The Rubio Feint

Since November of 2010 – when Marco Rubio, along with John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, et al, began to walk back poker-faced campaign promises – I've been documenting evidence indicting Marco Rubio as a happy little ladder-climber within the Progressive RINO Establishment. After winning in 2010, they spoke of “compromise” and “bi-partisanship;” not unlike a marketing theme incongruously composed and presented in a conference call. Many other conservatives grasping history are with me in the Reagan school of compromise: We win, they lose. As with any good salesman, Rubio has an amiable demeanor and style; qualities drawing the attention of his mentor, Jeb Bush, years ago in Miami, Florida, who guided Rubio and helped launch his political career. As with John Boehner, Rubio can employ the "misty-eyes" schtick on demand to foist Amnesty snake oil. Shall we surrender to innocent, boyish looks and destroy America? Perhaps not a good idea.

A crony capitalist donor class composed of progressives are looking to elect either a fellow progressive within the Republican establishment (Jeb, Rubio, etc.) or Hillary (a Progressive Marxist)...they don't really care as long as they place someone in the Oval Office willing to play ball in the Beltway Bubble: an establishment royal court where cash is king; where the big money talks and everything else walks; where control of political power and the quest for it represents the ultimate aphrodisiac. Seldom do we find in politics today individuals of virtue and the accompanying traits that follow it. Once-innocent elected newbies – filled with good intentions – reach "the hallowed halls of power" in the Beltway Bubble only to taste the sweet, tantalizing, sensual joy of being in proximity to a sacred ground where the wealthy and influential regularly tread – where power is both revered and feared. A light bulb comes on as they realize perfunctory survival instincts of the political class:

"Hey, this is a really cool gig; I was lucky to land here. I'd sure hate to give up rubbing elbows with the powerful and wealthy movers and shakers I've met; or the fabulous pomp and ceremony, the privilege and adulation, the perks, and that pleasing tingle I get from having real power of my own. So, I'll just play it smart and follow directions. Everyone else does it, and I'll need their support to be reelected."

Megalomania is not so different a world from being a junkie; for some, a taste of power is almost as addictive as heroin. Surroundings are nicer, but company can be as unprincipled as that of the pusher.

---

Rubio, Mitt, and Company

Reporters often swoon about Rubio leading the Republican candidates with campaign cash on hand, while neglecting to mention other important ingredients to gaining the Republican nomination: PAC money and political connections. Jeb is ahead in both of those areas, as one would expect. It can hardly be considered a secret Rubio is actually running for V.P., although Mitt still thinks Rubio is "the guy." Mitt is either playing along with strategy as a ruling class member in good standing of the Progressive RINO Establishment, or he's being played. Odds are he's playing along; there are no career choir boys in the Beltway Bubble: Mitt is no exception. Mitt has the “boyish good looks” going on, but he can be a callous, vindictive operative. Elitist progressive politics typically unfold in such a manner. Remember the contempt directed at Sarah Palin during the 2012 Republican primary as she implored the hapless Romney/Ryan campaign to stand up and fight, resulting in a non-invitation to speak at the GOP convention? She had America's heart and trust; team Romney knew it, and had a temper tantrum. At Newsweek (7/16/2012), Peter J. Boyer reported the following:

What galls the Tea Party activists is the sense that Romney represents a lost opportunity for their agenda of less government, flatter taxes, and constitutional restraint. Facing a vulnerable president saddled with a bad economy and a crisis in the public sector, they feel stuck with a guy served up by Republican elites who speaks conservatism with an establishment accent. Worse, in this view, Romney seems incapable, or unwilling, to even defend himself, as the Obama campaign machine highlights his offshore bank accounts and his career at Bain Capital. “Romney’s just not a fighter,” says Jenny Beth Martin, head of the Tea Party Patriots, the largest of the activist groups. “That’s why it would be good for him to have someone like Palin speaking at the convention. He needs to do something to rile up his base, to make them enthusiastic. And I don’t mean just the Tea Party. I mean die-hard Republicans. I live in the second-most-Republican county in the state of Georgia, and the folks around here are not enthusiastic about him.” […] Palin’s admirers—and they are many, judging by Facebook and Twitter metrics, where her numbers are far greater than Romney’s—still hope for a rapprochement. “Palin is the female Ronald Reagan of our time,” says Kremer of the Tea Party Express. “There’s no one that excites the base, and energizes the base, the way that Sarah Palin does. There’s just not.”

Say what you will, but truth is what it is: Americans respect honesty, and Americans love a fighter.

The Conservative Base

The Progressive RINO Establishment is derelict at out-thinking and being more strategically effective than Progressive New Democrat Party hacks, but they are quite adept at smothering conservatism. Jeb wants Amnesty. Rubio wants Amnesty. Hillary wants Amnesty. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Progressive RINO Establishment, and Progressive New Democrat Party all want Amnesty. Collective goals of the "UniParty" ought to be a gigantic, red flag of warning for everyone in the “country class.” The Progressive RINO Establishment believes a Bush/Rubio 2016 ticket will compel "Latinos" to vote for them. The Progressive New Democrat Party knows "Latinos" usually vote blue: chalk up another one for Hillary. None of this reflects the will of We, the People: the majority constitutional conservative base that could determine the 2016 presidential election, if legitimately inspired to turn out and vote. How likely is it the American constitutional conservative majority – both Democrat and Republican – turn out to vote? That depends on who ends up as the Republican nominee for 2016. They won't turn out for Jeb, that much is clear. Hello, President Clinton. Don't shriek; dare to ask yourself, "why not?" Hillary will have more money, more political connections, greater treachery, a bought-and-paid-for media machine, unions, fraud, almost a century of Progressive Marxist indoctrination of the American electorate, no morals, ideological fervor, and a global support network. If it's Bush/Rubio in 2016, all she has to do is keep her mouth shut and watch the American conservative majority turn away in abject disgust at the Progressive RINO Establishment's inbred ticket. Thus we have: Game. Set. Match. As far as understanding Beltway Bubble behavior, Lily Tomlin's quote nails it: "No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up." Regarding political capitulation, misdirection, inaction, and a complete cave-in of patriotism and American ideals, values, and principles in our Beltway Bubble, Aldous Huxley summed up the entire lot of self-serving opportunists eruditely: "Cynical realism is the intelligent man's best excuse for doing nothing in an intolerable situation."

The Outdated Paradigm

More often than not, reporters are happy to use the political paradigm some voters are still comfortable with: "Democrats bad, Republicans good." The problem with this outdated party model presents itself daily in glaring fashion – for those paying attention – in the form of familial ties between candidates in both political parties seeking to enjoy and maintain a Beltway Bubble quid pro quo status arrangement. Establishment media reporters are excited about the “big show” between Democrats and Republicans because they're bought and paid for; unthinking apparatchiks performing as instructed. Legitimate reporters “in the know” understand the real contest is the Republican primary, as it will determine the relative outcome of our 2016 presidential election. The Conservative base is upset – to put it mildly – with the Progressive RINO Establishment. Borrowing a line from Peter Finch's role as Howard Beale in movie Network, the American conservative base is: “Mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!”

Back to Basics: A Reform Movement

It almost appears as if the American electorate is undergoing a reform movement; that's what actually happened in the run-up to the American Revolutionary War. Though seldom mentioned generally, for several years leading up to the war certain newspapers ran a series of scathing critiques outlining the various deficiencies in American society. Many of the Founders also had doubts regarding unknown capacity of the American people to conduct themselves with virtue; a principle the Founders knew was of critical importance to sustain a republic. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Virtue is not hereditary.” While some of the Framers debated whether a monarchy wouldn't be more practical, Thomas Paine was hugely influential in building confidence among Americans by assuring them it was time for liberty and they were up to the challenge. W. Cleon Skousen, in his classic constitutional retrospective “The 5000 Year Leap,” described it thus:

“[Paine] pointed out that most of the people were 'industrious, frugal, and honest.' He added that few Americans had been corrupted with riches the way people had been debilitated in Europe, where all they wanted was 'luxury, indolence, amusement, and pleasure.' Furthermore, there was a spirit of equality and public virtue unheard of in other nations because 'the people of America are a people of property; almost every man is a freeholder.' “This self-examination over a period of several years resulted in a remarkable reform movement which spread up and down the entire Atlantic seaboard. Many Americans became extremely self-conscious about their lack of 'public virtue' because of non-involvement in the affairs of government. They began to acknowledge their obsession with self-interest, the neglect of public affairs, and their disdain for the needs of the community as a whole. Gradually, a spirit of 'sacrifice and reform' became manifest in all thirteen colonies. Many Americans became so impressed with the improvements in quality of life as a result of the reform movement they were afraid they might lose it if they did not hurriedly separate from the corrupting influence of British manners.”

If such history is not enough to inspire you to commit to personal political action now – in the midst of a Republican primary presently unfolding in real time – perhaps nothing will. During the founding of our republic, patriots rolled up their sleeves and engaged their countrymen with informed dialogue in promotion of liberty through the art of political discourse. May I respectfully suggest starting here. © Sandy Stringfellow