The American Spectator

Tim*| 5.11.10 @ 7:40AM

We,Tea Party Rebels are " Primarying " The Republican Party back to Real Conservatism.

The Tea Party Rebellion escalates .

Remember In November.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 9:25AM

You'll elect another Bush-type because the demographics have changed so much since '83.
Why do you think Dubya was so fond of Latinos?

... those of you in Texas know very well what that means.

Clinton nee Publius| 5.11.10 @ 12:52PM

I agree, sir. Mr. Norquist is the dutiful sycophant promoting the cause of so-called "conservatism" as the Republican Party defines conservatism to be. Indeed, if I believed for one moment that the Republican Party was being operated as anything other than a RICO enterprise of hypocrisy and privilege for its own exclusive benefit, I would heartily endorse it just as I have for the last 30 years.

That was then and this is now.

What have we received for our votes to the Republican cause? Do we have balanced budgets? Nope. Do we have an end to government-operated social welfare entitlement programs? Nope. Do we have tall fences and wide gates? Nope. Do we stand up and defend freedom throughout the world and destroy dictatorial regimes that repress their peoples? Not any more.

What we have gotten is a bunch of excuses and an insane war against our own people. The number one priority of the Republican Party is the same priority of the Democratic Party; avoid accountability for what has gone on by changing the subject to matters that require a subjective reasoning in place of an objective assessment. This has led us to the entire failed "values and morals" arguments and policies.

We have a War On Drugs, War on Sex, War on Gambling, War on Abortion - you name it, we have a "moral issue" with it; as if conservatives are the one group entitled to decide what our morals should be to the exclusion of our own opinions on the matter. Hmm... Doesn't that sound eerily like those liberal-progressives who want government making the decisions about what we eat, how we get health care, who gets an education and what we get to think?

We have to face the reality that this is a play by the Republican Party to maintain unity and prevent Tea Party members from walking away and funding their own candidates, promoting their own candidates and forming their own party to the detriment of the Republican Party's so-called claim on the conservative mantle.

The reality is that Bob Bennett served notice to the Republicans and the likes of Michael Steele; the times, they are a-changing. We'll be seeing you in November and if the choice is between a Tea Party candidate and you, you lose. Once we have our own seats in Congress, I bet you'll sing a whole new tune and it will be one we want to hear for a change.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 10:51PM

"We have a War On Drugs, War on Sex, War on Gambling, War on Abortion - you name it, we have a "moral issue" with it; as if conservatives are the one group entitled to decide what our morals should be to the exclusion of our own opinions on the matter."

Yours above is a very comprehensive comment, Clinton nee Publius-- more of an article than Norquist's. Unfortunately, we can't let people-- ourselves and our families-- be free yet; too many miscreants. If you let people do what they want, then...
1) children get herpes
2) drug cartels bribe govt officials

and so on. We haven't nearly reached the stage in evolution where people can be trusted with responsibility-- FAR too many irresponsibles.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 11:09PM

PS,
Libertarians make the same mistake futurists (Newt comes to mind) do: looking too far ahead, wanting to send up the second stage of a rocket without the first stage.

You are getting way ahead of yourself.

Joe B| 5.11.10 @ 8:45AM

After the refreshing outbursts against ObamaCare from the spontaneously formed, celebrity free Tea Party movement, it seems kind of like a downer that we have to settle for a RINO insider like Romney. I just hope he gets knocked out of contention for 2012 early.

It's too soon for Chris Christie to make a run for the GOP nomination, but he would be a great president now. (Instead of merely being a historic check-a-box diversity dunce).

Let's just dump the whole uninspiring crew that clamored for the nomination and lost to McCain. When America needed a savior from the Manchurian Candidate, these guys just played PC patty cake and lost. There was enough biographical research out there to predict that Obama would govern in a tragically awful way, but these guys steered clear of it out of fear that they would be called racists. Losers, all of them. They failed America and now we have Sotomayor and (soon) Kagan on the Supreme Court, Holder as AG, Napolitano as head of DHS, Solis as Labor Sec, and an unsustainable National Debt run up in 12 months.

Shamus| 5.11.10 @ 9:00AM

I don't trust Mitt Romney. He's a tax collector for the welfare state.

loulou| 5.11.10 @ 10:55AM

Your instincts are correct. Romney just looks the part. He's a RINO.

ggoblue| 5.11.10 @ 9:13AM

i dont worry about romney...the writing is on the wall for him and mccain...

we will revert to nominating whomever the left hates the most, a tried and true formula from the past...

that person [right now] is sarah palin.

KBB| 5.12.10 @ 5:13AM

That's a simple rule I've come to rely on with confidence:

If the Left hates 'em, that's who I want; if the Left likes 'em, I won't touch 'em with a ten foot pole! After all, why would I want someone progressives love??

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 9:27AM

"[right now]"

Flavor of the month or the Real Deal?

Deborah D| 5.11.10 @ 9:38AM

I hope someone like Mitch Daniels will become the name on everyone's lips. He has whipped Indiana into shape. It's that type of thinking we need in the Republican Party. Conservatives are tired of Republicans going along with Democrats to keep making the federal government larger and larger. It's obvious by what's happening in Greece and what continues to happen here in the halls of power in D.C. that our politicians haven't grasped the fact that the social welfare state is going down the tubes. The sooner Republicans grasp that the better their chances will be locally, state-wide and nation-wide.

Dan Hirsch| 5.11.10 @ 9:42AM

Grover,

You rascally ol' Republican you! You might find a lot more help for what you want if you approached this upcoming election from first principles. The Tea Parties are populated with people who have become completely fed up with the obliviousness, the obtuseness of most of the current class of politicians.

We sane, tax paying, hard working, family raising wannabes need the federal, the state, the county, the township, the city governments to get the hell out of our lives and our pockets!

Do your jobs!

Feds protect the country and its borders-forget saving the earth you can't do it!

States put the bad guys in jail, and keep them there! You can't save the earth any better than the feds can!

Counties and towns, plow and pave the streets, put a couple of teachers to teach real education in reasonable school houses, put some cops on the street to send the real bad guys to the state pens. Don't try to save the earth, either.

ALL YOU STUPID GOVERNMENTS STOP LOOKING FOR THINGS TO DO THAT ARE NOT IN YOUR CHARTERS! JUST KNOCK IT OFF.

Damn bunch of clueless,
know-it-all busybodies.

Don't tread on me...

Quartermaster| 5.11.10 @ 5:59PM

Norquist, alas, is a small man. married to a Muslim, and so is on the side of "moderate" Islam, which does not exist, and is a pro-amnesty crank. First principles were abandoned by Norquist long ago.

loulou| 5.11.10 @ 8:07PM

Quartermaster: You're correct. Norquist is a Jihadi sympathizer and is married to a Muslim.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.11.10 @ 10:12AM

Dan,
thanks. I needed a good laugh. Well spoken, sir, well spoken.

Grover,
Smart column. Thanks. Keep pounding the point!

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.11.10 @ 10:15AM

I posted this on the blogs, but it is appropriate here too, I think.

Guys,

Kagan, is simply a battle we cannot win. Get over it. It ain't the end of the war OK?

Conversely, November is in my mind the last chance for the ballot box to save our constitutional republic.
That battle is going to be ALL about turnout.

Please stop being wimpier than our Republican congress critters.....please.

I hear a lot of folks here throwing their hands up in defeat.
Suck it up , guys.
If you give up hope in our republic now and sow defeatism re November...please consider what comes next very very carefully.

Dan Hirsch| 5.11.10 @ 10:56AM

Hey, Tex!

Some battles need fightin'

You may remember a little tussle referred to as the Alamo....

Rolling over might be the wrong approach here. It normally takes a couple of months to bring a nominee to a vote. If we can stall this 'nimrodination' for a month or two, it could spill over into the fall elections, which couldn't hurt our side, unless I miss my guess.

Worth thinking about, anyway.

Ken (Old Texican)| 5.11.10 @ 11:08AM

Dan,

You are right of course, but there are other battles being waged right now, while Kagan has the headlines.
The Alamo wouldn't have meant much without the "running fight" culminating in the battle of San Jacinto.
Sam Houston stretched Santa Anna's supply lines to the breaking point, (with abandoned cannons all across south Texas), then cut off the head of the snake.
There is some wisdom hiding there somewhere.

Al Adab| 5.11.10 @ 11:38AM

Ken, Dan:
We have to be ready to die on some beach or some hill (or ald mission) in order that the second wave might find success and take the beach.

Is the second wave ready, the assualt troops are? There is the real question. I fear that there is no Norm Cota coming in.

Dan Hirsch| 5.11.10 @ 11:42AM

Roger that.

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 11:04PM

"November is in my mind the last chance [snip]"

Yea, in your mind, Old Tex (Mex),it is all in your mind. So much for your boastful chirp.
You mistake gullibility for optimism; look at all the illegals in your state and think of what will be done with them: nothing. They will stay, because no one knows where to start politically. Tens of millions of illegals came into the country, and NOW you write of being optimistic?

You wait until the pipes are rusted & broken before you say "call a plumber"?

ColoradoWest| 5.11.10 @ 10:17AM

Oh God please...not Romney.

zhang| 5.12.10 @ 12:11AM

You mistake gullibility for optimism; look at all the illegals in your state and think of what will be done with them: nothing.

Northern Rebel| 5.11.10 @ 11:51AM

I am much more worried about Romney being a republican presidential nominee, than Kagan being on the supreme court.

Kagan cant do any more harm than Stevens. Mitt Romney can not get 40% of the vote against Maobama.

Al Adab| 5.11.10 @ 12:23PM

Some truth in what you write. Kagan will however serve some thirty(?) years if confirmed thereby delaying the recovery.

Romney is the son of George Romney, he of the Rockefeller wing, the stop Goldwater wing, the accomodationist wing of the GOP, now often called RINOs but still a majority. That is the fight we need to make. Don't forget how Bush 41 was leading the Stop Reagan movement. When we make that kind of compromise it always fails in the end.

Michael L. Hauschild| 5.11.10 @ 2:17PM

Somebody send Grover a copy of the current issue of AS.

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 5.11.10 @ 2:35PM

Grover Norquist has some of his own past experiences to explain. Frankly, I would rather have him write about this episode as quoted from MichelleMalkin.com as opposed to possible phony illusions of conservatism.

Mr. Norquist apparently conducted a Muslim outreach program as well as a few other questionable acts.

If we question his motives will he follow through as he did before? Hit the link. Get the facts.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009.....t-problem/

Alec “the Bloviator” Baldwin has a new bosom buddy: Beltway Republican strategist Grover Norquist.

The Bush-bashing actor-turned-activist and the Muslim vote-courting political organizer joined together at a Washington, D.C.-area conference last weekend to perpetuate bald lies about the Patriot Act and to oppose the “repressive” War on Terror (repressing terrorist suspects apparently being a bad thing).

Baldwin and Norquist’s panel, titled “Strange Bedfellows,” was sponsored by the ultraliberal group, People for the American Way (PFAW). When PFAW head and panel participant Ralph Neas ranted about the lack of judicial and Congressional oversight of the Justice Department’s terror investigations, the audience applauded passionately. According to National Review Online reporter Byron York, Baldwin (the “moderator”) then turned to Norquist for comment.

“Ditto,” Norquist replied. Never mind the flat-out falsity of Neas’ claim. The smarmy Baldwin looked at his panelists and proudly remarked: “Can’t you feel the love?”

…Norquist’s kissy-kissy partnership with a washed-up Hollywood Clintonite is the least of his unseemly alliances.

Consider: The conference they attended last weekend was hosted by the National Coalition to Protect Political Freedom (NCPPF), which was co-founded in 1997 by Sami Al-Arian — the former University of South Florida professor charged earlier this year as a fund raiser and organizer for the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terrorist group. The money Al-Arian allegedly raised went to terrorist operations overseas that killed at least two Americans. In 2001, Al-Arian’s NCPPF gave Norquist an award for his work to abolish the use of secret intelligence evidence in terrorism cases. Al-Arian was the keynote speaker. Insight investigative reporter Ken Timmerman says Norquist told the magazine he remains “proud” of the award.

Among other major participants and sponsors of the NCPPF conference was the American Muslim Council (AMC). In January, the group accused President Bush of “calling on God to kill innocent Iraqi children.” The next day, the group instructed mosque directors to block FBI counterterrorism efforts. Late last month, AMC founder Abdurahman Alamoudi was charged with illegally accepting money from Libya for his efforts to persuade the United States to lift sanctions against that nation. He also allegedly attempted to smuggle hundreds of thousands of dollars to Syria, which federal officials say was intended for delivery to Damascus-based terrorist groups.

Alamoudi’s arrest is part of a larger Justice Department investigation of terrorism funding focused on Saudi-backed Islamic foundations and businesses based in Herndon, Va. (Alamoudi is also responsible for founding the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veterans Affairs Council to “certify Muslim chaplains hired by the military,” including Capt. James “Youssef” Yee — charged last week with taking classified information home from Guantanamo Bay.) A so-called “moderate,” Alamoudi is on record praising the terrorist group Hezbollah and proclaiming: “We are all followers of Hamas.”

Norquist’s lobbying firm is registered as a lobbyist for Alamoudi. Alamoudi provided seed money for Norquist’s Islamic Institute, which shares space with Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform group. The institute is run by Alamoudi deputy and former AMC government relations director Khaled Saffuri. Saffuri and Norquist have worked closely with Bush senior adviser Karl Rove to give radical Muslim activists access to the White House. No doubt because of their efforts, Alamoudi was invited to a White House prayer service after the Sept. 11 attacks.

If any Democrat activist had such shady connections, conservatives would be on him like white on rice. Instead, Norquist has gotten away with smearing his critics — most notably, former Reagan official Frank Gaffney of the Center for Security Policy, one of the most decent and patriotic Republicans I’ve had the honor of meeting — as hatemongers.

Ole Sandberg| 5.11.10 @ 7:42PM

I have also been wondering why the otherwise sensible AS provides a forum for a stealth jihadist like Norquist. What am I missing?

Margie| 5.11.10 @ 2:46PM

And read this concerning Norquist at American Thinker~
http://www.americanthinker.com.....jihad.html

Deborah D| 5.11.10 @ 3:35PM

Wow, Margie, I hadn't seen that article before. Yeah, let's just keep pulling the wool over our own eyes! That's the ticket!

Thanks for posting.

Margie| 5.11.10 @ 5:05PM

Thanks. And Norquist favors Rand Paul, who shares his views~
http://sultanknish.blogspot.co.....itmo-and-a

Tim*| 5.11.10 @ 8:16PM

Now ,The Rest Of The Story .

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rand Paul, a Republican running for Kentucky’s U.S. Senate seat, recently signed the Taxpayer Protection Pledge sponsored by Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). The Pledge commits signers to “oppose any and all efforts to increase the marginal income tax rates for individuals and/or businesses … and oppose any net reduction or elimination of deductions and credits, unless matched dollar for dollar by further reducing tax rates.”

ATR has offered the Pledge to all candidates for federal office since 1987. To date, 34 U.S. senators, and 172 members of the U.S. House of Representatives have signed the Pledge. Additionally, six Governors and over 1,100 state legislators have signed the Pledge.

“American taxpayers need candidates that understand the financial issues facing the U.S. today,” said Grover Norquist, president of ATR.

Margie| 5.11.10 @ 11:55PM

So what if he understands economics? When you care only about money then nothing else matters. Paul-bots are like the mindless Obamatons. They couldn't care less about how Rand Paul is aligned with Adam Kokesh the anti-war imbecile, who is aligned with Code Pink, or that he shares the same views as his Father about our military and views America as at fault for terrorism.

Keep preaching about his "fiscal conservatism" all you want, but a non-interventionist is a non-interventionist, and you the honest amongst us cannot and will not accept him. Those who know, that is. Some do not.
http://michellemalkin.com/2010.....-clothing/

Tim*| 5.12.10 @ 10:18AM

You're A Slandering Israel Firster Nutbag Margie !

Read : The United States Special Relationship with Israel By Dr. Rand Paul Candidate, United States Senate .

Sarah Palin has endorsed Rand Paul .

Senator Jim Bunning hss endorsed Rand paul .

Senator Jim DeMint has endorsed Jim DeMint

Margie| 5.12.10 @ 11:23AM

Rand Paul pities the terrorists. "Iran wants nukes because it feels threatened." ~Rand Paul.

The slandering being done here is by you, and not me. Leftists do that when their real interests are disturbed, or someone comes along and speaks the truth to their fantasy.

Anyone who can read, can go to David Horowitz's website, Frontpage.com, and read all about the Libertarian Leftist mindset, and both Ron and Rand Pauls' stance on their non-interventionism.

Tim*| 5.12.10 @ 11:48AM

DUUUHHHHH , Slandering Nutbag Margie .

Rand Paul :
" I believe the United States should increase the pressure on Iran. I would mandate that all publicly managed investment funds divest from Iran immediately.

We should not be subsidizing any company that does business with Iran, and we should not allow U.S. companies or those with funds from U.S. taxpayers to enrich Iran through its national energy program. I would fight to end all subsides to American corporations that do business with Iran, including so-called renewable energy companies that work through Brazil to provide support to Iran and empower its dictators dangerous nuclear saber rattling. "

Margie| 5.12.10 @ 12:58PM

Slander you say? Nutbag you say? Just who is the slanderer "Timmy*" and who is the nutbag?

Rand Paul is a non-interventionist Libertarian Leftist in Republican's clothing, same as his Daddy.
http://www.newsrealblog.com/20.....h-palin-it’s-time-to-re-think-that-rand-paul-anti-israel-pro-kokesh-endorsement/

"They do not attack for what we are, they attack us because we are in their countries."
(Rand Paul in Montana, January 29, 2009)

"When my dad stood up to Giuliani and said that our foreign policy caused us some of what we got on 9/11, he didn’t say that it justified what those people did to us. But we have to understand that there is blowback from our foreign policy."
(Rand Paul at Western Kentucky University, April 7, 2009)

"There have been a lot of people who have written about terrorism and the terrorists themselves will tell you why they come here. They come here because we’re over there."
(Rand Paul in Nashville, Jan. 27, 2008)

http://www.newsrealblog.com/20.....epublican/

Tim*| 5.12.10 @ 1:07PM

Rand Paul :
" Israel and the United States have a special relationship. With our shared history and common values, the American and Israeli people have formed a bond that unites us across the many thousands of miles between our countries and calls us to work together towards peace and prosperity for our countries.

The free trade agreement that has existed, and been subsequently strengthened, between our countries since 1985 is a tremendous mutual benefit. As a United States Senator, I would work against the growing protectionist sentiment in our country and defend free trade with Israel. "

JmsA| 5.12.10 @ 9:44PM

Margie,

I very much like some of your postings, and appreciate your verve and convictions.

les grossman| 5.11.10 @ 4:18PM

Making Mitt Romney the poster boy for supposed "team play" is laughable. This guy was in hiding for nearly an entire year, as the socialists stuffed Romney's monster, aka Obamacare, down the nation's throat, with nary a peep of protest from the aforesaid Mr. Romney, hiding under his bed.

Shove off, RINO.

Northern Rebel| 5.11.10 @ 5:08PM

Al Adab:

I agree with your reminder of Kagan's youth, but that has to just remind us that elections have consequences.

We had a pissing party, and tossed out our majority, as RINO as it was, and now it is behind us, biting our asses.

I hope constitutional conservatives have learned something from the ascent of liberal-socialism, and it's not too late to do something about it.

Margie| 5.11.10 @ 5:10PM

Why is it that some favor Romney to get the nomination, when they know that most conservatives do not want him? If the conservative movement wants true conservatives (and I don't mean Paulites), you have to wonder if they just hope for another Obama win. Because how many conservatives will cast their vote for Romney if he gets the nomination? And how many will protes vote and then vote for a Paul, or write in a name on the ballot?
Just my thoughts, however right or wrong they are.

Al Adab| 5.11.10 @ 7:14PM

Well Margie, It's because the old school GOP really doesn't have a moral compass that guides their thought process. To them the old rules still apply including, "to the victor belong the spoils". That is what the Left is saying now as "we won, you lose".

The Conservative movement and the GOP are two different animals. It is a fight we have had my entire life and I was there in '64 when we had to overcome George Romney et al.

Just to overcome any doubt, Paul(s) are not the answer. Libertarians have their own error in lack of moral absolutes.

Tim*| 5.11.10 @ 8:28PM

Tea Party Rebels are lining up to support potential Presidential Candidates , such as Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana , Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana , etc.

What we won't do is support Serial Traitors to Conservatism , such as John McCain , who was foisted on The Republican Party by Faux Conservatives .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Remember In November !

Margie| 5.11.10 @ 11:32PM

McCain wasn't "foisted" upon the Republican party by "faux conservatives." Quit trying to revise history. The primaries are open in some states and Democrats got to vote for him as the nominee.

Faux conservatives, namely Paul-bots will "foist" Romney on the Republican party though, won't they? The Paul-bots WANT the party to fail. Isn't that why you're all so interested in him getting the nomination?

Isn't it why Norquist lists him as his first choice? Norquist, the Paul-bot? Norquist, the Paulistinian.

Tim*| 5.12.10 @ 10:41AM

Let's guess !
Margie here , voted in the Primaries for the Serial Traitor to Conservatism John McCain , while many of us later staters never got a chance to vote for candidates like Duncan Hunter, Fred Thompson,etc.

Tell us all about McCain-Feingold ,McCain-Kennedy , McCain-Lieberman ,Gang of 14 ,Opposing Bush Tax Cuts Of 2001 & 2003 , TARP .

We.Tea Party Rebels want Conservatism to Succeed , Slandering False Christian Lady.

Tea Party Rebels Support Presidential Candidacies of the likes of Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina , Congressman Mike Pence of Indiana , Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana , Etc.
Quit Slandering The Tea Party Whacky Lady .

Most of We Tea Party Rebels don't think much of Romney on Issues like Health Care ,etc.

You're up Crazy Lady .

Margie| 5.12.10 @ 11:36AM

Your deceit and hypocritical slandering of me will get you nowhere.

Are you going to "write-in" another loser candidate again in 2012 in order to give the election to Obama again because your high and mighty "principles" won't let you vote for the Republican candidate?

You're up loony Lefty.

Tim*| 5.12.10 @ 11:57AM

Well Slandering Margie , We won't Sell Our Soul for A Serial Traitor to Conservatism like You did .

Tell The AS Readers about McCain-Feingold,McCain-Lieberman ,McCain-Kennedy, Gang of 14 ,Oppositionto 2001 & 2003 Tax Cuts and TARP .

You're Up Faux Conservative .

Margie| 5.12.10 @ 12:28PM

Unhinged Paul-bot:

Your lying accusations get you nowhere. You are of the loony Leftist Libertarian crowd who will hand the 2012 election over to Obama again because in your insane mind, you must have a perfect candidate.

You are part of the problem. You live in a fantasy. I hope you wake up someday.

Tim*| 5.12.10 @ 1:03PM

I'm allowing you to expose yourself to AS Readers Margie .
The Tea Party Rebellion Escalates.

Try And Stop Us Margie !

Margie| 5.12.10 @ 3:00PM

I see. You're allowing me, are you? LOL.

Meanwhile, AS readers are being exposed to a liar, and to the truth about both Norquist and the Pauls. They are non-interventionist Leftist Libertarians in Republican's clothing, as are you, lying Timmy*.

The Non-interventionist Leftist Libertarian candidates will continue having minimal success as they always have, because they are anti-American terrorist sympathizers.

Try and stop the truth, Timmy*!

JmsA| 5.12.10 @ 9:34PM

I don't write this to be contrarian, but it doesn't seem to me that the Tea Party is predominantly libertarian. There is a tinge, as it were, of libertarianism in some of their members, but I don't believe them to be entirely libertarian. For example, I have been to a few of their events, and I haven't heard anyone make any mention regarding common libertarian issues such as legalizing pot, or for that matter issues regarding gay marriage either way insofar as legislating it or mandating it. They seemed mostly concerned with the fiscal excesses, both by republicans and democrats as it relates to the future stability and security of the country, particularly as it relates to their children and grandchildren . As to Rand Paul, I'm not from Kentucky and don't know much about him, though I've heard his father, much to my chagrin, emphatically proclaim the U.S. should absolutely and irrespective of the circumstances, not intervene in any foreign affairs. I suspect such would not have worked out very well for us during WWII, had we stood aside and allowed the Nazis to conquer and subjugate Britain, or for that matter, allowed the Soviet Union have its way in Europe, etc., during the cold war. There is also the fact our intervention in WWI, though belated, helped shaped events on the ground and thus shape or guide the thoughts processes of Imperial Germany towards finally accepting the reality that they could not contend with the might of the U.S. That said, I believe that although Bush and others before him made certain tactical, if not strategic mistakes in the Middle East, leaving that region to deal with strident Islam on its own would have worked out very well in the long run. I simply base this on the fact of the resurgence of strident Islam, and particularly its fanatical component over the last 40 years or so, given its initial manifestation and expansion from the 7th to 15th centuries.

batman| 5.11.10 @ 5:31PM

Do people still listen to Rove and the "enlightened" others who got us into this horrendous mess? They had to have the Medicare Prescription bill and eliminated half the voters from the income tax rolls. Now they're hitting up John Podesta for fund-raising advice. What geniuses. Anybody vote for new leadership?

Alan Brooks| 5.11.10 @ 11:16PM

Rove's book (though it is full length I read it one sitting, as it is so simplistic) 'Courage and Consequences', is a waste of paper and $30.00.

Rove ought to offer each reader a $30.00 rebate to read it.

JmsA| 5.12.10 @ 9:38PM

I haven't read his book and don't plan on doing so. I'm just tired of him and his silly writing board. As far as I'm concerned, he shares much of the blame for Bush's mistakes, irrespective of how they played on either side of the aisle.

Kevin 07| 5.11.10 @ 9:09PM

Unfortunately there is not much difference between a Republican and a Democrat (other than their rhetoric). The present President of the USA is a moron. God help us!

Cris Worth| 5.11.10 @ 9:41PM

I support a Romney/Steele ticket in '12. Can we agree on that? Just one thing...Romney needs to move to Utah and Steele to North Dakota guaranteeing both will win their home states.

Derek Leaberry| 5.12.10 @ 8:46AM

The problem with this article is that it is written by one Inside-the-Beltway "conservative" who writes favorably of two Bushie anti-conservative Republicans, Ed Gillespie and Ken Mehlman. These three men are part of the problem and not part of the solution. Furthermore, notice that Norquist doesn't mention immigration as one of the issues that unites conservatives. Norquist, Mehlman and Gillespie are part of the Republican globalist cabal which is comfortable with the Brazilianization of America. Secretly, all three wish Jeb Bush could run in 2012- they'll be waiting in the wings for 2016 when the Bush surname becomes a little less toxic.

Lynn| 5.12.10 @ 10:05AM

Grover -

Your comments on Huckabee are laughable. His stature is of national significance now. That he is on par with Scott Brown and should run for senate in Arkansas is ludicrous! His next campaign will be for POTUS! Also, how is it possible you missed Huckabee's support of strong conservative candidates with his PAC from the most local of offices (county council/judges, state legislators, congressman, senators). Surely it is a factor that Huck recognizes that we need to make sure our local and state reps are going to adhere to our conservative values. In addition, Huck was one of the first to recognize Rubio in Florida - endorsing him when Crist was 30 points ahead. His recent endorsements of Marlin Stutzman and Chuck DeVore signal a willingness to put principle ahead of party when necessary. You got one thing right - Huck's Fox Show has proven to be a smart strategy for him! He is well-known now - something that does allow him to help others and more importantly inform conservatives about who he really is. It will not be easy for the MSM and conservative pundits to misrepresent him when he runs in 2012.

pte| 5.12.10 @ 10:35AM

It's going to be amusing, reading articles like this by people who will try to justify their support of candidates WE, the people, just do not want. Amusing, but not enough to distract us from the task at hand.

Nate| 5.12.10 @ 10:53AM

May I point out that former Gov. Mike Huckabee has been in the thick of it these past months (nay, years) with his PAC? He went out on a limb with many endorsement early on, only to be followed by Romney, Palin, and others after the races became "safer" (i.e. Marco Rubio). In addition, his PAC has made tens of thousands of personal calls into various states on behalf of endorsed candidates.

Patrick| 5.12.10 @ 10:57AM

I enjoyed reading your perspective, which seemed thoughtful to me. I do think that it would be a good idea to take a look at the number and quality of endorsements that HuckPAC have been making.

Another thing to consider is that many of these PACs are new to the game and will probably improve over time.

No matter who the Republican nominee is, they may have a very difficult battle to overcome since Obama will probably raise around $1 Billion. Personally, I'm a Huckabee fan and I think that he has proven that he doesn't need big money to beat big money - so, I think that he would have a chance. We shall see!

Randy| 5.12.10 @ 12:54PM

There is no question in my mind that the GOP has within their power the ability to force Obama into being a one termer, but that is only if they get behind Governor Mike Huckabee. Not sure if he will run again , but it would be nice to have a true fiscal and social conservative (not to mention an adult) in the White House. Those who know him best support him the most. There is a reason for that. They know his real record, not the twist fest and nearly humorous distortions that even some "conservatives" engage in.

I personally know people who lived in Arkansas during his time as Governor. When Huckabee arrived, Arkansas was a corrupt state, with education, unemployment and infrastructure ranking among the lowest in the USA. And despite lowering taxes more than any Arkansas governor in state history, he has always answered for one significant tax hike to rebuild the state's foundational woes. What you don't hear much of, is that he signed the bill into law after the voters passed a ballot initiative in favor of the tax funded projects...by 80%!

Huckabee didn't raise taxes, the people did. And to say that the most visible advocate for the Fair Tax Plan in American politics is liberal with economic policy, seems more than a little odd. That is not a liberal vision regarding tax reform and economic recovery. It, like many of his ideas and accomplishments, is an example of thinking outside the box and being bold enough to enact creative solutions to big problems,without worrying what the polls will say the next day. He answered to no establishment. He was loyal to no lobbyist. Through HuckPAC he is making wise and courageous endorsements all over the country. ( One would be wise to notice some of Palin's endorsements)

What his record shows as an executive leader, is that he is the most deserving person to credit for the literal modernization of the state. By the end of his era, Arkansas proved to be a model for restoration. It had a booming economy, low unemployment, better schools (went from 48th to 9th place), higher incomes and a relatively low tax burden compared to many states. And, though he arrived with the biggest state debt in history, he left with a surplus of millions.

Mike Huckabee is in a league of his own. He has the most experience of anyone in the GOP bullpen at this time and has a likeability factor that would run off of any chart. Plus, his communication skills would even be envied by Ronald Reagan. Comparing Mike to Mitt Romney or some of the other "establishment candidates" would be like comparing Thomas Jefferson to George Jefferson. If Obama wins a second term, it won't be because of the liberals. It will be because many so called "conservatives" were so ill-informed and boneheaded where Huckabee is concerned that they failed to unite behind the wisest, most talented leader our nation has seen in a generation. Rush-Beck-Coulter-Malkin and their ilk offered up Obama for us the last time around , and it would appear they are gearing up for act two in 2012. Had they been honest with themselves and their audiences in 2007-2008, they would not be whining 24/7 today about the socialistic drain America is swirling down -- because it's quite possible Mike Huckabee would be President today. Huckabee 2012 or say hello to 4 more years of ObamaNation.

JmsA| 5.12.10 @ 9:41PM

Say what you want about Huckabee, that guy's got the gift of gab and sure knows how to play a crowd.

jackin2kearney| 5.12.10 @ 1:08PM

Writer Randy has the right scoop. Conservatives have all right to be upset with both the current administration for all of its corruption and taking the country through socialism and beyond most likely. They also have had several candidates in recent years that claim conservatism, but are watered down democrats. Huckabee represents ALL we as conservatives could ever hope for in a candidate. AND Huckabee is probably the most capable of gaining more consensus with the left while promoting conservative plans. Huckabee is the man for 2012 and I agree with Randy that he is the ONLY candidate that can beat obama.

WAKE UP| 5.12.10 @ 5:59PM

As an interested outside observer, I'm wondering why on earth ALLEN WEST's name isn't the front-runner in this dialogue. Don't you guys actually want to SAVE your country? You need somebody who can actually BEAT Obama (in every way).

JmsA| 5.12.10 @ 8:56PM

Wake Up,

I agree. Lt.Col. West is a very attractive candidate. And I have posted about him here before, noting his varied and deep knowledge of history.

T. Miller| 5.13.10 @ 3:46PM

I am not sure why Mr. Norquist mentions Mike Huckabee last on his list of PAC contributors when in recent news Governor Huckabee's HuckPac was listed as being the top PAC contributor to individual State races. Governor Huckabee has endorsed candidates in 22 states. And these are not just any candidates (ie: not just Republican candidates for the sake of being Republican), but rather these are solidly conservative candidates who embrace life and family putting principle ahead of party. By putting Party ahead of principle the Republicans have managed to lose the last 2 election cycles. It is past time for the Republicans to begin to pay real attention to Governor Mike Huckabee. He is the real deal and has not bowed to the whims of his party or greed.

T. Miller| 5.13.10 @ 3:56PM

I also agree with Randy above - Mike Huckabee is truly the only Republican candidate who can beat Obama in 2012. Huckabee is liked by both sides of the aisle and he has reached his hand across the aisle more than once out of respect, but politely disagreeing and making his case for conservative values. He has big ideas and has implemented many of them w/out waiting for the poll results.

fjd| 7.1.10 @ 3:09AM

beijing massage