RINO

The Politico reports that the White House under Rahm Emanuel orchesterated the Scozzafava endorsement of Bill Owens in NY 23.

Fearful that the party had almost no chance of winning the Nov. 3 New York special election after Republican nominee Dede Scozzafava abruptly announced Saturday that she was dropping out, high-ranking national Democrats immediately began working to secure her endorsement of Democrat Bill Owens, POLITICO has learned.

 

 

On Sunday afternoon, their vigorous efforts paid off as Scozzafava bucked her own party and issued a statement supporting Owens over Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman, a coup for Democrats who recognized that their best remaining chance of winning the Republican-leaning seat on Tuesday was to swing disaffected Scozzafava supporters their way. By Sunday night, Scozzafava had taped her endorsement and it was being delivered via robo-call into targeted district households.

 

 

The story of how it went down began in Washington, where the White House and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee quarterbacked the effort to secure Scozzafava’s endorsement.

And if you think the real reason for this 11th hour betrayal was about helping her district, please. We are talking about an Albany politician, now.

Scozzafava was offered material inducements for her endorsement from Democratic Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. 

Also critical was Silver’s assurance, in a phone conversation with Scozzafava, that the state Assembly Democratic caucus would embrace her if she chose to switch parties, now viewed as a real possibility after her endorsement Sunday of Owens.

 

 

June O'Neill, until earlier this year the New York Democratic Party chair, played an even more important role in courting Scozzafava, according to one New York official, because they “go to the same social events—church bingo night and the high school dance.”

It now seems highly likely Scozzafava is going to switch parties and be assured of various legislative perks---maybe even a chairmanship-- from Speaker Silver. And she will be assured  of  hige financial backing from the NY Democrats for her re-election. And who knows how many "member items" are going to be dangled her way?

There's an old saying that an honest politician is one who stays bought. I suppose we will see in a few days if that describes Ms. Scozzafava

Everyone assumes Scozzafava's exit from the race guarantees Hoffman's victory.  Why?  If her 20 percent move to Owens instead of Hoffman, the Democrats get a blowout victory.

So what reason would a Scozzafava supporter have to move right instead of left?  Vocal conservatives have gone out of their way to insult moderates, denigrate them as RINOs and do everything possible to make clear they are not wanted or needed in the Republican party.  Putting Scozzaffava's scalp on the wall is being protrayed as a major victory for conservatives over moderates.  Now they are counting on these same moderates to put party loyalty over ideological preferences and swing their 20 percent of the vote to Hoffman instead of Owens. 

If I ived in New York 23, I would be voting for Hoffman regardless of whether Scozzafava stayed in the race or got out; but I would also recognize the legitimate place for moderates in the Republican party.  I would also be spending the next 2 days trying to communicate with Scozzafava moderates rather than attacking them and definately put an end to the victory dances over her electoral corpse.

In Virginia, Bob Mcdonnell has maintained open respectful communicatin between conservatives and moderates.  He is stomping the liberals into the ground.  In New York 23 Conservatives have persued a scorched earth campaign against the moderates.  On Tuesday, we will learn whether or not they have gone too far.

Conservatives may win NY23; but I think the Virginia campaign provides a better roadmap for long term progress.

I went through some mail that accumulated on a chair in my foyer and found the latest glossy missive from "Republican" Senate candidate Linda McMahon (a/k/a "the Wild RINO')

It had a stone wall full of blocks wherein she claimed a bunch of principles were the "foundation" of her campaign.

Stuff like "integrity", "fiscal responsbility",  "honesty"----yadda, yadda, yadda.

This is a hoot coming from someone who subsidized Nancy Pelosi's takeover of the House in 2006.

And isn't it a bit odd to have a wrestling promoter running on a ticket of telling the truth?

She's a "Blue Moon" candidate alright. Madison Avenue has decided that being a conservative is fashionable this season, and so Ms. McMahon, like any good Greenwich gazillionaire, follows fashion

It's just not cool to be Rahm Emanuel's favorite Republican even in a CT primary. So her huge stable of Republican establishment hacks and flacks are doing an extreme makeover; much like Newt Gingrich is trying to do in NY 23. 

Linda McMahon is the "stealth Scozzafava". The RINO from upstate NY was easy to spot; her legislative record and history of endorsements made clear the Republican Party was a matter of convenience to her, not conviction.

McMahon is no different.  Much as Scozzafava played ball with the Left, how else is one to explain McMahon's persistent financial support of liberal Democrats.

And why is it when one finds her supporting Republicans, they are among the most liberal in the entire party...even adamantly opposed to conservatives.

Linda McMahon may put blocks of granite on her glitzy mailers. But her Republican credentials are tissue thin.  

Erick Erickson, who is admittedly the mastermind behind Doug-mania in the Rightosphere, has a rather disturbing post in RedState.

Two party officials tell POLITICO that the NRCC will continue to air TV ads propping up Scozzafava in the days leading up to the Nov. 3 contest and plans to keep up a near relentless barrage of press releases slamming Hoffman.

Here’s my favorite part, which is also the most insulting:

Asked why so many prominent Republicans had thrown their support to Hoffman, the official responded, “We’re dealing with data, not hopes and dreams

OK. I'm a data driven guy. Let's look at these numbers.

1. Let's assume the Kos poll is correct.   It shows Doug Hoffman in third place. It also shows Dede Scozzafava with the highest negatives in the race. And that if Hoffman wasn;t running, very few of his supporters would show any interest in backing Scozzafava. And, hmm what is the likely impact on such voters of running negatives on Hoffman?

Democrat candidate Bill Owens is sitting pretty;  by my estimates if he turns out the same Democratic House vote the losing candidate got in the 2006 midterm (which had turnout comparable to the 2009 20th CD special) he stands to win. Especially since the NRCC strategy will lead to less Republican turnout. Brilliant. 

2. With the exception of Newt Gingrich, most informed people realize Scozzafava is going to be one of, if not the most liberal members of the GOP caucus. And the one most likely to switch parties (more on the reasoning later).  On the other hand, Owens was a registered independent until recently and has focused much of his campaign on military issues.  So, it seems reasonable to think he's be a bit of a Blue Dog, especially compared to other northeastern Democrats.

True, Owens is a pro "public option" vote. But can we be sure Scozzafava isn't?. She hasn't committed, has she? (The Politico seems to think she's off the reservation already)

Query to the Beltway Brain Trust: How much is a RINO worth to us compared to a Blue Dog?  Maybe we'd be better off losing the bidding war and letting Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer try and keep another wobbler in line.   

3. This seat is a rental. Not a purchase.  New York will certaintly lose a House Seat for '12. The Democrats are highly likely to control reapportionment (they control it now). The 23rd is the least Republican seat we still hold in NY; it has no major population centers, and will be held by a low seniority member.  The Democrats will make an upstate Republican walk the plank and the 23rd could easily be parcelled out between the Democrat held 20th (Saratoga), 24th (Utica) and 25th (Syracuse) districts.  

Which comes to Scozzafava switching parties. Anyone think she wouldn't flip parties to save her district and make a Republican colleague lose his seat in the re-map? Please.

4, Stop doing single-entry accounting, folks.  The DC Republicans are looking at the cost of holding one House seat.  And that's not insignificant. But they certainly don't have the cash-on-hand to fight in 40-60 seats next fall. That's going to take a monumental effort from the party's contrbutor base.

Hmm, guys, where do you plan to get that cash after you tell your most loyal contributors to stuff it? Last time I checked, K Street had sold out to Obama and Pelosi.  Unless you plan to borrow Ben Bernacke's printing press, appeasing the folks who write you checks might seem like a good idea.  

5, For the effect of electing a useless RINO while alienating the financial base of the party, please look up this definition. You genuises in DC are bright enough to figure this concept out, right?

When one considers the potential lost revenue for next year, this might turn out to be the most expensive House campaign in American history.

It seems the NRCC simply can't get out of its own way when it comes to upstate New York elections.  In 2006 they helped lose the 24th District, in 2008 we lost the 25th and 29th districts. And early this year their efforts were so counterproductive in the 20th District Jim Tedisco had to disavow them.

My suggestion to the DC Republicans. Quit while you're behind.  Punt on 4th down. Accept that the voters are going to do what they are going to do in the 23rd District. And hire someone with a clue before the '10 cycle gets going in earnest.

We've learned more this week about liberal Republican wrestling promoter Linda McMahon, a/k/a "the Wild RINO"

For one thing, we've ascertained that she must be the Pinch Sulzberger approved Republican in the field of candidates in Connecticut. On Sunday, the New York Times decided to put its candidate profile of Mrs. McMahon on page A1 

A Senate Candidate Accustomed to Being Thrown in the Ring

“I don’t think anyone should ever question Linda’s resolve or tenacity,” said Dick Ebersol, the chairman of NBC Universal Sports, who has collaborated on projects with the McMahons. “If anybody thinks she is the little woman, they are out of their minds. She put the business together.”

OK, any question who the MSM is in the tank for in this race, folks?

Jeez, you wonder what's going through Rob Simmons's head about now. All he did was spend a career in the CIA and on Capitol Hill, a decade in the CT Legislature, won a Democrat congressional district three times, and he's been obscured by someone who produced a soap opera on steroids.   

What is not going through Republican minds in Connecticut is much respect for this stuff. Just this week, a legislator from McMahon's  home town endorsed the thoughtful conservative in the field,  State Senator Sam Caligiuri

 “Representative Camillo’s endorsement is very humbling. As a relative newcomer to the political scene, Fred brings the fresh perspective of an outsider who is very much in touch with the people he represents. The Greenwich community is fortunate to have such a bright, rising star representing them in the General Assembly, and I am honored to have his support,” said Caligiuri.

And McMahon's trouble extend to the stump. Here's what a Hartford Courant political reporter said of her appearance this week in Windsor. "her delivery is about as interesting as listening to an assistant principal read the morning announcements"

On the other hand, Caligiuri's performance won praise

 I'd give Caligiuri a B+ for his engaging, lively stump speech, which told us about how he snatched Waterbury from the jaws of corruption and reminded us of his immigrant roots. He's a proud Reagan Republican and he earns points for at least mentioning the achievement gap.

One of the reasons that McMahon is having problems on the stump is she keeps having to explain why she claims to be a Republican today despite having done little in the past to demonstrate a modicum of interest in the party's agenda or principles.

Here's another story about McMahon's painful performance in Windsor.  

The tens of thousands of dollars given to the Democratic party and Emanuel is simply the cost of doing business, McMahon said Thursday night following a meeting of the candidates at a Windsor restaurant.

“I’ve been the CEO of a publicly traded company, which has given money to both Democrats and Republicans,” McMahon said.

McMahon said it had nothing to do with politics or personal beliefs. She said she has known Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ari Emanuel, for years.

Ari Emanuel runs a talent agency in Hollywood, California, which does business with WWE, she said. She said he called up and let her know his brother would be in Stamford and “may do a little arm twisting.” She said when she gave money to Emanuel, he was still a Congressman from Illinois, not the current president’s chief of staff.

OK, a billionaire who thinks throwing cash at liberal Democrats (Emanuel was getting Pelosi elected House Speaker at the time) is just a "cost of doing business" Now THERE'S a committed principled conservative if I ever heard one. Or perhaps she's a plant by her good friends the Emanuel family sent to muck up the Connecticut primary and save Chris Dodd's sorry keester.   

While we are on the topic of Rahm Emanuel and his brothers, maybe we could elicit an opinion from the Wild RINO on the topic of "death panels"....then again, she might think it's a new form of steel cage bout 

Maybe subsidizing leftists makes friends for Linda in Hollywood, the White House and with the New York Times, but it most certaintly is not endearing her to her opponents,

"For me it’s not just business,” former U.S. Congressman Rob Simmons said.

Simmons said McMahon’s donations undermined his efforts in 2006 and allowed his opponents, who are now expanding government to win elected office.

Simmons wasn't done

“If donating tens of thousands of dollars to Democrats was ‘the cost of doing business’ for Linda McMahon and her professional wrestling empire, one wonders what she aimed to get in return for her generosity. This sort of influence peddling would not make her ‘a different kind of Senator.’ It would make her exactly the same as the one we have.”

Sam Caligiuri wasn't very pleased with this lame effort to defend the indefensible, either. His spokeswomen issued this statement.

“What we’re hearing from Republicans as we travel around the state is that they are insulted by Ms. McMahon working against their efforts to elect Republicans, then trying to sweep these personal contributions under the rug as if no one would ever notice.  Pro wrestling might be fake, but this practice of choosing expediency over principle is the very real way in which Washington currently works, and is exactly what Sam is fighting to fix.  If McMahon is already a part of the problem, it is hard to believe she can ever become part of the solution,” said Grossman

Linda McMahon says she'll be a "different kind of Senator", but if that means she'll be a liberal glad-handing gazillionaire there's quite enough already, don'tcha think?  We need someone who cares more about folks in Hamden than Hollywood.

There's nothing "different" about hypocrisy in politicians, Linda

====UPDATE====

In this morning's' New London Day, a columnist suggests that McMahon will run a third party bid for the Senate similar to that of her political mentor, former liberal Connecticut Governor and WWE Board member Lowell Weicker

If this wouldn't be a premeditated sabotage of the effort to oust Chris Dodd, I don't know what else would be

As expected RINO wrestling promoter Linda McMahon ( a/ka/ "the Wild RINO")  has blanketed Connecticut with a media blitz announcing her candidacy against Chris Dodd

Now, local blogger Authentic Connecticut Republican has gotten a glimpse of her next ad, which shows Mrs. McMahon as a woman of action.

Enjoy!   

We thought that the genre was extinct,  but the show business geniuses behind World Wrestling Entertainment have revived a controversial style of character from past seasons.

Without further adieu, WWE presents its 2010 U.S. Senate candidate in Connecticut, Linda McMahon...a/k/a "the Wild RINO". 

(the Wild RINO argues with loving hubby, Vince McMahon)

Now those familiar with the WWE know that often it creates "good guys" and "bad guys" and the various wrestlers get to change roles as the season progresses.  Who can forget when Sergeant Slaughter portrayed a turncoat when paired with the Iron Sheik?  

Well, central casting has decided that long time WWE CEO Mrs. McMahon now gets to play the role of a conservative Republican in her bid against Senator Chris Dodd.

I got her glossy brochure in today's mail. It mentions she ran a 500 employee NYSE company--but doesn't mention which one.  OK, that a bit dodgy. don'tcha think ?

And McMahon's slick mailer pledges undying opposition to socialized medicine and adamant devotion to the concept of limited government.

Unfortunately, a quick look at Mrs. McMahon's actual record suggests this is as realistic as the plot lines for this week's RAW telecast  

I mean, of all the people whom she could have been a regular contributor to, you think a true believer in conservatism might have excused themselves from writing huge checks every election cycle to Rahm Emanuel?  

And Connecticut liberals are gleeful that Mrs. McMahon contributed over $10,000 to the DCCC, money which went directly into making Nancy Pelosi Speaker of the House.  (Nancy Pelosi held a closed fundraiser in Hartford Friday... wonder if Mrs. McMahon wandered by with another check?)

And please don;t think this was all part of some old, repudiated phase in her life....like Reagan being a New Dealer.  Just months ago she was bankrolling Virginia Democrat Mark  Warner's U.S. Senate bid.

McMahon did something lots of Connecticut Republicans did in 2006 --contribute to Joe Lieberman's campaign. Of course, most of Lieberman's contributors also made the effort to vote in the 2006 election. McMahon didn't bother to cast a vote ; perhaps it's easier to write checks than to wait in line at some Greenwich polling station.    Getting things done in the U.S. Senate can be pretty tedious, too

In fact, it appears McMahon wrote more checks to elect Democrats to the Senate than Republicans. But ok, she says she's a Republican? Well, what kind of Republican?

* One who supported various PACs affiliated with liberal Republican Christie Todd Whitman, the former NJ Governor. PAC's whose very purpose was to oppose conservative Republicans. 

* One who contributed to Whitman's daughter 's unsuccessful NJ congressional race

* One who has had turncoat  former liberal Republican Senator Lowell Weicker on her corporation's board of directors for over a decade

I mean , what more could she do to convince me she's a liberal Republican? Although she says she'll spend $30 million to convince me otherwise.

Hmm, hire as top consultant part of the NRSC's brain trust that wrote a blank check to Lincoln Chafee? Perhaps they pine for the days when Linc and Arlen were part of the caucus getting in everyone else's way

Now Mrs. McMahon says she's "against the special interests".  I'll save the bandwidth tonight. It's pretty obvious to even casual observers that the WWE is itself a special interest and has been for well over a decade. 

Connecticut Republicans have a great chance to elect a strong voice for responsible government to replace the spent  hulk of insider liberalism, Chris Dodd.

Thinking that person is Linda McMahon is as vain a hope as the thought another guy with money and star power wouldn't go girlie man once it became fashionable.  If she's the nominee I'll vote for her just to be rid of Dodd, and then expect her to be just another ineffective political celebrity waiting for a script to be written to make her audience happy.   

The Wild RINO might end up being great political theatre, but as far as doing what she says wants to do; c'mon... Wrestling's fake! 

 ===UPDATE==

Liberal CT Post columnist Jonathan Kantrowitz said some very kind things about this article, and linked to it, but posed one question I thought he deserved a response to:

Oddly enough, no one is attacking Rob Simmons for being too liberal, despite his support of gay marriage and abortion rights. In fact, most mainstream conservatives, and even some further right, are rushing to support him

I think the point here is everyone pretty much knows that

a) Rob Simmons is a moderate

b) Rob Simmons is a Republican

I have much more faith in an honest moderate with a track record than some woman off the street waving the conservative banner when her record displays zero prior interest in the cause.

One can have honest differences with the other Republican candidates in the field; but they are running as who they are. Unlike Mrs.McMahon, I am reasonably certain Mr. Simmons, Mr. Caligiuri, Mr. Foley and Mr. Schiff have believed in their campaign platforms for more than a couple of days.

I suppose it's my turn to once again play the same part as William Holden.

Sadly, our own Republican Senators are trying to save the bacon of the Democrats who have cobbled together a blindingly incoherent, unaffordable and unpopular excuse for a health care reform bill.

It makes as much sense as the British Colonel in Bridge on the River Kwai making sure the Japanese army had the best bridge possible. All doing a good job for the Democrats and saving their bill  is to give them something to show for their extravagant campaign promises.

And folks, weren;t we told rather unequivocally "I won ". Good. It's all yours then. You got your 60 votes. Do something with them.

OK, I know about "bipartisanship" and "good government", but folks, we will really get neither until we finally cause the Obama agenda to hit one big pothole that causes them to stop, look and listen.  Grease the skids on this one and theyll be on to the next extravaganza.

And frankly, right now the Republicans who cooperate are like caddies.  Sure they can recommend what club to use and where to aim; but if the shot works the Democrats get all the credit. If it doesn't, our side will be blamed for suggesting "the wrong club". "We would've had a great public option but for those clueless Republicans who stopped us."   All pain, no gain.

And after all, we are trusting the health of our families to the exact same people who ruined our financial system.

We've done a great job of putting the fear of political oblivion into the Blue Dogs and the Cap & Tr8ers. What do we do to get the same results with Senator Grassley?  

We've seen an awful lot of nasty verbiage from the chattering classes in response to the Sarah Palin resignation. Upon reflection, it says a lot more about them and what they think about the people who really support the Republican party than it reflects on Palin.

Let me first preface that I'm assuming Palin isn't stepping down because she is running off to the tropics with Rosie O'Donnell or has converted the Alaska pension funds into gold bullion in a numbered Zurich account. Assuming that she simply thought "going with the flow" was what dead fish do; this move still could be as useful to her ambitions for elective office as Plaxico Burress's marksmanship was to his football career. It does appear the Republican base were understanding of the move; but that still won't win a general election.

I'll also preface that I respect the opinions of those who simply and dispassionately think Palin is not presently ready to run for President, and will not make the effort to attain that stature.  I'm willing to reserve judgment until I see what Palin 2.0 looks and sounds like.

But I think we ought to at least appreciate that Palin took on the thankless task of trying to derail the Barack Obama juggernaut.  Unfortunately, it seems the DC insiders are for the most part more interested in fragging their own troops than leading the counteroffensive.

Two in particular are Micks gone wrong---Peggy Noonan and Mike Murphy. As for our party, it's like they've thrown away their rosaries and enlisted in the Black & Tans 

Peggy Noonan once used her "force" for good. Sadly, she seems to have slipped the surly bounds of both political reality and good taste in her latest columm.

In television interviews she was out of her depth in a shallow pool. She was limited in her ability to explain and defend her positions, and sometimes in knowing them. She couldn't say what she read because she didn't read anything. She was utterly unconcerned by all this and seemed in fact rather proud of it: It was evidence of her authenticity. She experienced criticism as both partisan and cruel because she could see no truth in any of it. She wasn't thoughtful enough to know she wasn't thoughtful enough. Her presentation up to the end has been scattered, illogical, manipulative and self-referential to the point of self-reverence. "I'm not wired that way," "I'm not a quitter," "I'm standing up for our values." I'm, I'm, I'm.

In another age it might not have been terrible, but here and now it was actually rather horrifying.

Since I have no reason to believe Ms. Noonan actually interviewed Palin before this writing this diatribe the concept of "facts lacking evidence" seems to kick in. But then again, I was busy learning a profession when Peggy was writing feel good speeches for President Reagan.  

It also seems that the alternative--the election of Barack Obama--was less "horrifying" to Ms. Noonan. Jeez.

Noonan then goes on to disparage the Republicans who identify with Palin's background. You see she really isn't  that blue collar and we shouldn't identify with the "politics of resentment"  And you see    " She makes the party look stupid, a party of the easily manipulated."

If anything, the reaction of the Republican rank and file since her resignation announcement should demolish the lie that social conservatives and libertarians are "easy to command" . The entire media establishment  said the Palin decision was at the least "bizarre".  Evidently it was a bad thing now the Republican voter wasn't "easily manipulated" and reached their own conclusions.

You know Peg, I started in Brooklyn and you started there a decade earlier. I ended up at 'Cuse and you went to where, Fairleigh Ridiculous. The difference is my Irish folks don't put on the "lace curtain" airs, pretend we were like the Kennedys and trash the common folk for not being socially aware. Your loss.  

Then again, once you did work for CBS, maybe rooting for the MSM is like hardwired in your DNA. I dunno.  Never had that problem.

Now, for that other marksman of friendly fire, Mike Murphy.  Murphy is a Georgetown grad (one reason I, a Cuse grad, distrust him)  hailing from Grosse Pointe, MI, so there's little reason to think he's really encountered any appreciable number of working stiffs. And let's look at his resume. 

Murphy is a writer and Republican political consultant who has advised John McCain, Mitt Romney, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jeb Bush.

(Yep, Arnold's been such a great Republican governor, Mike. Hope you aren't owed any IOU's. I hear Alaska still pays cash) 

Murphy's a bit less catty than Noonan, but still jumps all over someone whom he says he was an admirer of --McCain--for picking Palin.  And again, it's those terrible clueless people in Middle America who don't know what's good for them. 

 Palin profits mightily from a Republican blind spot. She has all the right smirking enemies in America's media elite. To them, Palin reeks of flyover America, that vast and corny collection of Nebraskas and Alabamas where the Army can always meet enlistment quotas and Tina Fey's private jet stops briefly to refuel. Red state Republicans see the snarky, elite attacks on Palin as an attack on them. And in some ways, they are.

I'm trying to figure out what Murphy's accomplishing here.  He can't be doing his buddy Mitt Romney any good by trashing the very people Mitt needs to get nominated. But then again, Murphy does MSNBC and is writing scripts in Hollywood. Maybe we just aren't that important to him anymore?

I may not be part of the meritocracy here, Mike, but, hmm, it's not like you haven't been associated with campaigns that crashed and burned----which you conveniently omit from the resume.  ( Hey, I never spent $42 million to lose what started as a dead-even statewide race to Hillary Clinton--by 12 points!)

I won;t even dignify the likes of John Weaver--last seen trying to get Huntsman in as the RINO hope after failing to get McCain to run as a Democrat--with a response. Nor Steve Chapman who thinks Palin's support is all due to looks, as if every Republican doesn;t have a gender gap.   

Lemme set this one up for ya, Peg and Mike. You guys have been running the Republican party from your little salons for over a decade. And running it into the ground while the both of you have personally done wonderfully.  And you think the rank-and-file weren't gonna notice?

You guys act like you are in the Omega House and we are the Delta House.

Let's see where a decade of poll tested, focus grouped, well researched, blow dried Republicanism got us from the professionals and party statesmen.  Sarah Palin's favorable rating is higher than that of the Republican party.  Hello, who's dragging who down?

Voters are turning against the center and that includes the professional consultant industry, K Street lobbyists, retread candidates (including the "heir force") and especially Republicans who'd rather attack their own party members instead of Obama.  Maybe we're tired of being told things like Arnold is pro-taxpayer or the GOP Congress was against wasteful spending.

I think we crave authenticity and the willingness to fight. And that's the last thing to expect from the old timers trying to keep their grip on the party. It's time for some "creative destruction" to the hackasaurses who can't see their way clear to respect the very people who are now the Republican Party 

I have a suggestion for any and all Republicans who do not want Sarah Palin to be our nominee in 2012.

How about....hmmmm....running a better candidate and explaining why he or she is better?

or isn't that haughty enough? 

One of the more entertaining news stories from the last week is the squabble between RINOs Colin Powell and Dick Cheney.  Cheney observed on a talk show that he didn’t realize Powell was still a Republican.  Powell retorted that he was a Republican because he had voted for Republicans Reagan and Bush II as well as Democrats Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, and Obama.  Powell’s response makes as much sense as Cheney’s reputation for being a conservative, which nonsensically appears to be based on his advocacy for business interests and war in Iraq.

In itself, watching two big-government RINOs argue over which can claim the mantle of “Republican” is as meaningful as professional wrestling, but what is at stake today is what, if anything, it means to be a Republican.  In 1994, the Republican Party was on the brink of a ushering in a political realignment that would have made it the majority party for the first time since 1932.  Republican leaders won power by talking a big game of small government, but they didn’t mean a word of it.  As they gained power in Washington, the beltway Republicans proved that what they believed in was big, intrusive, lawless government.  The result is the last election in which big-government Republicans got the whipping they earned by years of misrule. 

Powell and Cheney should be irrelevant, so it matters that people listen to their “debate” over which is a Republican, precisely because neither of them should be a Republican.  Powell and Cheney illustrate two visions of a Republican Party without principle. 

Powell’s vision is one in which the Republican Party should seek electoral victories by appealing to the same people who vote for Democrats, so that the difference between the two parties is one of brand name only.  His view appears to be that competing parties foster debate and that debate is good as long as it is not based on any ideological difference.  This is the voice of one who came up through the federal bureaucracy and distrusts political principle absolutely. 

Cheney’s vision is one in which the sole governing principle is reason of state:  that the interest and well-being of the state itself is the value government exists to serve.  What matters to someone like Cheney is that the “right” people hold the reigns of power, and provided the right people are in charge, there should be no legal or moral restraints on government’s power.  This is the voice of the second Bush administration. 

Fortunately, we don’t have to accept either Powell’s or Cheney’s vision.  In fact, we can tell both of them that, however they may regard themselves, we do not consider them Republicans.  “I may be out of their version of the Republican Party,” Powell said of his critics, “but there's another version of the Republican Party waiting to emerge once again.”  Indeed, and therein lies our hope.  We have the benefit of two hundred years of political history in which successive leaders articulated and defended the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and constitutional government.  The likes of Cheney and Powell will be forgotten in a generation, and it is up to us to recapture our Party and provide the principled leadership our country needs now as much as ever. 

Scott Boykin is Chairman of the Alabama Republican Liberty Caucus.