All posts in GOP

Ron Paul supporters plunge Denver GOP meeting ‘into madness’ [VIDEO]

Republican presidential candidate, Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas speaks during a rally, Friday, March 9, 2012, in Topeka, Kan. (AP Photo/Charlie Riedel)

In Colorado on Saturday morning, video correspondent Kelly Maher videotaped a meeting of the Denver County Republican Assembly. When a group of Ron Paul-pledged delegates arrived, she told The Daily Caller, things got crazy — and Coloradans may have caught a sneak peek of Republican events to come later this year.

Maher told TheDC on Thursday that trouble was likely, and that she would be rolling video.

“The Ron Paul chair here went around the GOP chair and committed $900 worth of security from the Denver Police,” she warned. “And now they’re sending out strategy emails on how to ‘shanghai’ the assembly.”

And shanghai they did. The meeting, Maher said afterward, “descended into madness” when Paul’s supporters “started screaming from the floor.”

Maher told The Denver Post after the meeting that “the Ron Paul people showed up with an alternate set of rules and calendar for the day.”

“[One woman] was standing at the mic and kept demanding to be recognized. She kept calling ‘point of order,’ and that was the first yelling. Once the rules were adopted, the Ron Paul people demanded they be read aloud.”

“So [chairman] Danny [Stroud] called up [secretary] Brett [Moore] to read them, which made everyone flip out again because he did it in his ‘fast reader’ voice (he used to be the reader for the state House.)”

Watch:

“If what we saw at the Denver County assembly is a harbinger of what we’re going to see at state and national levels,” Maher concluded, “definitely keep one eye on the news.”

UPDATE: Denver County GOP chairman Danny Stroud sent TheDC a statement about Saturday’s meeting, saying among other things that “we can never let passion trounce on the rights of others. Unfortunately, that was exactly what was attempted at the Denver GOP Assembly.  A small, loud group attempted to hijack the assembly and trample on the rights of those who took time out of their busy lives to participate in the political process.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/11/ron-paul-supporters-plunge-denver-gop-meeting-into-madness-video/#ixzz1os3Qp48a

Enhanced by Zemanta

SARAH PALIN: ‘I’M GAME’ TO RUN FOR FUTURE OFFICE & ‘ALL BETS ARE OFF’ IN EVENT OF BROKERED GOP CONVENTION

Via: The Blaze

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin isn’t one for divulging the tactical details of her (potential) future political plans. In fact, the 2008 vice-presidential contender is known for leaving much to the imagination when it comes to future electoral prospects. Last year, she made fans wait quite a while before announcing that she wouldn’t be seeking the 2012 GOP presidential nomination.

On Wednesday, on FOX Business’ “Follow the Money,“ Palin told Eric Bolling she ”would do whatever [she] could to help,” leaving the door open to any and all possibilities should a brokered convention take form later this year.

Sarah Palin Talks About 2012 Prospects & Possible Brokered Convention

Mediaite recaps the discussion:

Sarah Palin was the first guest on the first episode of Follow the Money, so it seemed natural for Eric Bolling to bring Palin back for his final show. In an extensive interview that began with Bolling asking Palin to explain how her life has changed since becoming Sen. John McCain‘s running mate and culminated with Palin noting that “all bets are off” as to who can be nominated in a brokered convention — something she considers a real possibility.

Palin specifically talked about the fact that the Republican Party is lacking intense enthusiasm for any one candidate, although she maintained that all four contenders have strengths. Additionally, she reiterated the respect she has for each GOP leader vying for the ticket.

Predictably, Bolling asked Palin about her future plans. As is usually the case, she kept her answer vague.

“I cannot predict what will happen in the future, but I know I’ve got the fire in my belly to try to help,” she maintained. “If that involved running for public office at some point in the future, I’m game for that.”

Then, Bolling went on to ask what Palin would be willing to do if one candidate doesn’t secure enough delegates and the primary process ends with a brokered convention.

“Well, for one, I think that it could get to that…if it had to be…closed up today, the whole nominating process, then we would be looking at a brokered convention,” Palin said. “Nobody is quite there yet, so I think that months from now, if that is the case, all bets are off as to who it will be, willing to offer up themselves up in their name in service to their country. I would do whatever I could to help.”

See Palin and Bolling address these issues, below:

Palin also dropped by FOX News’ “The Five” yesterday, surprising viewers and the show’s hosts (including Bolling), alike:

Palin’s appearance on “Following the Money” marks the end of the program, as FOX Business has cancelled its entire prime-time lineup.

(H/T: Mediaite)

Enhanced by Zemanta

Sarah Palin: Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

 Via: The Right Scoop

Read to the end on this one. This is Sarah Palin doing what she does best, ripping into the establishment:

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today.

Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan, and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.)

To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century.  Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stanlin-esque re-writing of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights.

The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 that didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama.

Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate.

The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

- Sarah Palin

Enhanced by Zemanta

The 2012 Latino Vote Should Worry Obama, not Republicans

Over the past week we have again seen a flurry of Republican kingmakers and pundits offering advice on how Republicans can “woo the Latino vote.” Such commentaries seem to appear on a regular cycle every three or four months. What we seldom see is Democrats worrying about the Latino vote. But they should.

What is missing from the speculation on the so-called Latino vote is any historical perspective or understanding of the trends of the last 40 years. Everybody knows that Obama got 67% of the Latino vote in 2008, but who remembers that Clinton got 72% of that vote in 1996? Or that Republican congressional candidates have NEVER received more than 35% of the Latino vote nationally yet somehow manage to win elections.

Considering that since the year 2000, newly naturalized Mexican nationals who register to vote have been registering 75% Democrat, and that over 60% of these new citizens are from Mexico, it should not be surprising that Democrat candidates bet 65-plus percentage of their vote.

What this means for the 2012 presidential race is that if Obama’s Latino support drops from 67% to 64%, he has probably lost the election. And that’s not the worst of it. Considering that Obama has lost support among other key groups, in reality he must expand his Latino support to 70% or more to have any hope of winning the election.

Thus, it is a mistake for republican strategists to think they must “win” or “capture” a majority of Latino voters in order to win the election. Republicans need even “recapture” the 40% that Bush won in 2004. (It was 40% not 44% as reported in some exit polls.) The Republican candidate need only hold onto the 32% they had in 2008 while also gaining ground in some other important segments.

Those numbers ought to keep the Obama strategists awake at night because Obama is losing support among Latinos at about the same pace and for the many of the same reasons he is losing support among ALL segments of the public.

Obama’s strategy over the past six months or so has been to “re-energize” the Latino vote by appeals on the immigration issue. All the evidence suggests those appeals have fallen flat.  Pollsters and pundits have been slow to see a “new reality” that is reshaping not only the immigration debate but the 2012 political landscape as well: Latino voters are not single-issue voters and the Latino vote is not for sale to the highest bidder offering amnesty for illegal aliens.

Latino-Hispanic voters, whether in Florida, North Carolina, Colorado or elsewhere, care about the same issues other Americans care about. The question for Republican strategists is — what strategy should Republicans pursue in order to outflank Obama and increase the level of Latino support in 2012?

Two of the Republican presidential candidates, Romney and Santorum, appear to understand this new reality and have made campaign statements that put the immigration issue in its proper context.  It’s one issue, not the only issue, and not even the most important issue for most Latino voters. Only Gingrich persists in pandering to Latino groups with his obsessive and misplaced concern about Latino grandmothers who have been here 25 years or longer.

If truth be told, and if the polls are to be believed, few Latino voters are worried about their grandmothers being rounded up and deported back to Mexico, Peru or Brazil. They are far more worried about their college-educated children finding jobs, how their small business will provide health care for their employees under Obamacare, and how anyone will be able to afford college if tuition rates keep growing at 8% annually.

Yes, we know that Obama will play the race card and will demagogue the immigration issue as much as he can. His problem is that it is not working given his record of failure on matters of deeper concern to Hispanic voters.

The message of the amnesty lobby is not selling well in Latino communities. Latinos as a group do not worry that Obama has failed them on immigration. They worry that he has failed them on the economy, on education, on small business taxes and regulations, on health care, and yes, on foreign policy too. Memo to the White House: Hugo Chavez may be Obama’s pal, but he is not a hero to Latino voters.

Republicans have a tremendous opportunity in 2012 if they do not squander it. What Latino voters want and need is not pandering on one issue but honest answers on a host of problems facing all Americans in the real world.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Be careful how you talk about illegal immigration, GOP official says (VIDEO)

Christian Science Monitor

Illegal immigration is a key issue facing 2012 GOP presidential hopefuls. Former Senator Norm Coleman told reporters Tuesday that debating the issue is a good thing, but the tone of the debate is hurting Republican candidates.

By Dave Cook, staff writer / November 29, 2011

Congressional Leadership Fund chairman Norm Coleman speaks at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters in Washington, D.C., on Tuesday. Michael Bonfigli/The Christian Science Monitor

WASHINGTON

Republican candidates need to watch the tone of their comments about immigration to avoid hurting their party, says former Sen. Norm Coleman, chair of the Congressional Leadership Fund, a Super PAC that works to elect Republicans to the House.

“It is not the debate, it is the tone of the debate and some of the voices that have been out there that I don’t think have been very helpful,” Mr. Coleman said at a Monitor-hosted breakfast for reporters.

Immigration played a key role in last week’s GOPdebate on national security. During the debate, formerHouse Speaker Newt Gingrich said he would favor letting certain illegal immigrants – those who had been in the country 25 years, paid taxes, and had ties to the community – stay in the US without being granted citizenship.

Rep. Michele Bachmann said Mr. Gingrich’s approach ”in effect is amnesty.” FormerMassachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said Gingrich’s plan would serve as a magnet for illegal immigration.

Coleman, who supports Mr. Romney’s candidacy, said, “I have my own views on immigration. I supported a version of the DREAM Act when I was in the Senate.” The Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors Act would have provided a path to citizenship for students through attending college or serving the US military. Romney opposes the DREAM Act.

The issue can be dealt with, Coleman said. “Having a debate about the issue doesn’t hurt. I think it is the tone of the debate” that hurts. He added that “Republicans can say something [like], ‘Before we do anything else we have to secure our borders.’ You can do that in a way that says I still embrace immigration – legal immigration.”

The only Republican politician that Coleman singled out for criticism on the immigration issue was former GOP House member Tom Tancredo, who ran an unsuccessful third party bid for governor of Colorado in 2010. He favored deportation of illegal immigrants.

“When Tancredo is seen as being the voice of the Republican Party, that hurts,” Coleman said. In 2010 “we got thumped in Colorado across the board by Hispanics, which I think helped cost us a Senate seat,” Coleman said.

Enhanced by Zemanta