Categories

Archive for the ‘TEA Parties’ Category

After 5 years of seeing the Left’s intentionall vilification of the TEA Party, I thought I’d seen everything. Then I read John Hinderaker’s post about an organization called Shut Down the TEA Party. A light bit of research shows that Shut Down the TEA Party is a website sponsored by the DSCC, aka the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee.

What’s particularly troubling, though, is this ‘information’ from the DSCC’s Facebook page:

The Tea Party is a terrorist organization. It is time to shut it down before it destroys the country.

Included in the DSCC’s facebook page is this classy photo:

First, it’s telling that the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee thinks that the TEA Party is a terrorist organization. That explains why they told the IRS to investigate TEA Party organizations. Apparently, Democrats think the TEA Party is the equivalent of al-Qa’ida or ISIL. Either that or they hate the thought of efficient government that doesn’t spend our money foolishly.

What the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee is disgusting. They’ve all but officially said that they’re opposed to spending taxpayers’ money efficiently. The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee has essentially said that they’re for inefficient government that puts a higher priority on pleasing their special interest allies than it puts on pleasing their constituents.

The Democratic Senate Campaign Committee just vilified people who want to be treated with respect. Instead, the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee identified themselves as not being public servants.

I won’t pretend that Republicans are pure as freshly fallen snow. I don’t have to pretend, though, that TEA Party activists are committed to electing people who are public servants. If that makes TEA Party activists terrorists in the minds of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee, then that’s all we need to know about the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee’s character and judgment.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,

If there’s anything that can be gleaned from Juan Williams’ article, it’s that he’s exceptionally gullible. Here’s what I’m talking about:

Last week, however, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invited me and a few other columnists to his office to deliver a message: The paralyzed, polarized government is not due to the president’s failure to win friends in Congress. Nor is it because Reid is a “dictator.” In his view, the stalled Senate is the result of an intentional strategy pursued by the Republicans.

Reid pointed to constant filibusters by the GOP minority. Republicans also refuse to allow the use of unanimous consent to move along Senate business, he charged.

Reid asserted that after President Obama was first elected, the GOP met with Frank Luntz, the political adviser, who told them to block everything Obama and Democrats tried to accomplish and then tell voters that Obama was a failure and government could not get anything done.

First, let’s address the issue of whether Reid is a dictator. There’s no question that he is. Since Republicans took over the House of Representatives in the 2010 elections, Sen. Reid hasn’t brought a single bill passed by the House of Representatives come up for a vote in the Senate. Many of the bills sitting on Sen. Reid’s desk got overwhelming support, some getting more than 350 votes in the House.

There’s no justification for Sen. Reid’s actions.

Second, Sen. Reid’s legislative tactics are best described as my-way-or-the-highway. Republicans rarely get to offer their amendments. When they do, which is rare, they’re shot down on a party line vote.

That sounds rather dictatorial, doesn’t it?

Next, let’s tackle the part about Republicans blocking everything President Obama proposed. In 2009-2010, Democrats had a filibuster-proof Senate for well over a year. They didn’t have the ability to block anything President Obama proposed. Further, there’s overwhelming proof that Democrats ignored the people’s will. That overwhelming proof comes in the form of the worst “shellacking” in recent midterm election history. It isn’t just that Republicans won 63 seats in the House. It’s that they flipped 680 seats in state legislatures, too, which helped them flip 19 legislative majorities and 5 governorships.

Wave elections are rare enough. Wave elections of that magnitude don’t happen much more than once a century. They only happen when the people get utterly pissed with DC. That’s what happened in 2010. Democrats ignored the people on health care reform. People were reading the bills, then reciting them to Democrat politicians at August townhall meetings. Many of those who spoke out had never taken the political process seriously. Many of those who spoke out were women.

Harry Reid didn’t care what they said. He passed the ACA, aka Obamacare, anyway.

Most of the people who spoke out for the first time in their lives didn’t know Frank Luntz. They didn’t listen to Republicans. They attended TEA Party rallies that were filled with like-minded people who simply wanted politicians to pay attention to them. Many of the TEA Party activists that were created were upset with Republicans, too, though not nearly as upset as they were with Democrats.

Finally, people don’t need Republicans telling them that HealthCare.gov failed. They didn’t need Republicans telling them that the IRS was attacking the organizations that simply wanted their voices heard. They didn’t need Republicans telling them that the VA crisis was proof that the federal government is inept.

Reid’s frustration led him to announce last week that he is considering a vote to change Senate rules and break the power of the GOP filibuster. After the midterm elections, he wants to expand on the so-called ‘Nuclear Option,’ approved by the Senate last year. Under that rule, only 50 votes are required to confirm most judicial nominees. Reid is considering applying the same standard to bills.

Reid isn’t frustrated. He’s pissed that Republicans haven’t rolled over to President Obama’s demands. Further, the question must be asked how President Obama’s policies have worked. Thus far, President Obama’s policies have failed, whether we’re talking about the economy, the ACA, foreign policy or national security.

Finally, let’s look at the destructive role President Obama plays in this mess. Let’s remember him inviting Republicans to the White House for their ideas on the Stimulus bill. When Eric Cantor made some suggestions, President Obama brushed them aside, saying that “We won.” The tone was set. Harry Reid’s marching orders became clear at that point. His job was to shove as many things down Republicans’ throats as possible.

Now Sen. Reid is peddling the BS that all he wants to do is legislate. That isn’t credible coming from the man who’s repeatedly called the Koch brothers un-American, who’s lied on the Senate Floor that he has word that Mitt Romney hasn’t paid taxes in over a decade and who’s been President Obama’s protector since 2011.

The Senate will be a far better place the minute Harry Reid is run out of office. He’s a despicable low-life who isn’t capable of doing what’s right for the nation. He’s only capable of doing what he’s told to do by the worst president in the last 75 years.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

Now that it’s been revealed that Lois Lerner targeted sitting US Sen. Chuck Grassley with an audit, the debate over whether to prosecute Ms. Lerner should be over. I say should be because we don’t have a real attorney general or a real Justice Department. If we did, we’d already have an indictment in hand and a trial date would’ve been set.

The emails appear to show Lerner mistakenly received an invitation intended for Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, in 2012.

The event organizer, whose name is not disclosed, apparently offered to pay for Grassley’s wife to attend the event, which caught Lerner’s attention. The December 2012 emails show that in response, Lerner suggested to an IRS colleague that the case be referred for an audit.

“Looked like they were inappropriately offering to pay for his wife. Perhaps we should refer to Exam?” she wrote.

Her colleague, though, pushed back on the idea, saying an offer to pay for his wife is “not prohibited on its face.” There is no indication from the emails that Lerner pursued the issue any further.

What’s disturbing is the fact that Lerner is a lawyer within the IRS. Apparently, she didn’t know that this offer didn’t violate the law. Last night on Greta, she said that Lerner should know better. Then she said that everything is fine if the Grassleys report the payment on their income tax filings. Then Greta threw in a final caveat of import: At the time she wanted Grassley audited, it wasn’t clear if Sen. Grassley would accept the speaking engagement.

It’s stunning that Ms. Lerner targeted a sitting US senator. This clearly proves that, at least in her mind, the IRS should be weaponized against conservatives. This also proves that President Obama’s statement that there “isn’t even a smidgen of corruption” within the IRS is pure BS.

Lois Lerner is exceptionally corrupt. Ditto with John Koskinen and Steven Miller.

Grassley said in a statement that this kind of incident fuels concerns people have about “political targeting” at the highest levels. “It’s very troubling that a simple clerical mix-up could get a taxpayer immediately referred for an IRS exam without any due diligence from agency officials,” the senator said.

That type of corruption should make indicting and prosecuting Ms. Lerner an imperative. Unfortunately, like I said before, that won’t happen because Attorney General Holder and President Obama are as corrupted by ideology as Ms. Lerner is.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

There was a time when Paul Krugman was considered a bight guy, especially when he talked economics. That Krugman doesn’t exist, at least not in public anymore. That Krugman disappeared when he decided it was more important to be a corrupt political hack than to be an expert economist.

Sadly, Norm Ornstein, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, has been Krugman-ized. In his latest article, Ornstein’s disgusting ideology is displayed:

First, it is clear that this moves the Republican Party even further to the right, in approach, attitude and rhetoric. Even if the overwhelming majority of incumbents, including establishment ones, have won renomination, even if broader Republican public opinion is more establishment conservative than Tea Party radical, all it takes is an example or two of the opposite to get all politicians jumping at their shadows and muttering to themselves, “That could happen to me.”

The fact that Ornstein mentions TEA Party radical is proof that Ornstein is a political hack. Here’s what ‘radical’ Dave Brat believes:

We Believe:

That the free enterprise system is the most productive supplier of human needs and economic justice,
That all individuals are entitled to equal rights, justice, and opportunities and should assume their responsibilities as citizens in a free society,
That fiscal responsibility and budgetary restraints must be exercised at all levels of government,
That the Federal Government must preserve individual liberty by observing Constitutional limitations,
That peace is best preserved through a strong national defense,
That faith in God, as recognized by our Founding Fathers is essential to the moral fiber of the Nation.

Wow. I instantly felt tormented by Brat’s radicalism after reading those principles. NOT. If that’s Ornstein’s definition of radicalism, then that says that Ornstein’s the radical.

There was a time, back the country functioned properly, when adhering to these principles was totally uncontroversial. Unfortunately, that’s history, at least in the eyes of people like Ornstein, Krugman, not to mention President Obama, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Here’s another telling statement from Mr. Ornstein:

Cantor had put out a policy plan for June that has a bunch of symbolic actions and a few real policy advances. Now, that plan will surely be curtailed further. Action means government doing things, and the zeitgeist of the GOP now is not to have government doing anything except self-destructing.

First, Ornstein’s paranoid delusions shouldn’t be taken seriously. Republicans, including TEA Party activists, want government living within the Constitution’s limits. There’s no question that the Constitution is a radical document. It’s the only document like it in the history of the world because it says people give power in limited amounts to the government.

Other country’s governing documents say that a) power originates from the government and b) is given in limited amounts to the governed.

Second, it’s obvious that Ornstein hasn’t noticed that this administration is incredibly inept without the Republicans’ help. Government that’s run by people who love huge government, is utterly incompetent, not to mention totally corrupt.

Mr. Ornstein apparently is too busy criticizing people with legitimate complaints to notice the Obama administration’s ineptitude. He should stop being a political hack and start paying attention more. He’d have more credibility if he did.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

When Dave Brat defeated Eric Cantor last night, it was the stunner of news stories this year. Here’s Brat’s explanation to Sean Hannity on what he did:

Here’s the partial transcript of Hannity’s interview with Brat:

BRAT: I ran on Republican principles. We have this Republican creed in Virginia and the only problem with the Republican principles is no one is following them.

The first one is commitment to free markets. We don’t have any free markets in this country any more. Then equal treatment under the law, fiscal responsibility, constitutional adherence, peace through strong defense and faith in god and strong moral fiber. That’s what I ran on: The Republican creed. But the press is just always out there to have these exciting stories to sell papers, and the people actually do care about policy. When you’re serious… I give 30 minute stump speeches on policy, and the press made fun of me. They said ‘these aren’t good stump speeches. You’re talking serious issues.’ Well, the American people are ready for serious issues.

People bought into Brat’s message because he won by 7,000 votes. Cantor lost because Cantor didn’t take Brat or his district seriously.

One disturbing thing that came out of last night’s coverage is that the celebrity TEA Party organizations didn’t lift a finger to help Brat. Laura Ingraham told Fox News’s Megyn Kelly that Jenny Beth Martin of the TEA Party Patriots, “much to my consternation”, didn’t take Brat’s calls.

The reality is that too many of these ‘official’ TEA Party organizations have drifted from the TEA Party’s principles. Martin didn’t respond to a true TEA Party activist.

I attribute that to a steady drift from TEA Party celebrities from TEA Party principles. Celebrities like Sarah Palin and others endorsed candidates who wouldn’t know the first thing about TEA Party principles. I know because I criticized them months ago when Palin endorsed Julianne Ortman.

I’ve had my own fight with a different TEA Party organization. Specifically, I had a fight with TEA Party Nation. I wrote this post about TPN’s endorsement. Here’s what they said about Sen. Ortman in their endorsement:

She is running and has racked up an impressive series of endorsements. She has been endorsed by our friends at Tea Party Express, the Conservative Campaign Committee, Citizens United and most recently she was endorsed by Sarah Palin.

She is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-low taxes and perhaps most importantly in favor of a complete repeal of Obamacare.

When I criticized them for not doing their homework, TPN attacked me, saying:

@LFRGary If I had a nickel for every time a liberal told us we were losing credibility, we’d be rich.

I don’t know who’s runnning communications for TPN but they’re overpaid if they’re getting paid. First, they support a liberal candidate, saying that she’s conservative. When I criticized them for supporting a liberal, they criticized me by calling me a liberal.

Frankly, it’s time to start holding these celebrities’ feet to the fire. They’re celebrities who don’t think they have to do their research. I shot TPN’s, Sarah Palin’s and Citizens United’s endorsements down in less than 15 minutes each.

Eric Cantor lost because voters perceived him as thinking he was too important to worry about his constituents. Celebrity TEA Party organizations lost because they didn’t support Brat.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This weekend’s Republican Convention was a study in how 2 candidates handled things differently. Mike McFadden and Marty Seifert both said that they were keeping their options open on going to the primary if they weren’t endorsed at the convention. That’s where the similarity ends.

Friday’s first ballot in the senatorial campaign produced 2 stunners. Julianne Ortman finished in third. Meanwhile Chris Dahlberg came in first. While Dahlberg might’ve hoped for that, there’s no way he should’ve expected that. That result established him as a serious candidate.

It also hurt Sen. Ortman’s standing with the delegates. Had she finished with 35% and in first place, she might’ve played it positive the rest of the way. Instead, they went negative. That hurt her with the delegates.

Through it all, Team McFadden kept grinding away, staying in close contention on each ballot. Then they caught a break after the 7th ballot. The next morning, they were back at it with renewed confidence. They won it before the results of the 10th ballot were announced whe Dahlberg graciously conceded.

Contrast that with Team Seifert. They didn’t lead at any point. When the outcome became clear, Dave Thompson conceded while giving a gracious concession speech. Seifert approached the podium while Sen. Thompson spoke. It was thought that he’d concede, too.

Instead, he released his delegates publicly while telling them to leave the convention so there wouldn’t be a quorum. Without a quorum, there couldn’t be an endorsement. Activists on Twitter didn’t take that well. The convention video shows some people booing while others applauded.

This statement sums things up pretty nicely:

Delegate and Minnesota Tea Party Alliance chair Jack Rogers was blunter. “Marty [Seifert] has just galvanized every faction in this party to work for the endorsed candidate,” he said.

That can’t be what Team Seifert was hoping for. I’d think the fundraising doors slammed shut during Seifert’s speech, too.

Had Seifert accepted defeat or announced outside that he was going to the primary, he wouldn’t have upset the delegates. Instead, he essentially said that if he couldn’t win the endorsement, he’d do whatever he could to make sure nobody was endorsed.

That selfish act won’t play well with people. There’s no question that Seifert has loyal supporters. There’s no question that he’s alienated those who aren’t already his supporters.

McFadden earned a ton of political capital this weekend because he didn’t disrespect the delegates. Seifert lost whatever political capital he had by disrespecting the delegates.

As a result, McFadden’s stock is on the upswing while Seifert’s has ebbed.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thankfully, the GOP primary in Kentucky is history. I’m thankful because I won’t have to hear that Matt Bevin is the TEA Party-backed candidate. Articles like this one will disappear, which, by the way, is terrible news for Alison Lundergan-Grimes. More on Lundergan-Grimes in a minute.

The truth is that, altogether too often, TEA Party-endorsed candidates are terrible candidates who shouldn’t be allowed near a general election ballot. While Bevin wasn’t as terrible as Todd Akin, he wasn’t a top-tier candidate:

They pointed to an exaggeration of his educational credentials on his LinkedIn page and apparent previous support for the financial bailout as evidence.

And Bevin wasn’t helped by a series of high-profile unforced errors, at one point suggesting that legalizing gay marriage could lead to parents being able to marry their children and speaking at a pro-cockfighting rally that he said he was unaware was related to cockfighting, and then later backtracked on that statement.

Simply put, TEA Party organizations haven’t done a good job vetting candidates before supporting them. Candidates that think gay marriage will lead to wierd marital relationships isn’t qualified to run for the state legislature, much less run for the US Senate.

That isn’t to say I’ve suddenly ‘gone establishment’. I still passionately believe in the founding principles of the TEA Party movement. I believe as strongly today that TEA Party principles are the remedy for this nation’s ills as when I was organizing TEA Party rallies.

This year especially, I’ve been disappointed with some of the TEA Party’s endorsements. I didn’t hesitate in criticizing Sarah Palin for saying that Julianne Ortman was “a conservative champion” at a time when Ortman was enthusiastically telling Minnesota media outlets that she opposed full repeal of Obamacare.

It’s time that the so-called TEA Party leaders did their research before shooting their mouths off. It’s time they started picking candidates that don’t tie themselves into knots on the most basic of questions. The point I’m making is that the TEA Party shouldn’t feel obligated to run a candidate in each of the races. If the so-called TEA Party candidate is a terrible candidate, the TEA Party shouldn’t endorse a candidate in that race.

It’s time for the TEA Party to take that next step. It’s time they started picking top-tier candidates who won’t fall apart like Mr. Bevin did. Until they do a better job of candidate screening, they’ll continue losing races they could’ve won.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Michael Brodkorb’s post about Rhonda Sivarajah’s attempt to attack Tom Emmer’s candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives is quite revealing. First, here’s what Brodkorb wrote about Sivarajah’s campaign:

Sivarajah has rebooted her campaign for Congress since losing the Republican Party’s endorsement in the 6th Congressional District to Emmer in April. In the last few weeks, Sivarajah has hired Patrick Davis as the campaign’s general consultant, released a new campaign website, been more aggressive on social media and also in contrasting her positions with Emmer.

This attack will fail because it’s apparent that it’s an act of desperation.

Even if Tom Emmer was connected to NPV, it’s irrelevant because Congress will never bring this subject up. Never. NPV is something that state legislatures would have to deal with.

Apparently, Sivarajah and Krinkie are attempting to say that Emmer’s involvement with NPV is proof that he isn’t a real conservative who will fight for lower taxes, pro-growth policies, regulatory reform and repealing Obamacare. If that’s their contention, then they’ve lost what little is left of their credibility.

Polling released from Emmer’s campaign showed Emmer maintaining a big lead over Sivarajah in the upcoming primary election.

This primary is essentially over. If they do exceptionally well, the combined votes for Sivarajah and Krinkie would allow one of those candidates to lose by 25 points or more.

According to the poll, which is extremely credible, Emmer’s name ID within the district is 94%, with 71% of likely voters having a positive image of him. Those statistics translate into the reality that Sivarajah is getting hit with hurricane-force headwinds. They translate into an overwhelming defeat.

At the CD-6 Convention, the rationale spread by the Sivarajah campaign was that a) attendance was low for the caucuses and b) we need to grow the Republican Party.

I agree that attendance was low for the precinct caucuses. I agree that growing the MNGOP is a high priority. It’s just that desperately attacking the endorsed candidate doesn’t grow the party. It’s important to make a distinction, though.

It’s one thing to have a spirited debate on the issues the candidates will have to deal with. It’s quite another to just criticize candidates in a fit of irritation and resentment.

If Sivarajah wanted to make sure NPV doesn’t happen in Minnesota, she should run for the legislature, where she might have a chance at winning. If she’s just using NPV to attack Emmer, it’s too inconsequential to have an impact. If there’s anything that’s known about Tom Emmer’s supporters, it’s that there’s lots of them and that they’re exceptionally loyal to him.

If Mrs. Sivarajah wants to continue her campaign, that’s her right. I’m just saying she’ll have to spend tons of money to lose badly. If that’s what she wants, that’s her choice.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

The TEA Party Nation’s endorsement of Julianne Ortman just shrinks TPN’s credibility. Here’s why:

She is running and has racked up an impressive series of endorsements. She has been endorsed by our friends at Tea Party Express, the Conservative Campaign Committee, Citizens United and most recently she was endorsed by Sarah Palin.

She is pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, pro-low taxes and perhaps most importantly in favor of a complete repeal of Obamacare.

Julianne “I’m in my comfort zone” Ortman isn’t pro-low taxes:
)
The TPN is entitled to their opinion. They aren’t entitled to their own facts. Saying that Ms. Ortman is pro-low tax is making up their own facts. Here’s the transcript to the video:

Sen. Tom Bakk: “Senator Ortman.”
Sen. Ortman: “Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for hearing this bill. This bill proposes a new tax. It’s the first time I’ve ever proposed a new tax, and so-“
Sen. Bakk: “How’s it feel?”
[LAUGHTER]
Sen. Ortman: “I definitely feel like I’m in the hot seat, but that’s alright. I’ve been a lightening rod before and I probably will be again. I’m back in a zone of comfort.”

What’s more important is that Ms. Ortman doesn’t believe in the free market:

But let’s be honest, 15% should be more than enough interest in an economy when banks can borrow at the federal funds rate (0.25%), and the prime lending rate hovers at 3%.

Who made Ms. Ortman the arbiter of free markets? The TEA Party activists I know and agree with would recoil if they heard Ms. Ortman’s statement.

Andy Parrish can brag about the endorsements but what he can’t do is honestly say that his candidate is a principled conservative. That’s because she isn’t a conservative. She’s a career politician with a moderate bent.

UPDATE: Just minutes ago, TEA Party Nation attacked me because I correctly stated that they aren’t intellectually honest. Here’s the text of their tweet:

@LFRGary If I had a nickel for every time a liberal told us we were losing credibility, we’d be rich.

If I had $1,000,000 for each time someone called me a liberal, I’d be worth $1,000,000.

Apparently, TPN isn’t interested in doing their homework. Calling me a liberal, which is what they just did, just isn’t credible. If TEA Party Nation had done their homework, they’d know I’m a rock solid conservative. Then again, if they’d done their homework and if they were intellectually honest, they’d know that Julianne Ortman selectively believes in free markets and low taxes.

TEA Party Nation is a high profile organization. In this instance, however, they aren’t intellectually honest.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

First, I’ll stipulate that Newt Gingrich is a flawed man who’s paid a hefty price for his mistakes. Next, I’ll state what I emphatically believe: that Newt Gingrich the visionary isn’t just the right tonic for what’s ailing the GOP. He’s the perfect strategist to lead Republicans to victory. Newt’s speech at CPAC this year is a perfect illustration of what I’m talking about:

The reason why Newt’s got the right strategy is because his speeches aren’t about politics. They’re about improving life with a political twist. Check out this part of Newt’s speech:

NEWT: We must stop being the opposition movement. We must become the alternative government movement that will help make the life of every American better so that they would understand what we would do that we would do right, not just what the left is doing wrong.

The biggest thing that conservatives can do to guarantee the best shot at victories this fall is telling the American people that a) we’re the solutions party and b) we trust families and small businesses to make great decisions.

That necessarily means trusting people with lots of options. If we trust families, we should be the party whose health care reform legislation gives families tons of options to fit their families’ needs. By doing that, Republicans will highlight the difference between Harry Reid’s and Al Franken’s one-size-fits-all plan, aka the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, and Republicans’ legislation that trusts families.

That’s a perfect segue into another major point in Newt’s speech:

The smartphone will be the leading public health device of the 21st Century. It’ll be the leading learing device. It’ll be the leading management tool. Congressman Dr. Michael Burgess has a smartphone that has 8 medical applications on it. He can do an electrocardiogram with his smartphone. Now the Food and Drug Administration, seeing the dramatic rise in applications that improve your health, now wants to take over approving applications for smartphones.

Now if you want to see a fight where we can be on the side of young Americans and the left is hopeless, you just go out to any college campus and you say ‘how would you like Washington bureaucrats slowing down the number of new applications you can get, most of them, by the way, are free’?

The party of excessive government can’t control its appetite for controlling people’s lives. Young people naturally love lots of options. In that fight, Democrats lose bigtime.

If Republicans become the party that trusts small businesses to innovate and make families’ lives better, they’ll win decisively because people of all demographic backgrounds will want what we’re selling.

If conservatives return to Reagan’s and Kemp’s and Thatcher’s belief that great ideas that make families’ lives better also makes for great politics, then conservatives will win decisively.

The point isn’t about sounding more conservative or more moderate. It’s about who has great ideas. I’m not advocating for moderation. I’m advocating that makes families’ lives better through entrepreneurship and innovation. Conservatives will jump all over that because it’s from the private sector. Apolitical people will jump all over it because their lives will be improved by the innovations that’s only possible through entrepreneurship.

Watch Newt’s entire speech if you want to see how to win the future. You’ll want to hear Newt’s connecting the dots between the Bakken and defeating Putin. Newt’s speech isn’t getting the buzz like others’ speeches. It’s just the blueprint that’ll make the GOP the dominant party again.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,