In a recent interview, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that to fight terrorism, “we need to go after the root causes that lead people to join these groups, whether it’s a lack of opportunity for jobs….”
In other words, we can fight terrorism with a jobs program, sort of a stimulus program for the jihadists. If we only have enough shovel ready jobs for the jihadists, there will be no terrorism. How amazing naïve and how terrifyingly stupid, but this is the mentality that is prevalent throughout the Obama administration.
The history of Islamic terrorism is replete with examples of very rich Muslims, such as Osama Bin Laden, who join the jihad and kill for one basic reason and it is not the lack of a job. They kill the “infidels” because of their commitment to their Islamic faith, their interpretation of Islamic doctrine and their desire to serve Allah. It is why so many Islamic terrorists shout “Allahu Akbar” when they kill innocent people.
Harf either does not understand the threat we face or is purposely ignoring the threat, but, either way, it is troubling. Her “jobs” theory took another hit this week with the revelation of the identity of “Jihadi John,” the masked man seen in Islamic State videos beheading innocent hostages. According to multiple media and governmental sources, the masked man is Mohammed Emwazi, a 26 year old Kuwaiti, who moved to London with his family at an early age.
In London, he attended fine schools, was raised in an upper middle class neighborhood and received a degree in computer programming from the University of Westminster in 2009. In fact, he found employment as a computer programmer, but that job did not stop him from becoming radicalized.
According to Shiraz Maher of the King’s College radicalization center, Emwazi may well have traveled to Syria in 2012, later joining the Islamic State. In Maher’s view, Emwazi’s route to terrorism was not caused by the lack of economic opportunities. He said Emwazi’s case is similar to other jihadists, who are “by and large upwardly mobile people, well educated.” The disclosures about Emwazi and the vast majority of Islamic terrorists should debunk the theory held by Harf and others in the Obama administration “that these guys are all impoverished, that they’re coming from deprived backgrounds.”
Emwazi joined the Islamic State to commit terrorist acts and kill “infidels.” He was not looking for a job; he was looking for a religious crusade. He was motivated by religious fervor, not financial considerations.
Back in 2010, the British government recognized that Emwazi was becoming radicalized and prevented him from traveling to Tanzania. Reports indicate that the government was concerned that Emwazi was going to join the Islamic terror group Al-Shabaab.
Incredibly, some pro-Muslim activists criticized how the British government dealt with “Jihadi John” and blame his terrorist activity on supposed “mistreatment.” In reality, he was only targeted for surveillance due to his radical associations. If the government could have stopped him from traveling to Syria in 2012, possibly he would have been unable to join the Islamic State.
At the current time, “Jihadi John” is not using his computer programming degree; he is engaged in 7th century barbarism, beheading innocent hostages who have the misfortune of being captured by the Islamic State.
Unfortunately, at a time of great crisis, the country is being led by an administration that does not want to recognize this reality and refuses to admit the threat emanating from Islamic terrorism or even call it by its name. They prefer the title of “extremism,” a meaningless term for an administration engaged in a meaningless response to Islamic terrorism.
In a country of 330 million Americans, only 11, 000 people in the key 25-54 year old demographic were watching the afternoon programming on the disaster known as MSNBC in the last rating period. These horrific ratings were the lowest registered by the network in a decade. It was not much better at the other time periods for the early January ratings for the broadcast day on MSNBC averaged only 55,000 viewers.
Compared to last year, total viewership on MSNBC is down 20 percent in the daytime and 23 percent in prime time. The yearly declines are even greater in the key 25-54 year old demographic, the one coveted by advertisers.
While the MSNBC audience is tanking, the viewership on Fox News is strong. In the afternoon, 20X more people are watching Fox News than MSNBC. This means that Fox is the unquestioned cable news giant.
It is so bad for MSNBC that even the controversial start-up network Al-Jazeera had twice as many afternoon viewers. When a network is bested by a competitor known for providing sympathetic coverage to radical Islamists it is time for a programming change.
With plummeting ratings, it was no surprise that MSNBC announced this week the cancellation of two afternoon programs. The shows airing from 1-3 pm Eastern, “Ronan Farrow Daily” and “The Reid Report,” will be cancelled at the end of the month. The changes are part of MSNBC President Phil Griffin’s plan to move toward a “more news focused line-up.” However, such promises ring hollow as the network features a prime time line-up composed exclusively of liberals.
If Griffin wants to grow his audience he should try more balanced programming. The two cancelled programs were hosted by hard core liberals Ronan Farrow and Joy Ann Reid. They will be replaced by Thomas Roberts who will host a two hour program. Unfortunately, Roberts is another liberal who had previously failed in an earlier attempt to host a show.
Currently, MSNBC is officially irrelevant with ratings so low that local community access programs undoubtedly have better audience numbers. Clearly, viewers are shunning the inexperienced and liberal hosts offered by the network. For example, Ronan Farrow was a youngster hired due to his celebrity status. His mother is Mia Farrow, an actress, and his biological father is reportedly Frank Sinatra. Sadly for Farrow his blue eyes were not enough to keep his program on the air.
Farrow had no business hosting any serious show, but MSNBC is the same network that has given programs to the likes of Andrea Mitchell, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, and Rev. Al Sharpton. In America today, few people want to watch leftists apologize for an unpopular President. It should be no surprise that MSNBC is suffering the same fate as Air America, the doomed liberal talk radio network.
Viewers who want liberal programming have options. They can watch CNN, which is not so obvious, or watch a variety of left wing commentators on Fox or tune in to evening news programs on the broadcast networks. News bulletin: Brian Williams and his evening news colleagues are card carrying liberals.
The demise of MSNBC proves again that America is not a liberal nation. The country is not clamoring for liberal anchors pontificating for more government programs, higher taxes, and climate change legislation. Americans want fair and balanced journalism, which is provided by Fox News, and why they are the cable news leader.
To be relevant again, MSNBC should cancel its entire programming schedule. The network should start fresh with a clean slate of hosts. Such a move is not a gamble for anyone who can read a teleprompter can do a better job than Rev. Al Sharpton.
Clearly, the hottest Republican in the country today is Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker. After a well received speech to Congressman Steve King’s Freedom Summit, Walker has earned media attention and skyrocketed in the polls. Currently, he is in second place in New Hampshire and is leading in Iowa, while he is gaining ground on Florida Governor Jeb Bush nationally.
With the rise of Walker come the very predictable attacks from the liberal media. This week, the Washington Post decided to investigate Walker’s college years at Marquette University. The supposed scandal is that Walker did not graduate from college and left his senior year to take a job with the Red Cross. He eventually married and started winning elections and was not able to return to complete his courses and earn his degree. However, this is no scandal for it places Walker in line with the 69% of Americans who do not have a four year college degree. If elected, Walker would follow in the footsteps of Harry Truman, who also did not have a college degree, but was a successful President.
Clearly, it is much more important for a President to have Walker’s conservative values, strong work ethic, and common sense than advanced academic degrees. The nation has been suffering through six years of Barack Obama, who has an undergraduate degree from Columbia University and a law degree from Harvard University.
Obama is a well educated man, who has been a disaster as President. Unfortunately, Obama, has precious little private sector experience, but was a “community organizer” who was influenced by an array of radicals such as Rev. Jeremiah Wright and communist Frank Marshall Davis. In contrast, the role model for the supposedly under-educated Scott Walker was Ronald Reagan, one of the most influential Presidents in our nation’s history.
It is no surprise why liberals view Scott Walker with extreme trepidation. He has succeeded in a Democratic state and won three statewide elections in the last few years. He defeated the unions, survived a recall election and espouses strong conservative views. If selected as the GOP nominee, Walker would have a real chance of expanding the Republican coalition and attracting blue collar voters. These are voters known as “Reagan Democrats” who do not identify with traditional establishment GOP nominees like Mitt Romney. These voters can connect with Scott Walker who was not born to wealth, but became successful through hard work, perseverance as well as an adherence to traditional conservative values.
Because of his potential appeal, Walker should expect continuing attacks from the liberals in the Democratic Party and the media who will disparage his educational background. For example, on MSNBC, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean claimed “the issue is how well educated is this guy? And, that’s a problem.” Of course, it is only a problem for liberals trying to sabotage Walker’s presidential campaign.
To show how biased the media is on the issue, just look at their complete disinterest in the academic career of Barack Obama. Americans have never been able to view Obama’s college transcripts, so who knows whether did well or not.
In fact, his college years are full of mystery. Did he apply as a foreign student? Was he admitted due to affirmative action? Did he actually attend class? His former classmate at Columbia University, Wayne Allyn Root, claims that he never met Obama, even though they both studied political science. He also notes that he knows of no one at Columbia who ever attended classes with Obama or saw him on campus.
Obama could be the true Manchurian candidate, but the liberal media does not have time to investigate for they are too busy hounding Scott Walker.
The sports media has been in a tizzy covering the scandal known as “deflate gate.” After it was discovered that 11 of the 12 footballs used by the New England Patriots in their playoff game against the Colts were deflated, the media speculation has been intense about whether the Patriots altered the footballs to gain an advantage. It is amazing that with our immense problems, the media is fixated on such a trivial issue. Instead, a related topic is more important, why do Republican Party leaders suffer from deflated balls, politically speaking? The GOP won a landslide mid-term election, but they have been acting ever since like they lost to the Democrats.
Right after the election, Republican leaders in Congress passed the 1774 page “cromnibus” bill which cost $1.1 trillion and funded the President’s executive amnesty for 5 million illegal aliens and the unpopular Obamacare legislation. This was in direct opposition to the wishes of voters who gave Republicans control of both houses of Congress. The anger was so intense that conservatives swamped congressional offices with demands that John Boehner be replaced as Speaker of the House. Again, due to a lack of courage, only 25 House Republicans voted against Boehner. It seems GOP congressmen do not have the appetite for real change either within their party or throughout the nation.
While the President has been aggressively building his liberal legacy and acting like he won the November election, the real winners have been acting like losers and capitulating to Obama.
After the Boehner revolt, the House finally passed a bill to prevent the Department of Homeland Security from funding executive amnesty, but the bill is now headed to the Senate where it faces an “uncertain” future. Senate leaders say they will “try” to pass the bill but no conservative should ever trust Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. In the official response to the President’s State of the Union address, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-IA) did not mention executive amnesty, even though the majority of Americans strongly disapprove.
Lack of Republican courage as was also evident in a border security bill that Republican House leaders were advocating. Fortunately, a revolt by conservatives postponed a vote on the inadequate measure. The initial bill did not contain enough border security measures to please the newly formed House Freedom Caucus, composed of nine courageous conservatives.
According to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the bill is flawed for a variety of reasons including the fact that it “…it does not cut-off access to federal welfare; and it does not require completion of the border fence.” While congrats are due to the conservatives who killed the bill, the episode highlighted how GOP leadership is more comfortable tinkering with a problem than solving it. They want to pursue half measures instead of forceful action.
While Americans overwhelmingly support enhanced border security with more border patrol agents and additional fencing, GOP leaders lack the “cojones” to pass a tough bill. They are afraid of criticism from the media, Hispanic groups and Democratic colleagues. They are scared of being called racists, so, as a result, they are unwilling to pass meaningful legislation.
In the meantime, the 2016 presidential race is starting and conservative Republicans are desperately looking for a nominee who is courageous and will not be intimidated by the media or special interest groups. They want a nominee who is unafraid of criticism and a confident conservative who will move this country in the right direction. Such leaders are in short supply and they stand in stunning contrast to what has been displayed by the GOP’s dynamic duo of deflation: John Boehner and Mitch McConnell.
With 21 months until the 2016 presidential race, the GOP field of candidates is large and impressive. Approximately two dozen prominent Republicans have expressed an interest in running for President. Most of the candidates are strong conservatives with solid credentials. Unfortunately, the field also includes two well known moderates, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who both have the ability to raise large sums of money and become a major factor in the upcoming election.
The most serious establishment candidate is former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who is the odds on favorite to secure the presidential nomination. Bush is actually leading in the polls with the most name recognition. With a brother and father who served as President, Jeb Bush will be difficult to beat.
In recent weeks, he has been aggressively working to lock up big donors and key activists. His campaign organization has been growing so steadily that it forced former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney to exit the race. In early January, Romney announced to a small gathering of donors that he was interested in running for President a third time. However, when he started trying to build a campaign network across the country, Romney realized that Jeb Bush has already signed up many of the top GOP contributors and consultants. Romney soon came to the realization that he could not raise enough money to seriously challenge Bush for the nomination. Thus, three weeks after floating a trial balloon expressing interest, Romney officially decided not to run for President.
Bush is a good man from a good family, but he is wrong on an array of issues such as taxes, immigration and common core. He made the ludicrous comment that Romney lost in 2012 because he ran too far to the right. The country does not want or need another person with the last name of Bush as President. Even Barbara Bush admitted as much in an interview last year. Unfortunately, too many big Bush donors do not realize this fact, showing how seriously out of touch they are with real Americans.
For those moderates who are not enamored with Bush, they have a viable alternative: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who is currently in Europe trying to burnish his foreign policy credentials. Christie met with Romney last week, as the former Massachusetts Governor left the race. Christie is considered a moderate on social issues, such as gay marriage. He is soft on immigration and has supported the Dream Act. In addition, Christie is a strong supporter of strict gun laws, which may be popular in New Jersey, but is likely to be very unpopular in the South. Sadly, like Bush, Christie is just wrong on too many issues.
The moderate wing of the Republican Party, otherwise known as the establishment, has controlled the GOP nomination process since the Reagan years. This wing of the party is usually at odds with the more conservative or grassroots wing of the party, which is often associated with the Tea Party movement. Most moderates view the Tea Party activists with disdain and will work tirelessly to prevent a conservative from achieving the nomination in 2016.
The problem with this scenario is that the moderates are very successful at winning the Republican Party nomination, but horrible at winning the presidential election. As evidence, we can view the failed presidential campaigns of George H. W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain and Mitt Romney. The last true conservative, who won the Republican nomination, Ronald Reagan, won a 49 state electoral landslide.
If the Republican Party wants to win the White House again, a conservative needs to be nominated for President. This should be a foregone conclusion, but it is a subject of much debate within the GOP. The establishment wing of the party believes that only candidates like Bush and Christie can reach the Independent voters who are in play for every presidential election. In contrast, only a conservative nominee can reach the blue collar Reagan Democrats who are not typically Republican voters and unite the various groups within the party such as libertarians and evangelicals. Only a conservative presidential nominee will be able to draw a sharp distinction with a liberal Democrat candidate, such as Hillary Clinton, on the critical fiscal, social and foreign policy issues that will be addressed in the campaign.
In 2016, it will take a strong conservative to win the White House for the GOP and defeat the Democrats. By the next election, our country will have suffered through eight years of a dangerously liberal President. It will be essential for a true conservative to become our next President and rebuild our economy and bolster our national security.
Conservatism works as a framework for both governing and winning elections. Hopefully, a majority of Republican Party voters will come to this realization in time to save their party and, more importantly, save their country.
After six difficult years under Barack Obama, the country is ready for a change in the White House. The President has delivered a continual dose of no compromise liberalism that has divided the races and polarized the political climate.
This has led the presidential campaign to start earlier than ever. Among Republicans there are at least a dozen serious hopefuls who may vie for the nomination. It is a perfect opportunity for the Republican Party to take back the White House and implement conservative policies that will undue the disastrous Obama agenda.
The first step, however, is to win the presidency in 2016 and that is no easy task. Despite his limited experience and very liberal philosophy, Barack Obama was elected President in 2008. He retained the office four years later even though his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, was incredibly unpopular.
One of the major reasons for his success was his unimpressive opposition. The Republican presidential nominees, U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) in 2008 and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney in 2012, were uninspiring moderates who were unwilling to aggressively defend the party’s platform and attack the Democrats on the issues.
These defeats continued the losing streak for the moderate, establishment, wing of the Republican Party. History shows that the moderate GOP presidential nominees lose in the general election to the Democrats as it occurred in the presidential races of 1976, 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.
With this horrific track record, it would seem that party honchos would be desperate to find a good conservative to win the presidential nomination in 2016. On the contrary, GOP party bosses are moving Heaven and earth to help the upcoming presidential candidacies of the three major moderate candidates: former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie and Romney. This is an embarrassment of riches for party’s elites who usually have only one presidential candidate to support in a particular election year.
Last week, Bush indicated his interest in running by releasing thousands of emails, resigning from boards and launching an exploratory committee. This week, Mitt Romney tried to forestall a defection of major donors to Bush by telling donors he is running for the White House a third time. This will be Mitt 3.0, but, unfortunately, this candidate edition will be just as unimpressive as the two previous editions. Finally, Christie is back in New Jersey giving his “State of the State” speech after touring the country raising money and following the Dallas Cowboys football team.
As history shows, none of these moderate candidates can win the presidency. If, sadly, any of them receive the nomination in 2016, they will lose to presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
The reasons for this predictable result are simple. A moderate presidential candidate will not excite the conservative base of Republican voters who are the party’s backbone. These activists are the chronic voters, who number in the millions. They run the organizations and volunteer their time on behalf of the candidates.
The conservatives are tired of being overlooked and ignored by the establishment wing of the Republican Party. The grassroots cannot match the money of the establishment, but they certainly have more passion and energy and are a needed component for any GOP presidential candidate to win the White House.
It worked for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984. He won 44 states in the first election and 49 states in his re-election, in other words, massive landslides. According to so-called political experts he was too conservative, a wild eyed cowboy who was too threatening to the American people.
Instead of losing, he trounced his liberal opponents by offering a clear contrast to the Democratic Party. He stood on conservative principles and did not waver. This type of statesmanship appealed to not only Republicans, but also Independents and “Reagan Democrats,” who were tired of the failed liberal policies of their party.
In this election, there is a great opportunity for the Republican Party. Voters are ready to seriously consider an alternative to the failed policies of Obama. However, if the GOP offers only the “pale pastels” of another moderate loser and not the “bold colors” of a conservative, the party will surely lose again.
If Bush, Christie or Romney wins the nomination, millions of conservatives will stay away from the polls or vote third party. The days of holding one’s nose and voting for the Republican candidate as the “lesser of two evils.” are over.
It is time for a conservative victory in 2016, which requires a principled Republican Party presidential nominee. However, if one of the three amigos, devoid of conservative values, wins the presidential nomination, the result will be another loss to the Democrats and the eventual dissolution of the Grand Old Party.
It happened again! Republican Party leaders have told conservatives to “go to hell.” It is just the latest indication that the party is not the right home for principled conservatives. It is the only explanation for the inexplicable vote to re-elect John Boehner as Speaker of the House.
Boehner has been a disaster as Speaker. During his tenure, conservatives have been punished and denied leadership positions, while the establishment wing of the GOP has been given total control. Under Boehner, spending has accelerated and real reform has been minimal. In fact, Boehner has been the Speaker for four of Obama’s six years in which the national debt has increased an astronomical $7.5 trillion.
The final straw was the lame duck session of Congress that occurred after the sweeping GOP victory in the mid-term elections last November. Instead of listening to millions of Americans and voting to de-fund Obamacare and stopping the President’s unconstitutional executive amnesty for five million illegal aliens, Boehner led congressional Republicans in a quest to not only please President Obama, but also give him all the funds he wanted. They fully funded both Obamacare and executive amnesty for the next year.
Boehner is the President’s golfing buddy, not the type of leader who will oppose him. While the American people want the Republicans to stop the President’s dangerously liberal agenda, the House Republicans under Boehner are constantly placating him.
This betrayal enraged conservatives who bombarded Congress with demands that Republicans select a new Speaker of the House. Phone calls overwhelmed the congressional switchboard, while millions of emails were sent to Republican members of Congress telling them to listen to the people and not the Beltway power brokers. The conservative website, World Net Daily, organized a “Dump Boehner” campaign, resulting in almost 600,000 letters being sent to Congress. This anger was not limited to only party activists for a recent national survey of Republicans and Independent voters who lean toward the GOP by respected pollster Pat Caddell showed weak support for Boehner with 60% supporting “someone new” as Speaker.
Despite the legitimate outcry from the millions of conservatives who are the grassroots engine that drives the Republican Party, the members of the GOP congressional delegation ignored their demands and re-elected Boehner to a third term. While there were a historic number of votes against Boehner in his bid for a third term as Speaker, it was not enough to stop his re-election.
This means that once again conservatives have been taken for granted. Boehner was re-elected despite the news uncovered by Dr. Jerome Corsi that the Speaker has a stock portfolio that includes millions of dollars invested in insurance and healthcare companies that are increasing in value due to Obamacare. Thus, he has a financial incentive to disregard the party’s base and continue to implement the President’s plans for socialized medicine.
After this latest betrayal, conservatives should reexamine their allegiance to the Republican Party. It has been many years since the party acted in accordance with conservative principles. While the grassroots keeps electing Republicans to Congress and gave the GOP big victories in 2010 and 2014, the party leadership never acts in accordance with these mandates.
Republicans campaign as conservatives, but govern like liberals. With Boehner elected to another term as Speaker, nothing will change on Capitol Hill. It will be more of the same in the next two years, so Americans can expect deficit spending to continue, Obamacare and executive amnesty to be fully funded and no real change in Washington D.C.
If conservatives are demoralized with this inaction, the Republicans have no prayer of winning the White House in 2016. At this point, especially if the GOP nominates a big government RINO like Jeb Bush for President, it certainly looks like Hillary Clinton can start measuring the curtains for another stay in the White House.
In the horrific aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Ringside Politics bestowed its first “Turkey of the Year” award to then New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin for his woeful leadership, bad judgment and embarrassing statements. Since then, we have been recognizing “turkeys” from both of the major political parties. For example, in 2014, we gave the “Turkey of the Year” award to a very worthy recipient, Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
After years of putting the spotlight on “turkeys” we are pleased to announce our first “Champion of the Year.” For 2014, there is no one more qualified for this honor than U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX).
Cruz is unquestionably brilliant and he has the academic credentials to prove it. He received his undergraduate degree from Princeton and graduated from Harvard Law magna cum laude. He was an award winning debater in college and the primary editor of the Law Review at Harvard. Eventually, he clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist, becoming the first Hispanic (Cuban father) ever to hold such a position. From 2003-2008, he served as Solicitor General for the State of Texas, successfully arguing five cases before the Supreme Court.
In 2012, he scored a major upset in the Texas Republican primary for U.S. Senate by easily defeating Lt. Governor David Dewhurst, the establishment’s preferred candidate, and coasting to victory in the general election. He has been fighting the establishment in both parties ever since.
The U.S. Senate has never seen the likes of Ted Cruz. He does not play by the rules or the politics as usual game. Instead, Cruz acts independently, displays tremendous courage and a strong commitment to conservative values.
Last year, he led the fourth longest filibuster in Senate history to highlight the outrage of Obamacare. Although he was unsuccessful in achieving his goal of defunding Obamacare, Cruz succeeded in focusing the nation’s attention on the failed program. When his actions led to a brief government shutdown, his critics said Cruz would cost Republican seats in the next election. As usual, the establishment was wrong and Cruz’s emphasis on Obamacare helped the Republican Party win a historic victory in the mid-term elections.
In 2014, Cruz was undeterred by the relentless criticism. He fought the President’s net neutrality initiative and the misguided effort to tax the Internet. Last week, he led a group of conservative Senators in demanding a recorded vote on the President’s illegal executive decision to grant amnesty to five million undocumented aliens. Cruz’s position upset Senators from both parties who wanted to spend the weekend at home, instead of working for the American people.
Cruz is unabashedly pro-life and pro-Second Amendment. In recent days, he has rightly criticized President Obama’s unwise deal with the communist regime in Cuba. No matter how controversial the issue, Cruz can be expected to take a courageous stand, firmly rooted in the U.S. Constitution, traditional values and conservative principles.
Hopefully, he will run for President and give grassroots conservatives an alternative to establishment candidates like former Florida Governor Jeb Bush.
It is essential for a conservative like Cruz to win the GOP nomination in 2016. Otherwise, the party cannot win the presidency, as has been demonstrated in the last several elections.
Republicans need a presidential candidate who can articulate a clear, convincing conservative message and who is not afraid to debate. In the last election, Mitt Romney played defense in the last two presidential debates and lost the election. Romney had multiple positions on key issues, but, with Ted Cruz, Republicans have a leader who is steadfast and has the courage of his convictions.
He is the obvious choice for Ringside Politics Champion of the Year.
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush’s announcement today that he will “actively explore” the presidency marks the start of an 18 month battle for control of the Republican Party.
On one side are Bush, former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the candidates of the establishment or moderate wing of the party. On the other side are the conservatives who comprise the list of almost two dozen potential presidential candidates.
The nomination battle will be fierce, expensive and “wide open,” according to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who believes the race will be heavily contested and the most “open on our side since 1940.” Gingrich certainly knows his subject matter, since he lost the GOP nomination contest in 2012 to moderate heartthrob Mitt Romney. In fact, moderates have won the GOP presidential nomination every year since 1960, with the exception of Barry Goldwater in 1964 and Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.
While moderates have been successful in winning the nomination, the record shows that since 1992, Republican presidential nominees have either lost as moderate candidates or in the case of George W. Bush, won the White House masquerading as a conservative.
A conservative presidential nominee would give Republicans the best chance of defeating a liberal Democrat opponent. Unfortunately, the challenge has always been to wrest the nomination away from the party’s establishment moderate establishment wing, which always has superior funding and political endorsements.
Another critical problem for conservatives is that their votes are usually split between several viable presidential candidates, as was the case in 2012. In that nomination contest, Mitt Romney was the only moderate candidate in the race and garnered universal support from that wing of the party.
In contrast, the 2016 presidential race will feature at least two and possibly three moderate candidates splitting the votes. With Bush and Christie likely in the race, the big question becomes whether Mitt Romney will once again throw his hat in the ring.
On the conservative side, there are multiple Governors, U.S. Senators and potential wild card candidates like Donald Trump and Dr. Ben Carson who are sizing up the race right now. The clock is ticking for these potential candidates to make up their mind because in the upcoming nomination battle, the primaries and convention will be held earlier, with an official nominee being selected by June of 2016.
Thus, conservatives face the challenge of the calendar and the incredible financial demands of a serious race for the presidency. It remains to be seen how many of the roughly two dozen conservative candidates can raise the necessary funds to be a legitimate contender for the nomination.
While conservatives will struggle for funding, Jeb Bush will have plenty of money as his last name will give him a tremendous advantage. It is also a handicap because millions of conservatives are tired of the Bush family controlling the Republican Party.
The legacy of the Bush presidencies has been quite negative. Bush, Sr. raised taxes after promising “no new taxes,” while Bush, Jr. almost doubled the national debt, created new entitlement programs and foisted upon the country a massive new government department and bureaucracy.
If elected, Jeb Bush will likely follow in the footsteps of his brother and father. He advocates the controversial Common Core educational program; he supports immigration reform, which conservatives believe is glorified amnesty. He is also an advocate of gun purchase background checks, but not a supporter of the National Rifle Association.
Among many reputable conservatives, Bush’s record is quite troubling. Overall, Bush is “a very good moderate Democrat,” according to talk show host Mark Levin. Legendary activist and direct mail expert Richard Viguerie says that conservatives “don’t trust” Jeb Bush. In the view of Regan biographer Craig Shirley, the Bush family has a very disturbing history of battling conservatives as they “got their start in 1980 opposing Reagan and Reaganism, as they continue to do today.”
In making his Facebook announcement, Bush declared that he wanted to restore the “promise of America.” In reality, he wants to restore the ultimate political power for his family’s dynasty. Our country’s promise cannot be restored by electing the third member of the Bush family since 1993 to serve as President.
As noted by Trump, who is not only a famous business tycoon, but also is known for his ability to turn a phrase, our country “does not need another Bush that I can tell you.” In other words, before we can hire Jeb Bush as President, let’s steal a famous Trump phrase and tell him, “You’re fired.”
On the eve of her election defeat, U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) appeared as a guest on my radio program, Ringside Politics, on WGSO 990 AM in New Orleans.
Over the past 16 years as host of Ringside Politics, I have interviewed Senator Landrieu over a dozen times. In the past, she would call in to promote a particular issue or cause, usually engaging in pleasant conversation or good natured debate.
Our relationship certainly changed in our last radio interview, which occurred over a year ago on the contentious topic of Internet taxes. It was a testy exchange as the Senator and I clashed on whether the government should extend its reach into Internet commerce and tax consumers who purchase goods online.
After our on air tax debate, the Senator refrained from appearing on my program, even though she had an open invitation. She finally relented on election eve and called in for an interview, which was a sign of her last minute desperation facing a major political loss. At the time of the interview, no respectable political analyst gave her any chance of winning re-election.
With her losing badly and battling a cold, it was clear from the beginning of the interview that Senator Landrieu was unhappy.
Initially, we discussed her infamous decision to support Obamacare and later her 97% support for President Obama and finally the shocking allegations made by State Senator Elbert Guillory (R-Opelousas) that there was rampant election fraud in her last election. In fact, Guillory alleged that 10% of Landrieu’s votes were fraudulent in the last election.
The Senator abruptly left the conversation before I could ask the dozens of questions submitted by listeners, who wanted to know why she supported the President on issues such as gun control, amnesty for illegal aliens, higher spending, more taxes, etc.
In our 11 minute exchange, she had to defend her vote on Obamacare and was unable to engage in her favorite topic of recent days: Bill Cassidy’s LSU payments and potential billing discrepancies.
Here is a link to the heated interview, http://bit.ly/1z35sEe, which showed how much pressure Senator Landrieu felt with her 35 year political career ending. However, she had no one to blame but herself for her political downfall.
While she was surely abandoned by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and her fellow Democratic Senators on the Keystone Pipeline issue, she would not have been so vulnerable if she would have listened to the people of Louisiana.
In the end, she was too invested in liberalism to connect with the voters of her state. She supported President Obama 97% of the time, while Louisiana voters only give President Obama a 37% approval rating, so it was clear she did a very poor job of representing her constituents.
She has a lifetime American Conservative Union voting record of only 20%. While that might work in Vermont, it is miserably out of step in the red state of Louisiana.
The majority of Louisiana voters were very motivated to vote against Mary Landrieu and Barack Obama for a variety of reasons, but the most important one is Obamacare. During the deliberations on the legislation, voters throughout the state bombarded Landrieu’s office with postcards, emails and calls demanding that she vote no on the bill.
Instead of listening to our concerns, she voted with President Obama. The result has been much worse than a billion dollar waste of a website; it has been massive job losses, work hours being cut, many Americans losing their doctor and millions of people facing higher insurance premiums. Today, doctors are fleeing an industry in turmoil thanks to Mary Landrieu and President Obama.
Sadly, Senator Landrieu was irritable on the air last Friday. It was not the way she should have ended her political career. Maybe she had regrets about her poor decisions in office or maybe she was just upset that her privileged lifestyle will be coming to an end. Either way, it was a good lesson for Bill Cassidy.
Hopefully, our new Senator will never forget that he works for the people of Louisiana, not a political party and certainly not a politician or a President.
Each year during the Thanksgiving season, Americans enjoy turkey as the main course in cherished family dinner traditions. However, at Ringside Politics, we evaluate political or media “turkeys” who have been nominated for our annual award.
As usual, we had plenty of nominees to consider for the 2014 “Turkey of the Year Award.” Unlike most honors our award is not coveted, for the honoree should hold his or her head in shame. The winner is someone who engaged in especially dumb behavior, befitting of the pea brained fowl we carve up each year at the holiday dinner table.
Past winners have included political “turkeys” like former New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and former New Orleans Congressman Bill Jefferson, who both sit in federal prison today; filmmaker Michael Moore, who continually embarrasses himself; and former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whose idiotic statements could be cataloged into several volumes.
At Ringside Politics, our awards are bestowed in a bi-partisan manner, so, this year, it is especially appropriate that we give the “Turkey of the Year Award” to a Republican, Speaker of the House John Boehner.
When Mr. Boehner is not crying during an interview, tanning at the salon, or playing golf with Barack Obama, he is “leading” congressional Republicans. He is the most powerful Republican in the country today, as he is third in line to the presidency, but he does not exude confidence or leadership ability. He is a dyed in the wool member of the establishment, so he holds the Tea Party in low regard.
Sadly, the Speaker is bereft of courage, principles and political instincts. Despite the overwhelming Republican victory on November 4 and the President’s unconstitutional executive amnesty order, Speaker Boehner abdicated his authority and left for Thanksgiving vacation.
While the President is running roughshod over a Congress that has been called “inert” by constitutional professor Jonathan Turley, Boehner refuses to act decisively. For example, it took almost two years for a special house committee to be established to investigate the Benghazi attack. When Attorney General Eric Holder refused to provide Congress the needed documents on the Fast and Furious investigation and former IRS official Lois Lerner refused to cooperate on the charges her agency harassed Tea Party groups, both were held in Contempt of Congress. Unfortunately, nothing else has happened to either transgressor.
In the most recent outrage, President Obama creatively expanded executive power to grant amnesty to 5 million illegal immigrants. In response, Boehner did nothing, which is how he responds whenever the President violates the constitution.
He has moved to the left by signing a climate change agreement limiting our carbon emissions, appointing a very liberal Attorney General, and offering a bold plan to increase government oversight of the Internet. All of these initiatives are threats to this country and they should be met with a confident and clear response as Republican leaders should explore all political and legal remedies.
Since losing the mid-term election, the President has become emboldened, acting aggressively on a range of issues. He is not compromising; he is pursuing his agenda, regardless of Congress.
The Republicans just won the mid-term elections, but they are acting like the losers while the President, the big loser, is acting like the winner. Boehner is advising caution, while Obama is swinging for the fences. Republicans won the mid-term because Americans wanted the GOP to stop the Obama agenda, but, to stop it; Boehner needs to show courageous leadership.
Unfortunately, while he is reluctant to tangle with the President or illegal immigration activists, Boehner is more than willing to fight the grassroots conservatives in his own party. Maybe conservatives looking for a champion can find one in the 2016 presidential line-up of candidates, but they do not have one as House Speaker or incoming Senate Majority Leader for that matter.
Conservatives flocked to the polls in the mid-term election to restore Republicans to leadership positions in the U.S. Senate and retain control of the House, but to what avail? If the GOP in Congress will not stand up to Obama, what good is having the leadership positions?
Some in Congress have called for impeachment, lawsuits or defunding all of the activities associated with the executive amnesty. The least attractive option is to do nothing, but that has been the congressional response to date. Boehner says that the House “will act” and that Obama is “damaging the presidency,” but such rhetoric is just empty words if it is backed up by no response.
In the mid-term races, many Republican candidates campaigned on the illegal immigration issue, claiming they would stop amnesty. Now, efforts to eliminate funding for executive amnesty are being opposed by House GOP leaders who claim they do not have the power to deny funding. Baloney, according to U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL), who asserts that Congress “has the power” to remove such funding and that “it can be done.”
Maybe Boehner and the GOP establishment are worried about a government shutdown or too afraid of their big business donors who demand cheap labor. Maybe they are scared of Hispanic leaders who will cry racism if Republicans advocate following the existing law, building the border fence and prosecuting businesses that knowingly hire illegal labor. Who knows the exact fears, but while the GOP is frozen with inaction, the President will move forward with the next radical item on his agenda, oppressive environmental regulations for example.
This inaction could split the tenuous Republican coalition that assembled for the mid-term elections. Without action on key issues such as executive amnesty, Tea Party conservatives may start to bolt from the GOP.
At the current time, bold action is required from the Republican Party, but Americans should expect little to nothing since the GOP is saddled with John Boehner at the helm.
Thus far he has proven to be a perfect “Turkey of the Year” but not much of a Speaker of the House.
Even in their darkest hour, Democrats can still count on one group to support them, Hollywood. The land of make believe is filled with hopelessly liberal fools who continue to give major donations to Democrat Party leaders. In recent days, Vice President Joe Biden, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama have benefitted from lavish Hollywood fundraisers.
Recently, Barack Obama was celebrated at an extravagant fundraiser hosted by far left fool Gwyneth Paltrow. The event featured some of the biggest names in Hollywood, such as actress Julia Roberts. Tickets cost as much as $15,000 each with the funds benefitting the Democratic National Committee.
When introducing Obama, Paltrow gushed, “I am one of your biggest fans, if not the biggest.” At that point, the Obama super fan made an insanely idiotic statement, “It would be wonderful if we were able to give this man all of the power he needs to pass the things he needs to pass.”
Obviously, Paltrow does not have any kind of understanding about American history or our constitutional republic. She must want to eliminate our three branches of government and institute some sort of Obama dictatorship. It is bad enough that the President will be granting executive amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants, circumventing Congress and violating the law. Incredibly, the expanded executive powers of President Obama are not enough. Paltrow seemingly wants to disband Congress, especially since the House is led by Republicans, and let Obama have ultimate power to rule over his loyal subjects, like her friends, the fools in Hollywood.
The problem for Gwyneth’s rosy scenario is that there are millions of other Americans who have different ideas on how this country should be operated. Such freedom loving Americans are not enamored with socialism, open borders, and political correctness. It sounds like Paltrow and company want to do away with elections altogether and place conservatives and other pesky folks standing in the President’s way into political internment camps.
Heaven help this country if the wishes of Paltrow and Hollywood are ever achieved. It would mean the end of our country as we know it and the total elimination of our cherished constitutional freedoms guaranteed in our Bill of Rights.
Hopefully, Paltrow was just mesmerized by Obama’s star power and not thinking clearly. In fact, she admitted her mental troubles by gushing to President Obama, “You’re so handsome that I can’t speak properly.”
While the President’s good looks may be in the eye of the beholder, there is no disputing that Paltrow can’t speak or think properly. At the event, she called herself a “working mother,” who was pleased that the President pushed for equal pay for woman. Any pampered and over paid Hollywood star who equates her status to working mothers insults the millions of women in this country who are struggling to survive in the Obama economy.
The best way to help working women and all workers in America is not to institute more government rules and regulations, burdening business with equal pay requirements. Our objective needs to switch from growing the welfare state and government bureaucracy to unleashing the free market. If we would reduce needlessly high personal and corporate taxes, it would give our economy the fuel to grow, thereby creating more of the coveted higher paying jobs. Such a plan would help all Americans, even those who can’t speak properly.