Progressive RINO Establishment
Confusion versus Opportunism
Comments | Print friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
Ann Coulter was recently interviewed by author, journalist and talk radio host Howie Carr on his program; her commentary was pure establishment balderdash. Ann may plead hyperbole, but her sentiment is readily apparent. Among the pearls of wisdom:
Carr: “Who are you for, for president right now, Ann?”
Coulter: “Um…well, don’t tell’em, but I’m planning on giving Mitt Romney a little more time to rest; flying out, kidnapping him, and depriving him of sleep, food and water until he agrees to run again.”
Carr: “You’re kidding.”
Carr: “You really want him to run again?”
Coulter: “Look it, Yeah…I think he was a fantastic candidate. As I’ve told you before, he would have won by a larger landslide, uh, than Ronald Reagan did in 1980 with, with the, without Teddy Kennedy’s immigration bill, and [it’s] basically impossible to beat an incumbent. Um, but he is head and shoulders better than the other candidates we have; they all—and I don’t want to name them, but…but, I mean, you go through the list, and for one thing, as you I have discussed, and this is the most important point, and, that…that all of your listeners have to tell all of their friends: knock it off with the congressmen or inspirational figures. Gotta’ be a governor or a senator, preferably a governor. Um, and you know, there’s a limited world list of who those people are. And they all have problems; none of them are as articulate, um, and…and…and reasonable…and, as good on immigration as Mitt Romney is.”
Carr: “What about Ted Cruz?”
Coulter: [Pause] “Um…well, he’s a lot worse on immigration.”
Confusion or Opportunism?
Is Ann Coulter under the influence? How does one explain such intellectual confusion?
Or perhaps it’s not confusion at all? Perhaps it’s as simple as one deciding which side has the best chance of winning based on conventional equations of how establishment power has traditionally determined the outcomes of political contests, as compared with doing the right things for the right reasons consistently over time, regardless of how one’s personal popularity may be affected in media, by peer pressure from the beltway king-makers, or lost opportunities from exclusion as a preferred guest for the lavishly elegant parties thrown with regularity in and around our nation’s capitol?
That’s the ticket with the Progressive RINO Establishment; on a personal level, they win even when they lose: a comfy win/win situation to be in if you’re aligned with the inside-beltway players as an establishment cheerleader and big government groupie.
Sir Winston Churchill once said:
“If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.”
Ann crawled into bed with the Progressive RINO Establishment, embracing the status quo; elites with long histories of attacking constitutional conservatives to suppress their ideals, values, and principles, and thus remove such important cultural and historical influences from Republican party politics.
The Progressive RINO Establishment
The Progressive RINO Establishment knows full well constitutional conservatism always resonates with the American electorate; patriots with common sense the establishment will never embrace.
They know full well when constitutional conservatism is articulated by those with the knowledge, courage, and charisma (Gov. Sarah Palin, Senators Ted Cruz and Mike Lee, etc.) to do so, these individuals are supported by a silent majority of Americans whom believe what they believe; that the Framers built the foundation for America with the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Rule of Law.
Those aligned with the traditional Progressive RINO Establishment (Romney, Bush cabal, Dole, Ford, Scranton, Ridge, Nixon, Rockefeller, et al) know full well (having fought against the post-World War II conservative movement since the 1950’s) if an ever-increasing populist constitutional conservative movement is not defeated in the 2014 midterm elections, its’ morally principled leaders could win the Presidency in 2016 as their arch-enemy Ronald Reagan did in 1980, and came close to doing in 1976.
Should the American electorate make that happen, the Progressive RINO Establishment would lose the power, privilege, perks, profits and personal pleasures to which they’ve become not only accustomed, but dependent upon and ultimately addicted, and why they view the November 2014 midterm elections as a contest for all the marbles. It would be prudent for the Constitutional Conservative and TEA Party members of today’s conservative movement to do the same by adopting Reagan’s definition of victory as “We win, they lose” with a sense of urgency, before the opportunity to do so fades into history.
The Sarah Palin/Ted Cruz-type of politician is not a product of the New England ivory-tower, ivy league, hoity-toity, country-clubbing clique of inherited money from dubious sources nor incestuous arrangements of political and capital cronyism foisted upon a deceived electorate by an entitled few.
Sarah Palin/Ted Cruz-types of individuals have always formed the heart and soul of our American Constitutional Republic historically, and certainly do so today; unprivileged, self-motivated, hard-working, dedicated, honest, and courageous: intrepid against the establishment forces desperately at work disparaging their good names through steady-state ad hominem attacks, twisted quotes, straw-man arguments, self-serving platitudes, and manifest distortions of historical and economic truth.
They are fighters, and they are fighting for liberty. Support them. Spread the word. Keep us free.
© Sandy Stringfellow/2014