Questions the RINO Party Establishment Won’t Be Asked (and Can’t Answer)

Somehow both the Left and the Republican Party establishment are allowed to each go through life tip-toeing through the raindrops, with each rarely compelled to defend their indefensibles.

That has again been apparent on the Ruling Class news shows following the election, as RINO after RINO and Republicrat after Republicrat strolled in front of the cameras to say that unless Republicans become more like Democrats they just can’t win elections. Of course, all of this propaganda begs several follow-up questions that almost never get asked, which is why I will ask them here.

Questions like:

• John McCain, if it’s true that Republicans need to move left on issues in order to win elections as you have (repeatedly) suggested, then why weren’t you running for re-election last month? Why did you lose in 2008?

• How come Republicans did very well in the 2010 elections and not as well in the 2012 elections? If it’s because we were too conservative, what evidence do you have that the failed campaign Republicans waged in 2012 was to the right of the successful campaign of 2010?

• If elections are all about winning over those supposedly crucial independents, then why didn’t Mitt Romney win the election? He won independents in Ohio, Virginia, and Colorado – all states McCain lost independents to Obama in 2008 – and did six points better with independents in Florida than McCain did in 2008. If you flip all those states to Romney he wins the Electoral College, yet he did what he was supposed to do with independents in those states and still lost them all. How do you explain that?

• If elections are only about the independents, should conservatives then en masse abandon their party affiliation and re-register as independents as a means of actually getting you to care about what they think for a change?

• If it’s true we’re alienating voters because of our stance in defense of marriage, then how do you explain the fact marriage out-performed Romney in every state it was on the ballot? For example, marriage performed 10 points better than Romney did in Maryland, even though it lost as well. Romney did better with evangelical turnout in Minnesota, where there was also a marriage initiative on the ballot, than McCain did four years ago. Instead of abandoning these issues, wouldn’t the smarter, more pragmatic political play be to try and link your candidates to issues more popular than your candidates? For instance, there is legitimate concern about the GOP’s status with minority voters. Yet those same minority voters are also very pro-life and very pro-marriage. If you really want to reach out to those voters, why not start with issues they already agree with you on?

• If we have to completely abandon the sanctity of life to win female voters, then how do you explain that Romney won white women by 14 points and still lost the election?

• If you’re going to abandon the sanctity of life, the defense of marriage, limited taxation, small government, out-of-control spending, and the rule of law, then what exactly makes you a Republican? Why not become a Democrat where the ideas you believe in are more popular?

• The most energized that pro-freedom and pro-liberty voters were this year was during the rally to defend Chick-fil-a prior to the Republican Convention. Did you make sure all those people were registered to vote, and ready to vote Republican for the same reasons they were standing in line for hours to get a chicken sandwich? Did you go out of your way to let that grassroots uprising of everyday Americans know which party stood with them, or did you shun them to curry favor with your ruling class friends?

• If Romney’s problems with the Republican base were just as simple as evangelicals not wanting to vote for a Mormon, then why did fewer Catholics vote in 2012 compared to 2008 despite the presence of Paul Ryan on the ticket? Furthermore, why did Romney do worse with Mormon voters than George W. Bush did in 2004?

• Why did you go scorched earth to shove Romney down our throats in the primary, only to then abandon him several times in the general election? Didn’t you tell all of us Romney was the only candidate running this time that could win?

• This week the Gallup Poll said for the first time since 2000 a majority of the American people don’t believe it’s the government’s role to provide healthcare for everybody. So then instead of funding Obamacare why aren’t you doing everything possible can to stop it?

• Do you have a plan to recover the 7 million white voters who voted in 2008 that didn’t vote in 2012? Do you know who those people are? Do you know why they didn’t vote?

Wouldn’t you love to see someone in the ruling class media ask these people these questions? Is there anyone in the “Republican media” that will ask them these questions when they get the chance?


I mean, it’s not as if the republic is at stake or anything. Besides, it’s two-for-one martinis at the beltway’s newest trendy hangout, and Karl Rove is there laying out his latest master plan to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Gotta roll. Ta-ta.


You can friend “Steve Deace” on Facebook, or follow him on Twitter @SteveDeaceShow.

GOP Civil War Brewing Over Abortion; Pro-Life Leader Warns of Third Party

If the Republican Party closes itself to passing pro-life legislation, it will signal the end of the GOP and the formation of a new, pro-life third party, a leader in one of the fastest growing pro-life ministries has warned.

“There is a Civil War brewing in the GOP, and it’s not pretty,” said Jennifer Mason, communications director of Personhood USA.

Over the weekend, 2008 Republican presidential candidate John McCain said pro-life conservatives should state their position on abortion, then “leave the issue alone.” Elected officials, he indicated, should enact no new legislation to protect the unborn.

He and a host of GOP consultants have suggested the party downplay or abandon social issues in light of the 2012 electoral loss.

Mason said his comments “made me wonder: instead of dropping the abortion issue, why not drop John McCain?”

“If McCain and his ilk are successful, we are looking at a major defection to a third party, and the ultimate death of the Republican Party,” she added.

Read more from this story HERE.

Video: Hannity throws Cheney a lifeline to extract himself from Palin mess, but Cheney misses the rope

Hannity colludes with Cheney in an attempt to repair the damage from his assertion last week that Palin was unqualified, not vetted, and a mistake for McCain’s VP. Instead of apologizing, Cheney instead offers (repeatedly) the lame excuse that he was criticizing “process” not Palin.

First speakers for GOP Convention announced; Palin not on list

Sen. John McCain, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee are among the first speakers named for this month’s Republican National Convention in Tampa.

The list, which was first reported by the Tampa Bay Times and later confirmed by the Associated Press, also includes four current GOP governors: Florida’s Rick Scott, South Carolina’s Nikki Haley, Ohio’s John Kasich and New Mexico’s Susana Martinez.

The keynote speaker and other headliners will be announced closer to the Aug. 27-30 convention, where Mitt Romney will officially become the party’s 2012 presidential nominee.

“Ours will be a world-class convention, worthy of the next president of the United States, and these speakers — and those that will be announced later — will help make it a truly memorable and momentous event,” RNC chairman Reince Priebus said.

Noticeably missing from Sunday’s list of announced speakers are the most frequently talked about vice presidential contenders, including former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.

Read more from this story HERE.

Palin responds to Cheney’s slam that she was bad VP pick

In an interview that aired on last weekend’s “This Week” on ABC, former Vice President Dick Cheney revealed his disappointment that Sarah Palin was the 2008 Republican vice presidential nominee. That revelation is still being discussed three days later and it has even drawn criticism from conservatives.

But on Tuesday night’s “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren” on the Fox News Channel, Palin herself responded to the former vice president, calling it a “misfire,” and saying that he had bought into the media’s story that has been generated over the last four years.

“Well, seeing as how Dick — excuse me, Vice President Cheney never misfires, then evidently, he’s quite convinced that what he had evidently read about me by the lamestream media having been written what I believe is a false narrative over the last four years, evidently, Dick Cheney believed that stuff, and that’s a shame,” Palin said. “So he characterized me as being a mistake.”

But Palin argued that the mistake wasn’t her selection. It would have been if she declined the nomination and pointed to her high numbers at the time of the 2008 presidential race that made her an attractive candidate.

“Here’s where the mistake would have been, Greta, I believe. It’s had I not answered the call — I was honored to get to run for vice president of the United States alongside Senator John McCain. I was honored to accept the nomination from the GOP. And I think that the mistake would have been me just deciding that, ‘Hey, I love my 86-87 percent approval rating up there in Alaska as the governor, moving and shaking and watching corrupt politicians and businessmen go to prison for crony capitalism, working on 16 to 20 percent of domestic energy supplies being able to be increased via Alaska’s resource development, ethics reform legislation that I was working on — that led to that 86 percent approval rating.”

Read more from this story HERE.

The Establishment Wars Against Another Tea Party Leader

With growing dismay, I’ve read a number of recent press reports on the increasingly vicious bipartisan attack on Representative Michele Bachmann.  What on earth did she do?  Rep. Bachmann (and a few of her colleagues, including my friend, Rep. Louie Gohmert, R-Texas) had the audacity to request a federal investigation into “potential Muslim Brotherhood infiltration into the United States Government.”

What prompted Rep. Bachmann to ask for this?  Nothing less than evidence from a myriad of FBI reports and federal court cases identifying a number of Muslim Brotherhood front groups, some of which are currently advising departments and agencies of the federal government.

In her investigation request, Rep. Bachmann also noted that Huma Abedin, deputy chief of staff to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, had close family connections to the Muslim Brotherhood.  This spawned a sharp reaction from Senator John McCain, calling the linkage “nothing less than an unwarranted and unfounded attack on an honorable woman.”  The State Department also joined in, stating that Ms. Bachmann’s allegations were “absolutely preposterous.”

But the worst was leveled by her former campaign chief, Ed Rollins, yesterday:

I have been a practitioner of tough politics for many decades. There is little that amazes me and even less that shocks me. I have to say that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s outrageous and false charges against a top aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Huma Abedin reaches that threshold.

Her unsubstantiated charge against Abedin, a widely respected top aide to Secretary Hillary Clinton, accusing her of some sort of far-fetched connection to the Muslim brotherhood, is extreme and dishonest.

And then this below-the-belt hit:

Having worked for Congressman Bachman’s campaign for president, I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy  level.

So what exactly did Rep. Bachmann say that was so injurious?  Here it is in her own words:

The Department’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and /or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy making.

Although she never accused Abedin of being a Muslim Brotherhood loyalist herself, Ms. Bachmann stated later that the

concerns about the foreign influence of immediate family members is such a concern to the U.S. Government that it includes these factors as potentially disqualifying conditions for obtaining a security clearance, which undoubtedly Ms. Abedin has had to obtain to function in her position.

For us to raise issues about a highly-based U.S. Government official with known immediate family connections to foreign extremist organizations is not a question of singling out Ms. Abedin.  In fact, these questions are raised by the U.S. Government of anyone seeking a security clearance.

Given the reasonable assumption that Ms. Abedin has a high-level security clearance, as a member of the House Select Committee on Intelligence I am particularly interested in exactly how, given what we know from the international media about Ms. Abedin’s documented family connections with the extremist Muslim Brotherhood, she was able to avoid being disqualified for a security clearance. If these known and documented family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood would not disqualify someone for a security clearance, what specifically is the standard to be disqualified on foreign influence grounds?

Nothing factually inaccurate there.  Of course, none of her detractors bother with that; they deal in hyperbole, hoping to shoot the messenger with the now-politically routine ad hominem attack.  Fortunately, their over-the-top efforts seem to have backfired, giving Congresswoman Bachmann a new platform to address the increasing risk of Islamic fanaticism in the U.S.

Please join her in this effort.  And if you have the resources, send a donation her way.  After all, I suspect that what this “outrage” is really about is this:  the Establishment wants to remove a troublesome Tea Party leader from the U.S. House of Representatives.  As recent elections have shown, they’d much rather seat a liberal Democrat (or RINO) who loves big government than a committed constitutionalist who stands by the principles of our Founders.


Photo credit: Gage Skidmore