Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Thursday, October 29, 2015

The RNC Clutches The Reins


Remember when, months ago, Donald Trump said something about the nomination process having to be fair, or he'd give the GOP a lot of grief? The process hasn't been fair for a long time, and we're fooling ourselves if we think otherwise.

From Time (August 8, 2014):
...RNC Chairman Reince Priebus announced a 13-member committee of Republican officials who will set rules for the GOP’s debates during the 2016 cycle, including selecting venues, debate partners, and even moderators. The committee will be led by Priebus ally Steve Duprey of New Hampshire, who was close to both Mitt Romney and John McCain. The committee is dominated by Priebus loyalists.

[...]

Any candidate who participates in a debate that is unsanctioned by the RNC’s committee will be barred from appearing in any of the authorized debates, according to the party’s rules.

The RNC debate committee has yet to determine the qualification standards for candidates to earn a spot on the stage.
Shall we take bets as to whether or not Reince Priebus and Karl Rove are best buddies? See Gestapo Cartel Of Karl Rove, Reince Priebus, and Establishment Republicans (September 10, 2015):
Have you put into context what the Republican Party is doing to Tea Party people and every other group that dares represent the interest of the people?

Think about the following: it’s not new; I’ve been saying it for a long time, but because it’s important I’m going to say it yet again in another way. Karl Rove is on record making it expressly clear that no candidates will receive one red cent of campaign help from his 527 PACs. Mitch McConnell, R- Ky, praised the defeat of a Tea Party candidate in South Alabama. McConnell is the ranking Republican in the Senate, and he is responsible for accomplishing little more than bringing in large caches of money for himself and those like him since he has been in office. And I’m not interested in hearing that Democrats have had the majority in the Senate blah-blah-blah. Two Democrats with a stone and a bucket of creek water could stymie Republican efforts.

McConnell called for other Republicans to boycott companies who support Tea Party candidates, and he has also made it clear that no Tea Party candidates will receive a dime of campaign help. The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) served notice to Jamestown Associates, one of the most prominent Republican advertising firms, that it would no longer be receiving contracts with the campaign committee because it also works with the Senate Conservatives Fund (SCF). The SCF helps fund, among other conservatives, Tea Party candidates. The message is clear that McConnell, Rove, Boehner, and the Republican establishment are going to every length to ensure that only those they approve of have a chance of getting elected. The NRSC is infamous for supporting and funding the most notorious left-wing Republicans such as Charlie Crist, R-FL.

This is being done under the guise of electability. Supposedly the concern of the Republican establishment is that only candidates with a chance to win get funded and they believe Conservatives are unelectable. This is the brainchild of Karl Rove. This is the architecture he has been busy erecting. The truth, however, is a different story.

The truth is that Rove, McConnell, et al. have a good thing going for themselves, and they do not want anything or anyone to upset their liberal, ideological apple cart. It’s not about electability. That’s a bald-face lie. It’s about them getting the type of candidate they want. The problem with that is it doesn’t allow for the types of candidates We the People want.

If it were purely about winning campaign races, they would remember the stunning and historic, record-breaking campaign successes the Tea Party engineered in 2010.

Tea Party candidates represent the will of We the People. Establishment candidates represent the will of the rich and powerful who benefit from tawdry deals like amnesty for illegal aliens. I was the lone voice in the media warning people that Rove and the Republicans were going to do all they could to torpedo and destroy the Tea Party. But not enough heeded my warning.

I continue to warn that in the next election cycles we must be willing to take the bold stance that we will not support candidates promoted by those who are openly working to prevent the will of We the People from being realized. We must be willing to either stay at home or only support true conservative candidates who are not beholding to Republican hierarchy.

What Rove, McConnell, Boehner, NRSC, et al. are doing to undermine the will of the people is tantamount to what takes place in Third World countries under the control of dictators. This is the United States of America, and We the People must defend our Constitutional right to select and elect the candidate of our choice not be told by Rove, et al. who we will support.

What they are doing is unconscionable, and it is necessary to combat them just as our forefathers fought the throne of King George. We are today as they were back then, being governed and taxed without representation.
In my view, Marco Rubio won the GOP debate on October 28, 2015.

I have to ask myself, "Is Marco Rubio now the establishment's anointed one?" I have reason to believe that the GOP establishment has been moving in that direction for at least a few weeks at the realization that Jeb Bush is a failed candidate.

40 comments:

  1. The neo-Romanovs do not grasp the simmering anger of the peasants beyond the moat. The drawbridge may be up and the alligator PAC's aplenty in the water. But critical mass and consensus of the peasants may end up toppling the plan in motion.

    American voters are discounted and dismissed as being brute, primitive beasts. "They" will do what is best for "Them" - not what is best for taxpaying American citizens. And they think that they will get away with it again and again. Maybe not this time. Our voices have been smothered for a long time. It is difficult to make an impact beyond state borders. Anger. Yeah, I feel it in my bones. Going to the polls will be a distinct act of resistance.

    The Last English Prince

    ReplyDelete
  2. "In my view, Marco Rubio won the GOP debate on October 28, 2015."
    A debate calls for two opposing views.
    The debate was with the moderators.

    Rubio shone, so did Cruz and Chris Christie had some good moments.
    I'm not sure a "winner" emerged.
    I'm gonna have to settle on a favorite candidate soon.
    One who is electable and best represents my views, in that order.
    I think Rubio might be that guy.
    Doesn't make him my favorite candidate who best represents my views.
    We need a Hillary beater.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed,
      One who is electable and best represents my views, in that order.

      A realist, but I don't prioritize the two in that order.

      Delete
    2. Ed,
      BTW, I think that Rubio could destroy Hillary in a debate.

      Delete
    3. But is a debate the electoral college?

      Delete
  3. Rove has moved from architect to KING and I knew that when Cruz first emerged as a candidate and he slammed him quite soundly. I thought "uhoh...something's going on here..." and it's changed only recently when Rove hasn't been quite so tough on the younger, more dedicated conservatives.
    Am researching something that'll blow your mind, AOW....hopefully, I'll have it soon.
    WOW

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Z,
      I've been doing some research, too, but I'm sure that my sources are different from yours. I wonder if our findings will intersect.

      Delete
  4. Worth reading...

    Jeb’s Dead: Adiós Amigo by Jonathan V. Last. Is Last another member of the Rovian Cartel?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Their tax plans were all similar and all disastrous. That seems to have been lost in the Rubio/Bush cat fight.

    All give tax cuts to the wealthy expecting that to generate high levels of growth.
    Here's what you get:

    Higher deficits
    Asset bubbles
    Low growth

    ... but the supply side scam has been in place for so long it's clear you aren't going to wise up.

    I'm basing this on the post debate reviews.

    I watched the Series. Damn, KC can hit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. At least they aren't advocating an Obama and the Pelosicrats "stimulus" where the federal treasury hands over billions to well-connected Democrat party donor fatcats.

      Delete
    2. Last figure I heard on the deficit (Stiglitz on Democracy Now!) was under 3% of GNP. It has dropped considerably under Obama.

      Combine that with borrowing under the inflation rate and the current situation is manageable.

      But let's go back to the days of Junior Bush.
      Is that really what you want?

      Delete
    3. It had to drop. Not even the US can sustain the levels of debt Obama was racking up.

      The economy is showing weak improvement, so revenue is up. You can also thank the GOP adults for the budget sequestration, which is the main reason the spending explosion was halted. It made everybody on Crapitall Hill mad, so it must be good.

      Not to worry, the GOOPers are conspiring with Obama to remove the sequester spending caps, so you and other lefties will get to watch the pretty spending balloons rise...

      Wait till Hillary takes over, it will be a Wall Street, Crony Crapitalist, Global Corporatist orgy at your and my expense...

      Delete
    4. SF,
      You can also thank the GOP adults for the budget sequestration, which is the main reason the spending explosion was halted.

      Yes, the only way to stop the economic implosion -- or to minimize it -- is sequestration. It's the one thing I give certain Congress critters credit for.

      I see what's going on now on Capitol Hill. Many in the electorate are going to go scorched earth -- if they have the sense to realize what removing those sequester spending caps means.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    7. Jon,
      To which Warren are you referring?

      Delete
    8. "To which Warren are you referring?"

      The one who excises off-topic remarks like Dave Miller's. I didn't know that there was another.

      Delete
    9. Jon,
      Warren has the schedule from hell. I did, too, today.

      Delete
    10. Stinky Progressive CheeseOctober 30, 2015 at 11:53:00 AM EDT

      Thank you for eradicating the passive-aggressive and slyly rude off-topic comments that disrespected the blog post and the thread participants.

      If progressives cannot face up to the facts they should just admit it instead of resorting to tactics employed my middle school girls.

      Delete
  6. As I said over at Z's, I've thought for awhile that Rubio was the one to watch. He's young, he presents himself well without looking fake or over-rehearsed, and if you listen to him speak it's obvious the man does his homework.

    If he gets the nomination, the RINO screamers will come out with their little toothpick spears and plastic cocktail swords, doing just enough damage to get Hillary elected. This is why I hate politics.

    There. Is. No. Perfect. Candidate

    The next president will most likely appoint one Supreme Court Justice, perhaps two or three, as well as countless federal judges.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. SF,
      Rubio has been on my radar -- since he spoke at CPAC 2010, I think I was.

      I like his speaking style: he makes a statement, then says, "Here's why?" I don't agree with all his views, but I will support him as the 2106 candidate.

      Delete
    2. SF,
      The GOP establishment will likely now get behind Rubio, but I think it's a matter of the realization that the establishment cannot survive otherwise. I'm not all that the GOP establishment will indeed survive even if Rubio is the candidate.

      I can't prove what I'm saying. Yet. But I'm working on it!

      Delete
    3. AOW,

      Democrat and Republican voters need to realize that without the 'establishment' there is no political party. Each party is the establishment.

      I understand the anger at them, I am angry, but we must also understand that this is the reality. It's like working for a company, you like it OK, your coworkers are great and it's a nice work environment, but nobody likes the corporate suits who trim the benefits and issue money-saving edicts from on high to keep the shareholders happy.

      Delete
    4. I could get behind Rubio if he promised to run Mitt Romney supporters through tree mulchers. But he seems to want the Republican Party intact after the election, and for me, that's a non-starter.

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. I'm all for going after the candidates--in a way that can't be gleefully used against the one who gets nominated--during the primaries.

      What I hate is those who continue the fight once someone is nominated. At that point, if you're still criticizing the nominee, you're supporting Hillary.

      There is no one in the GOP field I would not vote for in the general. Hillary is a dirty, corrupt, ham-handed monster with a metallic voice and soulless eyes that should be looking at us through the window of a UFO.

      Delete
    2. SF,
      Hillary is a dirty, corrupt, ham-handed monster with a metallic voice and soulless eyes that should be looking at us through the window of a UFO.

      Correct assessment.

      Of all those on the stage last night, the one for whom I will not vote is Jeb Bush.

      What I hate is those who continue the fight once someone is nominated. At that point, if you're still criticizing the nominee, you're supporting Hillary.

      That's the matter, all right.

      Understand that if Jeb Bush were the nominee, I wouldn't go around slamming him. But I will not vote for him. Period.

      Delete
    3. @ AOW: "Understand that if Jeb Bush were the nominee, I wouldn't go around slamming him. But I will not vote for him. Period."

      My philosophy exactly. I will flame the hell out of the GOOPers, but I will not pile on when the general election gets underway.

      I won't defend the indefensible, but there are enough lefties slinging crap at them that we don't need to jump in and help them.

      Delete
    4. My God. You'd vote for Trump and not Bush?

      Delete
    5. Ed,
      Jeb is Hillary Lite, IMO.

      It really would be wonderful to vote for a candidate instead of against a candidate. I've settled for voting against a candidate too often and can't do it again.

      Delete
    6. My policy exactly AoW. I only vote FOR people. :)

      Delete
  8. As I listened to the candidates' responses to the budget and national economics questions last night, I realized just how bad our failing economy is.

    There are no easy solutions!

    There are no palatable solutions!

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cut and paste. She plastered the same liberal broadside at Free Thinke's blog.

      Funny how the deranged leftwing wackadoos read cold-hard logic and detect "rage." Psychological projection at its best. Poor, pitiful, progressive self-loathing fools.

      Delete
    2. Progressives Fool,

      Seriously, anyone that can't see "Cankles" Clinton for the cold, pathological liar that she is,is in dire need of help!

      Delete
  10. Replies
    1. Apparently, none of the voters have read his memo and discovered how "great" Jab is...

      *Snert!*

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective