By Newsentinel, September 7, 2010

Establishment-Republicans and the Republican Party of Delaware have joined forces to elect Ultra-Liberal Republican Mike Castle to the Senate in November. But, first, they have to make certain that Christine O’Donnell, the Conservative-Republican in the senate race, has zero chance of beating Castle in the Republican primary next Tuesday. 

Castle’s supporters – to help Castle defeat O’Donnell – have been busy, and still are busy, pulling out all the stops to smear O’Donnell. Today,  however, the potent Tea Party Express jumped on the band wagon for O’Donnell, as they did for Conservative-Republican Joe Miller. Miller’s stunning primary election defeat of Senator Lisa Murkowski in Alaska sent shock waves through the Establishment-Republican Party machine which backed Murkowski.

Establishment-Republicans are drooling over the prospect of a Republican-controlled Senate.  They are dying to get back their committee Chairman positions.  Castle, his supporters argue, can help deliver the Senate to Republicans in November.

He can do that, his Republican supporters say, because he’s popular in Delaware.  O’Donnell cannot possibly win, they insist, because Castle is much more popular than she is.  Wait a minute.  How popular is Congressman Castle in Delaware? Rasmussen released a poll today that provides a quantitative measurement of Congressman Castle’s popularity in Delaware.

Castle has served in Congress for so long, one wonders how many people in Delaware can remember when he was not their representative. Castle is the only representative from the smallest state, Delaware. In Rasmussen’s poll, Castle polls ahead of his Democratic opponent and ahead of Christine O’Donnell.  But, delve deeper inside the Rasmussen poll, and we find some interesting numbers when it comes to the popularity contest.

How popular is Congressman Mike Castle?  Not so much, according to Rasmussen.

Among questions Rasmussen asked in their poll, conducted September 2, was,  “Is your representative in Congress the best possible person for the job?”  45% said No.

That 45% is fascinating.  Only 20% said that Castle is the best possible person for the  job of congressman.  And 39% are not sure if he is or isn’t.

Even more fascinating than the 45% who are not happy with the job Castle is doing in Congress, is the answer to this question:  “Regardless of how Congress is doing overall, does your local representative in Congress deserve to be reelected?”  39% said No.  Only 32% said Yes.  And 29% are Not sure.

Most Delaware voters do not believe Congressman Mike Castle deserves to be reelected to Congres. So, why would most of them want Castle for a United States Senator?

Rasmussen found that 62% of those polled believe that neither Republican political leaders or Democratic political leaders “have a good understanding of what is needed today.”  Mike Castle is among those clueless “Republican political leaders.”  And many Delaware voters apparently are acutely aware of that.

Rasmussen’s poll was taken just twelve days before the Delaware Republican Senate primary will be held.  A majority of the voters in Delaware polled on September 2 were not happy with their congressional representative, Mike Castle. So, on primary day, September 14, many Republican voters may just decide to ditch Mike Castle and take a chance on a fresh Republican candidate. That candidate’s name is Christine O’Donnell.

Copywrite © 2010 by Newsentinel all rights reserved

The dying breed of Establishment Republicans embrace Mike Castle as one of their own. So do Democrats. Castle poses no threat to the obnoxious, hackneyed, business-as-usual Establishment Republican agenda — and no threat to Barack Obama’s perilous Democratic-Socialists’ agenda either.

Erick and Eric: Conservative Bloggers’ Quarrel  Eric Erickson of Redstate.com landed a blogger-punch on Eric Odom of Liberty.com — but it’s Christine O’Donnell’s senate campaign that is reeling from the blow.

In his September 3, 2010 morning post on Redstate, Erick Erickson announced he’s pulling the plug on support for Christine O’Donnell’s campaign against Mike Castle. Why? Because Erickson is very, very, very incensed that O’Donnell’s former campaign backer Eric Odom pulled the “gay card” on Castle, with an ad notable for nasty innuendo. The ad is over-the-top in absurdity and serves only to dirty-up O’Donnell’s otherwise clean campaign. O’Donnell apologized – but not soon enough or robustly enough for the morally-incensed Erickson.

Bad on Eric Odom. But bad on Erick Erickson, too, for letting his apparent animosity against Odom spill over into a crucial senate campaign in Delaware.  O’Donnell’s campaign has faltered along the way. But I’ll support her and her impoverished, mistake-making campaign any day over the stomach-turning prospect of six long years of Mike Castle in the Senate.

If elected,  Mike Castle will join the ranks of other Democrats with Rs besides their names (names like John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham come to mind). If O’Donnell is elected, chances are splendid she will vote with Conservative-Republicans (names like Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn spring to mind).

Pondering the crucial Delaware Republican senate primary looming on the horizon, I recall a fitting line from an old song: ”You picked a fine time to leave us, Lucille Erick.”

Copyright © 2010 by Newsentinel all rights reserved

[For Erick Erickson's decision to pull the plug on support for O'Donnell and his comments about Eric Odom, go here http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/09/03/pulling-the-plug-in-delaware-the-libertycom-and-christine-odonnell-matter/   ]

[For more conservative commentary on the issue of the political ad that pulls the "gay card" on Mike Castle, go here http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives/2010/09/03/christine-odonnell-curiouser-and-curiouser/   ]

By Newsentinel

Results of the August 17 primaries held in Wyoming and in Washington State are big clues that The Times They Are A Changin — and to the advantage of Conservative Republicans.

Washington State

Patty Murray is in trouble. In Washington State’s senate primary Murray won only 46% of votes cast.  In an ultra-liberal Democratic Blue State, of deep blue hue, like Washington, that’s not just a sign of political turbulence. It’s the equivalent of a tsunami warning.

In Washington State’s primary elections, all candidates run on the same ballot. The two top two winners then compete in the November general election. Murray was the top vote getter with 46%. But here’s the bad news for Murray.  Her two closest Republican challengers, combined, won the same percentage of votes she did, 46%. 

Dino Rossi won 34%. Rossi has the backing of power-house Conservative Republican Senators Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn. Clint Didier of Super Bowl stardom drew 12% of votes cast. Didier had the enthusiastic endorsements of Sarah Palin and Libertarian-Republican Congressman Ron Paul. In November, Murray will go toe-to-toe against Rossi, and Didier will not be on the ballot  to siphon conservative and independent votes from Rossi.

Since 1992 Murray has reigned supreme in popularity with Washington voters. In 1992′s general election, she received 54% of the votes compared to her Republican rival’s 46%. In 1998, Murray won 58%  to Republican rival Linda Smith’s 42%.  In 2004, Murray won 55% to Republican George Nethercutt’s 43%.

Numbers don’t lie.  Dino Rossi has a better chance of defeating Murray than anyone since 1992. Murray is, no surprise, already running against George W. Bush by associating Rossi with Bush’s policies. But Rossi can run against Barack Obama’s policies, which Murray ardently loves and a considerable majority of Americans ardently hate. And, there’s the immigration issue on which Murray is vulnerable. She voted yes on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006. Four years later, the illegal immigrant issue is boiling hot. Patty Murray is stuck on the wrong side of American public opinion. Dino Rossi is sitting pretty.

Wyoming

The big loser in Wyoming’s Republican primary is the Establishment Republican Party. Yes, indeed, The Times They Are A Changin and Establishment Republicans are losing political clout as fast as Conservative Republicans are gaining it.

The signs of the times: A former country-club Establishment Republican president endorses the son of a former country-club Establishment Republican senator. The endorsed son, who is running for governor of his state, comes in fourth behind three other Republican candidates. It happened in Wyoming. Former President George H. W. Bush endorsed Colin Simpson for governor of Wyoming. Colin Simpson is the son of former United States Senator Alan Simpson. President Bush’s endorsement fell on deaf ears in Wyoming.

Another political-clout-loser in the Wyoming Republican primary is Sarah Palin. She backed Rita Meyer for governor.  Meyer lost. Palin’s track record for endorsing losers is steadily growing in length. As November nears, will Republican candidates start running the other way if Palin approaches with an endorsement?

Matt Mead, a former United States Attorney, won Wyoming’s Republican governor’s primary.  Mead’s opponent in November is Leslie Peterson, chairwoman of Wyoming’s Democratic Party. Peterson is glued at the hip to the Democratic Party of Barack Obama and Obama is a political albatross for all Democratic candidates this year.  But, even worse for Peterson’s chances in November: For every Democratic voter in Wyoming there are two Republican voters.

It is a plus for the Conservative Republican cause if Mead becomes Wyoming’s next governor. This is a unique time in America when States are leading the fight against gross federal encroachment on individual liberties and appalling federal negligence in border security. The more Republican governors elected in 2010, the safer our constitutional republic will be.

Copyright © 2010 by Newsentinel all rights reserved

[For an assessment of the potential effects of Washington State's primary results on the November general election, go here  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/18/as_goes_washington_so_goes_the_nation_106799.html ]

Yes, Chile did privatize its social security system while under Pincochet’s harsh totalitarian rule. But that doesn’t alter the fact that Chile’s privatization was successful. It helped Chile’s economy and it helped individual Chileans’ pocketbooks. According to a story produced by CBS in 2005, after 25 years under a privatized social security system, Chile was prospering as a result of privatized social security.

Sharron Angle is being castigated by Reid’s army of media supporters for suggesting that, since it worked in Chile, it could work here. Well, why couldn’t it work here? Take a look at this CBS story of 2005, posted below this piece, and ask yourself, “Would privatization of Social Security work as well here for our economy as it has in Chile?”

Copyright © 2010 by Newsentinel all rights reserved

***

 ”SANTIAGO, Chile, March 10, 2005   http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/10/eveningnews/main679435.shtml

“Chile’s Privatized SS Plan

“Trish Regan Reports 3.6M Chileans Have Private Retirement Accounts

 ”By Jaime Holguin

“(CBS)  In the heart of the Andes Mountains is an example of a fully-privatized social security system.Hector Espinoza, 48, is one of the 3.6 million Chileans with a private retirement account.The biggest benefit, he says, is “the chance to control my retirement.”

“In 1980, Chile’s traditional pay-as-you-go social security system was about to go under. In response, the government created a program that required workers to save for their own retirement through private investment accounts.

“As CBS News Correspondent Trish Regan reports, 10 percent of every paycheck must now be deposited into an individual account – an AFP – as it’s known in Spanish. Workers have to pay an additional 2.3 percent of their wages to cover administrative costs and health and disability insurance. The money in the account grows tax-free until the worker retires.

“With annual returns topping 10 percent since the program began, advocates of privatization deem Chile a success story.

“Nearly $60 billion worth of retirement assets have been put to work in the Chilean stock market. Supporters of private accounts say all this investment in local companies has helped fuel an unprecedented economic boom.

” ‘You have Sweden, you have Poland, you have Mexico,’ ” says Jose Pinera, Chile’s former labor secretary.

“Pinera designed the program. ” ‘I believe it gives people ownership, freedom, choice,’ ” says. ” ‘believe it is such an American system.’ “

“But critics say it’s a system with serious flaws.

“Asked what he thinks of AFP, a tomato salesman says in Spanish, ” ‘It’s something that’s not worth the trouble.’ “

“Many of Chile’s poorest workers, like this tomato farmer, say they can’t afford to put away 10 percent of their pay.

“Nearly half of Chile’s workforce is self-employed and many are seasonal workers who rarely declare income, pay taxes or contribute to their pensions. These people have little to retire on, other than the government’s guaranteed payment of $150 a month.

“Still, most of the people who consistently contribute to their accounts, like Espinoza, say the system works.

” ‘I hope to put more money in the system in order to obtain a better pension,’ ” says Espinoza.

“But that pension depends on the Chilean markets sustaining their impressive returns. Still, Espinoza says, the risk is worth it because for him and millions of Chileans like him, ownership of a retirement account means ownership of their future.” 

 Now and then, something comical happens in today’s apocalyptically-serious game of American politics.  When it’s a Liberal-Leftist, Democratic-Socialist being inadvertently funny about political enemies, it tickles the funny bone of a Reagan Conservative Republican like me.

Consider a June 9th article in the left-wing New Republic. The writer opined as to how Nevada’s Republicans shot the “establishment” Republican Party in the foot when they nominated Sharron Angle as their Senate candidate. The title of the article paired ”Sharron Angle” with “Party Suicide.” So, which is it? A shot in the foot or suicide? How a shot in the foot equals suicide eludes me.  But, then, maybe that’s how Liberal-leftists commit suicide – with a foot wound?  But, I digress.

Returning to the accidentally funny things said in the New Republic article, check out this statement: Angle appears to be a “genuine lunatic.”  Why? Because she believes things like this: “Sharron Angle believes that the Federal Department of Education should be eliminated. The Department of Education is unconstitutional and should not be involved in education, at any level.” The New Republic article sees lunacy in Sharron Angle’s political positions because she is in favor of “the termination of the Energy Department, the EPA and much of the IRS tax code; complete elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae.”

So, Sharron Angle appears to be a ”lunatic” for believing those things? The New Republic‘s opinions about Angle’s opinions are making me laugh.

Speaking as a Conservative Republican, I believe that the Department of Education is a waste of taxpayer dollars, an exercise in futility – that it does the opposite of what its name implies. And I would dance in the streets and celebrate with fireworks upon learning that the Energy Department, the EPA and much of the IRS tax code had been terminated, and that the National Endowment of the Arts, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae had been eliminated. I would rejoice to learn that not just ”much of the IRS tax code” had been terminated, but that the entire Internal Revenue Service had been dismantled and forever terminated.

Liberal-leftists may think, as the New Republic article scornfully states, that it is “inflammatory rhetoric” for Sharron Angle to express concern that ordinary Americans are afraid “they’ll have to fight for their liberty in more Second Amendment kinds of ways.”  But many Conservative Republicans understand her fears about that. And, we know what Angle knows, that it is crucial for American citizens to look to the ballot box as the means to our political end. Angle understands the anxieties of millions of ordinary Americans. Ridiculing her for that merely shows that Liberal-leftists are clueless when it comes to the concerns of ordinary Americans. 

Here is what I think is an especially ludicrous statement made in the New Republic article: Sharron Angle’s "nomination is just a staggering failure of the party establishment."  Does the writer of that statement think that most Republicans lament a “staggering failure” of the party establishment? That’s a hoot!  The failure, staggering or otherwise, of the party establishment is a major objective of Conservative Republicans. We’re fed up with “establishment” Republicans. Which is why ”establishment” party candidate Sue Lowden lost the primary and Sharron Angle won it.

A majority of Nevada’s Republican voters evidently believe that Sharron Angle can defeat Harry Reid in the November election. Secretly, the Liberal-leftists of this country may believe it, too, which explains why they’ll heap as much scorn as they can possibly heap on Sharron Angle. The scorn-heaping is in full sway and expect more of it to come her way. 

By Newsentinel, August 4, 2010

Who are the Amar brothers? And what plan did they hatch?

The Amar brothers are Akhil Reed Amar and his younger brother Vikran Amar.  They are prominent law professors who dwell, philosophically, on the left side of America's political spectrum. Hence the Amar brothers could not have been happy when Al Gore, a darling of the left, lost the 2000 presidential election to George W. Bush. Even more galling to leftists, Gore received 1.5% more popular votes, 50,999,897 votes (48.4%) to Bush's 50,456,002 votes (47.9%). Gore carried 20 states plus the District of Columbia. Bush carried 30 states.

To the chagrin of Democrats, the Electoral vote placed Bush in the White House instead of Gore. Bush received 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266 electoral votes. And that brings us to the plan hatched by the Amar brothers. It is called the National Popular Vote (NPV) plan.  In December 2001, the Amar brothers co-wrote and published an article, "How to Achieve Direct National Election of the President Without Amending the Constitution." The intent was, still is, to circumvent -- in essence, to render ineffective -- the Electoral vote process for electing a president that is set forth in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States.

Under the NPV plan, states whose legislatures agree to participate in the plan enter an interstate compact. Under their interstate compact, the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes is awarded all the Electoral votes held by states in the NVP interstate compact. This is the clever plan devised by the Amar brothers that could re-elect Barack Obama in 2012. The NPV plan is attracting Democratic-leaning Blue States. When enough states holding a majority of electoral votes (270) participate in the NPV plan, the interstate compact goes into effect.

The National Popular Vote plan is supposed to be all about electing a president on the basis of the popular votes cast. But, will it turn out that way? Suppose enough Blue Democratic states, which together control a majority of 270 electoral votes, participate in the NPV plan. What would prevent the member states of the NPV interstate compact from electing a president based on their majority of Electoral votes, regardless of whether that candidate has received most of the popular votes cast? The NPV plan raises many thorny issues. 

So far, the states that are participating in NPV are traditionally-Democratic Blue States: Hawaii (4 electoral votes), Illinois (21 electoral votes), Maryland (10 electoral votes), New Jersey (15 electoral votes), Washington (11 electoral votes), and Massachusetts (12 electoral votes). It is anticipated that New York (31 electoral votes) and the District of Columbia (3 electoral votes) will participate in the NPV plan, both of which represent deep Blue, heavily-Democratic regions of the country.

Circumventing the Electoral process, by means of the NPV plan, also circumvents the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution whose basic aim was to distribute power among all citizens of all the states. The essential purpose of the Constitution, as stated in its Preamble, is to bring about a more perfect Union. It is not to bring about an imperfect Union by giving a political advantage to people of heavily populated regions of the Union and to place people who live in thinly populated areas at a political disadvantage. One of the ways the Framers chose to help bring about a more perfect Union is the Electoral voting process for electing presidents. 

As a matter of fact, the Framers of the Constitution struggled to devise the Electoral voting process. It was no easy task for them to assure a political balance between the large (heavily populated) and the small (thinly populated) states. Electing a president by popular vote was suggested at the Philadelphia Convention, but it was rejected by the Framers. The Framers wisely arrived at an ingenious plan, the Electoral vote process, which has stood the test of time and, until now, has withstood partisan attacks made against it.

Make no mistake about it, striking a political balance between heavily populated regions of this country and sparsely populated regions is just as important now as it was then. Under the Amar brothers' NPV plan, as few as eleven states, heavily populated states that hold a controlling majority of Electoral votes (270), could decide who will be elected president in 2012. If enough Democratic Blue States, under the NPV plan, combine their electoral votes to reach the magic number of 270, where does that leave the voters who live in the vast Red State region of the United States? Left out of the process. That's where. Casting meaningless votes. That's where. With Barack Obama elected president again in 2012. That's where.

The Amar brothers' NPV plan apparently was designed to work to the distinct advantage of Democratic presidential candidates and to the obvious advantage of Barack Obama.

For information about the Electoral vote process, go here http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/laws.html and for additional information about the number of electoral votes held by each state, go here http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/calculator.html

To read the article, "How to Achieve Direct National Election of the President Without Amending the Constitution", by Akhil and Vikran Amar, which is mentioned above, go here http://writ.news.findlaw.com/amar/20011228.html

UPDATE: For additional commentary on the National Popular Vote plan, go here http://www.columbialawreview.org/assets/pdfs/108/1/Gringer.pdf

copyright © 2010 by Newsentinel all rights reserved

Circumventing the Constitution of the United States is nothing to sneeze at. It poses a danger to our constitutional republic. Why? Because it is an assault on the integrity of the Constitution, under which our constitutional republic, comprised of sovereign states, was formed. A plan to render a part of the Constitution ineffective ought to arouse the keen interest of American citizens about the persons who are touting, supporting, and funding the National Popular Vote plan.

Individuals who support the NPV plan include John B. Anderson. In 1980 he ran for president as an Independent. He won only 6.6% of the popular vote and no Electoral votes. Maybe that’s what soured him on the Electoral process. Anderson helped found FairVote in 1992, a group that supports NPV, and served as FairVote’s Board Chairman 1996-2008. Anderson endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008. According to Anderson we live in an “Age of Democracy” and the Electoral vote process is an “outmoded” relic to be discarded.

When someone who endorsed Barack Obama for president talks about how Americans now live in an “Age of Democracy,” I’m compelled to conclude that the NPV plan must be good news for Democratic-Socialists and bad news for conservatives and our constitutional republic.

Tom Downey, a New York Democrat and former U.S. Congressman with a liberal voting record, strongly supports NPV. Downey serves on NPV’s Advisory Board. Downey’s wife, Carol Browner, is a member of International Socialists and energy czar in the Obama administration. Need I say more about why Tom Downey likes the NPV plan?

Cynthia Terrill, another supporter of NPV, worked to help elect ultra-liberal Democrat Senator Tom Harkins, which should suffice as evidence of Terrill’s ultra-liberal Democratic credentials.

John Hall Buchanan, of People for the American Way (PFAW), serves on PFAW’s Board of Directors. People for the American Way is an organization that supports leftist political causes, to put it mildly. PFAW, established in 1981 by the Tides Foundation, staunchly supports the NPV plan. PFAW is notorious for its vociferous opposition to conservatives being placed on the Supreme Court of the United States. It’s to be expected that John Hall Buchanan would gravitate toward the NPV.  He serves on NPV’s Advisory Board.

Senator Birch Bayh, a Democrat, also serves on NPV’s Advisory Board. For decades Bayh has tried to abolish the Electoral College.  Bayh met with dismal failure in his efforts to abolish the Electoral college by amending the Constitution. The NPV plan, which renders the Electoral college ineffective, does the trick nicely. So it’s no surprise that Birch Bayh gives the NPV his full support.  Ditto Tom Campbell. Campbell, like Bayh, has participated in efforts to abolish the Electoral College. He is a former U. S. Congressman and progressive Republican. Tom Campbell serves on NPV’s Advisory Board.

Among those funding efforts to carry the NPV plan into effect is John Koza, Chairman of NPV.  Koza endorsed Barack Obama for president in 2008 and contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign. For several years, Koza has expended time, energy, and fortune to get the NPV plan passed into state law.  Six Blue Democratic states have already turned the NPV plan into state law.

George Soros’ son Jonathan, of Soros Management Fund, is a vocal and ardent supporter of the NPV plan. Where there is a Soros, there is money. Doubtless, the NPV plan is a recipient of Soros money. George Soros’ blatantly leftist reputation precedes him. The various individuals mentioned here are prominent examples of those on the left who support NPV.

The NPV plan is a nightmare in the making for voters who live in the Red State region of the United States. Will those behind the NPV meet their happiest expectations? Only if American conservatives continue to slumber, blissfully ignorant about what NPV portends for them in the 2012 presidential election.

***

To learn more about the origin of the NPV plan and how it works, see Newsentinel’s Op Ed, “The Amar Brothers Hatch a Plan That Could Guarantee Obama’s Election in 2012″. See, also, "National Popular Vote Plan: An Ace in the Hole for Barack Obama in 2012?"

To learn more about John B. Anderson’s views, go here  http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring05/college.html

Copyright © 2010 by Newsentinel all rights reserved

Rand Paul’s name is notoriously connected to quirky libertarian political and economic positions, to outlandish conspiracy theories, and to racism. His name was tied to those positions, to those conspiracy theories, and to racism before he entered and won Kentucky’s Republican senatorial primary in a landslide a few days ago. Since he won it, his past and present foot-in-the-mouth utterances are spelling trouble for his senate campaign. Worse, much worse, Rand Paul is spelling trouble for America’s potent Tea Party Movement because, unfortunately, when his name is mentioned, so, inevitably, are the words “Tea Party candidate” or “Tea Partiers” or “Tea Party Movement.”

As a Tea Party activist, I resent and reject the overt and covert suggestion, made by liberal and leftist media commentators, that Tea Party People are guilty of endorsing Rand Paul’s bizaare opinions, including those he expressed about the Civil Rights Act of 1964. I’m incensed by and repudiate suggestions that Tea Party People are guilty of racism or of turning a blind eye to racism because Rand Paul is accused of that. I’m appalled that the grassroots conservative movement that I joined, which ignited on April 15, 2009, is being tainted with guilt by association with Rand Paul’s eccentric political and economic positions, his association with lunatic fringe conspiracy theories, and his ties to racists such as his former campaign spokesman Chris Hightower.

It’s important to note that the Rand Paul version of the tea party movement is not the tea party movement that I and millions of Americans joined in 2009. Rand Paul’s father, Ron Paul, orchestrated a Boston Tea Party stunt to launch his 2008 presidential campaign. His “Boston Tea Party” campaign rallies and slogans did nothing to help Ron Paul win the Republican nomination. But his army of zealot Paulites kept their signs and slogans and, when a genuine nationwide grassroots tea party movement got underway, they joined it and had the unmitigated gall to claim it was and is the same thing as Ron Paul’s feeble, failed 2008 libertarian campaign gimmick.

After the genuine tea party movement caught fire, Rand Paul announced his candidacy for the United States Senate. He landed key endorsements from famous Republicans. He commandeered the fervor of the genuine tea party movement of 2009, and he used it to catapult his way into a victory in Kentucky’s Republican senate primary. As a result, he is now described, far and wide, as a “Tea Party candidate.”

Rand Paul is not my ”Tea Party candidate,” never has been, and never will be. It is now apparent that Rand Paul and his eccentric record and associations must be severed from the Tea Party Movement before he inflicts more damage on it.

The Tea Party Movement is too important to America’s future as a constitutional republic and as a nation of laws not men, to allow one candidate for office to taint it or sink it.

Copyright © 2010 by Newsentinel all rights reserved

Chuck DeVore and his supporters: Take heart. Poll trends are moving in DeVore’s favor. A new USASurvey Poll shows DeVore rising a point from last month and increasing in favor with younger voters. Carly Fiorina drops three points since last month’s USASurvey Poll as DeVore gains on front-runner Tom Campbell.

A newly-released poll, Friday, May 14, 2010, from Rasmussen, of likely voters in California’s senate race, shows Tea Party Candidate Republican-Conservative Chuck DeVore holding his one point lead over Carly Fiorina. The poll was taken six days after Fiorina’s widely-publicized endorsement by Sarah Palin. Has Sarah Palin lost her “magic touch”?

 The poll shows DeVore at 40% to Barbara Boxer’s 46%.

 Liberal-Republican Tom Campbell is in a dead hit with Boxer. Campbell is at 41% to Boxer’s 42%

 Carly Fiorina, a McCain-type Republican, comes in third behind Tom Campbell and Chuck DeVore. Fiornina is at 38% to Boxer’s 45%.

Many conservatives are still trying to figure out why Sarah Palin did not endorse the Tea Party candidate, the candidate with the proven conservative track record, the military reservist, Chuck DeVore. What was she thinking when she ignored DeVore and endorsed Carly Fiorina? One of DeVore’s supporters and fellow Californian asked that question in a blog today, laying out a masterful argument for why Palin should have endorsed DeVore. See excerpts below:

“The following is my take on the Palin endorsement of Fiorina:

“Your obvious lack of homework in your support of Carly Fiorina over Chuck DeVore makes you just as guilty of political malpractice as any politician that didn’t read the healthcare bill. Chuck DeVore’s principled stances, voting record, and family values remind me so much of the Sarah Palin I used to admire. How you could miss the similarities is beyond me.

“My principle reason for supporting you in 2008 was that you rose to power in Alaska not by going along to get along, but by taking on corruption within your own party. Millions of us in the Tea Party want to transform the national Republican party in the way that you did the Alaskan Republican party. I got an opportunity to speak to Newt Gingrich in person and tell him just that: “Newt, we want to clean up the national Republican party in the same way Sarah Palin cleaned up the Alaskan Republican party.” We think that means choosing principled candidates like Chuck DeVore over Carly Fiorina.

“So Sarah instead of leading us in getting rid of unprincipled RINOs, and helping us to remake the Republican party, you are dumping a new RINO on us. By endorsing FioRINO without taking the pulse of the conservatives in CA, you stomped on all of us who are in the trenches for DeVore. You used your “Rock Star” status to presuppose that you can choose our candidates for us. Kind a like ya think ya betcha know what’s best for us. In case you haven’t noticed, there is a rebellion going on against politicians who think they know what’s best for us. The rebellion has a name. You might have heard of it. It is called The Tea Party.

“If Republicans had handled their majority status properly and voted according to principles, we wouldn’t have needed a Tea Party. Well we gave the moderate republicans a try, and we gave the moderate Democrats a try, and in both cases found that they don’t stand for anything. They can’t be counted on. When most people find they are headed in the wrong direction, they reverse course. But not the RINO/moderate Republicans or the moderate Democrats. When they found out our country was headed off a cliff, instead of reversing course, they just stomped on the gas.

“How many times did we hear you say in the 2008 campaign, “the government needs be on the side of the people?” So Sarah why aren’t you on our side? Instead of listening to the people of CA, you listened to the people of McCain and chose Fiorina over DeVore. In your state of Alaska, you went against the establishment Republicans, but you come into our state and have the nerveto go along with the establishment against the people. If you aren’t careful, you will become the same type of politician you used to throw out of office.

“Chuck DeVore has taken principled stances on issues in the bluest of blue states even when he is only Republican to vote against the Democrats. Have you not read that Chuck DeVore resigned as Chief Republican Whip in the CA state assembly due to his opposition to a massive tax increase deal brokered by Republican leaders in the CA state assembly? He was unequivocal in his opposition to tax increases. See: http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=n…
Since you resigned a position on the Oil and Gas commission in Alaska because of corruption, I thought that if you learned of DeVore’s resignation over this tax increase vote you would have admired him. But ya kinda didn’t do your homework did ya?

“So instead of supporting someone that has a 28 year conservative history that began in the Reagan administration and includes a stellar conservative voting record which includes resigning on principle, you endorsed Fiorina who has no voting record but has taken some obviously not so conservative positions which are on record. Since the year 2000 she has been supporting taxation of the Internet. (See her own multiple video statements.)

“Her ambiguous, squishy, indirect way of answering questions in multiple video clips below, via long winding answers is troubling. It is the total opposite of the way Chuck DeVore speaks. I am sure he was not ambiguous or squishy when he decided to resign over the tax increase. Surely the answer to the question, are you in favor of taxing the Internet could begin with either a Yes or a No, followed by an explanation. The squishy manner of answering questions leads me to believe right off the bat that she is not a conservative. Conservatives know what they stand for and they get to the point about it. Someone who twists like Fiorina probably could easily be twisted in back room deals. She will have a tough time debating Barbara Boxer. Chuck DeVore would make mincemeat out of Boxer and still be polite about it.

“So Sarah, the picture is clear to us: You chose someone with no voting record who twists in the wind with her answers over someone with a solid voting record who never wavers, and who speaks so clearly about his positions with such conviction that you never have to guess what he stands for. You chose one who is always back tracking from her positions over one that never has to because his answers never leave him room to back track or waver even if he wanted to. All you have to do is watch 2 minutes of a Chuck DeVore speech to see what I am talking about.

“Sarah, judging by your speeches, we get the idea that you are a huge supporter of candidates that served in the military. Did you bother to check and find out that Chuck DeVore is a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Retired Reserve? You are regarded as someone who lives your family values. Did you bother to get to know Chuck and Diane DeVore’s family values? I did. I met Diane DeVore and learned that she is a credentialed music teacher who home schools her kids. What woman wouldn’t love Diane DeVore’s story of how she met her husband which she shares here? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YItSWO3aGI&feature=related

“We haven’t even discussed the constitution yet. Chuck DeVore has not only taken the constitutional oath in the military and in government, he lives and breathes the constitution. He completed extra coursework on the constitution at the Claremont Institute way before the constitution became vogue again. The theme of his campaign is the constitution.

“Even the theme of his billboard graphics for designed by his daughter for the campaign is the constitution. Carly Fiorina seems to have Obama like troubles with the constitution as evidenced by her master’s thesison education. She struggles with the fact that the constitution doesn’t allow for Federal government involvement in education, yet makes the case that it is a good idea for government involvement in education after all. Read her thesis: http://www.redcounty.com/sites/default/files/Carly%20Dissertation.pdf
“I admit it is somewhat unfair to go all the way back to her college days to make a point, but until I can find any more recent statement on where she stands on the constitution, that is all I can offer. On the other hand one cannot hear a Chuck DeVore speech without hearing 15 minutes of education about the constitution and the intentions of our founding fathers.

“So we have 3 types of Republicans for Senate against Boxer: Campbell, a Rockefeller Republican, Fiorina a McCain Republican, and DeVore the constitutional, common sense conservative Republican. Compare their stances on the issues:

[And] Carly Fiorina Flips and Flops on the Arizona Illegal Immigration Law. . . .”

**************************************************************************

To read more from the above quoted blog and view video clips referred to above, go here:

http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/sarah-palin-what-were-you

This entry was posted on May 15, 2010 at 10:08 PM and is filed under Elections in America, NS'sTakeOnThe Matter, Polls Tell the Story, Tea Party Power. Tagged: California Senate

Hijacking of the Tea Party Movement

Posted by newsentinel on April 17, 2010

By Newsentinel, April 10, 2010, 11 am ET