The Democratic Donkey Ride Down to the Bottom

If the fiscal cliff is a ditch, the national debt is the Grand Canyon. We are riding the Democratic Party donkey all the way to the bottom and they have no mandate, or desire, to balance the budget. The economic zombie apocalypse is waiting for us there, and they won’t be passing out granola bars.

The GOP has to come together to decide, overwhelmingly, that we must balance the budget. The problem is that the majority of those in the GOP apparently do not see the debt as the top priority. They will pick-up right where they left off before the election and avoid the elephant in the room. And we will all go down together.

They have actually joined with the Democrats in voicing their “horror” over the prospect of forced budget cuts via sequestration. God forbid both sides cut anything. Even if the “devastating” sequestration cuts go through, it won’t even touch the 16+ trillion-dollar debt.

We have been played; very skillfully I must say, by the ruling Democratic Party elite. They have set us up specifically NOT to balance the budget – or even really debate it in a meaningful way. They did this, not in Karate fashion – it was more Aikido fashion. Instead of punching the GOP, they simply invited the GOP’s punches and directed the elephant to the ground. They used the GOP’s own willingness to expand the scope of federal government and depth of the national debt via the Patriot Act, increased military spending, no child left behind, Medicare Part D and the 2008 bailouts. In that respect, the GOP joined with the Democrats in expanding government spending and reach.

They realized two very important points. First, the GOP would not push for a balanced budget because they would have to offer up military spending cuts and they would be afraid that would anger the voters. Second, the Democrats knew that as long as the Dems continued to increase voter dependency on government programs, they would be assured a majority voting block as that dependency was already approaching 50%, all without having to even address the debt. The Democratic strategists knew there was one additional reality about their long-time foe that would guarantee that everything would come together.

The icing on the cake for them was their knowledge that the GOP was stuck in their own antiquated, failed, inter-party battle between moderates and conservatives. Why was this perfect? Because one thing the moderates and conservatives shared, while they debated over the social platform, was their love for military spending. No matter which candidate rose to the top, they knew the trap was set, and no meaningful balanced budget debate would occur. And why was that so important? Because the only thing that could derail their entire plan would be for the GOP to embrace the KEY ISSUE by merging with the Tea Party and Libertarians with their balanced budget, small government passion. That would capture a much wider base and push them over the top – with a mandate to actually balance the budget once in office.

But that didn’t happen. The Democrats knew the GOP would not open the party to that opportunity. Their prediction was confirmed during the Republican National Convention. They knew the GOP was too entrenched, too full of pride. And they were correct. And now the Dems can lead us to increased collectivism – or worse.

So what is the solution, if we are so fortunate to even have a two-party option in 2014 and 2016? The GOP needs to move away from the moderate-conservative debate and move toward the conservative-libertarian/Tea Party debate, which means having all those extra votes in the room with them. The new debate must squarely focus on balancing the budget, and thus necessarily reducing the scope of government as the critical point of focus. Yes, that will lead to discussing military spending. Fortunately, like all inefficiently run government programs, there is plenty of waste that this new alliance can agree upon and target. Who knows, maybe they can actually find a way to save billions of dollars (e.g., requiring countries like Germany to pay for their own border defense) while at the same time actually shore-up one of the most dangerous international borders in the world – the U.S./Mexico border. Defense spending is different from military spending. That distinction provides lots of room for negotiation.

At least the new alliance will be on the same page about something that actually matters – the greatest threat to our national security and the greatest threat to the survival of Democratic Party dominance – the national debt.

Given that even the magnificent Obama machine still left 40% of Americans at home, not voting on election night, I have hope some of those will join us.

Originally Published on


The First Veterans, Remember Them?

Why was our country founded? Why were the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights written? I think the simple answer is that all of these happened in response to a coercive big government’s increasing control over individual liberty and freedom. Simply put, America’s founding fathers and first veterans had finally had enough and were tired of being told what to do and how to live their lives. And as historical as that revolution was, it was carried out by a very small minority of the actual colonists (most were just fine with doing nothing and letting it stay the way it was).

They were tired of being told what to do and how to live their lives. Something we can all relate to.

That is precisely why they wrote the Constitution and Declaration of Independence the way they did. That is why they wrote, “…all men are created equal…they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” That is why they wrote, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” That is why they wrote, “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That is why they wrote, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” That is why they wrote, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause…” That is why they wrote, “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law…” That is why they wrote, “The Congress shall have Power to…declare war…”

They did not write, “Treat some men worse than others because of their beliefs.” They did not write, “Only the ones we agree with can pursue happiness.” They did not write, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion – except Christianity.” They, however, also did not write, “Congress shall allow discrimination of Christians.” They did not write, “The Federal Government may violate the States’ and Individuals’ rights as they see fit for the common good.” Just as they did not write, “It is ok to throw out all these rights in the name of ‘protecting’ the public – therefore the Government may authorize perpetual search and grope, wiretaps, assassinations, indefinite detention of citizens, and maintain indefinite surveillance if a non-invading enemy hates our country and fights us outside our soil.” They also did not write, “It is ok for the President to authorize military force, when not being attacked, without Congressional approval.”

Finally, they did not write, “It is the goal of Congress to grossly outspend revenue in order to fund any programs the ruling party sees fit and, if need be, print more money and devalue the dollar, thus jeopardizing the liberty of the entire country.”

The problem is that we have now traded one coercive big government, that was worthy of a revolution, with another, two-party version that is on the road to becoming the same thing. The bickering back and forth over which “evil” is worse misses the point. Both the establishment Democrats and GOP want to be our masters and force their philosophy upon the people, violating our individual liberties along the way. This was NOT the way the Founders intended, and it is not just the Left that has been doing it.

The Government has no business forcing anything on the States or individuals that is not within their enumerated powers.

So why did Romney lose? I think there were simply more people, representing more electoral votes, that didn’t want the coercive GOP to tell them what to do. And, there are many that are happy to have the government give them things without worry about the debt.

And if Romney would have won? There would have been more people, representing more electoral votes, that didn’t want the coercive Democrats to tell them what to do. And, there are many in the GOP that are happy to have the government continue to spend money we don’t have in foreign entanglements and pork without worry about actually balancing the budget.

Thomas Jefferson wrote, “To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt…I am for government rigorously frugal and simple.”

Daniel Webster wrote, “It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.”

So who are the enemy and who are the patriots? Do you think the Founders would have welcomed and armed the “hemp” users who volunteered to fight the British because of the promise of individual liberty?

Our country was founded on the principle of respecting the rights of all to pursue their version of happiness and to be left alone by big government. That is the beauty and uniqueness of our founding. I am not advocating that you change your beliefs. I am advocating the respect of those you may disagree with that are willing to defend the Constitution with you.

I would suggest a return to our roots, sniff out and run-off big government politicians, and invite all that agree with the principles of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence to join. As it was with our first revolution, we may initially be in the minority compared to those content with our current “masters.”

Originally Published on

Post-Election Passion Proposal

Ah the election! What a glorious time leading up to the election. It has been a time to shine the bright light on the cockroaches and watch them run – only to see them relentlessly return each day. A time when the American people really feel they have some power, some control in the political process. It has been a time to write, to talk, to debate, to argue. A time to mutually reinforce our own views with those who have agreed with us all along. It has also been a time to attack those who will never agree with our views. Most importantly, it has been a time to try and persuade those on the fence to join our team. Hopefully that has been accomplished.

It has been a time for activist citizens to feel as if they have a say in the electoral process – that is as long as you live in one of the (9) battleground states. But then again, and because of the Internet, a conservative in California can actually influence an independent in Wisconsin. Because of the ability to organize at a grassroots level, with the power of the Internet, passionate citizens can make their voices heard across the country. As bad as Obama has been for our country, you have to give him credit for awakening that sleeping giant (as well as unintentionally helping gun and ammo sales).

There has been so much passion in the pre-election discourse. So what happens with all that passion after the election?

In a couple of days, there are going to be millions of pissed-off people. The “losers” will be passionately angry, bitter, and hopeless.

There will also be millions of passionately ecstatic, jubilant, hopeful, empowered, and vindicated “winners.” They will feel reassured that their guy will now go take care of things for them in Washington. That of course assumes you agree with his full agenda and he actually does what he says he will do.

The winning candidates will be thankful for the organization, the voice, the fight, and the service of the voters. They will be thankful for all the passion and effort. They will be thankful for what we did for them.

I may have a very different view of the appropriate post-election emotion that is reasonable for our country – anxiety and fear.

Anxiety and fear based upon the realistic threats that our country still face. And those emotions are the minimum emotions I will feel if Romney wins and the GOP controls the Congress. At least that will be better than the utter panic I will feel if Obama wins or there is a split Congress.

Unless you are a die-hard neocon who is in favor of the status quo of the GOP’s version of big-government, I propose a re-tooling of your passion if Romney wins.

If we are fortunate to take control of both the House and the Senate it will not be because the GOP has been transformed into small-government constitutionalists. The majority will remain the McCain’s, the Hatch’s, and the Graham’s that will consider this an opportunity to implement their style of failed GOP big-government that has been part of the problem all along. No matter how you slice it, they have been a part of the ineffective political process that has given us the subprime mortgage crisis, bank bailouts, NDAA, violation of individual rights ala TSA and the Patriot Act, implicit consent for any President to wage war without congressional approval, and unconditional funding to foreign countries that have harmed us. They still have not delivered immigration, Medicare, or simplified tax reform.

Most importantly, they share the blame for our national debt, the fiscal cliff and allowing the FED to continue to devalue our dollar.  They talk balanced budget, but have avoided actually proposing meaningful cuts that would obviously have to involve the three taboo “career-killers”: Medicare, Social Security, and the wasteful part of our military spending.

The career GOP folks in Washington who will be “mentoring” some of our newly elected constitutional heroes may blame all of the above on the Democrats. Year, after year, after year, after year they’ve had an excuse – and they will be running things now.

They will not want our passion, our hyper-vigilance turned upon them. But that is exactly where it should be focused. The passion and grassroots tidal wave that fought Obama now needs to be focused on tracking each and every important piece of legislation, both proposed and not proposed. That passion can be directed via coordinated mass emails, calls, and petitions demanding they actually fix the problems that threaten our country.

The organization, the voice, the fight, the service, the passion and effort will no longer be for them. They now need to deliver for us.

And God help us if Obama wins.

Originally Published on


Is It Time for the Term Limit Debate, Again?

What do Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and independent candidates Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode have in common?

They are in favor of a Constitutional Amendment for Congressional term limits.

During the recent Independent Candidates debate, when asked what one amendment would they propose for the Constitution, both Johnson and Goode proposed congressional term limits.

The Washington Post reported that during a recent town-hall meeting in Waukesha, Wisconsin, Paul Ryan said he supported congressional term limits. When asked he said, “I agree with that. I’ve always supported that in Congress. That takes a constitutional amendment. What you don’t want to do is have a state do it to itself and short-change its seniority and its clout in Congress. But I’ve always been a fan of term limits. I’ve always supported that. I’ve always believed that this should be something that you serve temporary, not for an entire lifetime.”

Mitt Romney had discussed this concept earlier during a town hall meeting in Hudson, NH on December 11, 2011. When asked if he agreed with term limits, Romney said, “I surely agree with you…I would love to see term limits in Washington for our Senators and for our Congressmen…the vision in this country I’m sure in the mind of the founders was we would have citizen legislators…the great early leaders of this country and they went to Washington, served, and went home…wouldn’t that be nice…(but) some people go to Washington and then they stay to serve themselves …”

Yes, times were different then. George Washington turned down a third presidency, after barely agreeing to his second. It wasn’t until after FDR died during his 4th presidency that Congress finally decided enough was enough and the 22nd amendment was born, at least limiting the President to only two terms.

Given that the current Real Clear Politics average Congressional Job Approval rating is 15.4%, it is not that surprising that found 71% of Republicans, 65% of Independents, and 55% of Democrats were in favor of congressional term limits. That poll number fluctuates and so there is work to do for a vote on a term limit amendment to succeed.

It is also not surprising that Congress has yet to adopt limits for themselves. There are a few brave souls out there, however, proposing to do just that. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) has sponsored S.J. Res. 11: A joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States … relative to limiting the number of terms that a Member of Congress may serve to 3 in the House of Representatives and 2 in the Senate. The bill currently has (10) co-sponsors including: Ayotte, Kelly [R-NH], Coburn, Thomas [R-OK], Ensign, John [R-NV], Hutchison, Kay [R-TX], Johnson, Ron [R-WI], Lee, Mike [R-UT], Paul, Rand [R-KY], Rubio, Marco [R-FL], Toomey, Patrick “Pat” [R-PA], Vitter, David [R-LA].

The career politicians will argue that the American people should be trusted to choose their own leaders and if we don’t like them, we should vote them out. They may also argue that having congressional term limits amounts to showing we lack of faith in the voters’ judgment. They also typically argue, like Orin Hatch for example, that “having Senators and Representatives with experience in the legislative process can ensure that a particular state’s interests are being served” and “over time” the politicians, “become better equipped to help their constituents deal with the burdensome federal bureaucracy.”

Yeah right. They appear to become the burdensome bureaucracy. If the people want term limits, maybe they should “show some faith in the voters” and allow it to happen.

Yes, Governor Romney, it would be nice to have citizen legislators that are actually interested in serving their states and country and not themselves. Then we may actually have elected officials that can take time out of their successful business, engineering, economics, medicine, farming, and teaching careers to actually make a difference in mending this country, instead of better honing their manipulation skills.

There are a number of organizations promoting this concept. For more information you might start with

Originally Published on

Smart Economic Planning: An American Oxymoron

I wonder if the Romans knew they were about to fall, before the fall. I wonder how their debates went. “Well Maximus, I disagree, I think we need to pass out more bread and increase the number of lions at the games!” “No, no Commodus, we need to expand our forces even further in order to control more of the world!” “I have it! Perhaps we can do both if we simply trim the amount of gold in the coins.” “Excellent, then we are agreed!”

How do countries/empires fall? Seems like they are either invaded, over-run, and conquered or taken down by their own people. There is another way – their economy collapses first, and then they are invaded or taken down by their own people.

I’m not really seeing an imminent outright foreign invasion of America. Our politicians have actually planned well ahead for that possible threat. I am more concerned about the thing they can’t seem to plan for past the next election cycle. They seem to have extraordinary difficulty preparing for medium or long-term economic problems. Other countries seem to have figured that out (c.f., Sweden, Chile, Norway, even South Korea). As EcoMonitor notes, “The centerpiece of Chilean fiscal policy is a balanced budget rule of a much more sophisticated variety than the one endorsed last week by the U.S. House of Representatives.”

And I think it is in this vein that the Libertarian passion is often misunderstood. One of the quickest roads to the destruction of individual liberty is via economic crisis. During economic crisis or collapse, countries can become more vulnerable to foreign invasion as well as increasing totalitarian practices and influences.

So the real question becomes, how can one foresee economic crisis and what does a government do about it once it is recognized? The problem is getting that question answered from the very people who have apparently been unable to foresee it/defend against in the first place. I’m not sure I trust their answers. Maybe they don’t see it. Maybe they do see it but are afraid to acknowledge it. Maybe that is why the discussion is often avoided.

For example, if the Fed is engaged in unlimited QE and artificially lowering interest rates – is that good for the economy? Why is QE3 and the FED not a topic for the current candidates? Why is there no discussion about how QE3 and our debt may influence the stability of the dollar in the global market? Why is there no mention of China entering into partnerships with multiple countries (Germany, Russia and Brazil to name a few) to use their own currencies instead of the dollar? Analysts said that Beijing has been trying to push for trade to be settled in yuan, rather than in US dollars, as part of its plans to seek a more global role for its currency. “The motivation is to be less reliant on the US dollar,” Sean Callow, chief currency strategist at Westpac, told the BBC.”

Why is there no mention in the MSM or on the campaign trail about Saudi Aramco partnering with China’s Sinopec Group for a new 400,000 bpd refinery in Yanbu (on the Red Sea coast in Saudi Arabia)? “China’s investment in oil infrastructure and refining capacity is unparalleled. And more importantly, it executes a consistent strategy of developing world-class refining facilities in partnership with OPEC suppliers. Such relationships mean economic leverage that could soon subordinate U.S. relations with the same countries.”

I thought one of the reasons we’re told not to be worried about the dollar and debt is because the dollar runs the world – they have to have the dollar – right? That is why they are willing to buy our Treasuries even when they’re getting little to no return – because the dollar is “safe.” What if they stop buying them?

Here are a few props I’d love to see at the next debate (you can find these and much more at the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED) site).

How safe do these look?

I’m not sure but I think that helps to explain why China and Russia are stockpiling gold (Wall Street Journal Market Watch).

So, yes, yes, we get it. Obama must be defeated. But with Romney in office we are still going to not only need less bread and fewer lions, but also less world military expansion and “control” if we hope to keep any value in our coin.

Originally Published on


Take Your Pick: Default or Hyperinflation

Here’s a fairy tale for you. Like Dorothy and her friends, the American people have made the long, desperate trip and are counting on the Great and Powerful Oz to fix things for them. And like the Scarecrow, when we got there, we got screwed. If you remember, the Scarecrow wanted brains, and the man behind the curtain couldn’t deliver but instead said, “by virtue of the authority invested in me by the Universitas Committee E Pluribus Unum, I hereby confer upon you”… paper! He gave the poor guy a piece of paper. And just like the Fed, the wizard left them stranded as he flew off in a hot air balloon (think mortgage bubble) and couldn’t come back to save them because, “I can’t, I don’t know how it works.” And like the Great and Powerful Oz, Fed wizard Ben Bernanke is probably “a very good man…just a very bad wizard.” Or perhaps the problem is actually with our current monetary concept, “I’m afraid it’s true, there’s no other wizard except me.”

Luckily and with a little help, Dorothy realized that she didn’t need the balloon ride or a wizard to get things back to normal, “you don’t need to be helped any longer, you’ve always had the power…”

And for us, what is that power? That power is “We the People” as expressed through our Congress.

But that poses another problem. That assumes the Congress is willing to click their heels and get to work. I am worried that, given their history of avoiding making tough decisions so as to not look bad, we may be in trouble. According to a number of economists (the ones that don’t follow the hot air balloon philosophy) we may be too late. The perfect storm is already here. The economy is at its worst and another “war” looms. If you want to risk looking bad as a politician, just try tackling those issues – especially if it involves cutting anything.

Congress gave us a glimmer of hope after the House voted to audit the Fed, and the Senate increased the co-sponsors (34 at last count) for their version of the bill recently. On the other hand, were the results of a less publicized vote taken late at night on Friday September 21st. Senator Rand Paul presented a bill to make any foreign aid to Libya, Egypt, and Pakistan contingent upon certain criteria (like protecting our embassies, releasing the doctor who gave us Bin Laden…). The idea was to at least show the world there would no longer be unlimited foreign aid to countries that were not clear allies. The original speech is full of detailed arguments, but this video provides a short synopsis.

Senator Paul knew the bill would fail because the Senate wasn’t willing to confront the two most controversial problems we face – unlimited spending and questionable military entanglements.

“I will probably lose this vote, but if you ask your friends. If you go home and ask your friends should we be sending money to countries that disrespect us, that burn our flag, I think you will find 80 percent to 90 percent of the American people wouldn’t send another penny…That may be why Congress has about a 10 percent approval rating.”

After John Kerry and John McCain teamed-up to argue for continued unlimited aid, the vote was taken and only Senators DeMint, Grassley, Shelby, Toomey, Moran, Lee, Roberts, Risch and Crapo joined with Paul. The vote failed 81 to 10.

Do we really believe Congress will tackle the difficult issues when it comes to debt and military spending?

If you listen to economists like Peter Schiff, Congress no longer has the luxury of kicking the can down the road. He recently delivered a chilling speech at the Mises Circle in Manhattan. “The Fiscal Cliff: How to Spot the Edge” is an easy-to-follow wake-up call about the severity of our economic crisis. His conclusion was that the Fed has become trapped and we are now faced with two options – default on our debt or hyperinflation (click here for the video). He also contends that the solution is to default on the debt before it gets worse. That means doing what had been needed all along – making dramatic cuts in everything. Because no politician wants to face that, then we are at the mercy of inevitable hyperinflation and a worse default. When that happens, that opens the door to incorrectly blame capitalism and invites more government control, regulation, and loss of freedom or worse.

So why is it that politicians from both sides have not addressed the devaluing of the dollar by the Central Bank system (Fed) over the years? In “Twin Demons,” Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. explains how this works. The answer is that the Central Bank system is government’s best friend and allows governments to spend money they don’t have, particularly for war. War and debt spending go hand in hand. And once the war is over, the spending continues for social programs. The Central Bank system is confusing to the average citizen and thus allows the government to expand.

“Creating money out of thin air… is preferable for governments, since the process by which the political class siphons resources from society via inflation is far less direct and obvious than in the cases of taxation and borrowing.”

He advocates for a “separation of money and state,” not unlike the pre-fed hard-money Jacksonian monetary theorists of the 1830s who coined the phrase “separation of bank and state.”

So if economists like Schiff and Rockwell are correct, what happens when the Congress actually audits the Fed and brings the Central Bank issues to the forefront of the public debate? How will they handle the decision to either dramatically balance the budget, default on the debt, or risk hyper-inflation? And why would they even tackle this problem openly? As it is now, the Fed is the mysterious man behind the curtain and all monetary evils can be blamed on him.

Originally Published on

Dems and the GOP, Dumb and Dumber

During the Democratic Convention, Reason.TV interviewed delegates about their “pro-choice beliefs.” It seems choice is an individual right when it comes to abortion, not so much with other things. I found the video funny as I thought it made them look silly, hypocritical, and dumb. Don’t they realize what they are saying?

The Republicans, on the other hand are different right?

The Republican Convention was to highlight a unifying set of principles geared to bring back small government, the constitution, and individual rights. A similar interview of the Republican delegates might have posed questions like:

  • Do you believe in States’ rights?
  • Do you believe in a “Big Tent” and the importance of the grassroots movement?
  • Do you believe in freedom of speech?
  • Do you believe in the importance of the Republic concept of delegates and the electoral process, vs. the “one man, one vote” concept of straight democracy Al Gore has recently espoused?
  • Do you believe it is time to get rid of crony capitalism in Washington?

If your answer to these questions is “yes,” then how do you reconcile what actually happened at the GOP Convention? Are you ok with the GOP elites’ show of power as they silenced and replaced state delegates because they did not like their views (e.g., Maine)? Or how about the rules changes at the last minute to censure dissenting opinion?

We all got a good laugh at the Democrats as they took (3) different “votes” about the God, no God, Jerusalem, no Jerusalem debacle. Take a look at Boehner’s version of “accurate” vote counting at the GOP convention:

The GOP power grab was not funny or silly. It sent a shock wave through the grassroots GOP delegates and party faithful. Those that were, and are, angry are not just Ron Paul supporters as the video below (of a Tea Party delegate) highlights:

What they did led to outrage. Check out Sarah Palin (read here) and Michelle Malkin’s (during and after) responses.

There was another GOP candidate, like Ron Paul, that the establishment tried to silence. His “revolution” and “silent majority” tried to use similar delegate and convention rules and strategies to ensure their voice were heard as they combatted a weak, sitting incumbent President. His efforts led him to having the chance to deliver what came to be known as the best speech of the convention, after his opponent was chosen as the nominee. The year was 1976 and the man was Ronald Reagan. After hearing the speech, many of the delegates wished they had voted for Reagan. That process set the stage for Reagan’s election in 1980.

The GOP needs to allow dissenting grass roots voices to be respected and heard. If the nominating race is not that close (like this year) then what was the big deal? Allowing the differing views helps to grow the party at a time when it needs to grow during a close presidential race. If the nominating race is close (like in 1976), the process could lead to actually choosing the best candidate at the convention. Ford went on to lose to Jimmy Carter that year.

If Romney wins a close election, it will be won by the very people the GOP establishment just disrespected and pissed-off: the grassroots Tea Party and constitutional/libertarian minded folks from both the right and the left. These votes are critical to defeat Obama.

Given the importance of this election, the power grab by the politics-as-usual GOP elite was at worst an arrogant, power tactic signifying their true colors. At the least, it was just plain dumb and unnecessarily risky.

Originally Published on