“The Red Hats are Coming! The Red Hats are Coming!”

“Jeff Flake is a fraud. Bob Corker is a fraud. …Only a progressive could say they’re going to quit the game – but not yet, later – and in-between trash-talk the ref! That’s what Flake & Corker are doing!” 

There’s no CRYING in BASEBALL!” That movie line has become part of our national vernacular because it’s funny and true and so widely applicable to any situation in which adults find themselves swinging & missing.

There’s been an awful lot of swinging & missing going on in our civic life of late. And it’s come with a heavy, damned near oppressive dose of sanctimony. Like a traffic-stopping blanket of fog, all commerce comes to a halt so you can watch this strange manifestation of nature envelope the ordinary, the mundane, and obscure it into something unseeable, unrecognizable.

Jeff Flake is a fraud. Bob Corker is a fraud. But to hear the garbage media tell it, they’re fcking Paul Revere, warning us “The Red Hats are coming! The Red Hats are coming!” What a NOXIOUS load of codswollup!

Jeff Flake & Bob Corker have both announced their intentions to not seek re-election then immediately went on to lament the leadership at the WH. Had these bastards done this when they were at risk of being called a racist, I might be impressed. My difficulties with Trump are well known. But I’ve come to appreciate the creative destruction he hath wrought. He’s ripping the scales off these bastards and they’re revealing themselves. Gleefully. Self-righteously. And they don’t even realize that they’re just confirming everything we’ve always known about them: THEY’RE PROGRESSIVE REPUBLICANS.

Only a progressive could say they’re going to quit the game – but not yet, later – and in-between trash-talk the ref! That’s what Flake & Corker are doing!

Conservative Review’s Daniel Horowitz column here – from August – is my primal scream. I can’t say it better. Please read it and know my political soul!


No, Jeff Flake, YOU are How We got Trump
August 02, 2017 by Daniel Horowitz via The Conservative Review

What do you call someone who lectures players on how to play ball but then grounds into a double play every time he’s up to bat? A Jeff Flake. Or maybe just a plain flake.

If Senator Jeff Flake would expend a fraction of the energy he spends on sanctimoniously promoting his work on giving a forceful vision for conservatism on the Senate floor, we would have a different party. Most ironic, if not for the disgusting posturing and vacuous vision of those like Flake, we wouldn’t have Trump as the leader of the Republican Party in the first place. Flake is the embodiment of the intellectually bankrupt party that gave rise to Trump. Flake is so worried now about the effect of Trump on the party he never had a vision for before. If he wants to know how we got here, he should look in the mirror.

This week, the GOP media machine has been promoting Jeff Flake’s new book, a smug and sanctimonious polemic about his concerns over the future of conservatism. Except it has nothing to do with the authentic concerns all of us have about the party — the party that has stood for nothing on social, fiscal, or national security issues while the left has marched on, more truculent than ever in its pursuit of cultural and economic Marxism.

Jeff Flake is the poster child for the frustrating dynamic many of us have been confronted with in the past two years — the false choice between the status-quo failed GOP establishment and Trump. For those who were seeking a true American revolution built upon the timeless principles laid out in the original “Conscience of a Conservative,” written by Barry Goldwater, the debate over Trump has been a distraction. Most traditional conservatives are neither for nor against Trump; we are for the same agenda we have always supported, always seeking innovative strategies and tactics to promote timeless ideas. This distraction has been allowed to consume Republican politics because the voters got fed up with people like Jeff Flake.

When Jeff Flake was originally confronted with his failure to abide by his term-limit promise, he joked, “ I lied … I don’t know what else to say.” At a later event, Flake explained that the term-limit movement was still alive when he took office and it was the thing to do. But, he said, he quickly realized that it would take longer to get things done and that limiting his time in office was a mistake.

This sounds similar to an excuse given by a recent pledge breaker, Markwayne Mullin, after he got promoted to a leadership position.

So what has Flake accomplished for us that was so worth breaking his term-limit pledge?

Flake fails his state

After spending too much time in Washington, rather than changing the Senate, Flake got changed by it. Rather than giving a vision for judicial reform, a workable immigration plan, a foreign policy that puts America first, or a health care system that functions like a healthy market, Flake served as a rudderless lord of his small fiefdom in the Senate, always operating within the policy universe set out by the Left. His only major accomplishment was joining the Gang of 8 open borders initiative, which was a colossal betrayal of his state and of the first responsibility of a public servant.

The first responsibility of an elected representative is to represent his constituents and his state. As of 2013, it was estimated that there were 630,700 illegal aliens residing in Arizona. That is a population of foreign invaders larger than the total population of any single colony at the time of our founding. Over 10 percent of the state’s public school population is composed of illegal alien children. When coupled with the fiscal strain of health care and incarceration, the total cost of illegal immigration is $2.4 billion a year. As a result, Arizona has become the drug capital of the country. Yet, instead of relentlessly advocating for the sovereignty of his state with at least as much gusto as the California senators advocate for sanctuary cities, Flake spent the lion’s share of his time putting the priorities of Mexico’s government ahead of the security and economy of his own state.

That issue alone encapsulates why so many people flocked to Trump in the primary and wouldn’t even hear some of the legitimate conservative concerns about the future president. The only alternative presented to them was people like Jeff Flake, who only assailed Trump from the Left. Voters figured, “Well, if he’s against Trump, I must be for him.”

Being a social liberal invariably leads to fiscal liberalism

From day one, even when he was a fiscal conservative in the House, Flake agreed with the Left on cultural issues. But as many of us have warned, when you operate exclusively within the universe of the Left on cultural issues, it’s only a matter of time before you throw fiscal issues overboard as well. Flake has proven the truth of that theory. He was an ardent opponent and saboteur of Cruz’s effort to defund Obamacare in 2013.

Ironically, Cruz was proven right in his premonition that failure to defund the law in its incipient stage would result in acquiescence to its expansion. Jeff Flake, and his utter silence on the issue, is living proof that Cruz was correct. While Cruz was doing everything possible to compromise with people like Flake to get some sort of repeal on the table, even to the point where many of us disagreed with him, Flake long ago gave up on that fight. Nor is he providing the sort of supply-side health care reform people like me have been championing in recent months. Nope, Flake is too busy selling books. And anyway, long ago he told us, “Obamacare is the law of the land.”

What about his work on the Energy Committee?

In 2009, Flake, along with Bob Inglis, became the first Republican lawmakers to introduce legislation imposing a carbon tax on producers and distributors of fossil fuels, which would lead to higher fossil fuel costs for consumers. The bill, co-sponsored by Democratic Rep. Dan Lipinski of Illinois, would have set a tax of $15 per ton of carbon dioxide produced in its first year in effect, with the tax rising to $100 per ton over three decades

Some fiscal conservative there!

What about Flake’s work on the Senate Judicial Committee? While people like Ted Cruz have been proposing judicial reform ideas, Flake sat idly by and rubber-stamped many of Obama’s liberal judges.

So what exactly does Flake feel passionate about, and why must I read his book to ascertain something that should be obvious from his six-year tenure in the Senate? This is true of some other senators who are busy selling books but have never gotten their fingernails dirty on a single major policy fight, as Cruz and Lee have. The rule of thumb is that if you haven’t shown us a vision when you are actually on the playing field, there is no reason you should be taken seriously when you’re shouting in the bleachers.

Recently, President Trump downplayed the role of Jeff Sessions in winning Trump the primary. In a future tweet he might want to upgrade the role Jeff Flake and his compatriots played in electing him. Without feckless Republicans, Trump would have never found an audience.

Many of us are concerned about Trump’s lack of a coherent vision for some conservative priorities. But even more disconcerting is that as much as he’s not a conservative, most Republican senators find a way to outflank him and “out-flake” him … to the Left. A party where a man like Trump has become the “right” flank is a party that will not last much longer.

Jeff Flake is why we have Donald Trump. The vacuum of leadership had to be filled at some point. Many of us caught in between are disappointed because we have always stood for bold ideas — ideas that have been overshadowed by the clown show — but the last person who has the right to complain about Trump is Flake.

Daniel Horowitz is a senior editor of Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @RMConservative.


## end ##

Who’s Zoomin’ Who, Donny?

I have long contended that if the GOPe (GOP Establishment) were forced to choose between the two, Cruz or Trump, they’d choose Trump in a heart beat. Why? Here’s why (You can click the image on the right to enlarge it):


Gravy train. “Trump train” my ass . It’s the gravy train that’s now a’rollin’. Of the two, Trump will deal. Cash. Cruz will always choose the Constitution.

And cash is more fun, isn’t it?

Add in this excellent article below from American Thinker by Daren Jonescu, and it appears my thinking is now being actively validated.


 

Is Trump a McConnell-Rove Establishment Tool?

On January 19, Donald Trump, the loudest Republican claimant to the anti-establishment label, filled out his recent attacks on Ted Cruz in a very telling way, as revealed on Mark Levin’s radio program (click here, select the 1/19/16 podcast, go to the 23 minute mark):

We've been contacted by the establishment types.  They all want to know, how do they get involved with the campaign?  They're giving up on their candidates…and I mean these are real establishment people, that I've known when I was a member of the establishment -- meaning a giver, a big donor.  But they are contacting us -- Corey [Trump's campaign manager], I think we can say that very honestly, they're contacting us left and right about joining the campaign, and these are serious establishment types.

Who might these “real,” “serious” establishment types be?  Perhaps there is a hint in this subsequent comment, a follow-up to his recent pro-establishment assault against Ted Cruz:

So when you talk about temperament, Ted has got a rough temperament, I don't know.  You know, you can't call people liars on the Senate floor, when they're your leader.

This, of course, is a direct reference to Cruz’s criticism of Mitch McConnell regarding the GOP establishment leader’s secret deal with Barack Obama prior to a trade vote.

Donald Trump defending Mitch McConnell, you ask?  The answer is yes, and the explanation may be found by examining Trump’s recent history as a political donor.

Back in early 2013, Tea Party conservatives, fed up with McConnell’s feckless (to be generous) Senate leadership, his semi-tough talk that never seems to match his legislative decisions and results, and his relentless suppression of the conservative minority in the Senate, sought to supplant this establishmentarian’s establishmentarian by supporting a conservative rival in the 2014 Kentucky primary.

In response to this challenge, a super PAC called “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was formed to raise funds for McConnell’s scorched earth campaign against not only his own Tea Party rival, but the whole Tea Party movement.  I put the group’s name in scare quotes because, of its fifty-eight major donors — those who had given $1000 or more as of May 15, 2014 — the Louisville Courier-Journal identified only five with Kentucky addresses.  “Kentuckians for Strong Leadership” was in fact, as Tony Lee reported at Breitbart at the time, a re-branding of Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, an organization expressly dedicated to destroying the constitutionalist movement in favor of the old guard GOP establishment.

The big donors to Mitch McConnell’s anti-Tea Party defense fund gave amounts ranging from $1000 to $250,000.  In the upper half of this donor list appears one Donald J. Trump, who gave $50,000 to the group.  Five days earlier, he had already donated a few thousand dollars to McConnell’s campaign directly.  This total donation is far and away the largest contribution Trump has ever made to any individual Washington politician’s campaign — at least ten times larger than any other contribution he has made to a national Republican candidate.  Indeed, one has to cross over to the Democrat side of his donor history to find anything comparable to this contribution at any level of government.  That would be his $50,000 donation to Rahm Emanuel’s mayoral campaign in December 2010.

Mitch McConnell has been perhaps the single most prominent leader — certainly the most powerful — in the Republican Party’s long-standing effort to “crush” (McConnell’s word) the grassroots constitutional conservative movement that threatens the privileged status of the Washington Brahmin caste, aka the American political establishment.

In 2014, the Tea Party had the temerity to challenge McConnell directly on his own home turf.  He did indeed crush them there, as he would happily crush them in the Senate.  His effort to annihilate the constitutionalist resistance was funded heavily by a nationwide group of donors affiliated with Karl Rove, who presumably shared McConnell’s and Rove’s desire to defend the establishment against the belligerent serfs who were daring to assert their liberty against its permanent privilege.

Donald Trump was a major donor to that effort.  He even threw another $10,000 into the pot in October 2014, to bring his total contribution to McConnell to more than $60,000.

Now he is attacking his primary rival, Ted Cruz, on the grounds that “Nobody in Congress likes him,” and, more specifically, that “you can’t call people liars on the Senate floor, when they’re your leader.”

Donald Trump is no longer making a generic accusation against Cruz’s demeanor or reputation.  He is slapping him on behalf of the Republican he has supported most generously, Mitch McConnell.  I have previously argued that Trump’s reputation as anti-establishment is all hot air, corresponding to nothing he has ever really done.  Here we have just one more clear example of that.

A conservative blogger friend recently suggested to me privately that he is not ready to reject outright the possibility that Trump is actually the establishment’s clever creation — that, after years of deepening threats from an increasingly serious constitutionalist faction within the GOP, the progressive Republicans may have surmised that the best path to victory is, as my friend puts it, to “run against themselves.”

Whether strategic or merely fortuitous, the alliance between Donald Trump and the GOP establishment, which has lurked verifiably behind Trump’s brash mask for years, has now become an open feature of his primary campaign.  And the chief target, Enemy Number One, of both parties in this alliance is Ted Cruz.  Cruz is “nasty” and “nobody likes him,” as Trump says, because he is brazenly defiant toward the GOP establishment’s leaders.

And you thought the whole point of being anti-establishment was to be brazenly defiant toward the establishment’s leaders.  Silly you.  Apparently, a real anti-establishment candidate would not donate $60,000 to Mitch McConnell’s “crush the Tea Party” campaign.

###end###