Andrew McCarthy Proposes a Party Other Than the GOP

(Updated and bumped)

Andrew McCarthy is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks. He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. He is currently a columnist for National Review.

Having said that, Andrew McCarthy is a pretty smart guy. Tonight, he appeared on the Mark Levin Show. His comments were remarkable in that it’s the first time that I’ve heard a prominent, conservative writer suggest that the GOP may need to be abandoned for another party. He made his comments in conjunction with John McCain’s recent denunciation of Michelle Bachmann on the Senate floor. Bachmann and several other Congressional Republicans had dared to question the potential influence of Huma Abedin on the State Department’s foreign policy. Michelle Bachmann’s questions are fact-based, McCain’s are not. Huma Abedin is mentioned in Bachmann’s letter to the Deputy Inspector General of the Department of State:

The Departments Deputy, Chief of Staff, Huma Abedin, has three family members – her late father, her mother and her brother – connected to Muslim Brotherhood operatives and /or organizations. Her position affords her routine access to the Secretary and to policy making…

You can read Andrew McCarthy’s excellent background piece in a recent article on

The Wages of Willful Blindness: Is It Time for Defenders of Liberty to Abandon the GOP?


I’ll post the audio of The Mark Levin Show here as soon as it’s available. In the meantime, here’s another good article written by Jeffrey Lord, on The American Spectator:

Is Huma Abedin the New Alger Hiss?

Governor Palin pushes for Ted Cruz

In a Facebook post from earlier today, Governor Sarah Palin reiterated her support for Ted Cruz, especially since early voting has begun.

Support Ted Cruz

Today early voting begins in the run-off election for U.S. Senate in Texas. Texans have a clear choice in this race, and I encourage them to support Ted Cruz, a strong conservative fighter who will protect and defend our Constitution and not just go along to get along with the reckless spending of the permanent political class in D.C. The high-paid consultants of Ted’s well-funded opponent are in full panic mode and have plunged millions of dollars into false personal attacks against Ted meant to dispirit us and break our conviction. We’ve all seen these tactics before, but together we can make sure they don’t succeed. I encourage Texans to get out and vote for Ted Cruz.

– Sarah Palin

P.S.: For those of you outside of Texas looking to support Ted you can do so by visiting his website here.

The run-off election is Tuesday, July 31st.

Hat tip: Conservatives4Palin

GOP Governors having success against unemployment

As the results of the 2010 GOP pick up of governorships start to manifest themselves in job creation, we begin to see a pattern emerge. It seems that Tea Party backed conservative Governors are doing a better job than their Democrat Party counterparts.

According to the Washington Examiner:

Voters in 17 states elected new Republican governors in November 2010. This new breed of fiscally-conservative, tea party-supported Republican governors took office in January 2011. Here is how those states have fared since then, in terms of their unemployment rates:

Kansas – 6.9% to 6.1% = a decline of 0.8%

Maine – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Michigan – 10.9% to 8.5% = a decline of 2.4%

New Mexico – 7.7% to 6.7% = a decline of 1.0%

Oklahoma – 6.2% to 4.8% = a decline of 1.4%

Pennsylvania – 8.0% to 7.4% = a decline of 0.6%

Tennessee – 9.5% to 7.9% = a decline of 1.6%

Wisconsin – 7.7% to 6.8% = a decline of 0.9%

Wyoming – 6.3% to 5.2% = a decline of 1.1%

Alabama – 9.3% to 7.4% = a decline of 1.9%

Georgia – 10.1% to 8.9% = a decline of 1.2%

South Carolina – 10.6% to 9.1% = a decline of 1.5%

South Dakota – 5.0% to 4.3% = a decline of 0.7%

Florida – 10.9% to 8.6% = a decline of 2.3%

Nevada – 13.8% to 11.6% = a decline of 2.2%

Iowa – 6.1% to 5.1% = a decline of 1.0%

Ohio – 9.0% to 7.3% = a decline of 1.7%

Every single one of these 17 states has seen its unemployment rate decline since January 2011. Three of them have had unemployment drop by more than 2% (Michigan, Florida, and Nevada). The average drop in the unemployment rate in these states was 1.35%. For a comparison, in January 2011 the U.S. national unemployment rate stood at 9.1%. It is currently 8.2%, meaning that the national unemployment rate has declined by just 0.9% since then. Based on these percentages, it can be said that the job market in states with new Republican governors is improving a full 50% faster than the job market nationally.

Hat tip:

What about Breitbart?

What is it about Andrew Breitbart that so intrigued us? Why was he able to transcend the politics of the day, yet be relevant to any conversation going on today?

Andrew was talking to a much higher purpose than, for example, the GOP nomination. He was focused on something larger that was more relevant to the conversation amongst conservatives than just an election.

What was it? I have my ideas and I will continue to delve into them.

What do you think?

Grist for the mill, crumbs for the Tea Party

What follows is today’s monologue from the Roderic Deane Show:

There’s been quite a lot written about the Florida GOP moving it’s primary up to January 31st, which was made official a few weeks ago. Now, we have to see what the former early primary states will do. In all likelihood, those states will move their primary dates up significantly to maintain their stature as the first primary states.

To quote an article by Stacy McCain at the American Spectator:

Florida’s fateful decision Sept. 30 set in motion a chain of events which, as matters now stand, could result in New Hampshire holding its first-in-the-nation primary as early as December 6, less than two months from now. Although Florida had long threatened to break the RNC-imposed rule protecting the four states (Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina) that traditionally hold early nominating contests, the timing of Florida’s final decision — immediately after Herman Cain won a Sept. 24 straw-poll in Orlando — aroused deep suspicions from conservatives.

Worse yet, it seems that Marco Rubio’s chief of staff, Cesar Conda, was a major player in the effort to move Florida’s primary date up. In addition, he’s a huge Mitt Romney supporter who was formerly a major D.C. lobbyist and aide to Dick Cheney.

Take a wild guess who is benefited by earlier primaries? Yep, Mitt Romney. It seems the fix is in for the proverbial “next-in-line”. I can’t tell you how much that pisses me off. Herman Cain was just starting to gain traction as a conservative and he has now been rendered impotent by the change in rules.

Why do I say this? It’s because Herman Cain doesn’t have the resources to compete in a race without having lots of time to get his message out. The best way for establishment Republicans to torpedo his campaign is to shorten the field for Romney.

Think of it this way. Your favorite football team has tied the score against a major BCS team in the 2nd quarter and it’s now halftime. When the 2nd half begins, the rules have suddenly changed. Since your team won the toss to start the game, that major, BCS team will now receive the opening kickoff. But now, you will have to kick it to them from your own 10-yard line. The first team to score will win the game.

What would you do in such a case if you were the next team facing this major, BCS team. I know what I’d do. I’d say screw you and refuse to play this team. Why put your team at risk of injury when they have no hope of winning?

I think this played into Sarah Palin’s decision not to seek the GOP nomination. And I’m not the only one who thinks that way.

Josh Painter has been a past guest on this show and he penned an excellent piece on his blog last Friday. In it, he said this:

The primary shuffling will throw up obstacles that will be very difficult, if not insurmountable, not only for conservative candidates such as Cain, but also for any other candidate not named Mitt Romney. This had to have been a key factor in the political calculus of Sarah Palin, but don’t doubt that it was a consideration for Chris Christie and Rudy Giuliani as well. Not just political instincts, but good political intel were likely involved in all three of these decisions not to run. Christie’s quick endorsement of Romney so soon after he announced that he would not get into the race indicates that not only did the New Jersey governor realize that the fix for Romney was in, but like any political opportunist, he was determined to use it for his own future political gain.

Unlike Christie, Sarah Palin is not for sale and neither are her core supporters. In his follow-up piece for The American Spectator, Stacy attributes the increase in Cain’s poll numbers largely to Palin supporters jumping on board the Cain train following the governor’s announcement that she would not run. But if you look carefully at the polling data, it’s clear that Cain’s rise is almost directly proportional to Rick Perry’s decline. What Stacy seems to have missed is the fact that Sarah Palin’s strongest supporters are in no hurry to jump to any other candidate’s ship. Indeed, her own ship is not sinking. It has only lowered its sails “at this time.” Make no mistake: when a favorable breeze is felt, the canvas will again be hoisted. No one GOP presidential candidate even comes close to offering the complete package Gov. Palin’s supporters still see in her. A few of her fair weather “fans” may go with the flow (or the media’s “flavor of the month”), but her serious supporters know that only dead fish do that, as the governor has often said. No, it will take quite a lot for any other candidate to win the allegiance of the Palinistas. So far, we’re not seeing it from any one of them.

In addition to Josh’s article, Patrick S. Adams wrote another excellent piece that he published on his blog, Patrick’s World, and Conservatives4Palin yesterday morning. His piece was titled “Palin Exposes Problems in GOP by Not Running”. While a lengthy piece, here is the beginning:

More and more, people are starting to see that Sarah Palin’s decision to not run has left a gaping hole in the Republican field. Ever since she hit the campaign trail in 2008, the left wing media has pummeled her and the Republican establishment has been silent – and in some cases complicit. While Republican establishment types cringed behind closed doors fearing a run or weaved their fears tactfully into articles and commentaries leading up to the 2012 race, millions of regular everyday Americans were becoming fans on her Facebook page, with many of them giving time and/or money to support her. Even the most ardent of Palin supporters are finding out now that there was a lot more support for her than even they thought. Now that she’s not running, we’re learning a lot more about the GOP.

I would highly recommend that you to read his entire article. You can find it at Conservatives4Palin or PatricksWorldUSA. I’ll provide the link on my blog after the program.

Having said all that, how do you think the Tea Party feels about now. Well, I consider myself a Tea Partier and I’M PISSED OFF!

What the hell were the 2010 elections about? Damnit! If the GOP tries to cram Romney down my throat, I might just take my vote elsewhere. Screw it! I’ll vote for the conservative in the race and I don’t care if that candidate is part of the Republican Party or not! I am not willing to waste my vote on one more RINO Republican. Let the Republican and the Democrat Parties take responsibility for the downfall of our great nation. I vote to continue our Republic… know, the one our Constitution talks about. I will not vote for another establishment candidate for the rest of my life. No way, no how! Period, end of story!

…and that’s my two-cents worth for the week.

Links to today’s quoted articles:

Stacy McCainRepublican Campaign Apocalypse

Josh PainterDid Team Palin uncover an October surprise in September?

Patrick S. AdamsPalin Exposes Problems in GOP by Not Running

Wall Street Journal Online – The Exasperation of the Democratic Billionaire

You can listen to today’s show HERE.

When conservatives attack their own…

I’ve tried to stay out of the Gardasil debate. It’s not one that furthers the aspirations of the GOP presidential field, except for one thing. The Gardasil debate is really about crony-capitalism and the effects of such corporate influence on a politician’s decisions.

Michelle Malkin has written a very comprehensive piece about the issue. You can read her post here and I would strongly encourage you to do so. I will leave it to her to inform you about the major points of that concern.

It seems that every politician greases the wheels of his or her campaign with the support of “special interests”. What is never said, however, is how that support turns into special favors extended by the politician to the “special interests” once the politician is elected to office.

This is not a mystery to any of us and we have known or suspected that these relationships have existed over the course of our lifetimes. Unfortunately, this practice is no longer a $100 bill passed to a candidate in a handshake. It has taken on immense proportions that bring to question the idea of whether or not a candidate is truly representing his or her constituents, aka, the voters in the politician’s district.

We have sat back and watched as candidate after candidate, including presidential candidates, have coddled and encouraged those relationships. We have watched a culture of “crony capitalism” take hold of our representatives until we are no longer considered to have a voice. Our voice has been dismissed because it does not lend itself to a dollar figure that our representatives will consider.

Enter the Tea Party on the heels of Sarah Palin’s nomination as John McCain’s running mate and McCain’s failed presidential bid. What was it that she said that fired up the base? What was it that suddenly propelled John McCain’s candidacy to the forefront of the 2008 campaign? At the time, I don’t think we really knew. There was just something about her message that resonated with us.

I believe that Sarah Palin brought her “subliminal” message to the forefront of the Tea Party’s collective consciousness during her speech at the Indianola Tea Party event. Newt Gingrich saw it and recognized it in an interview with Greta van Susteren after the CNN/TeaParty debate:

Newt backed up his interview with this Tweet:

I really soured on Newt when he made his ridiculous comments about Paul Ryan’s budget. But now, he’s starting to get my attention again. I don’t think he has a chance at the nomination, but I’m beginning to think that he’s positioning himself as a potential VP candidate.

NYT finds the Sarah Palin we’ve always known

I’m late posting about this as my schedule the last two days has been hectic. However, I can’t let it go unnoticed. Yesterday, the New York Times published a commentary by Anand Giridharadas titled “Some of Sarah Palin’s Ideas Cross the Political Divide”. I’m absolutely stunned that the NYT editorial board would allow this kind of commentary. I suspect there may be some nefarious intent. When trying to follow the link from two separate sources, I was asked to “subscribe” to NYT’s online content.

From the article:

Let us begin by confessing that, if Sarah Palin surfaced to say something intelligent and wise and fresh about the present American condition, many of us would fail to hear it.

That is not how we’re primed to see Ms. Palin. A pugnacious Tea Partyer? Sure. A woman of the people? Yup. A Mama Grizzly? You betcha.

But something curious happened when Ms. Palin strode onto the stage last weekend at a Tea Party event in Indianola, Iowa. Along with her familiar and predictable swipes at President Barack Obama and the “far left,” she delivered a devastating indictment of the entire U.S. political establishment — left, right and center — and pointed toward a way of transcending the presently unbridgeable political divide.


She made three interlocking points. First, that the United States is now governed by a “permanent political class,” drawn from both parties, that is increasingly cut off from the concerns of regular people. Second, that these Republicans and Democrats have allied with big business to mutual advantage to create what she called “corporate crony capitalism.” Third, that the real political divide in the United States may no longer be between friends and foes of Big Government, but between friends and foes of vast, remote, unaccountable institutions (both public and private).

In supporting her first point, about the permanent political class, she attacked both parties’ tendency to talk of spending cuts while spending more and more; to stoke public anxiety about a credit downgrade, but take a vacation anyway; to arrive in Washington of modest means and then somehow ride the gravy train to fabulous wealth. She observed that 7 of the 10 wealthiest counties in the United States happen to be suburbs of the nation’s capital.

Her second point, about money in politics, helped to explain the first. The permanent class stays in power because it positions itself between two deep troughs: the money spent by the government and the money spent by big companies to secure decisions from government that help them make more money.

“Do you want to know why nothing ever really gets done?” she said, referring to politicians. “It’s because there’s nothing in it for them. They’ve got a lot of mouths to feed — a lot of corporate lobbyists and a lot of special interests that are counting on them to keep the good times and the money rolling along.”

Because her party has agitated for the wholesale deregulation of money in politics and the unshackling of lobbyists, these will be heard in some quarters as sacrilegious words.

Ms. Palin’s third point was more striking still: in contrast to the sweeping paeans to capitalism and the free market delivered by the Republican presidential candidates whose ranks she has yet to join, she sought to make a distinction between good capitalists and bad ones. The good ones, in her telling, are those small businesses that take risks and sink and swim in the churning market; the bad ones are well-connected megacorporations that live off bailouts, dodge taxes and profit terrifically while creating no jobs.

Strangely, she was saying things that liberals might like, if not for Ms. Palin’s having said them.

You can read the rest of the article at the link above.

Hat tip: Texans for Sarah Palin

The unconventional, stealth campaign of Sarah Palin

Kevin DuJuan, from, just penned a great piece in which he identifies 10 reasons why Sarah Palin is running for President. To precede his list, he says:

Last year, I asked readers of to employ their photoshopping magic and deal Governor Sarah Palin into the famous “Republican Presidents Playing Poker” painting (officially called “Grand Ol’ Gang” by artist Andy Thomas) because I believe President Palin will be joining this grand old gang herself in 2013. Governor Palin is the most artfully stealth political strategist of her generation. Her affable, folksy nature and easy smile have fooled opponents into underestimating her killer instincts since the “Saracuda” years when she dominated the basketball court with her guile and cunning. Those of you who’ve seen the documentary “The Undefeated” know Governor Palin’s political career is rife with Cocktail Party establishment types and foolish media “experts” who never anticipated her rogue strategic moves until the Governor had them right where she wanted them (and if you’ve also seen “Sarah Palin’s Alaska” on TLC, you’ll recall what happened to assorted ungulates in similar positions on the tundra, right where Governor Palin wanted them too, you betcha). The Governor consistently and deliberately remains three moves ahead of her detractors in a well-played game of 11th-dimensional chess while her opponents fumble with checkers on the sidelines (which more than a few of these yahoos mistake for severely stale and overly crunchy Oreos).

Governor Palin’s gambit in the 2012 presidential race is similar to moves she made in her 2006 campaign for Governor of Alaska, where she not only defeated the Cocktail Party GOP establishment’s darling (Frank Murkowski, an Oreo muncher if ever there was one) but simultaneously engineered her win against Democrat Tony Knowles in the general election (whom I bet double-dunks his checkers, too). All the while, the Governor kept the biased and agenda-driven media guessing what she was really up to, just like she learned to do with her moves on the basketball court and what I’d imagine she’d do in a high stakes game of poker (where even the Gipper himself might very well lose his denim shirt to the Saracuda).

Because she’s always kept her strategic cards close to her vest, the only person who ever really knows what Sarah Palin is up to is the Governor herself (and maybe First Dude Todd, since the two are such an incredible team).

Based on an appreciation for how Governor Palin ran her previous unconventional (yet successful) campaigns for elected office, there are 10 clear clues in her Labor Day speech in Manchester, New Hampshire that the Governor is very much indeed running for President — and is going to yet again take her opponents (in, and outside of, the media) by complete surprise, making fools of the lot of them while giving her supporters the campaign they have been clamoring for (this supporter here in Boystown, Chicago included).

You can read the rest HERE. It’s a really good piece!