BluegrassBulletin.com

McConnell's Great Commission

When Mitch McConnell becomes the next majority leader of the United States Senate he will have achieved a life long dream.  Not only will he deserve the job, but he should enjoy the credit for having created the majority that will elect him.

Mitch McConnell is a master of the political process.  It was he who made the 2014 mid-term elections a referendum on Barack Obama which ended up being the force beneath the ground swell of discontented voters who swept republicans into office in greater numbers than anytime since the reign of FDR converted so many to the democratic party where they have remained ever since.

Not only did Mitch substantially outperform the polls which nearly all predicted that a win in Kentucky, by either candidate, would be within the margin of error.  Not only did he exhibit great poise and leadership in his acceptance speech in contrast to what even liberal pundits are saying about how ungracious his opponent was in defeat.  But Mitch McConnell helped orchestrate the national conversation we all have been having for the last few years which conversation became the sentiment which was then mobilized into the movement that has now demanded that someone turn the direction we are heading around.  And as reward for all of those things Mitch McConnell won not only his race, but an incredible, historic obligation.

It is he who told America that there is a better way forward than the path our current president and his troops in the Senate and the House have been marching us down.  It is he, McConnell, who has promised to repeal Obamacare "root and branch".  It is he who has promised to get the Congress working again, to bring matters to a vote, to pass a budget and to improve the prosperity of our country.  These are huge tasks, and they are now his burden.

I once had the chance to meet Karl Rove when I was a candidate for office and asked his advice.  He actually grabbed me by my necktie, pulled me close and gave me his wise insight.  He looked me right in the eye and said, "remember, if you win this, you asked for it."  McConnell has really asked for it.

Not only will he have the burden of a victor on his shoulders as well as the burden of defining his own legacy on his mind, but the architect of the republican party in Kentucky will have the fate of the republican party of America in his hands.

It was McConnell who motivated and moved the electorate by his carefully planned campaign talking points which were repeated with great discipline by the candidates that he, the NRSC, and other influential republicans all working together helped to put into place by winning primaries for those candidates who they deemed could eventually and did win November.

To accomplish this these so-called mainstream republicans had to go out and defeat the kind of fringe candidates that had been buoyed through primaries by the seething discontent of many republicans who had left the fold, formed splinter groups and ran as much against the GOP as they said they would against the democrats.  That hadn't worked out so well and so the adults in the room had to bring order back to the process.  They did, and they won.

But that doesn't mean McConnell will get the unanimous support of every one of his republican members.  Grandstanders like Ted Cruz and presidential hopefuls like Rand Paul will certainly take shots at their own party and its leaders in order to get the kind of attention they crave and to appeal to those fragile parts of their own coalitions they perceive to be necessary to their own political survival.

And Mitch will have to weather the criticism of many others elected under the GOP banner who came to Congress just to be troublemakers and who will not be able to control their rhetoric because it has become indistiguishable from their identity.

But perhaps the greater battle Mitch has won is the obligation to direct the battle to save the republican party.  While Rand Paul goes about trying to build a new kind of GOP in much the same patchwork quilt manner that the democrats have done for years, Mitch can look out over the groundswell of support given to his candidates and see that a much more congruent mindset joins the republicans and democrats and independents alike who joined their votes to give the GOP the victory they achieved.

While many would be right to say that the outcome was a repudiation of Barack Obama and his agenda, it was also at the same time, and by virtue of that repudiation, a collective agreement that if the republicans say they really can turn the country around, now is their chance to put up, or shut up.

As crass as it is when LBJ pushed so hard to create his "great society" he admitted that he had a political motivation behind him when he stated "

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs. liveleak.com

What is really at stake for McConnell is nothing less than the future of and the relevance of the republican party.  Unless he and his fellow republicans deliver what the voters want, he may end us casting the GOP into the dark abyss for a century or more to come.

And those who know this is what is at stake and who want him to fail in that quest will bring incredible forces and resources to the battlefield in order to prevent him from succeeding.

Gridlock is not dead, it will be like the undead, nearly impossible to kill, raging out of control, incorrigible on all levels, defiant to a fault, relentless and vicious.  For McConnell to save the nation and the GOP he will face a battle on a scale not unlike a world war.  And I do not use that comparison lightly. 

 

As in all prior wars where the American people rallied in support it was in defense of liberty, human rights, freedom and western prosperity that was threatened by socialist movements, dictators and those that opposed our way of life.  That's just how the voters on Tuesday see the world today and McConnell has been elevated to be our supreme commander in that war.

 

He and the republicans must succeed and success will not be measured in small accomplishments.  The mindset of McConnell's generation does not resonate today.  The notion of working hard, saving a little, and watching progress come to your own life a little at a time isn't shared by many any more.

 

America today is filled with the "me generation", people convinced that they are the center of the universe, who refuse to accept that they can't have everything they want just for the asking, who through an ignorance taught to them for generations deeply believe that anything they want is a "right".

 

If McConnell believes that he can re-train America to accept incremental progress after six years of perceived decline he may lose his grip on the tiller before the ship of state crashes.  He must make big moves, bold moves and each and every one must succeed.

 

He should sponsor legislation immediately to create jobs in America while at the same time reducing corporate taxation, ending our dependence on foreign manufacturing as a national security measure and get America working again.  How?

 

Pass legislation giving not just a tax deduction, but a dollar for dollar tax credit for wages paid in America to companies that bring manufacturing jobs back from overseas.  Tie this commitment to a three year term of guaranteed American employment. 

 

Sure, our treasury would suffer the loss of corporate taxes, but the taxes on the incomes of workers would help to offset that.  In addition, those wages being paid to American workers will be spent in America boosting the economy, resulting in a better standard of living for every one.  As money circulates in America it too produces revenues to offset the corporate tax credits.

 

As manufacturing in America increases investment in buildings, equipment, housing and all sectors will improve.

 

On a political level this appeals to the corporate players, the out of work Americans, the housing, banking, manufacturing, tooling and other interests who are clamoring for bold initiatives.  It could end up, after more careful analysis than some lowly blogger in Kentucky has given it, as nearly revenue neutral, but because it is founded on such a strong nationalistic and patriotic core it could marginalize opposition.

 

How about being even bigger and bolder and legislate away the IRS?  Replace it with a fairer system eliminating the abusive power so many Americans perceive that this one private army of the government wields?

 

Big, bold moves include putting a bill to allow the Keystone XL pipeline on the president's desk but only AFTER other bold moves.  The people know when special interests jump line and get ahead of their own and this has been the criticism of the GOP for a long, long time.  Don't let that happen Senator.

 

Big bold moves include a total repeal of Obamacare being passed at the same time as a balanced budget.

 

These are the kinds of things people expect to see out of McConnell's party,  now in power.  And I predict they will accept nothing less.

 

Yes Mitch deserves great credit for what he has accomplished.  But in exchange he has also now received a great commission.  There is much riding on what he does.

 

And so Senator, as one who has backed you in all your races, let me at this moment while you are enjoying the after glow of your victory, remind you that you are standing on the threshold of an historic era.  And as you go forward let me repeat for you what Karl Rove once said to me, "remember, you asked for it."

Hank Aaron vs. The Black Sphere

Former baseball player Hank Aaron has accused Republicans of being like the KKK.

Speaking to USA Today Tuesday on the 40th anniversary of his then record-breaking 715th home run, the 80-year-old Aaron said that Republicans are hindering Obama’s job performance.

“Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated,” Aaron told USA Today Sports.

Aaron continued: “The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. Now they have neckties and starched shirts.” [CBS]

Maybe he took one too many hardballs to the head.

The Ku Klux Klan‘s first incarnation was in 1866. On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-Americans. The Klan was involved in a wave of 1,300 murders of Republican voters in 1868. The group was an offshoot of the Democrat Party. [Gateway Pundit]

In a column back in February writing for his website "The Black Sphere" Kevin Jackson came up with this cool idea.

In celebration of 150 years since the Republicans freed the slaves from slave-loving (pardon the double-entendre) Democrats, my team has come up with a snarky way for you to get back at them. We are projecting what famous black people would be doing had Republicans not fought and died for their freedom. In short, my team does what the Republicans won’t do for themselves, and that is SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT.

Could McConnell Lose In November?

Mitch McConnell seems poised to defeat Matt Bevin pretty handily in the May primary, but the growing question around the coffee cups is whether he can survive November.

Alison Lundergan Grimes is out raising some pretty serious cash, and she isn't spending much of it foolishly.  She has gathered a star studded group of supporters to add Hollywood pizazz to her campaign and, sorry ladies, her gender is a bit of an advantage in today's political climate.

Add to that the fact that those with seething hate for McConnell among the Bevin crowd will not mend fences and vote for Mitch.  And among the GOP in general there is none of the old guard party loyalty that at one time kept guys like Mitch in power.

Mitch may very well have a November strategy in mind and if history is any kind of teacher at all it will likely be a combination of touting his accomplishments and slamming Alison pretty hard.  But what he needs after May is something he needs to be working on now.

Mitch needs more than a few allies out there forming an echo chamber for him.  He needs his ground game in place early this time, reminding folks why keeping Mitch is better for Kentucky.

So many of today's political observers want to couch every discussion in terms of what is good for the nation.  They see the huge political picture but not the local one.

Mitch needs to be working his network and have them out working for him, talking him up, using the local angle as the key to winning in November.

As many national observers are now beginning to admit, it looks like the GOP is going to capture the Senate majority.  Wouldn't it be a shame if we made that happen and Kentucky lost Mitch as the majority leader, instead replacing him with an Obama loyalist, back bencher and rookie public servant?

It could happen if Mitch forgets to warm up his engine before the race gets up to full speed.

Interesting Read: Four Faces Of The Republican Party

Henry Olsen offers a rather insightful view of the Republican Party in his piece for the "The National Interest".  In it he identifies four factions of the GOP, the moderate or liberal voters; somewhat conservative voters; very conservative, evangelical voters; and very conservative, secular voters.

Evaluating how each faction approached various presidential contests over the years Olsen concludes that the year before the election is crucial. "In this “preseason,” candidates compete to become favored by one of the four factions. Sometimes no one is competing with a candidate for that favor, which frequently happens on the moderate or liberal side. Other times, though, there is intense competition and the preseason maneuvering determines if someone survives until the actual early contests."

Olsen says that the factions are not equal in number.

The most important of these groups is the one most journalists don’t understand and ignore: the somewhat conservative voters. This group is the most numerous nationally and in most states, comprising 35–40 percent of the national GOP electorate. While the numbers of moderates, very conservative and evangelical voters vary significantly by state, somewhat conservative voters are found in similar proportions in every state. They are not very vocal, but they form the bedrock base of the Republican Party.

They also have a significant distinction: they always back the winner.

The moderate or liberal bloc is surprisingly strong in presidential years, comprising the second-largest voting bloc with approximately 25–30 percent of all GOP voters nationwide. They are especially strong in early voting states such as New Hampshire (where they have comprised between 45 and 49 percent of the GOP electorate between 1996 and 2012), Florida and Michigan. They are, however, surprisingly numerous even in the Deep South, the most conservative portion of the country. Moderates or liberals have comprised between 31 and 39 percent of the South Carolina electorate since 1996, outnumbering or roughly equaling very conservative voters in each of those years.

Moderate and liberal voters prefer someone who is both more secular and less fiscally conservative than their somewhat conservative cousins.  In 2012, they began firmly in Ron Paul’s or Jon Huntsman’s camp. Paul and Huntsman combined got 43 percent of their vote in Iowa and 50 percent in New Hampshire. Once it became clear that their candidates could not win, however, the moderate or liberal faction swung firmly toward Romney in his fights with Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.

The third-largest group is the moderates’ bête noire: the very conservative evangelicals. This group is small compared to the others, comprising around one-fifth of all GOP voters. They gain significant strength, however, from three unique factors.[T]hey are geographically concentrated in Southern and border states, where they can comprise a quarter or more of a state’s electorate.

This group prefers candidates who are very open about their religious beliefs, place a high priority on social issues such as gay marriage and abortion, and see the United States in decline because of its movement away from the faith and moral codes of its past. Their favored candidates tend to be economically more open to government intervention.

The final and smallest GOP tribe is the one that DC elites are most familiar with: the very conservative, secular voters. This group comprises a tiny 5–10 percent nationwide and thus never sees its choice emerge from the initial races to contend in later stages.

The 2016 field is still developing, but it’s already possible to discern which candidates are focusing on which factions.

Virtually everyone else in the race is competing for the favor of the smallest, least influential group: the secular conservatives. All focus on some sort of fiscal issue as their primary focus, and most also try to adopt an anti-Washington tone. Some have secondary messages designed to appeal to other factions, much as George W. Bush did in 2000. Senator Rand Paul’s focus on civil liberties and limiting overseas military actions would hold some appeal for GOP moderates and liberals, as would Senator Marco Rubio’s occasional forays into antipoverty efforts. Rubio’s backing of immigration reform is of interest to somewhat conservative donors, and his authoring of federal antiabortion legislation creates some support among the socially conservative wing. But Paul’s, Rubio’s and Texas senator Ted Cruz’s hope must be that the secular, very conservative wing is in fact much larger in 2016 than it has been in the past.

It is a very interesting analysis which should do well to put Olsen on the payroll of any serious contender looking to find a way to survive the heat of a presidential marathon.

Obama Fires Direct Attack On Liberty

This my friends is a direct attack on Liberty.

From Forbes:

"President Obama’s Kansas speech is a remarkable document. In calling for more government controls, more taxation, more collectivism, he has two paragraphs that give the show away. Take a look at them.

there is a certain crowd in Washington who, for the last few decades, have said, let’s respond to this economic challenge with the same old tune. “The market will take care of everything,” they tell us. If we just cut more regulations and cut more taxes–especially for the wealthy–our economy will grow stronger. Sure, they say, there will be winners and losers. But if the winners do really well, then jobs and prosperity will eventually trickle down to everybody else. And, they argue, even if prosperity doesn’t trickle down, well, that’s the price of liberty.

Now, it’s a simple theory. And we have to admit, it’s one that speaks to our rugged individualism and our healthy skepticism of too much government. That’s in America’s DNA. And that theory fits well on a bumper sticker. (Laughter.) But here’s the problem: It doesn’t work. It has never worked. (Applause.) It didn’t work when it was tried in the decade before the Great Depression. It’s not what led to the incredible postwar booms of the ’50s and ’60s. And it didn’t work when we tried it during the last decade. (Applause.) I mean, understand, it’s not as if we haven’t tried this theory.

Even you, dear reader, are probably wondering how on earth anyone could challenge things like Social Security, government schools, and the FDA. But that’s not the point. The point is: these statist, anti-capitalist programs exist and have existed for about a century. The point is: Obama is pretending that the Progressive Era, the New Deal, and the Great Society were repealed, so that he can blame the financial crisis on capitalism. He’s pretending that George Bush was George Washington."

The Problem Isn't Republicans, It's The Hated View Of Republicans

EDITORIAL RANT

I was once asked by a news paper editor if I was a Republican, or a TEA partier.  I told him that I prefer to avoid labels because they are over-broad.  I am who I am, think what I want and try to have good reason for what I think always willing to be persuaded, if possible, where I am wrong.

As Emerson once said "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."  I would emphasize the word "foolish" in that quote as I do not believe that there is anything inherently wrong in being consistently wise.

I know many people who are registered to vote under different banners who think very much alike on many issues.  The Republicans certainly have no special claim to the "right to life" issue, the "right to bear arms" issue, the right to be free from intrusive government regulations issue or many other issues that are of real concern to people regardless of their party registration.

But listen to the haters and you would think that all Republicans are evil.  Such thinking is over broad, over inclusive and born of a little mind.

Dea Riley, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor with the late Gatewood Galbraith recently posted this to her Facebook page:

Come on Dea.  Do you really think that all persons in the Republican Party openly embrace exclusion, elitism and social categorization?  That we are all radical fascists seeking to impose a specific ideology/theology on everyone, embracing intrusion into individual rights?  That certainly doesn't define me, and neither does it define or describe many of the republicans I know. That is an insult.

But you are in good company.  MSNBC which has turned out to be the great hater of all things republican made up out of thin air a claim that "conservatives" hate bi-racial families. 

My God!  First of all there was no "conservative" backlash last year which the facts prove and which caused MSNBC to amend it's tweet to remove the word "conservative".  But that doesn't cure the problem.

The far left, the liberals in the democratic party and yes, even some of the TEA party liberals who are hiding out under the banner of "constitutional conservatives" hate republicans so much that they refuse to see that we are all individuals, with individual thoughts, feelings and beliefs.

As a republican I still believe in individual freedom, and that is because like our founders I believe that my life is a gift from God and that I am endowed by Him with inalienable rights.

As a republican I still believe that when a government fears the people there is hope for liberty, but when the people fear the government we have tyranny.

As a republican lawyer I defend the constitution every day, which on some days means that I defend the rights of people to do things, and say things with which I might personally disagree, but they have the right to do and say them.

And as a republican I have no compelling desire to see that we control people through a particular theology.  I am a Christian and my faith teaches me that I am to love my neighbor, introduce them to God when the chance arises, but recognize that they operate with free will and their choices are their own.  Do I want everybody to be a Baptist, or a Catholic, or a Methodist, or a Quaker or a Mormon or a Pentecostal?  Of course not.  As a Christian I would like everyone to know and accept Christ and I think the best way to do that is to live what I believe to the best of my ability and introduce them to each other.

But as an American, who believes that people should be free from government dictates as to whether and how they worship, I do oppose the goal of radical Islam to force the world to capitulate to their twisted worship of a pedophile prophet or be killed or enslaved.

And likewise I oppose any effort, by any person or group of persons to enslave people under any ideology, including the disgusting political game that addicts people to government hand outs, destroying their sense of self worth, de-incentivizing them to reach their full potential and thus enslaving them to the masters who they eventually think are the only ones who can provide for them.

The problem in this nation isn't republicans, it's the irrational, unsupportable, off the chart hatred OF republicans.  And THAT my friends is not an accident. 

Hating republicans is not the natural consequence of an honest study of history.  It is not the result of deductive reasoning.  Hating republicans is the cold and calculated strategy of those who wish to fundamentally transform America into the kind of nation our founders and thousands upon thousands of our best and brightest ever since have fought to prevent.

It is unfair to say that all democrats are far left liberals.  It is unfair to say that all republicans are cracker-assed racists.

We are all Americans.  We all have the right to want and pursue different paths to happiness.  But hatred of others is destructive.

You may assign to me a desire to run things by my theology, but only on this one point.  In my view, hatred has no place in America.  I would prefer that we love each other, and all people, as we love ourselves. 

If that was our guiding principle, I believe everything else would fall into place.

TEA Party Liberals To Face Battles On Multiple Fronts In 2014

Ron Paul lovers take credit for the TEA party movement based upon a 2007 money bomb event on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.  Those involved in the modern larger TEA party movement deny Paul's paternity and say that they began Feb. 19, 2009 when CNBC’s Rick Santelli gave what is now known as the “rant heard around the world".

But there can be no doubt that between 2007 and 2009 there was nothing like the modern day TEA party movement anywhere on the radar screens of current events.  Today however things are much different.

Those who got there feet wet in politics as a part of the new and larger TEA party for the most part got involved due to the crashing economy, anger over the government bailouts and in reaction to many of the worrisome ideas being advanced by Barack Obama.  Over time the Ron Paul folks, the Libertarians, the anarchists and smart democrats changed the dynamics of the TEA party to their own ends.

What was once considered to be a movement designed to move the GOP back to its fiscally conservative platform has morphed into a protest movement which seems more devoted to altruistic ideals than pragmatic solutions.  Fixing problems in a real world sense is far less appealing to the TEA party than crashing the system entirely by removing anybody with any experience under the banner that everybody except their candidates are corrupt.

Straying from their original goal of being more conservative republicans into being the party of disruption has caused them to face a number of new challenges in 2014.

The US Chamber of Commerce and the business community in general have joined forces and declared war on the TEA party.

Now it appears that the social conservatives are about to gear up in the battle for the heart and soul of the GOP.

It shouldn't be assumed that the second front in the battle for republican votes will be fought alone by the TEA party.  Granted it has become more of a de-facto Libertarian organization when it comes to social issues, but Social Conservatives led by groups like The American Principles Project, Gary Bauer’s American Values outfit, James Dobson’s Focus on the Family, Ralph Reed’s Faith and Freedom Coalition, Americans United for Life, the Family Research Council and the National Organization for Marriage are now plotting to raise and spend mega-millions to move the GOP back on the track it took during the Bush years. [POLITICO]

How will this new dynamic affect TEA party efforts?  It may be too soon to tell, but the libertarian influences in the direction the movement has taken could prove problematic in the face of pressure from social conservatives.

For example, the idea that abortion should be a state's right to decide sounds a lot like the argument that abortion should be a woman's right to decide, a position which social conservatives will likely find unacceptable.

And neither is the Ron Paul position on prostitution and legalizing drugs likely to set well with the Family Values folks.

What might this battle on two fronts do to the TEA party movement?

On one hand the fiscal conservatives could take charge and return the movement to its original position making it a representative group for the "cut taxes, cut spending" republican ideology.

On the other hand, the Ron Paul libertarians might already have taken such control of the movement that it will have no choice but to act solely as a spoiler, unwittingly helping democrats and along the way losing members who don't want anymore democratic votes controlling the House and Senate agendas.

Or there could be a rising wave of libertarian thought in the nation that, through the TEA party, could change the direction of the country and cause tremendous social upheaval, much like the protests of the sixties did which of course were followed by years of liberal governments and devastating international blunders.

But one thing is clear.  The liberals in the TEA party movement will face a very big hurdle this year fighting their battles on multiple fronts in 2014.

Related articles

Has TEA Party Won The Battle Of Ideas In Washington?

Told Jah: TEA Party Leader Avowed Democrat

Social conservatives' big money plans

NSA Could Destroy Democrat Chances

EDITORIAL

Statistics show that young voters make up only a small percentage of the overall vote totals but they are an important part of the picture nonetheless.  Why? Because winning their loyalty has been, historically, the way to keep them in the fold until they get old enough to feel like voting.

Democrats won the youth voters in the 1960's and kept most of them.  Ron Paul began his revolution on college campuses where "Google Ron Paul" was a brilliant strategy aimed at capturing the loyalty of what has become the core activists and young elected officials coming out of the TEA party who are now in their 30's.

What did both of these movements among young people have in common?  Freedom from the government.

In the 1960's it was all about ending the war, free love, pot smoking and a general desire to have no rules.  The Ron Paul movement tracked very similar to these things.

But now with daily news of an even bigger Big Brother spying on the text messages, cell phone conversations and emails of American citizens on a staggering scale, the idea of government intrusion into private lives has taken on a far more menacing visage, and in most of these areas that intrusion is touching young people where they meet, socialize and communicate.

It would be a very good idea for the GOP, including mainstream republicans, to ride that bull and not get thrown.  If there is any one area where the GOP can take the lead and get on board with the angst of the next generation of likely voters, it would be a dedicated effort to end government snooping.

Obama can't pull it off and neither can Hillary.  Their fingerprints are all over this mess.

Of course the Bush administration started the ball rolling after 9-11 with the Patriot Act, and as many of us predicted, it has been perverted from its original intent (to catch terrorists BEFORE they acted) into a runaway vehicle indiscriminately mowing down civil liberties all across the nation.

Rand Paul is on the forefront and this might be his best single message at this time.  Others in the TEA party are on top of this issue but as usual the mainstream GOP is a little late to the game.

If the GOP wants to regain its status as the party of smaller government, more individual responsibility and the defender of liberty, then now is the time to grab this issue and claim it.

The NSA problem spells disaster for the democrats in the long run.  Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country, and all good republicans to stand up for liberty.

Told Jah: TEA Party Leader Avowed Democrat

I've been trying to tell you for a long time now that the TEA party movement has been co-opted by those who see it as a vehicle by which to weaken the republican party and in turn eliminate the effective check on an otherwise runaway progressive shift in this nation.  If you read this blog, this should be no surprise:

A prominent Kentucky Tea Party leader [Wendy Caswell] who endorsed the Republican primary challenger to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is a registered Democrat who signed a pledge to support Democratic policies and principles while running for state representative in 2012.

While Caswell reportedly founded the Louisville Tea Party in 2009 and currently serves as its leader, public records raise questions about her political affiliations and recent intervention in the GOP primary.

Caswell is a registered Democrat, according to Kentucky State Board of Elections records. She ran as a Democrat in 2012 for state representative in the 42nd district, but lost the primary race.

“I, Wendy Caswell, do solemnly swear … that I am a registered Democrat voter in M121 precinct,” wrote Caswell in a handwritten Feb. 9, 2012 campaign filing, obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“I believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, and intend to support its principles and policies,” the pledge continued. [Free Beacon]

Well, you might say, not all of the TEA party folks are infiltrators and saboteurs, and you would be right, but take a look at what TEA party leader John Kemper has to say about this shocking revelation:

And of course since there has been a dedicated effort by some, including Judge Napolitano who spoke in Boone County last week, to use the TEA party as a way to advance the libertarian agenda of those like Ron Paul, look what Libertarian Ken Moellman had to say about the article which exposed Ms. Caswell as a devoted democrat:

Wendy Caswell is a truly committed activist?  Well then, her sworn oath to support the Democrat party must be a really important expression of her loyalty and wouldn't her activism on its behalf be well served by supporting an opponent of the strongest republican leader in the nation, particularly if she could do it wearing the uniform of a "trusted conservative" ?

Again, I am certain that many people who are involved in the TEA party are very dedicated conservatives but they are being played by others.  Their desire to make the GOP more conservative should inspire them to support the GOP and work within it, not against it.

I've been warning you about such things for a long time now.  Be careful who is stirring your TEA.

Grimes And Liberal Fake Outrage Drive Huge Traffic To My Blog

Yesterday I blogged that Alison Lundergan Grimes had been endorsed by Michelle Obama as the kind of Senate candidate that deserved a “big fat check” because Grimes would help pass Barack Obama’s gun control plans and defend Obamacare along with advancing the rest of his agenda.

A reporter who was at the event (which was primarily for women) revealed this comment heard in the hallway.

In introductory remarks (which I overheard in the lobby, where I was held as the pool reporter for the event), Colorado senator and DSCC chair Michael Bennet said looking back at Democratic gains over the last few cycles, it was "very clear that the way we won them was by running women." [Capital New York]

So the DSCC has decided that women can do better running against men as they continue their efforts to peg the GOP as waging war on women.  Isn’t that a little like the tactic of using human shields when firing mortars?

So what happened as soon as Alison was caught red handed signing up to be a willing recruit in Obama’s army, being identified as an important part of Obama’s plans, cozying up to the most unpopular, progressive, gun grabbing, abortion supporting, economy crashing, job destroying president of the modern era? Here’s what happened.

The liberals ran to their media buddies at places like The Huffington Post, feigning outrage over my blog post in which I criticized Alison’s newly revealed devotion to Obama by suggesting that perhaps she was now the new “Obama Girl”.

Listen to what I said again.  Instead of pressing Grimes to explain or deny her apparent devoted loyalty to the Obama agenda the liberal media, driven by the DSCC no doubt, ran interference for her.  When I got home last night I discovered that my blog post was being linked all over the Internet with fake outrage that I would dare call her a “Girl”.  I didn’t call her a “girl” I likened her to the “Obama Girl”.

Oh, before I forget my manners,  thank you Politico, thank you Huffington Post, thank you ABC, thank you Daily Mail, and all of you shrill and hysterical liberals on Twitter and Facebook for driving so much traffic to my blog.  I doubt that Michelle Obama’s identification of Grimes as one of Obama’s likely anti-gun votes would have been spread as far and wide as it turned out to be if it wasn’t for you.

And while I’m at it, let me also say a word about the republican response to the liberal screech.  Really?  You let the same people who photoshopped Sarah Palin without mercy, who rally in support of the murder by abortion of millions of baby girls, who supported Weiner and Spitzer and Slick Willy despite their sexploits, who never once called for Martin Bashir to apologize for saying someone should ‘defecate’ in Sarah Palin's mouth and who pretend to care about women only when it is politically advantageous, back you down?  Really?  I’m disappointed.  No wonder the party is always on its heels.

Why wasn’t there a relentless push back demanding that Grimes answer the question, “do you or do you not support Obama and his agenda”.  Why wasn’t there a relentless call for her to return any money she got at the feet of the First Lady who said those checks would help pass gun control?  Did she take money under false pretenses?  If so, shouldn't she return it?  And if she keeps the money yet continues to say she’s not onboard with Obama’s gun control policy then isn't it obvious that she can’t be trusted any more than Obama can?

You mean to tell me, GOP, that you’re going to let the liberal media set the tone, drive the story and run interference for Grimes’ and her handshake deals at an Obama-fest without making it the top story of the season?

Haven’t you let Alison stay silent long enough while the echo chamber of her liberal friends beats you to death in the press?

And let’s get one other thing straight.  What does “Obama Girl” mean anyway?  It has come to be a short hand description of a grown woman who has a crush on Obama.  An “Obama Girl” is a grown woman who ignores the facts, and supports Obama because, well, he’s Obama.  It’s not the sexist use of the word “girl” standing alone, it’s the use of a modern description of an “Obama Girl”, an Obama groupie, you know, like the ones who faint and go all GaGa at his events, or smile and politely accept money from people who have been told she is going to be another Obama vote in the Senate.

So before Alison and her army of tweeters pass out from gasping and screeching in phony agony, let me point out one other thing.  My little blog description was taken big time by your over-reaction and fake outrage.  And do you know what that accomplished? 

I can assure you that while your made up “war on women” claim might play well in some other parts of the country, Alison Lundergan Grimes being revealed as Obama’s new groupie is the story which voters in Kentucky care about far more than your phony liberal claims. 

I made my point, the photo I posted was funny, and thanks to you nit wits who spread it far and wide (as I knew you would as soon as I took it down) you have only yourselves to blame for making her the culprit in the spot light that she should be and letting the world see the funny photo that you spread around.

Now, is there a republican out there with the gumption to push back, or are you going to continue to let the media con you into surrendering another big issue?  I mean, you let claims of “racism” shut you down every time you criticized Obama.  

Can’t you see that the dems have just switched to a new fake outrage, the claim that hitting “women” hard in the political arena is the “new taboo”?

Oh, and in case you hadn’t noticed, all of the effort to make women “off limits” is just in time for “Hillary-2016”. 

Geez, where's the conservative media to push back against this tripe paste when you need it?

Related articles

Grimes Is The New "Obama Girl"?

NRSC: Sorry for Obama Girl tweet

Sexist Republicans Endorse Calling Alison Grimes the New 'Obama Girl'

GOP tweets altered image of Grimes as 'Obama Girl'

GOP tweets altered image of Grimes as 'Obama Girl'

GOP tweets altered image of Grimes as 'Obama Girl'

GOP tweets altered image of Grimes as 'Obama Girl'