Operation Tea Party Chaos

My latest column at Red County is posted. Basically, the fact that Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only two Republican nominees whose names will appear on the Virginia ballot got me thinking a little bit about a brokered convention. Yeah, I know the odds are long but if the Tea Party's energy was harnessed in 2012 like it was in 2010, there might be a way to proactively work toward a scenario through voting but it would take a level of coordination the Tea Party hasn't shown to be capable of yet.

Operation Tea Party Chaos 

The Tea Party needs another Rick Santelli moment. Part of the reason for its collective apathy is that no one currently in the Republican field inspires it. Voting for the best option in a field where none of the candidates meet the standard is hardly energizing. The Tea Party needs something to strive for, an objective, a way to select its nominee of choice.

One way to do that would be to use Ron Paul mania to its advantage and cast their votes with one goal in mind:

A brokered convention.

For example, the only two Republican candidates who will be on the ballot in Virginia are Mitt Romney and Ron Paul. All others failed to get the required number of signatures. Whether you're a Gingrich supporter or a disenfranchised Tea Partier who calls Virginia home, it might be in your best interest to cast your vote for Paul, which would take delegates away from Romney.

National Review's Brian Bolduc laid out a scenario in which a brokered convention could result; he did so before it was learned that Paul and Romney would be the only two candidates on the Virginia ballot. That scenario involves a three-man race. Those three men are Gingrich, Romney, and Paul.

As Bolduc points out, there are 2286 total delegates up for grabs in the primaries. The total needed for any candidate to secure the nomination is 1144. Under the Bolduc scenario, Romney would win the majority of delegates but fail to win the amount necessary to secure the nomination. Paul comes in third, far behind Gingrich, who loses to Romney but not by much.

If, as some forecast, Santorum, Bachmann, and Huntsman all drop out, many of their votes are likely to go to Gingrich since the vast majority of them reject Romney's establishment credentials and haven't drunk the Ron Paul Kool-aid. However, a significant percentage of those voters could very well decide to vote for Romney because of the sheer volume of warts that have come with Newt's political schizophrenia.

This is where the Tea Party needs to get strategic by taking a page out of Rush Limbaugh's playbook.
Yes, it will be like herding cats and it will be somewhat risky but if the Tea Party groups can find a way to coalesce around a common cause that demands a brokered convention, conservative voters can cast their primary votes not based on the lesser of three evils but on ensuring that none of them wins.

In most cases, that will involve a vote for Ron Paul, assuming Bolduc is right about Paul's level of support, but it will also involve consistent monitoring as various primaries take place. That needs to be the job of Tea Party leaders and it will also require them all to put aside their differences. If the border collies can't work together, cat herding becomes exponentially more difficult.

The odds of a brokered convention are so long, that nearly everyone concedes such talk is reserved only for political junkies. However, those odds can be shortened drastically with a concerted effort by Tea Party leaders to generate the momentum necessary to implement such a strategy. In essence, the Tea Party needs to be proactive in addition to being simply prayerful.

One of the Tea Party themes has been to “take America back.” None of the current Republican Party candidates allow them to do that, which is why Tea Party leaders need to start thinking outside the ballot box and start working together for a common cause.

Besides, wouldn't the nomination of someone like Jim DeMint or Sarah Palin be worth it to the Tea Party?

It would also be deliciously ironic to watch poetic justice be administered through chaos.

Original includes hyperlinks.

Ouch: Former Ron Paul Staffer says Congressman 'Anti-Israel'

Former Senior Ron Paul Aide, Campaign Coordinator, National Organizer, and Travel Aide Eric Dondero has made some scathing charges against his former boss. It will be interesting to see if Team Paul decides to ignore him or attempt to discredit him. While Dondero insists Paul is neither racist or anti-Semitic, he forthrightly makes the charge that Paul is anti-Israel:

Via Right Wing News:

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

This definitely squares with Paul's foreign policy stance relative to leaving the region - including Israel - to fend for itself. It also seems to go in line with Paul's endorsement of Cynthia McKinney, a Palestinian supporter and activist, in 2008.

Dondero continues...

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

There are other aspects of Paul's views on homosexuality and race that Dondero attempts to clarify but besides Paul's anti-Zionist sentiment, his position on going into Afghanistan after 9/11 is sure to raise some eyebrows.

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11. 

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration. 

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

So, if Dondero is to be believed, Ron Paul is Truther and an anti-Zionist who is not necessarily anti-Semitic. Uh, yeah, that's about what I suspected.

h/t Daily Caller

Another 1995 Ron Paul Video: Takes Credit for Newsletter

The good news is that Ron Paul is being vetted. The bad news is that if Barack Obama was vetted half as much, there's no way he'd be Occupying the White House (OWH) today. The argument from Paul that he didn't write or read his own newsletters is getting increasingly untenable for him.

Though he doesn't specifically endorse the radical views in his newsletter in this clip, he does endorse the newsletter itself. If Paul didn't know what was in the newsletter, his competence should be under scrutiny.

Via RCP:

How Badly will this Video Harm Obama in November?

The Washington Post has posted a refreshingly very honest piece. The bad news? It was published on Christmas Day. Nonetheless, it seems to conclude that the White House decisions relative to Solyndra were political all along. Among those decisions was the one that led to a video posted to the White House website in May of 2010.

Via the Post:

Like most presidential appearances, Obama’s May 2010 stop at Solyndra’s headquarters was closely managed political theater.

Obama’s handlers had lengthy e-mail discussions about how solar panels should be displayed (from a robotic arm, it was decided). They cautioned the company’s chief executive against wearing a suit (he opted for an open-neck shirt and black slacks) and asked another executive to wear a hard hat and white smock. They instructed blue-collar employees to wear everyday work clothes, to preserve what they called “the construction-worker feel.”

Apparently, according to the Post's findings, this is a video the administration would like to have back. This should give the Republican Party an something to exploit. Whether they will or not remains to be seen but there seems to be sufficient concern among team Obama that this was a very bad decision.

Via GWP:



There is also a surprising number of futile attempts made by the Post to get comments from individuals who might be able to help with the story:

White House e-mails suggest that the original idea for “POTUS involvement” originated with then-Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. Emanuel, now mayor of Chicago, did not respond to a request for comment from The Post.

Well beyond the details of the factory photo op, raw political considerations surfaced repeatedly in conversations among many in the administration.

Just two days before the visit, Obama fundraiser Steve Westly warned senior presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett that an appearance could be problematic. Westly, an investment fund manager with stakes in green-energy companies, said he was speaking for a number of Obama supporters in asking the president to postpone the visit because Solyndra’s financial prospects were dim and the company’s failure could generate negative media attention.

It is interesting that the decision to publicly align Obama with Solyndra was pushed by Emanuel, who left the administration a few months after that May 2010 video. He also claims to be ignorant of the Solyndra deal.

Read it all.

Federal Judge: Iran Complicit in 9/11

How did THIS fly under the radar? Janice Kephart with the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) filed a report earlier this month that says a Federal judge in New York City signed a document stating that both Iran and Hezbollah have their fingerprints on the 9/11 attacks.

Via CIS:

Federal Judge George Daniels announced in open court in New York City yesterday, in a case filed by families of 9/11 victims, that he was going to be signing an order within 24 hours stating Iran, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda are responsible for the 9/11 attacks. More specifically, the judge found that Iran has provided material support to al Qaeda for the 9/11 attacks. Much of the material witness testimony in the case comes from three Iranian defectors whose affidavits remained under seal during the course of the case. 

What we do know publicly is that Iran and Hezbollah not only provided terrorist travel assistance for the 9/11 hijackers to travel through Iran to attend Afghan terror training camps, but also that Hezbollah's most senior operational leader, and chief liaison with Iran, Imad Mughniyah – and other Hezbollah operatives – traveled with the 9/11 hijackers in and out of Lebanon and in and out of Iran after these same hijackers had been issued visas to visit the United States. The purpose of the hijackers' travel into Iran after acquiring U.S. visas was made clear by Iranian defector testimony under seal. The defectors, in turn, were vetted by two CIA veterans who reviewed numerous of hours of tape to determine the credibility of persons who stated they had knowledge of Iran's involvement in 9/11, including those claiming to have participated in planning meetings in Iran with other Iranian officials on executing the terrorist plot that became 9/11. The CIA veterans concluded that the three defectors were both credible and substantial witnesses.

If this can be proven, it would put Iran on par with 1941 Japan and would warrant an immediate declaration of war against Iran.

The other thing this tells us is that our borders need to be sealed without delay.

Read it all.

h/t Special Guests

Is Ron Paul Courting the Extremist Vote?

These developments remind me of Hillary and Obama debating the difference between 'denouncing' and 'rejecting' when it came to Jeremiah Wright's anti-Semitic and anti-American views. Ultimately, Obama decided to leave Wright's church because it was politically necessary.

Apparently, Ron Paul is dealing with a similar version of this phenomenon. To this point, he appears to have decided that it's best to disown the views of extremists but embrace their support.

Via the New York Times:

The American Free Press, which markets books like “The Invention of the Jewish People” and “March of the Titans: A History of the White Race,” is urging its subscribers to help it send hundreds of copies of Ron Paul’s collected speeches to voters in New Hampshire. The book, it promises, will “Help Dr. Ron Paul Win the G.O.P. Nomination in 2012!”

Don Black, director of the white nationalist Web site Stormfront, said in an interview that several dozen of his members were volunteering for Mr. Paul’s presidential campaign, and a site forum titled “Why is Ron Paul such a favorite here?” has no fewer than 24 pages of comments. “I understand he wins many fans because his monetary policy would hurt Jews,” read one.

The Times goes on to discuss how Paul seems to be playing both sides of the Libertarian philosophy against the middle. First, there are the very sane libertarian views that call for limited government and active support for Austrian economic theory. Then there is the more racist strain endorsed by the likes of Stormfront.

The economic theory is supported by the guy who oversaw the production of Paul's now very controversial newsletters; his name is Lew Rockwell. Rockwell was a close adviser to Paul and forged an alliance with another guy named Murray Rothbard, according to the NYT, who reports on Rothbard invoking the name of David Duke:

In the Rothbard-Rockwell Report they started in 1990, Mr. Rothbard called for a “Right Wing Populism,” suggesting that the campaign for governor of Louisiana by David Duke, the founder of the National Association for the Advancement of White People, was a model for “paleolibertarianism.”

Will the real Ron Paul please stand up?

In fairness, it would sure be nice to see the liberal media vet Obama like this.

h/t Hot Air

Video: Bluest of RINOs in Senate Whines about Tea Party

Enter Exhibit A in the case to be made against rabid partisanship, in which majorities should be the top priority. America's first president, George Washington, didn't have much use for them.

Via Forbes:

George Washington addressed the problem of political parties 200 years ago in his Farewell Address. He conceded, grudgingly, that it is "probably true" that, "within certain limits" political "parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty." But he added that party spirit was "not to be encouraged." He thought "there will always be enough of [it] for every salutary purpose." As there was "constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it."

He compared the competition of parties to inflammation: "A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

Now enter Exhibit B. Perhaps the bluest RINO in the Senate, Richard Lugar (RINO-IN). He is up for reelection in 2012 and is facing strong Tea Party opposition. If ever there was a Senator who deserves to be primaried in 2012, it's Lugar.



Note his argument here. It's all about Party. He blames the Tea Party for not giving the Republicans a majority in the Senate in 2010. In essence, Lugar admits to being exactly the kind of creature George Washington warned us against.

There was a school of thought that said J.D. Hayworth couldn't win the 2010 General election vs. Democrat Rodney Glassman. Those who believed that pulled the lever for McCain. McCain won the primary and the General. He then did things like call the Libyan (al-Qaeda) rebels his 'heroes.' Though the argument can me made that McCain moved to the right, he's hardly been pushing the cause of conservatism.

In Delaware, the opposite happened. Tea Party favorite Christine O'Donnell defeated RINO Mike Castle in the primary and went on to lose to far left Democrat and 'bearded Marxist,' Chris Coons.

The case can be made that it's better to have someone like Coons in office so Americans can see the true face of socialism instead of having someone like Castle, who gradually pulls us in that direction. I've made that case, as long as it's not done with the reckless abandon of granting the other side a super majority.

Then, take the example of Sharron Angle vs. Harry Reid in 2010. That race was so close that Angle likely would have won it with the Republican Party support she didn't get.

h/t Breitbart:

Video: Ron Paul = Jeremiah Wright

That title is a bit of an oversimplification but the Washington Post's Charles Lane made the case on Fox News Sunday that when it comes to foreign policy, Ron Paul is to the left of Obama's former pastor.

Paul has all but said he can't come out in support of the Truthers because he doesn't want to deal with the controversy and subsequent fallout. Consequently, it seems that he's had to adopt another view which, on the surface, may seem more mainstream, or at least less politically radioactive but here's the problem. By taking the view that 9/11 was perpetrated by radical Islamists while also holding the view that US foreign policy drove them to it, Ron Paul is squarely in the camp of Jeremiah Wright.

Then again, if Paul expressed public support for the Truthers, he'd be in the camp of Van Jones.

Lane nails it here.

Don't look now but the longer Ron Paul is showcased, the more his position unravels.

Via Daily Caller: