. We have never been in a better bargaining position since Reagan. Now is not the time to back down. The Rockefeller Republicans need us more than we need them. We told them so when we refused to vote for Etch-a-sketch. AND they know damned well that WE gave them the wave in 2010.
Cheer up, we ARE winning and we've got the Rockefeller Republicans on the run. Beat them back and beating the collectivists is a slam dunk.