The American Spectator : Clark Clifford Republicans

Text Size

Clark Clifford Republicans

By Jeffrey Lord on 10.18.11 @ 6:12AM

The GOP Establishment shell game: when winning is losing.

“Clark is a wonderful fellow. In a day when many are seeking a reward for what they contributed to the return of the Democrats to the White House, you don’t hear Clark clamoring. All he asked in return was that we advertise his law firm on the backs of one-dollar bills.” — John F. Kennedy on Washington lobbyist and ex-Truman aide Clark Clifford

What can one say?

Is there any wonder Tea Party supporters think they are always in danger of being played?

In a Republican Establishment shell game.

Sunday’s New York Times Magazine brought a long cud-chewer titled “Does Anyone Have a Grip on the GOP? The GOP Elite Tries to Take It’s Party Back.”

In which all manner of people who perhaps should have thought twice or four times sat down with a reporter for America’s premiere left-wing journal of left-wing record and stripped naked precisely the problem with the “Republican Establishment.”

As with anyone who has worked in Washington, I can say, to update a sentiment that was once used almost exclusively in a racial context, “some of my best friends are Washington insiders.” Or, if you will, lobbyists.

And as someone who is not a lobbyist by choice and has long since skedaddled home to William Penn’s Woods, perhaps we should get out of the way that there is somehow something wrong with lobbying. It is, first of all, a protected constitutional right thanks to Mr. Madison and language included in that pesky First Amendment. (“Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech….or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”) This is merely a formal way of recognizing that the human species is in its own several interesting ways a race of lobbyists: children lobbying parents (“Mommy I want…”), spouses lobbying each other to varying degrees of success (“not tonight dear”), boyfriends lobbying would-be girlfriends and vice versa (those old stand-bys of flowers and hints of sex), prospective employees lobbying prospective bosses (“here’s my résumé”) and, but of course, the politician lobbying voters (“elect me and I promise…”).

Perhaps one of the more famous lobbyists on the Washington scene was the late aforementioned Clark Clifford. A St. Louis, Missouri lawyer, his presence in Washington began when, as a young man, he was gifted with the opportunity to serve as a young naval aide to President Harry Truman. Not coincidentally, Truman was also from Missouri. But Truman’s presence at the desk in the Oval Office — and Clifford’s frequently seated beside that desk — was entirely due to a long suspected and suddenly appearing rendezvous of Franklin Roosevelt with eternity. In the blink of an eye on an early April evening of 1945, the new and (outside of the precincts of Missouri and Washington, D.C. nearly anonymous) Vice President Truman was now President Truman. And as night follows day, the Roosevelt crowd was not thrilled with Mr. Truman, nor he with them. Which made plenty of room in the White House for someone from Missouri who really liked Harry Truman. And that was definitely Clark Clifford.

The two shared various adventures together — notably the 1948 upset over sure-thing Republican Establishment nominee Thomas E. Dewey. But eventually Harry Truman retired and Clark Clifford was on his own. Which meant that with one brief excursion back into government as LBJ’s last Secretary of Defense, Clark Clifford was hard at work doing exactly what JFK had hinted at in that famous quote: lobbying. Becoming what one might call “influential” in town.

Or, as The Washington Post once wrote:

Men who had legal problems with political dimensions, or political problems with legal dimensions, all called Clark Clifford, who was a master at tweezing one from the other — and then defusing both.

But there is an all-too-obvious point often missed in descriptions of Clark Clifford — a point that stands out glaringly in this New York Times article about the “GOP Elite” in Washington.

Clark Clifford was in his time a then-modern Franklin D. Roosevelt-Harry Truman-JFK-LBJ Democrat. Which is to say, Clifford was a believer in Big Government. So when it came time to part company with Harry Truman, what was Clifford lobbying?

That’s right.

Page: 1 2 3 > Last ›

About the Author

Jeffrey Lord is a former Reagan White House political director and author. He writes from Pennsylvania at jlpa1@aol.com.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (132) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Erling| 10.18.11 @ 6:48AM

Et tu, Speaker Newt? Well, it's clear that our nominee must be a non-Washington Jabba the Hut, or the story of the Decline and Fall of the USA will continue at breakneck speed.

Timothy L. Pennell| 10.18.11 @ 10:11AM

`Apparently, being one of the Republican Elite, means never having to say: "I HAD NO IDEA, last Election".
Indeed.
How many of the Bill Krystals, had Obama's name, checked off on their Racing Form? How many Britt Humes were CONVINCED, that the Democrat Primaries were merely a Formality? An Appetizer, before the Hillary Clinton Main Course? In the early going, they were probably marveling at Cleanliness, and his lack of any Negro Dialect, like Joe Biden, was.
They were probably thinking that, a few years ago, that boy would be getting us coffee, like Bill Clinton was. I guarantee that: President Barack Hussein Obama, never entered their minds.
But, now, all of a sudden, we're all supposed to defer to their Expertise?
I don't think so.
Herman Cain = LANDSLIDE. Simple as that. This is NO TIME for another McCain. NO TIME for a "Hold Your Nose" Vote.
We want a solid Conservative, who's actually had a REAL job. Someone who knows what it's like, to be us. Someone who's never been given anything, in his life, except Love from his Family, Guidance from his God, and Faith in what the Founding Fathers risked their Lives, their Fortunes, and their Sacred Honour, to create for US. That's good enough for me.
He hasn't got any money? When he gets the nomination, we will send him what he needs.
Don't you worry your pretty little heads.

Jack in Wi.| 10.18.11 @ 5:03PM

6 pages of nonsense to attack Ron Paul He also puts in Newt Gingrich into the attack. Is that because Newt has picked up the Ron Paul isssue of auditing the Federal Reserve? Newt also made mincemeat of Herman Cain in the last debate about the Fed. I know all I need to know about Herman Cain when he got kind words from the old establishment hacks Henry Kissinger and John Bolton. I have seen a tape of Herman saying he doesn't even know what a neocon is. Well Herman to find out what a neocon is, just look in the mirror.

Herman Cain and Romney are the dynamic duo of the Republican elites. They both love the Federal Reserve, TARP and other bailouts for the rich, endless war for oil and Israel, and doing nothing about abortion except to quietly encourage it. Neither can name one Department they would end. Herman's Tax plan was laid out by an old pal of his at the Federal Reserve. A 9% sales tax on top of the income tax would crush the middle and lower classes. They are both a pair of big bankers in country that hates what the banks have done to us. They are Obama's ticket back to the White House.

Ron Paul is number one in the Iowa Power rankings right now. Has the most contributors by far. He has a huge on ground organization with many tens of thousands of committed young and old people. He is the only one who has put forth a detailed plan to return this country to fiscal and financial solvency. He is the best pro-life spokesman I have ever seen. He would honor the Constitution not the scum on wall Street It has been proved by PEW Research that there has been a determined effort by the elite media to surpress coverage of Ron Paul's success. He has won by far the most straw polls and has polled even or above Obama in several national polls the latest Harris at the end of September. It is Ron Paul or ruin.

irish19| 10.19.11 @ 12:54AM

Then why is he consistently stuck at 13% or less in the polls?

videos | 2.18.12 @ 9:47PM

Choose this day whom YOU will serve, and leave me out of your phony arguments.

Brian Richard Allen | 10.21.11 @ 1:47AM

Jack in WI - Guess you're ruined, then.

Get Ready For Armageddon!

Brian Richard Allen | 10.21.11 @ 1:43AM

Timothy L. Pennell - Well Said.

Thank you.

Hear! Hear!

sikiş | 12.20.11 @ 12:28AM

thanks guys:)

porn | 12.20.11 @ 12:28AM

okey lets go :)

loulou| 10.18.11 @ 12:26PM

Thank you, Mr Lord for the info about Newt. Not that he has a chance for the nomination.

These DC insider so-called Republicans should think about leaving the GOP. They can join the Democrat Party where they'd be happier or they can start a third party. Just go.

Margie| 10.18.11 @ 6:41PM

Your words to God's Ear, loulou.

NO MORE MONEY TO THE RNC!!
Send it to individual candidates, instead. ALL you can!

Like Herman Cain, for example. :^).

Country Class Women for Herman Cain 2012!

irish19| 10.19.11 @ 12:56AM

Absolutely! The last time the RNC called asking for donations, I told them I would donate to them when they started backing conservatives. Until then, I would contribute directly to conservative candidates.

business | 2.18.12 @ 9:51PM

Not that he has a chance for the nomination.

Mike Hawk| 10.18.11 @ 6:48AM

A more apt term than Clark Clifford Republicans might now be McCain / Crist RINOs. John Feehery is not a RINO, he is a Statist hack.

DTOM| 10.18.11 @ 9:46AM

They were Rockefeller Republicans in the '60's. And "Country Club" Republicans after that. The Bushes were both of that persuasion, although the son tried to pretend he wasn't.

I'm glad that the NYT is so confused that they thought that publishing this piece would some how hurt the conservatives in the party. What it will do is clarify who is actually the problem here. And it is the Establishment Republicans every bit as much as the Democrats.

I hope to live long enough to hear a Tea Party President say, "I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me!"

Barack and his ASTROTURF 0.099%'ers could easily sink the Democrat party beyond recovery in 2012 ala 1968 leaving sane, stranded Democrats scrambling for a party above the water. The elite Republicans will welcome them in and become the 'new Republicans' (old, statist Democrats). The conservatives will leave as the Tea Party is their only safe haven.

Just a few days ago, Sarah Palin changed her affiliation from Republican to Conservative . Maybe she's looking at running in 2016 against the Republican incumbent; she'd be running as the "real" conservative.

And doesn't Speaker Boehner look comfy playing 18 holes with our little President? Losers, all.

ONLY AFTER THE 2012 election, say it loud and say it proud, "I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me!"

In the meantime, we must get the most conservative candidates elected and then, only then, push for stronger, louder Tea Party affiliations!

And they think the Tea Party is the ASTROTURF!

thoughtcriminal2| 10.20.11 @ 11:55PM

Actually, what TeaPartiers need to say to ruling-class Republicans is this: "I didn't leave the Republican Party, I made you parasites leave it (or else get with the program of saving this great nation)." It is local Republicans who choose their candidates in the primary elections. We don't need to give the ruling-class any more influence in this process than we want them to have. After all, this is not a parliamentary system where the party leaders draw up the party list. We won't even need half the seats in the Republican congressional caucus to control the agenda, as most of the other members will see the handwriting on the wall. Creating a third party only guarantees the reelection of the current Obamination of a president that we have.

porn | 12.20.11 @ 12:29AM

yes nice commet :)

bebek | 2.18.12 @ 9:53PM

I didn't leave the Republican Party, it left me!

Clint| 10.18.11 @ 7:08AM

Ronald Reagan,
"Ron Paul is one of the outstanding leaders fighting for a stronger national defense. As a former Air Force officer, he knows well the needs of our armed forces, and he always puts them first. We need to keep him fighting for our country."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 10.18.11 @ 8:03AM

Ron Paul = 5%.

Clint| 10.18.11 @ 8:08AM

DR. RON PAUL : “PLAN TO RESTORE AMERICA”

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Clint| 10.18.11 @ 8:35AM

"Ron Paul Takes Third in Latest Reuters/Ipsos Poll
Saturday, October 15, 2011:

Rep. Ron Paul continues his string of strong poll finishes with a third place finish in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll of likely Republican voters. The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted between October 6 and 10 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.8 percentage points. Ipsos Public Affairs surveyed 410 Republicans."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 10.18.11 @ 9:31AM

Ron Paul LOSES to Obama in latest poll.

Herman Cain BEATS Obama in latest poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....l_matchups

Doctor Right| 10.18.11 @ 9:32AM

Only in the world of the Paul-Bots does 3rd-place mean "Victory!"

...Is it a brain damage?

thoughtcriminal2| 10.21.11 @ 12:08AM

Ron Paul is welcome to continue adding his thoughts to the debate as far as I am concerned. Most of them are good and well-stated. While I agree with the general idea that the US has gotten itself over-committed and spread too thin in too many foreign entanglements, I do not understand why Dr. Paul takes his foreign policy to such a wacky, blame-America-first extreme. He clearly does not understand how the US cannot isolate ourselves from nut jobs with atom bombs, nor does he seem to understand the nature of Islam. I do truly appreciate his outspokenness on the Federal Reserve and the bloated federal government among other issues. I do not believe that he has any chance of being elected president.

Doctor Right| 10.18.11 @ 9:34AM

Ron Paul = 5%

Ron Paul LOSES to Obama in latest poll.

Herman Cain BEATS Obama in latest poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....l_matchups

Mac Jehoff| 10.18.11 @ 11:39AM

In the upcoming Piney Hollow Republican straw poll, I will cast a vote for Ron Paul. The outcome should raise Paul's numbers to 5.000000001 % and Clint will have something to brag about.

Roy N.| 10.18.11 @ 3:37PM

If Ron Paul is so intent on reducing the size of government why didn't he call for total elimination of the EPA rather than a 30% budget cut in his "Trillion Dollar Cut" plan? How many other departments/agencies does he want to be shut down?

Dick Nome| 10.18.11 @ 8:08AM

Ron Paul is a neo-isolationist throwback with a following that is a coterie of kooks and crackpots.

Clint| 10.18.11 @ 8:11AM

Do Your Homework.

" Nonintervention or non-interventionism is a foreign policy which holds that political rulers should avoid alliances with other nations, but still retain diplomacy, and avoid all wars not related to direct self-defense. This is based on the grounds that a state should not interfere in the internal politics of another state, based upon the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination. A similar phrase is "strategic independence". Historical examples of supporters of non-interventionism are US Presidents George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who both favored nonintervention in European Wars while maintaining free trade. Other proponents include United States Senator Robert Taft and United States Congressman Ron Paul.

Nonintervention is distinct from isolationism, the latter featuring economic nationalism (protectionism) and restrictive immigration. Proponents of non-interventionism distinguish their polices from isolationism through their advocacy of more open national relations, to include diplomacy and free trade."

The Tea Party Rebellion Is Here.

Doctor Right| 10.18.11 @ 9:33AM

Ron Paul = 5%

Ron Paul LOSES to Obama in latest poll.

Herman Cain BEATS Obama in latest poll.

http://www.rasmussenreports.co.....l_matchups

Mike Hawk| 10.18.11 @ 2:25PM

Like the man said, the Paulists are neo-isolationists.

Dick Nome| 10.18.11 @ 2:43PM

I had no idea Ron Paul was of the same caliber as Washington and Jefferson. What a guy. I wonder if he knew them.

doriangrey | 10.18.11 @ 3:47PM

What part of, Nobody in the TEA Party want's anything to do with Ron Paul and his crazy followers aren't you getting. You guys show up and we run you off, you show up again, and we run you off again, you show up and we run you off. It's a sad pathetic cycle from which you seem incapable of learning.

Wake up... Ronulians are not welcome in the TEA Party.

thoughtcriminal2| 10.21.11 @ 12:19AM

I agree with non-intervention in principle. But in a world where psychopaths have or soon will have atom bombs with intercontinental ballistic missiles to deliver them and jihadists are intent on projecting their insanity and calamity anywhere and everywhere that allah does not yet reign, sober judgment often will require a bit more pro-activity than that principle connotes.

loulou| 10.18.11 @ 12:27PM

Clint, you're taking up valuable space.
Get outta here.

Brian Richard Allen | 10.21.11 @ 1:57AM

loulou - An octogenarian "president" Paul would surely need one Good Man to carry the Football.

But would likely also need another Dependable Bloke to bring his diapers.

Dai Alanye | 10.18.11 @ 1:11PM

The most important question for Ron Paul, one I always hope someone will ask, is: What would you do, DOCTOR Paul, if an aggressive foreign power were to bomb Pearl Harbor?"

That's the problem - we just can't be sure whether good old Ron wouldn't choose to apologise for irritating the enemy. Perhaps he'd even want to pay reparations for our shooting down some of their planes during the attack.

Regardless of Paul's other virtues - and I'm sure there are many - he absolutely cannot be trusted on foreign and military policy, and we can't afford to vote for him.

Noname| 10.18.11 @ 11:47PM

All of this neoisolationism leaves me wondering: say we leave the rest of the world and bring our boys home (would love to do it, as I hate to see any of our service personnel wounded/killed). Are they going to be okay when WWIII erupts because Iran decides to lob a nuclear weapon at Israel? At what point would they want to "get in the game?" I'm not interested in being the world's Police Force, but burying our heads in the sand won't make the bad guys go away.

TrueBlue| 10.18.11 @ 1:23PM

For the fifth time, that quote was made BEFORE Ron Paul turned his back on Reagan and left for the Libertarian party, saying that Reagan and his policies had failed. You keep bringing out that quote and ignoring the reality because it doesn't fit the story you're trying to push on everyone.

Margie| 10.18.11 @ 6:42PM

Ye olde 1976 quote again.
LOL!

Melvin| 10.18.11 @ 7:27AM

Republican Establishment be damned, It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for Mitt Romney, at least with Barrack Obama, the enemy is to my front, I don't need Mitt Romney and the Establishment Republicans sticking a shiv in me from behind.

loulou| 10.18.11 @ 12:27PM

Precisely.

TrueBlue| 10.18.11 @ 1:24PM

What's the difference between a politician and a thief? The thief picks your pocket from behind.

Vote for the man who hasn't held political office and has actually worked a real job like the rest of us. Herman Cain 2012.

POST American| 10.18.11 @ 7:30AM

-----C.C. looking uncannily like high
profile capstone EUGENIST and Rock--F-L--O/
ROT-child UN founder --Julian Huxley.

--------Secret breeding?

---------------------YOU DECIDE------------------------

Tim the Enchanter| 10.18.11 @ 11:03AM

Huh?

Conserdude| 10.18.11 @ 7:47AM

Much as I admire Jeff Lord, I don't normally read his stuff because it's so long, but this piece is a keeper and it's why so little ever changes for the better. Expect more of the same under a President Romney. Oh, btw, this is yet another reason among many that Newt "Freddie" Gingrich is not only a flawed human, but a hypocritically-skilled debater.

DTOM| 10.18.11 @ 9:47AM

And he sits on couches with Nancy Pelosi in front of TV cameras...

InLineFour| 10.18.11 @ 12:11PM

Ditto, 'Dude. Whenever I open an interestingly-titled piece by Mr. Lord, he has conditioned me to first scroll to the bottom to see the number of pages. I usally skip it because I won't have time to read so many pages while taking a lunch break at my desk. Glad I read this one. I've probably missed other good ones, simply because they were so very long.

hardcard| 10.18.11 @ 8:15AM

Thanks Mr. Lord, there is a better explanation for these cc republicans, corruption. Term limits please no more career politicians, all elected or appointed officials upon leaving office must be banned from lobbying or advising the government.

LiveFreeOrDie| 10.18.11 @ 1:20PM

I don't see any reason for lobbyists or campaign financing, period. In this age of mass media why not give every candidate a web page on whitehouse.gov and be done with it? Everyone can read and understand what the candidate stands for. Contrast that idea with watching 30-second attack ad's that are mostly spin if not outright lies and rarely have meaningful content. Add in stricter term limits and maybe elected officials would do their freaking jobs instead of constantly campaigning and entertaining lobbyists. Lifetime politicians are not what the founders intended.

TrueBlue| 10.18.11 @ 1:26PM

This site is your friend for looking at a politician's voting record. Also gives you their length of time in office, and what their previous profession was.

http://www.votesmart.org/index.htm

LiveFreeOrDie| 10.18.11 @ 1:48PM

Thank you for the link; added a new bookmark. I think most people agree the political process is broken. The scum have finessed their way around the founders intentions. With congress garnering around 17% approval ratings it seems fundamental change is needed. I believe this is one reason why Obama was elected. Lots of people bought into Obama's message of "change" even though it turned out not to be the kind of "change" they wanted.

Deborah D | 10.18.11 @ 8:59AM

Mr. Lord, thank you. You've finally helped me understand what is wrong with the Republican Party. The "insiders" are a bunch of people more protective of their own backsides than they are of the country. We are sick to death of these people -- we CANNOT AFFORD THEM any longer. Someone needs to get ahold of these people living in the past and wake them up before we all fall off the cliff. WAKE UP, REPUBLICANS! We can't afford business as usual. I'm thinking treason...perhaps that's harsh or maybe it will be civil war. Neither is necessary if Republicans stop the nonsense and get serious.

Al Adab| 10.18.11 @ 11:21AM

DD:
As you note the establishment republicans believe in big government but only when they are in control It is the failure of the GOP to maintain our liberties which has brought the nation to this pass. Here we have an historic opportunity to reaffirm constitutional government yet eh establishment, accomodationist GOP is pushing a candidate whose entire career has been in opposition to the Conservative Movement, as was his father before him. Why do we turn to them now? What really is the point of nominating someone to the left of McCain? The policy changes we need are not to be found in better managememt of Leviathan but in reducing the footprint of government across every aspect of our national life.

Deborah D | 10.18.11 @ 11:55AM

It truly helps me understand their long knives out for Herman Cain. He might upset their applecart, and they can't have that. Yesterday, Rush said he was depressed -- and I think this is why. We're going to lose our country, Al, and these people are fiddling along with Obama while the country burns. I keep praying...

Al Adab| 10.18.11 @ 3:30PM

Deborah, "the prayers of the righteous availeth much." Keep it up...and your posts as well.

Margie| 10.18.11 @ 6:44PM

New Name for the Republican Establishment bums: The Rip Van Winkles.

Deborah D | 10.19.11 @ 5:01AM

So true, Margie, so true.

Brian Richard Allen | 10.21.11 @ 2:17AM

Margie ข

.... New Name for the Republican Establishment bums: The Rip Van Winkles ....

And their new name for our beloved fraternal republic: Rip Van America?

John Navratil| 10.18.11 @ 9:01AM

Excellent column, Mr. Lord.

The lobbyist is Constitutionally protected simply because he isn't elected. He takes cash for access. If a politician did this he would be impeached, at least. Here we have a second layer which acts as a gatekeeper which, perversely, denies the hoi polloi those First Amendment rights. Oh sure, If you are a bundler or a past business partner you will have a telephone number in your Rolodex, but I cannot even get a response to a letter to my Congressman.

That is the problem with the "lobbyists". They have become the mandarin court. The Tea Party has realized that no one can be represented by someone with whom they cannot communicate. It's long past time to throw the rascals out. If Mr. Freehey thinks the RINO appelation doesn't apply, perhaps OGRE (Old Guard REpublican) is more appropriate.

ConantheContrarian| 10.18.11 @ 9:03AM

DAMN! This was a good article. It makes me want to hang some elites from light poles and to behead bureaucrats, figuratively speaking of course. Not all our enemies are foreigners. And it makes me want to shout, "Wolverines," to borrow from the movie. It should be our new symbol of freedom. A Tea Party Wolverine.

Melvin| 10.18.11 @ 11:00AM

Something akin maybe................to what happened to Mussolini?

DTOM| 10.18.11 @ 12:32PM

Which was nothing until our GI's (yea, and some tommies, too) got there and gave the locals their chance to tell ol' Benito that they liked their trains late and not his girl friend so much.

They didn't do it themselves. Are your weapons clean? Locked? Loaded? The Second Amendment says they should be...

Redstateboy| 10.18.11 @ 9:18AM

God forgive me.. but I have thought this thought more than once and it seems that, unless it were to happen, our blessed nation is doomed - A nuke taking out Wash. D.C. - millions dead, the storeshouses of our history and knowledge obliterated but the nation would survive. Is there any other way?

flyboy86| 10.18.11 @ 1:16PM

Too extreme to hope for but I must admit that it's beginning to look like nothing short of it will accomplish the objective. We have become a nation of sheep and sadly I fear that is an unfair comparison - what I have witnessed lately makes me think many of our citizens could only hope to be that smart.

PattyMor| 10.18.11 @ 9:28AM

Everyone should read "Reckless Endangerment". Its a good read and a primer on how lobbying works to stalemate and checkmate reforms. Sprinkle enough money around to BOTH parties and you will have your protectors.

So we either down size govement back to its Constitutional Limits or we do nothing a wait for the crash, then watch all Hell break loose.

Christopher Manion| 10.18.11 @ 9:52AM

In his zealous opposition research on Ron Paul, Mr. Lord has apparently been learning something: the Beltway trough is bipartsan. The only way you can unplug it is from the outside. And when you do (and only Ron Paul has said he will), **both** party establishments will be screaming bloody murder.

Mr. Lord might not be among them, however, if he resists the plunder of Plato's Beltway Cave and strives toward the light of liberty.

Keep it up, Mr. Lord! Soon we might find you supporting Dr. Paul's elimination of five cabinet departments, taxes galore, and the TSA.

And soon thereafter, supporting Ron Paul! Don't be daunted -- the flame of liberty never dies, for it lives on in the hearts of free men even under tyrants. This article indicates that you are figuring out that tyranny comes as easily with an (R) as a (D) after its vile name.

Redstateboy| 10.18.11 @ 9:56AM

we've got a congressmen here in E. Tennessee named John (Jimmy) Duncan... Nice guy.. but 20 years as our Congressmen?!!??? and now he's grooming his Son!! to take his place!!!!! and Duncan's never risen to anything other than mid-level in the leadership.. Then we got Lamar Alexander OMG! and we wants to be reelected. He had - get this - Susan Collins of Maine - down for a Fund Raiser!!! That leaves us with Bob Corker - our other US Senator - he's the best of the mediocre. We've Got to do better than this in Tennessee.

Melvin| 10.18.11 @ 11:05AM

Well it is painfully obvious the the Establishment Republicans are holding down, Conservative candidates.
Typical Establishment Republican byline, "If ya tow the line, we'll grease the skids."
Any candidate that thinks any different are left to wither and die, because the Establishment Republicans control the machine.
Maybe we need to fight and crush the Establishment Republicans before we fight the Communist Democrats? That is the only way we'll get candidates that truly represent the people.

axbucxdu| 10.19.11 @ 12:58PM

"...Maybe we need to fight and crush the Establishment Republicans before we fight the Communist Democrats? That is the only way we'll get candidates that truly represent the people."

There's no maybe about that. If not, then conservatives need a new party.

Jon| 10.19.11 @ 12:48AM

and Jimmy Duncan followed HIS dad, John Duncan, who held the same seat for 20+ years until his death in 1988.

Jon| 10.19.11 @ 12:48AM

and Jimmy Duncan followed HIS dad, John Duncan, who held the same seat for 20+ years until his death in 1988.

DTOM| 10.18.11 @ 9:56AM

Go back and look at the Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - he warned about this 230 years ago.

There's nothing new under the sun..they just keep rearranging the Titanic's deck chairs around the iceberg pieces...

doriangrey | 10.18.11 @ 10:43AM

Ron Paul and his crack-pot followers are NOT part of the TEA Party. You have to be an imbecile to think that they are.

dadfly| 10.18.11 @ 12:15PM

but from the earliest days (after the galvanizing rant of r. santelli), i've seen paul supporters claiming that paul *started* the tea party. clearly, they along with the republican collective, desparately wanted to coopt our movement of self-selected individuals.

predictably they have failed as we are not a collective or hive mind, amenable to cults of personality or parties. we are individuals in the mold of our Founders.

Margie| 10.18.11 @ 6:54PM

Great post.

Dan| 10.18.11 @ 11:12AM

I'm surprised that JL wrote a piece about Clifford without mentioning his role in our defeat in Vietnam.

When he was appointed Sec Def during the 'Nam war, he ALREADY concluded we were going to lose, and went about making sure that happened.

He was as much a villain in that piece as the man he replaced, or Westmoreland for that matter.

He was an absolute disaster as Sec Def.

rick geiger | 10.18.11 @ 11:14AM

This can be part of the answer, but looks like everyone is avoiding it. www.congressgohome.com

Simon Templar| 10.18.11 @ 11:33AM

Mr. Lord,

Thank you for another brilliant article. You must be commended for your insight, honesty, and boldness. I just wish there were more like you in your profession.

dadfly| 10.18.11 @ 11:53AM

thank you. all of this is easily inferrable for the rationally minded (i.e., conservatives, tea partyers), but maybe having concrete faces, names and actions put to the corruption and immorality will wake up a few more, party firsters.

Citizen Jerry| 10.18.11 @ 12:08PM

Jeffrey nailed it with this one – although he takes far too many words to get to the point.
Make no mistake about it – the Clark Clifford Republicans loathe Reagan conservatives just as much as the Democrats loathe us. To them, we’re ignorant, flyover-country hayseeds. We’re too religious. Too patriotic. Too NASCAR. Too … red state.
Call them RINOs if you will, but they’re neo-statists who see big government as a means for them to build wealth and power. They’re Democrat Light to the real Democrats. And their arrogance is mind-numbing.
Now the RINO establishment is trying to shut down and nail down the primary process by moving up primary dates. They want to make sure no other candidate has a chance to get any traction and our only choice will be … Willard Romney.
The sad thing is, we might fall for it again.

Who Knows?| 10.18.11 @ 12:15PM

Another truthful “whistling in the dark” takedown by Jeff Lord---thanks!

Here are two words that piquantly pop any illusions, which Infinitely rival what a wild-eyed congressman used to say when confronted by his own contradictions or corruption---

ALWAYS ALREADY trumps “So what?”

What Mr. Lord writes about has always already been true, and will always already be true.

Look---we live in a gross world, as gross beings, and each individual human, absolutely including you and me, is an INDIVIDUAL, who is ALWAYS ALREADY looking out for number ONE: himself as Narcissus.

Narcissism is defined as sanity---way to go, Vin Weber!

There’s a sucker born every minute---and time ever flows!

Never give an even break to a sucker—don’t be a fool!

Act, but don’t be attached to the results of the action.

Remember, politicians are just ugly actors. BUT!!!

The most successful ones are way more accomplished than any actor, who is essentially an empty suit, pretending to be a character created by WRITERS---just mouthing words, without needing to be much more than a verbal monkey.

However, a Newt Gingrich, et al---put yourselves in his shoes.

Back in the early 50’s, a lot of TV was done LIVE. Much harder than nowadays.

Well, Newt et al are ALWAYS ALREADY on stage, and it’s 24/7 LIVE!

Maybe we should just marvel at them, even admire them, and live our own putative American ideals by acting as the rugged individualist so beloved in pioneer tales. That is---yes, D.C. is filled with rotten Narcissists, but have you even been there?

Render up to Caesar etc.

Besides---what is a human being all about?

“The Atman Project”, by Ken Wilber, from 1980, just fell into my bubble of being, freely---serendipity?

He demonstrates that evolution is ALWAYS ALREADY going on, and that we are born to continue to evolve into higher and higher stages of human growth, which requires TRANSCENDENCE of every level we’ve currently achieved.

Bottom line—have a good and Godly laugh regarding what Mr. Lord writes about, as well as all the tomfoolery going on by politicians, and rise above it all, because YOUR future life (and lives) depend on transcendental evolution, NOT being stuck in a dimension arguing about Ron Paul!

Hey---Ron Paul: now HE’S funny!

cicero| 10.18.11 @ 12:34PM

This is going to take some time. The Tea Party is just the start of the movement to bring conservatives to government positions. While it would be nice to have it all happen at once, in this election cycle, that is hardly realistic. No matter whom the GOP nominates, you have to vote for him/her, as we cannot afford 4 more years of the disaster we presently have. The real fight is going to be in the primaries at all levels, over the next several cycles.
The Progressives have been very patient - it has taken them over 100 years tp strangle the Republic. It will take time to revive America.

irish19| 10.19.11 @ 1:10AM

"This is going to take some time."
Truer words were never keyboarded. It took 80 years to get here. It's going to take a lot of time to get back. 2010 was but the first step. 2012 will hopefully be another step. And so on and so on and so on........

Westie| 10.19.11 @ 1:41PM

Ever wonder how it seems to be so easy to co-opt most of the "Conservatives" we send to DC.
I think we need a new class of Conservatives, not the crappy Weakley Stand/National Review pansey "Big Gov ", Mitt, Bush types.

Petronius| 10.18.11 @ 12:34PM

At a republican luncheon I was asked by another guest what motivated me to become involved in politics. I responded that I was alarmed by blatant disregard for the Constitution by both parties and the loss of personal liberty as a result, that I was resolved to confront office holders who violate their oaths. A sitting state senator at table scowled at me and said, "There aren't enough people like you to elect anybody to anything." She meant I was supposed to shut up and pay up and be grateful for the little I was allowed to have in life on her sufferance. A pox on both their houses. It's tar and feather time for this lot of double dealing free booters and thieves. The sad fact is, they cannot be defeated politically. And there are not enough Teaparty members who want Freedom to displace the legions of parasites now composing the largest constituency in this country. As if any of them care: they've got theirs. In the past we lent them a hand. And all we got back was the finger.

section9| 10.18.11 @ 12:41PM

If you want to know why the Establishment, including Roger Ailes at FNC, put the shiv into Sarah Palin's back over the last nine months, now you know.

Palin has chosen to step back and play the long game. Her enemies in the GOP are far more deadly than Obama ever was.

We need a Stalin Purge.

W| 10.18.11 @ 12:50PM

Mr. Lord,
Give us names of the members of the Republican establishment.

DTOM| 10.18.11 @ 3:59PM

Actually, any Republican "reaching across the aisle" fills that bill. Not because co-operating with the opposition is evil, but because this opposition operates on the theory that any interest in negotiation is taken as a sign of hopelessly evanescent principles to be met with complete refutation of any compromise or yielding of even the smallest point.

Ask yourself, how much did the federal government cut as a result of those hard fought battles over the debt ceiling with those ferocious Republican "Budget Cutters." They cut exactly not one single solitary red ¢. The deficit went up, faster.

You cannot negotiate with proven liars.

Too harsh? Tell me one single truth Obama has ever uttered, other than his accidental "We need to spread the wealth around." Same question for Pelosi, Reid, Durbin.

The Republicans cave and cave and cave. Where would we be without Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin calling out the Republicans to not cave 100 times a day?

Oh, the horror!

"John Boehner" has a nice ring to it.
Newt Gingrich is another.
Mitt Romney, John McCain, Orrin Hatch, name any Republican in office for more than two or three Senate terms, or four or five House terms.

Colin Powell and most of the Bush Cabinets are prime candidates for the Republican establishment.

RJ| 10.18.11 @ 1:02PM

I accept Mr. Feehery's word that the GOP is not my party. I learned this lesson during George W. Bush's presidency. The GOP establishment will allow me to make financial contributions (often their solicitation letters have "deadlines" as it is a bill), but they will do the thinking. No more guys. You are as much a part of the problem as the Democrats. You are not leaders because you no longer have followers. Those of us who are committed to honest, limited government will select our own leaders. You have repeatedly failed the test.

Peppermint Tea| 10.18.11 @ 1:31PM

Why does it bother us? I have heard Democrats say, "That just the way the game is played." Yet we think there should be some overall justice with regard to laws, representation, and keeping our own private property. We are citizens, not subjects, and for some reason we have the yearning for liberty, and true fairness, not the fake fairness of outcome of the progressives. We have internalized the intent of the Constitution for the life, liberty, and property of each.

The Big E| 10.18.11 @ 2:03PM

I think the acid test for Republicans is coming soon. Sarah Palin changing her registration may be a sign of things to come. I fear the formation of any "third party" prior to the election of 2012 because I see that as Barack Obama's best hope for re-election, but I also believe that the inevitable outcome of 2012 will be the break-up of the GOP. If Romney wins the nomination, especially if he wins it (or is perceived to have won it) through political maneuvering, then conservatives will have little choice but to split off. If Cain or some other conservative wins the nomination, then I simply cannot see the "Clark Clifford Republicans" agreeing to share the tent with people whom they view as intellectually inferior inbreds, though I think they are more likely to officially join the party they already tacitly support (i.e. the Democrats) then they are to start a third one.

Either way, one conclusion seems clear: the two political parties, as they are currently constituted, no longer represent the political breakdown of the population. Or put another way, there is no political home in the current political party structure for conservatives. Inevitably, that will change. It's just a matter of when.

Anthony| 10.18.11 @ 2:30PM

You are on to something Big E. Sarah Palin's change in registration is the shot across the bow. She's in a win/win situation.
Four more years of Obozo and Washington will be reduced to burnt out Detroit. Pitchforks will be the next shovel ready industry of America.
A less than a movement conservative to replace Obozo will only set the rest of us off, and of course, the Left will be so unhinged, the '60s riots will look like a church picnic.
Then Gov. Palin will ride into Town to pick up the pieces. Hope and Change Conservative style.

John Navratil| 10.18.11 @ 2:44PM

The Big E, Anthony,

What change in registration? A couple of years ago she was misrepresented as having been a member of the Alaska Independence Party, but that was a mistake. Have I missed something?

Anthony| 10.18.11 @ 3:14PM

Sarah has purportedly re-registered as a Conservative as opposed to an R.

John Navratil| 10.18.11 @ 3:39PM

Anthony,

It seems there is no Conservative Party, but rather that she has changed her Facebook profile to Conservative from Republican. That's all I could find.

DTOM| 10.18.11 @ 3:43PM

Sarah Palin revised her Facebook page eliminating an earlier reference to herself as "Republican" and replacing it with "Conservative."

I wholly concur with the concept that she might be positioning for 2016 if things go ill next fall.

Margie| 10.18.11 @ 6:58PM

Some states have conservative parties, some do not.
I know that in NJ they didn't.

Anthony| 10.18.11 @ 2:09PM

The D.C. establishment thrives on a $14.5 T budget and a bureaucracy that would boggle the mind of Rube Goldberg. How else does this city of political whores continue to grow, thrive, and maintain their cushy existence?
Of course we are the enemy. Any threat to the status quo is untenable, and folks like Mr. Feehery are correct when they say the R party is not our party, because the R party maintains the status quo.
We not only are in a war with Ds who are Marxists, but with the stupid party as well, that has made its deal with the devil for a piece of the action.

martin j smith| 10.18.11 @ 2:42PM

Is the Republican Brand viable ( that is to say the Elite Establishment variety ) to be an opponent of the Socialists? I have serious doubts. It may come to apss that there will be a third Party if in one way or another the Mainline Republicans lose the Presidency.

Owen K.| 10.18.11 @ 2:55PM

Great article. I appreciate reading about the group that I refer to as "Country Club Republicans." No matter how we describe them, this article makes it crystal clear as to why they are who they are and how big Government is in their own self-interest. And yes, we are dead serious in eliminating entire Government Departments.

Poppa Charlie| 10.18.11 @ 5:05PM

Mr. Lord,

Nice article, but you could have summed it up in one word: c o r r u p t i o n. We have utterly lost our way. Way back when I spent four years in Vietnam I believed in America. No more. Godspeed and Good Luck to those who would restore our nation.

Margie| 10.18.11 @ 6:59PM

"Let each citizen remember at the moment he is offering his vote that he is not making a present or a compliment to please an individual - or at least that he ought not so to do; but that he is executing one of the most solemn trusts in human society for which he is accountable to God and his country."
- Samuel Adams, Essay in the Boston Gazette, April 16, 1781

Bob K.| 10.18.11 @ 8:41PM

Vin Webers comment that the Tea Party has to "rise to the level of politics" reminds me of Bret Maverick quoting his "Grand Pappy:" "Never be afraid to rise above principle!" And that's the advise our Republican leadership has been taking for the most part!

By the way Mr Lord: Try to write less in the future. 6 pages!! Are you getting paid by the word?

POST American| 10.18.11 @ 10:36PM

----------------BOTTOMLESS LINE--------------------

--ALEX JONES'S latest, on scene coverage of the
ever deteriorating state of our southern borders is superb.

And Clark Clifford really does look like
a clone of capstone EUGENIST, Globalist
and founding member of the
ROT-child/Rock--F--L--O 'United Nations'.

------------------HE REALLY DOES---------------------

Margie| 10.18.11 @ 11:54PM

Do you also post as "Dan"? With all the ------------'s.
Paul-bots: The OTHER Wall Street Occupiers!

JohnB| 10.19.11 @ 4:56AM

You quote the New York Times Magazine ... 'The GOP Elite Tries to Take It's Party Back'. Does the NYT really not know that there is no apostrophe in 'its'? Unless they meant 'it is' of course.

DTOM| 10.20.11 @ 2:25AM

Sad, isn't it...they think they're smarter than the rest of us, too.

hoads| 10.19.11 @ 9:31AM

Just as we live in a perpetual state of aging and decline, so does our manmade governments, institutions and indeed, the whole world.

sikiş | 10.19.11 @ 7:32PM

tu tibi retro wow, I I I

POST American| 10.19.11 @ 11:08PM

---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------

-One and ALL, anyone and everyone
interested in getting to the truth of the
unfolding power grab and police state
consolidation by the criminal Globalist
RED China sellout, TREASON and
EUGENICS elite -----MUST CHECK OUT

------ALAN WATT's daily coverage online-----

He'll sober you up from your 4 decades
of Rockefeller-ROT-child 'programming'.

And remember, GOD himself hates
'bennie violence' and wreck-dom worship.

Jacobite| 10.20.11 @ 2:45PM

My dad was a teacher and worked construction in the summers. Once, in the early 50s, he was working on a pipeline out in the center of Missouri somewhere, and the union was trying to get temps to pay union dues or some other payments (dobie dues? I can't remember that far back) that weren't required. Some guys started raising hell. Things were up in the air until "the fixer" showed up and laid down the law that anybody making objections would be fired, or worse. That man was Clark Clifford, and my dad never forgot or forgave. This was tough, considering Clifford's prominence from the 60s through the 90s(?). Somehow, I don't see Tom Dewey doing this.

Earle Belle| 10.20.11 @ 5:08PM

Paul v Romney – Donations Show Stark Difference
Paul raised most from active military, Romney tapped big banks

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – A recent independent analysis of candidates’ campaign contributions reveals an interesting disparity between the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign and frontrunner Mitt Romney’s campaign. Romney’s top supporters appear to be made up of big banks while, unsurprisingly, Paul’s top contributors were men and women serving in the U.S. Armed Forces.

“This fundraising analysis confirms Americans’ beliefs about Ron Paul and their suspicions about Mitt Romney. It is that Dr. Paul is extraordinarily popular and accepted by the everyman and by everyday heroes, while Romney relies almost exclusively on his big-business ties,” said Ron Paul 2012 National Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

According to the analysis, the top three organizations that employ Romney’s supporters are Goldman Sachs, Credit Suisse Group, and Morgan Stanley. Reflecting his popularity with the everyman and our uniformed service men and women, the top three organizations that employ Dr. Paul’s supporters are the U.S. Air Force, the U.S. Army, and the U.S. Navy.

The study notes that the organizations themselves did not contribute. Rather, “the money came from the organization’s PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals’ immediate families.” The analysis suggests, then, that the use of PACs, bundling, subsidiaries and the like was not a feature of Dr. Paul’s grassroots fundraising.
Ron Paul Campaign Tops Others in Q3 Active-Military Donations
Outraises all other Republican candidates combined, outraises Obama

LAKE JACKSON, Texas – The Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign raised more campaign donations from active military than all other presidential candidates—Republican or Democrat—including having raised more funds from this segment than all other GOP competitors combined, and more than incumbent President Barack Obama.

Dr. Paul, an Air Force veteran, raised more than $75,000 from active military in the third quarter. This comes after Dr. Paul out-raised all GOP candidates – including all GOPers combined, and President Obama singularly – in the second quarter of this year. Dr. Paul also outraised his GOP competitors in a head-to-head comparison during his 2008 run for the presidency.

This determination was arrived at using an independent campaign analysis of FEC filing data focusing on contributors who listed their occupation and employer when contributing.

“Ron Paul is the only candidate with a plan to end the growing number of unconstitutional undeclared wars, having an unclear connection to U.S. national security, end costly overseas nation-building that pays no friendship dividends, and stop subsidizing global security. Instead Dr. Paul will bring our troops home, secure our borders and lead the nation in practicing a traditional Republican noninterventionist foreign policy,” said Ron Paul 2012 Campaign Chairman Jesse Benton.

“Let me also submit that Dr. Paul out-raising all candidates in military donations demonstrates that his ‘Plan to Restore America’ might sit well among voters who are active-military or veterans,” continued Mr. Benton.

To view the Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign’s latest veterans-themed ad, click here. To view its latest foreign policy-themed ad, click here.
Ron Paul’s Free Market Fix for Healthcare

Ron Paul on how we can substantively fix our healthcare problems:

Obama is just adding on more government…

Our problem is that we have too much government management of our healthcare…

If you want better competition and healthcare you should allow the American people to opt out of government healthcare…

When a government gets involved in an industry prices go up…

We need more competition in healthcare…

Let people have control over their own money…
Standing Above the Fray

Once again, it’s worth pointing out that all of these candidates are viciously attacking one other over each of their lackluster, big government records.

They all have them. Except one.

And that candidate continues to stand above the fray because there is nothing to attack.

http://www.revolutionpac.com/2.....er-snipes/

Amos Horton| 10.21.11 @ 12:14AM

Outstanding!

POST American| 10.21.11 @ 12:31AM

-----Huxley eyes
----------and EUGENIST lies.

----------HUAC meets NUREMBERG 2012----------

Bob C| 10.24.11 @ 9:19AM

Spending. That's the mantra of the elite, and even some conservatives who have good intentions. But it's the wrong mantra. 'We have to reduce government spending!' we're told. Well, yeah, we do. But reducing government spending won't do a thing to reduce government. We have to reduce what government DOES; do that, and the spending reductions will follow. Lobbyists, Clark Clifford Republicans included, lobby government not for what government spends, but what government can DO for them...and, of course, government does things by spending money, by choosing winners and losers, by picking favorites upon which to shower it's largess, whether that favorite's cause is "liberal" or "conservative". Someone, somewhere, has to change the debate, has to stop the calling for reductions in spending and start the call for reductions in doing.

dual saw | 11.25.11 @ 2:57AM

I enjoy reading your blogs and I am regular visitor to this site. Thanks.

sikiş | 2.18.12 @ 9:43PM

Once, in the early 50s, he was working on a pipeline out in the center of Missouri somewhere, and the union was trying to get temps to pay union dues or some other payments that weren't required. Some guys started raising hell.

sikiş | 2.25.12 @ 9:30AM

thanks very beautifull

porneng | 2.25.12 @ 9:31AM

thanks this posting.

sexporns | 2.25.12 @ 9:32AM

thank you ı liked