Cultural Catalysts Clash on Social Media Debating the Disposition of Down's Syndrome Children

Richard Dawkins, the acclaimed atheist ethologist from Oxford University stirred up a cyclone of controversy on social media with a Twitter posting on the morality of aborting a Down's Syndrome child in-utero.  When someone commented that she would not know what she would do if she were pregnant with a child having an extra chromosome, Dawkins doubled down on his "progressive position".  Dawkins answering like "Dear Abby (the atheist edition)" wrote: “Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.”  So abortion was not only an option for "The God Delusion" author, Dawkins demands that it is immoral for women to deliver a child afflicted with Down's Syndrome.

Reading Dawkins declarations closely, it is quite revealing of his weltanschauung.  As an atheist, Dawkins does not draw  from any moral compass. So it is not surprising that he liberally latches unto "an individual woman's right to choose. Later referring to a fetus as "it", Dawkins detaches personhood from an unborn child. Dawkins pontificating that the only moral choice is to kill a defective child ought to please both Social Darwinists (survival of the fittest) and the ironically named humanists (the banner which binds British atheists activists).

Two things should trouble the intelligentsia from Dawkins Down's Syndrome declarations. Firstly, Dawkins prefaced the right of women for early abortions, not abortion on demand until childbirth. So it seems at some point personhood is bestowed on an unborn fetus.  Or is abortion just less mentally messy when the victim does not look like an unborn child.  The other aspect which can be inferred from "Abort it and try again" aspires for a utopian perfection in offspring.  Such a callous attitude can easily devolve into getting rid of undesirable elements in society, be it physically deformed, mentally challenged or part of an undesirable group.

Sadly, Dawkins Social Darwinism for Down's Syndrome children seems prevalent in the United Kingdom.  Currently, 92% of pregnant women diagnosed with Down's Syndrome children aborted their unborn children. Moreover, half of all such cases go unreported. There are concerns that if the National Health System (NHS) expands the super accurate Ariosa Harmony testing, this figure will become nearly total, especially if NHS threatens to withhold special care for Down's Syndrome children.

It did not take long for former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) to respond to Dawkin's dialectic. Palin famously campaigned for Vice President in 2008 with her young son Trig, who has Down's Syndrome. Palin took her seven years of experience being a mother of a Down's Syndrome Child when she reached out to Richard Dawkins via Facebook. 

. Palin's folksy riposte to Dawkins displays a positive sense of humanity that the learned professor lacks.  In addition, Ms. Palin's Facebook posting alludes to her Down's Syndrome child as having a unique kind of absolute beauty.  This echos Governor Palin's peroration when speaking before a Right to Life Conference.

Many will dismiss the message as it came from Sarah Palin, who our "intellectual betters" from academia and the media deemed as dumb "Caribou Barbie". Yet Palin's testimony rings true and advocates valuing the individual  whereas Dawkin's tweets sound abstract and collectivist.

Even though Dawkins may have coined the concept of memes, however Sarah Palin has perfected the social media tactic. Palin dubbed Obamacare IPABs as Death Panels to deftly defending Down's Syndrome children.

So as these cultural catalysts clash on social media, perhaps it can bring us to understand how we approach ourselves and society.  Our we driven by the selfish gene as Dawkins theorized in genetics or can we inculcate altruism? Palin preaches that mothers should be open to Downs Syndrome children, but is that openness a moral imperative?

A Momma Grizzly, a Lone Survivor and Even a Self-Proclaimed Rodeo Clown Take Aim at Jesse Ventura's Defamation Victory

Former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura (Reform-MN), who also can boast that he was once a Navy SEAL, won a defamation civil lawsuit against the estate of American Sniper author Chris Kyle.  In  American Sniper (2012), Kyle's best selling book about being a Navy SEAL and who  credited as the most lethal sniper in American history, he alluded to a bar brawl with "Scruff Face".  This unnamed individual who was bad mouthing America military involvement at the wake for a fellow SEAL.  During the publicity tour for the book, Kyle was asked by Opie and Anthony if the boisterous attendee was Jesse Ventura and Kyle answered honesty.

Taya Kyle at her husband's funeral Feb.2013

Ventura's suit alleged emotional distress and defamation of character seeking a $15 million in damages.  Since Chris Kyle had been killed in Feburary 2013 as he helped a fellow veteran deal with PTSD, so that meant that defending the defamation suit fell upon Kyle's widow and single mother Taya Kyle. Ventura's lawyers argued  that: “it would be unjust to permit the estate to continue to profit from Kyle’s wrongful conduct and to leave Governor Ventura without redress for ongoing damage to his reputation.”


 Jurors were initially deadlocked as the eleven defense witnesses had slightly different recollections of "the punch".  The defense consented to allowing for a split verdict.  When the judge sent them back for further deliberations, the jury rendered an 8-2 verdict awarding Ventura $500,000 for defamation and $1.3 million for "unjust enrichment". Mrs. Kyle's lawyers are considering an appeal of the federal civil case.

While the jurors rendered their verdict, the public relations appeal certainly was not favorable.  Ventura claimed that he initiate the defamation suit to clear his name in the prospect of a 2016 Presidential run  as an Independent.  Ventura better not expect any support from reform minded conservatives, based on the reaction to the Ventura verdict.

Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) used her presence on social media and her new SarahPalinchannel.com streaming network to go Mamma Grizzly on ex-SEAL and WWF wrestler sometimes known as "The Governor".

Palin's point about  the irony when a supposedly strong public figure like former Governor Ventura running to lawyers when words get rough and tumble in the public arena is made more poignant because of "Sarahcuda's" savaging in the media.

Marcus Luttrell, the now medically retired Navy SEAL who wrote the book Lone Survivor (2007) about his ordeal in Afghanistan in Operation Red Wing, was not as subtle as Sarah Palin in her criticism of the Ventura verdict. Luttrell used social media to post several memes which reminded the world that Ventura was picking on a widow.

Aside from the bad optics of battling against a widow, Ventura violated a key precept of SEAL culture, namely having your brothers-in-arms' backs.  No wonder why Jesse joked that he would be unwelcome at future SEALs reunions.

Glenn Beck has facetiously referred to himself as a "rodeo clown"  closely identifies with the honor of military men and women.  In fact, the impetus to hold Restoring Honor in 2010 was to both restore honor in  America but as a fund raiser for the non-profit Special Operations Warriors Foundation, a charity providing college scholarships to children of KIA special force personnel. So Ventura's victory in court in a defamation suit against Special Operator's widow prompted an unusual answer.




Beck is all about honor and pro arguendo could appreciate Ventura trying to recover his good name.  But Beck suggests that after winning the case Ventura should forgo collecting the cash from a widow.  It is a common sense solution which would restore his honor and burnish his brief for future public service.  But I'll bet that is as likely as Jesse Ventura scoring Howard Stern for his VICE Presidential running mate in 2016.

Now that the courts has restored Jesse Ventura's good name, as it is, it is appropriate for the court of public opinion to judge Jesse Ventura's character.  After all, Ventura claims: "I would rather be uncomfortable with the truth than be lied to in comfort. That's my nature."

Do remember that Jesse Ventura has advanced 9/11 conspiracy theories when peddling his book "American Conspiracies" (2010) which were so far out that the HUFFINGTON POST deleted the piece.

Jesse Ventura was so incensed at airport security by the TSA that he blustered: "I've had enough of the Fascist States of America" and threatened to obtain dual citizenship with Mexico.

Ventura's television venture on the Ora TV "Jesse Ventura: Conspiracy Theories" has evolved to "Jesse Ventura: Off the Grid", as the 62 year old pro wrestler turned politician is hiding from drones and broadcasting someplace in Mexico Ventura claims that he will continue to broadcast as long as his solar panels and satellite connection holds up.

Still feeling comfortable with this body of truth?

Bridge-gate Ballyhoo

Bridge-gate burst into the public eye last week as emails from high level staffer of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ) were exposed indicating that four days worth of lane closures which snarled the George Washington Bridge were intentional.  Deputy Chief of Staff Bridget Kelly sent a snarky text message intimating:  "Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee". It has been speculated that the four days of lane closures which snarled the world's busiest suspension bridge was intended as a as punishment to Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich (D-Fort Lee), a Democrat who did not make a cross party endorsement of Christie in is wildly successful 2013 re-election effort.  

For his part, Governor Christie conducted a grueling 102 minute press conference in which he insisted that he did not know about the intentional nature of the traffic jam.  Moreover he fired Kelly along with his longtime friend and political aide Bill Stepien because of their involvement. 

Despite Christie's unequivocal denial of prior knowledge and his swift action at disciplining wrongdoers, the Bridge-gate ballyhoo dominated the headlines for over a week, and inspired comedians to do funny satires such as Jimmy Fallons filique with Bruce Springsteen of  the unoffical New Jersey anthem "Born to Run".

While there is no doubt that the story was newsworthy, as credible accusations of the use of public office for personal revenge is a serious charge, it seems like Bridge-gate is overblown as well as overwrought.

Firstly, consider the coverage.   As Newsbusters reported, in less than 24 hours, the big three broadcast networks devoted 34 minutes 28 seconds to "Bridge-gate".  This is 17 times more coverage than the Lamestream Media broadcast about the Obama Administration's alleged use of the IRS targeting Tea Party groups for excessive scrutiny over eight months.   The coverage may also have been intensified because of its proximity to New York.  Journalists often become much more  interested when it is affecting their home turf rather than in  "flyover" country.

Secondly, consider the target.  Governor Christie has been generally considered an early front-running for the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination.   Pre-Bridge-gate polls showed Christie leading presumed Democrat front-runner former First Lady/Senator (D-NY)/ and Obama Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.  A week after the Bridge-gate scandal broke, Chuck Todd gleefully reported on MSNBC that while polling indicated that Gov. Christie was just as popular in his home state  as ever, Christie was trailing Ms. Clinton by 17 points in a head to head match-up. The Bridge-gate ballyhoo certainly seems like agenda journalism to tarnish a charismatic "enemy" front-runner of the liberal press.

Thirdly, consider the timing.  While there had been some questions about the George Washington Bridge traffic jam for months, it is worth noting when Bridge-gate really broke.  The national media had been agog at excerpts from former Obama Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' memoirs which sensationally recounted that President Obama and then Secretary of State Clinton admitted in front of Gates that they both opposed the troop surge for the War in Afghanistan in 2007 for political reasons.  This made Ms. Clinton look bad as a calculating politician without principle who was willing to risk American security for personal political gain.  Then came Bridge-gate and nary a word about Ms. Clinton's conniving was mentioned.

A related issue to the convenient timing of Bridge-gate knocking Clinton's calculating campaign stance against the Afghanistan troop surge is how the e-mails came to light.  Although the The Record of Bergen County is in New Jersey, it is highly unlikely that a regional newspaper has an extensive investigative team to dig up this treasure trove text.  As a political junkie, it sounds more like opposition research resulting in a "dirty trick", but that's just speculation

Bridge-gate also seems overwrought.  It took nearly a year for the Department of Justice to investigate the IRS Tea Party targeting, only to have an Obama campaign contributor named who quickly determined that no crimes had been committed.  What about the Executive Branch investigations of "the Fast and Furious" government sanctioned gun-running to Mexico?  How has the Obama Administration been doing in investigating the bungle in Benghazi where four Americans, including the US Ambassador, were killed in Libya on September 11th, 2012? Yet within 24 hours of the Bridge-gate breaking in the national press, Attorney General Eric Holder's Department of Justice announced that it was investigating Bridge-gate for potential violations of federal law.  

As a former chief law enforcer, Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro is incensed by US Attorney Paul Fishman trumpeting this Bridge-gate probe as the federal modus operandi is neither to confirm nor deny investigations so as not to appear unobjective or partisan that tarnishes a potential indictment. But when partisan politics uses law-fare under the color of pursuing justice, seemingly anything goes.

While conservatives may not have favored Governor Christie to win the GOP Presidential nomination in 2016, his chances of success may well have been diminished by the politics of personal destruction with a complicit media acting as a progressive echo chamber.  The feeding frenzy of tenuous charges and threat of lawsuits seems to mirror tactics used against former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK) who resigned from office in 2010 and did not run for president in 2012, and suddenly all of those scandals vanished.

Low information voters may be lured into believing where there is smoke there is fire, even if it is blue smoke and mirrors.   Governor Christie's emphatic denials about involvement leave no wiggle room-- if he knew, then the fat lady sings ending his hopes for higher office.  But those who take time to keep informed on current events should see the trend in law-fare, smearing front-runners and the actual use of public offices for partisan pursuits.

Outrageous Obama Incivility

President Obama with Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer

As the new fiscal year looms without a budget passed, and the debt ceiling debate on the horizon, the Obama Administration ought to be building ad hoc coaltions to prevent the United States going off the fiscal cliff.  Yet when President Obama's Senior Advisor Dan Pfeiffer went on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper", the White House pressed a bombastic bric-a-brac against Republicans.

Having an Obama  senior spokesman call Republican opponents "suicide bombers" is beyond the pale of civil political discourse coming  from the White House.  These verbal bomb throwing  through the auspices of the Oval Office neither builds Congressional coalitions vital for governing (as opposed to campaigning) and this infelicitous  and incindiary analogy shows a shocking lack of civility.  In the same day, Obama White House Press Secretary Jay Carney dredged up birther barbs to mock Republicans for wanting to defund Obamacare.

After the near assassination of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ 8th) in January, 2011, President Obama made a grandiose speech at the Together We Thrive rally  in Tucson which memorialized the fallen in  the atrocity where President Obama proclaimed:

But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized -– at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who happen to think differently than we do -– it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we’re talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds.  

President Obama then rightfully noted that a "more civil and honest public discourse can help us face up to our challenges as a nation."  So how do Dan Pfeiffer's inflamatory remarks against ideological opponents fit into this call for civility?

Perhaps President Obama gave himself a waiver on civility.  After all, President Obama's 2012 re-election campaign persisted on an unsubstantiated insuniation that Republican Presidential Nominee Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) was a felon for alleged misrepresentations when he was at Bain Capital.  Political campaigns ain't beanbag, so rough and tumble rhetoric is not out of the ordinary, particularly for a politician who can not win without smearing his opponent.  But governing is different than campaigning.

While Pfeiffer's smear of his opponents as suicide bombers is outrageous and unwise, it is not the only example of inflamatory accusations that have the imprimatur of Obama's Oval Office. Democrat Congressional leaders such as House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA 8th) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) have been wont to refer to uncooperative Conservative Republican legislators as "Arsonists".  Senior Obama White House Advisor Dan Pfeiffer echoed this arsonist accusation and kidnappers comparison against Republicans.  Or progressive radio host Thom Hartman who compared Senator Ted Cruz's  (R-TX) filibuster to "Taliban-styled suicide bombings".   Kind of sounds like the Obama White House talking points were passed out.

These slanderous characterizations from the Obama White House give Democrats surrogates in the Lamestream Media license to copy scurrilous phrases.  This was quickly spread by  MSNBC's Chris Matthews did when the former Democrat staffer turned broadcaster asked  Representative Scott Perry (R-PA 4th) why the Republicans want to hold the country "hostage".

The Obama Administration seems intent to demonize and try to delegitimize their opponents, ala Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. But Pfeiffer, Pelosi and Reid are not alone in voicing vitrolic language against idelogical opponents.  Senator John McCain referred to Senator Cruz and Senator Rand Paul as "wacko birds", while Congressman Peter King  critiqued Senator Cruze as a crazy, fraudster and suicidal.  While these invectives abrogate Reagan's Eleventh Amendment, they are not as vial as a voice of the President of the United States in a time of real Islamist jihadi terrorism comparing Republicans to suicide bombers. 

It sounds like the White House communication staff need to take a crash course at the National Institute for Civil Discourse.   After all, the NICD launched a website "YourWordsCount.org" which reminds readers of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's word of wisdom: "Civility costs nothing and buys everything."   But that would also mean that they would be reminded of dear leader Obama's quote:

You and I, as citizens, have the obligation to shape the debates of our time – not only with the votes we cast, but with the voices we lift in defense of our most ancient values and enduring ideals. Let each of us now embrace, with solemn duty and awesome joy, what is our lasting birthright. With common effort and common purpose, with passion and dedication, let us answer the call of history, and carry into an uncertain future that precious light of freedom.

So much for shaping the future in an uplifting way.

In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting, the elite Liberal media were quick to lambast Tea Party Conservatives, particularly former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, for  dangerous symbolism on  pamplets which "targeted" politcally vulnerable  Democrat districts like Giffords' with crosshairs.  Ironically, the Democrat Congressional Camapign Committee used bullseyes for their targeted districts.    But as Chris Plante would put it: "If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all."

From a partisan political perspective, the Obama Administration's beyond the pale references to Republicans clearly demonstrates that the Obama White House does not want to deal and is pushing to peg Republicans with any blame for a government shutdown.  They may be calculating their strategy premised on the 1995-1996 government shutdowns which allegedly hurt Republicans (even though that was not demonstrated at the ballot box).   But according to the latest Pew Poll, both Democrats and Republicans would be blamed for a government shutdown.

In the scheme of things, political blame is inconsequential compared to the quantum corsening of civil discourse that has been displayed by White House operatives Dan Pfeiffer and Press Spokesman Jay Carney. Such uncivil exchanges are unworthy of authority in this Constitutional Republic.

Dr. Dean's Delayed Diagnosis of IPABs

Although  former Vermont Governor and 2004 Presidential Candidate Howard Dean (D-VT) has been out of the practice of medicine for a number of years in lieu of politics, the Doctors delayed diagnosis of IPABs is right on the money.

Recently, Howard Dean wrote an opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal in which he prognosticated:  "The IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them."  

For those who did not thoroughly study the 2,700 pages of legislation that comprised the ironically titled "Affordable Care Act", otherwise know as Obamacare, IPABs are the 15 member Independent Payment Advisory Board which the HHS Secretary Sebilus appoints that decides the amount that the government will reimburse physicians for medical procedures. 

This was  supposedly intended as a cost control mechanism for Medicare, but in reality will act as a rationing board.  The IPAB name implies that these opinions are advisory, but those opinions become the reality. A medical advisory board made the modest proposal in 2011 that yearly mammograms are unnecessary for women between 40 and 49, and HHS suggesting that self-examinations of breasts.  It did not seem that there were medical breakthroughs which prompted these changes in practice but it certaily would save costs for a single payer system.

At the start of his first term, Dr. Betsy Mc Caughey observed that President Obama's former Health Advisor Dr Ezekiel Emanuel (the brother of then Chief of Staff now Mayor of Chicago Rahm Emanuel .D-Chicago) believed that doctors serve two masters: the patient and society and that medical students should be trained  to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care."  

While public pressure forced the Obama Administration in January 2011 to drop "Complete Lives System" inspired end-of-life counseling during the elderly's annual check ups, the philosophy of cost cutting during the last 18 months of a person's life remains with IPABS.  Instead of cajoling vulnerable senior citizens to just "take a pill", the patient is cut out of the process by "Advisory Boards" which make certain treatments financially unviable, depending upon one's status. 

When Sarah Palin labled IPABs as "death panels", she was roundly criticized as a scare monger who was stupid, don't cha know?  

A couple of years later,  Dr. Dean  diagnosed IPABs as rationing boards,  it makes  more sense, right?

Howard Dean suggested that: "Getting rid of the IPAB is something Democrats and Republicans ought to agree on."  Obviously, the former DNC chair has not gotten with the program to think that Obamacare is about improving healthcare in America.  It seems that it more about control.

Unless Tea Party House Republicans are successful in defunding Obamacare from the FY2014 budget, all Americans will be mandated to participate in the program or pay a tax.  Nevertheless, the IRS will be in charge of collections and monitoring all of the health information.  Recent reports have indicated that health records will be vulnerable to hackers and scammers.  In addition, the IRS has shown political partisanship in vetting Tea Party tax exempt applications and for surrepticiously sharing this information.  Why couldn't the Obamacare cost cutting extend to denying treatment to political opponents?

Allow me to dispense a rhetorical palliative to Obamacare opponents– as P.J. O’Rourke put it: “If you thought that health care is too expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it’s free.”  Alas, the Affordable Care Act is doubling many peoples’ rates and may cost some their hides. 

Vying for the "Right" Leadership

The so-called Architect of former President George W. Bush’s electoral victories Karl Rove has come under intense scrutiny recently among conservatives for his failures in consulting in the 2012 cycle as well as his Cocktail Party proclivities.  During CPAC 2013 former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin challenged such behind the scenes insiders to “Buck up or stay in the truck”.




Rove responded on Fox News Sunday noting that he would not be a good candidate because he is bald.  Moreover, Karl quipped:  "If I did run for office and win, I would serve out my term and I wouldn't leave office midterm." 




 Clearly, “W’s Architect” for success was taking a pot shot at former Governor Sarah Palin (R-AK), who resigned with 16 months left in her term.  Of course, this cutting remark fails to consider the fifteen frivolous ethics complaints which cost Alaska $2.5 million to investigate and personally cost the Palins $500,000 to defend against without resulting in  any convictions.  So it depends Karl, and you should not wrap your own sullied interests around either the American flag or a good GOP cloth coat.

Although there seems to have been little love lost between Karl Rove and the maverick Grizzly Momma since Sarah Palin was selected as Senator John McCain’s (R-AZ) Vice Presidential nominee, this fight is really not about personalities.   Palin is the lightning rod for Tea Party types and personifies the fight between insiders and outsiders of the GOP and conservative movement.  Passionate partisans think that Karl Rove has declared war against conservatives and Tea Partiers so that Crossroads GPS can select more “electable” GOP candidates. Rove and other insiders postulate that general elections are not decided by the margins but by the middle, so Republican candidates must modify their message and select candidates that will appeal to independents.  

The problem is that the wise guys pre-programmed plan did not pan out in the 2012 election. The Romney Presidential campaign took great solace at election eve that they were winning Independents by a crushing 59-35% in battleground states.  Yet former Governor Mitt Romney (R-MA) lost the election despite his overwhelming popularity with Independents.  

Although President Obama garnered significantly fewer votes in his re-election campaign, analysis shows that Republican had four million fewer votes than anticipated, which indicates that a number of the disaffected base did not vote.  Some have speculated Romney flip flops on Obamacare or even his evolution about abortion cost him among conservatives.  But there is also anecdotal evidence that the conservative base and Tea Party types wanted their candidates to stand for something and fight.  But Rove’s plans strike them as Progressive-lite and have no fight.

Aside from the electability canard, there is also the dirty little secret about campaign insiders–they personally profit, win or lose,  when they can pick the candidates.  Pat Caddell, a disaffected Democrat who was a Jimmy Carter wunderkind pollster, played the prophet of good governance at CPAC 2013.  When speaking on the “Should We Shoot All the Consultants Now?” panel, Caddell proclaimed that: “The Republican Party is in the grips of what I call the CLEC — the consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex.”   The GOP gadfly illustrated his point by noting:

When you have the Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee and the political director of the Romney campaign, and their two companies get $150 million at the end of the campaign for the “fantastic” get-out-the-vote program… some of this borders on RICO violations. 

Rush Limbaugh amplified Caddell’s assessment by recognizing that consultants decide the media budgets for campaigns and usually choose the vendor.  So when the Romney campaign elects to spend $100 million a media buy, the consultants automatically get 15% of that expenditure, win or lose. 





After McCain-Feingold Campaign finance reform took effect, Political Action Committees (PACs) became extremely important.  In the wake of the landmark Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissions (2010) which lifted “soft money” expenditures (by unions, corporations and interest groups) but not all of McCain-Feingold so independent Super PACs are still quite important.  The Conservative Victory Project, an off-shoot of Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS, made headlines for “declaring war on the Tea Party, although Rove’s approach is allegedly not about moderation but about winning.  Yet a consummate insider like Rove can decide who is electible, despite the dearth of victory in 2010 along  the proclivity for favoring insiders rather than outsiders like Tea Party types and those passionate about protecting liberty.

Contrast the passion which reverberates amongst the Conservative base and dedicated Liberatians by Senator Rand Paul’s (R-KY) blockbuster filibuster over constitutional concerns.  The energy generated from Rand’s stand drew the spotlight away from insiders like Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) who wanted to moderate things  facilitating a fancy dinner party with President Barack Obama and cook up a “Grand Bargain”.  Such a Grand Bargain inevitably would require the GOP to basically cave in on its principles and raises taxes (again) to appear to “solve” the budget mess.  Insiders would love this because it burnishes the deal making reputation of the Cocktail Party to “do something” and be bipartisan, but damn their prior principles and damn the voters. Of course insiders could choreograph the deal to benefit their interests (and line their pockets).

It is unclear if outsiders like the Tea Party, true conservatives and liberatian minded Republicans will reform the Party or if it will remain entrenched to the comfy seclusion of the Cocktail Party. But Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) the freshman who defied the odds and insiders to win his 2012 primary runoff and the general election, embraces the outsiders mantle as seen at CPAC.

To echo a now contrite maverick Senator John McCain's characterization of passionate partisans–will it be the “Wacko Birds” winning or will the Grand Old Party go the Whig way of being the RINO reserve for the Dodo Birds. 

h/t Excellence in Broadcasting 

Coffee, Tea or Cocktail Party?

Since President Obama has taken office, the Republicans and the Democrats have been challenged by a few new “parties” to the political scene. While these factions have not yet sought to create formal party apparatuses, they are seeing to influence the established political parties.

Clearly, the TEA Party has stirred the grassroots of the American political field. While there may be other embryotic origins for the Tea Party, many attribute an on the air rant by Rick Santelli of CNBC as being the inspiration for the movement. In February 2009, while he was filing a live report on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange about the Homeowners Affordability and Stability Plan, Santelli vents about the poor financial plans that the Federal government was implementing. The CNBC reporter turns to the traders and asked if they should be forced to subsidize the bad behavior of others’ home loan, which elicited a bevy of boos. Santelli spontaneously suggests throwing a Chicago Tea Party.

The Tea Party is a reference to the iconic Boston Tea Party of 1773 when the Crown tried to impose the Tea Act. American colonists protested this tax for many reasons but especially because it violated the perceived principle that Americans had the right to be taxed by its own elected representatives. The Sons of Liberty took matters into their own hands by boarding the ships dressed as aboriginal Americans and throwing the merchandise into Boston Harbor. This was considered to be a key event in advancing the nascent American Revolution.

Within two weeks of Santelli’s clarion call on CNBC, there were protests in 40 cities around the country in reaction to Porkulus, a.k.a. the $787 Billion Stimulus Package that was rushed through Congress. The contemporary TEA party picked up steam by widespread nation wide protests on April 15th 2009, tax filing day. The terrific turnout at these ad hoc grassroots events showed participants that they were not alone and that they were Taxed Enough Already. Points of commonality included: lowering taxes, stopping wasteful government spending, reducing that national debt and adhering to the Constitution.

During the August Congressional Recess, when elected Federal officeholders often tour their districts on listening tours and hold Townhall Meetings, they were greeted by motivated Tea Party activists, who asked hard questions. Some of these Townhall Meetings were quite contentious. So much so, some lawmakers cancelled their public appearances since these Town Halls were not the typical constituent cake walks.