Schumer Doesn’t Fear Establishment Republicans

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections

Members of an opposing political party are usually not focused on the internal affairs of their opponents, but Senator Chuck Schumer is riveted by the GOP “civil war.”  Throughout the past few years, he has offered almost daily analysis and comments on the internal strife within the party, expressing his strong desire for the party elites to emerge victorious.  He has finally poured out his heart in a New York Times op-ed, calling for an end to closed primaries, primarily because of the Republican civil war.

Is Chuck Schumer suddenly planning to become a Republican?  Why is he so fascinated with Republican politics?  Shouldn’t he be more concerned with Democrat internal affairs?

Upon further scrutiny of Schumer’s intent, his obsession with Republican politics makes a lot of sense.  While it’s important to pick the players on your own team, it is even more effective to pick your opponents.  In this op-ed Schumer clearly reveals that there is only one type of Republican he truly fears, and if he had the power to change the laws governing elections, he would make sure that Republicans only elect politicians who will serve as straw-men opposition to the liberal agenda.

Schumer is advocating for open primaries so that, in his own words, Democrats and Independents can prevent “extreme” candidates from winning the Republican primary:

“But primaries poison the health of that system and warp its natural balance, because the vast majority of Americans don’t typically vote in primaries. Instead, it is the “third of the third” most to the right or most to the left who come out to vote — the 10 percent at each of the two extremes of the political spectrum. Making things worse, in most states, laws prohibit independents — who are not registered with either party and who make up a growing proportion of the electorate — from voting in primaries at all.

The phenomenon of primaries’ pulling people to the extremes seems more prevalent in the Republican Party, where centrists and moderates are increasingly rare, as a result of a combination of factors since the 1970s — the shift of Southern states toward Republican control, the mobilization of evangelical voters around social issues, anti-tax movements in California and elsewhere, and the rise of conservative talk radio and other news media.

The inherent problem with Schumer’s logic is that if closed primaries are responsible for extreme candidates pervading the political process, what does he have to fear?  After all, if they only represent 10% of the electorate, they will easily be defeated and repudiated.  Moreover, is Schumer suddenly concerned about the electoral viability and political future of the Republican Party?  As the lead partisan Democrat, wouldn’t he celebrate the self-destruction of his opposition?

All of these questions are obviously self-explanatory.  Chuck Schumer would like to go back to the days when Republicans were exclusively controlled by the likes of Bob Michael and Bob Dole.  He wants Republicans to continue bringing a Lamar Alexander or a Thad Cochran to a Chuck Schumer fight.  He doesn’t want Republicans to actually fight his liberal agenda with equal and opposing force.  That is why he wants to implement a system to preempt the election of conservatives like Ted Cruz or Chris McDaniel.

Implicit in this op-ed is the sense that Schumer doesn’t fear Republicans like Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, Mitch McConnell, and Pat Roberts.  He knows that they stand for nothing, appeal to nobody, and will ultimately never pursue a conservative agenda in a meaningful way.  They will continue to perpetuate their own power, and even grant vacuous gestures to their conservative voters when it is convenient, but they will never fundamentally undermine the growth of government.  And Chuck Schumer would like to keep it that way.

Read More

If You Like the Political System You Can Keep it

Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections, Immigration

The current debate within the Republican Party boils down to one question: is politics a means for promoting liberty and economic growth through the confines of the U.S. Constitution or is it an end to itself?

Democrats don’t have to answer this question because their policies of creating dependency, paying off special interests, and class warfare also benefit their individual members politically and help cement their power.  They can have their cake and eat it too.

Republicans, on the other hand, are presented with the dilemma of pursuing policies that don’t empower themselves or playing the special interest political game.  The special interest political game consists of a candidate or member failing to take a potent position on any major issue, telling each special interest what they want to hear, collecting millions of dollars so they can further say a bunch of nothing, and rinse and repeat for the next election cycle.

Almost every elected official from both parties either starts out playing the political game from day one or is quickly sucked into it upon taking office.  Aside from a few flag-waving issues, most politicians are not motivated to run for office because of core convictions that burn inside their soul. They are motivated to run because their mothers told them they were fit to be a senator one day.  That becomes an ends to itself.

And that is exactly what everyone hates about politics.  That is why these elections have had such low turnout.  That is why Congress has such a low approval rating.

This sense of apathy is bipartisan and clearly cuts across all ideological lines.  Yet, a grassroots conservative movement that has, more or less, been labeled as the Tea Party, is the only faction dedicated to changing the political system and throwing out the career politicians.

But it is precisely because they desire not to play the political game that these candidates are confronted with an almost insurmountable task.  Everybody in the system, including the talking heads and thumb-sucking pundits, feel threatened by the movement.  Every business interest is motivated to destroy the movement.  As such, it is so difficult to raise enough money for the challenger to define themselves before they are defined by the incumbent.

It is not very hard to run against the tea party movement.  Again, if politics is an ends to itself, career politicians will make themselves scarce, never take a stand on a contentious issue, and only put out carefully-crafted statements through professional staff – statements that are meaningless. See Mitch McConnell for an example. But the path of least resistance is always the easiest path to power if that is the ultimate goal.

As we’ve noted before, these career politicians hide behind slick ads aired on the backs of special interests money, often promoting a message antithetical to the one privately espoused in order to obtain that level of campaign funding in the first place.  Hence, the path to victory is keep the candidate scarce, lie to the voters through the filter of a high-dollar campaign apparatus, define your opponent with lies, and celebrate on election night with a speech full of platitudes.

Some of the political class pundits seem to be impressed by this process, but this is the very system that has helped create a post-constitutional country.  It’s not impressive, it’s immoral.

On the one hand, we’ve made so much progress over the past five years that establishment candidates, even those universally recognized as moderates, are forced to run on our platform.  This would have never been the case if not for the constant threat of primary challenges.  But to actually expose these people and raise enough money to throw out the political class is a long process.  It will not happen in one election cycle, but we must start somewhere.  People tend to forget how hard it is to actually succeed in throwing out an incumbent in a primary.  It has only been done once in the Senate in recent years when Senator Richard Lugar was downed in Indiana (Mike Lee won in a convention dynamic).

Seats with no incumbent Republican are not any easier.  The establishment candidates always have exponentially more money and they run as conservative challengers against the status quo.  It’s not that the conservative choices lost; it’s that they never got on the field.  Thom Tillis was the only candidate in North Carolina up with sustained penetration media buys.  His allies bought him ubiquitous name ID.  Greg Brannon and Mark Harris never cracked 30% in name ID.

In Georgia, David Purdue and Rep. Jack Kingston spent over $5 million apiece between their campaigns and outside groups.  As of the last FEC filings, Karen Handel – the third-place finisher – spent just over $700,000.  And more importantly, the two establishment candidates ran away from party leadership and even signed a hard-core pledge against amnesty and open borders.  You spend the most money and run as a conservative you will always win the primary.

But to what end?  That is the unanswered question.

If the ultimate goal is just to win an elected office with no intention of fulfilling their campaign promises, in other words, governing like establishment Republicans, their game will come to an end at some point.  You can’t fool the people all the time.

Read More

Madison Project Airs Radio Ad in Support of John Ratcliffe in TX-4

Tuesday, May 13th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections

Fort Worth, TX –The Madison Project PAC released a new, 60-second radio ad encouraging Republicans in northeast Texas to vote for John Ratcliffe in the May 27 Republican runoff election primary for the U.S. House Fourth Congressional District:

To listen to the ad click here.

“While all Republicans run as conservatives in GOP primaries, few have the record to back up their rhetoric like John Ratcliffe,” said Drew Ryun of the Madison Project.  “As a small-town mayor of Heath, TX, Ratcliffe was one of the few local leaders who balanced the budget during the recession without raising taxes.  He imposed term-limits on himself as mayor and he is pledging term-limits again as a Member of Congress.

“Most importantly, as GOP leadership is prepared to rubber stamp President Obama’s open borders agenda, Ratcliffe brings an impressive skill set and much-needed passion for secure borders and the rule of law to a Congress that has shirked one of its core responsibilities.  At a time when establishment Republicans are retreating from the fight against Obamacare and opting instead to push for amnesty, Ratcliffe is the right man at the right time to represent this conservative district.”

The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found at http://madisonproject.com/

###

Read More

Nothing Clever about Winning with Lies and Special Interest Riches

Friday, May 2nd, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections

Over the past few weeks, political news outlets have been filled with articles beaming about the masterful strategy of the GOP establishment in crushing grassroots challenges.  They smugly celebrate the wily tactics of Senator Mitch McConnell, the Chamber of Commerce, and Crossroads in counterattacking the Tea Party.  But when you think past the initial headline, you will find that there is nothing special, clever, or innovative about their strategy.  It is quite simple.

Members of the political class, which is comprised of the leaders in both parties, support unconstitutional policies, corporate welfare, amnesty for illegals, consistent debt ceiling increases, federal control of local functions, and anything else demanded by the dominant moneyed interests.  In return, they receive unlimited campaign support in the form of direct contributions and independent expenditures that are carefully coordinated with their candidates through McConnell’s network of the Chamber, NRSC, and Karl Rove – as outlined by National Journal.

In comes a grassroots candidate from the country class.  Needless to say, unless they are a billionaire, they struggle to collect small donations from patriotic citizens in order to develop a modicum of legitimacy and grow their name ID with the electorate.  In fact, it is precisely because these candidates support principle over power that they have a difficult time raising money – at least anywhere near the scale of the political class.  There is a clear inverse relationship between principled stances on the issues and raising money.

The campaign finance “inequality” has been further exacerbated by McCain-Soros campaign finance laws that place upstart candidates at a disadvantage.  They lack a large network of donors, but might know of a handful of patriots who are willing to fully support the candidate.  However, they are hamstrung by caps on individual contributions.

Challenging the political class in both open seats (or Democrat seats) and incumbent seats would be arduous enough if the only inherent problem was the money gap.  But there are two more challenges: defining of the candidate and ideological lies.

Defining the Candidates

In most races with grassroots challengers, the incumbent enjoys ubiquitous name ID and has been fully defined in the eyes of the voters for years.  As is often the case, the incumbent might have mediocre approval numbers, but given that he is a known quantity, there is no fear that he is a total lunatic.

Contrast that to most of the challengers who are starting out with zero name ID and are completely undefined in the minds of voters.  Again, most of these challengers lack the funds to ever pose a threat to the incumbent, but the minute they gain traction, the political class has unlimited funds to define the challenger with their professional hit man opposition attacks.  Let’s be clear, some grassroots candidates are better than others, but there is no human being with an impressive background who does not have something in their lives that can be exaggerated or distorted and put into a massive TV buy.

Remember, the first time most voters are hearing about our candidates is through the prism of the oppo hits, and you know what they say about a first impression.  That is how they can destroy someone out of the gate — with a dehumanization campaign.  Even if they didn’t have the funding advantage it would still be difficult because of the gap in definition.  The establishment can completely destroy upstart insurgent candidates because there is no pre-existing definition in the minds of voters.  We cannot destroy their candidates, rather merely hope to slowly knock them down a few points.  Moreover, we focus on issues; they focus on oppo hits.  Guess which one resonates more with voters?

Lies, Lies, Lies

As the National Journal article noted, McConnell and his lieutenants have learned how to pick the lock.  Unlike moderate incumbents of the past like Dick Lugar, who, more or less, ran on their records, these members take the McCain/Hatch route.  In other words, they lie their way through the primary.

Instead of running on support of bailouts, amnesty, corporate welfare, debt ceiling increases, expansion of the federal government, jettisoning social issues, and tweaking Obamacare (things they support privately or even vote for) they use their superior firepower to portray themselves as rocked-rib conservatives and paint their opponents as liberals.  Remember how Mike Simpson ran ads saying he voted to REPEAL the Wall Street bailout and that his opponent was a liberal trial lawyer?  Their cowardly allies do the same thing.  Just look at Jason Hart’s article about OH-14 to understand how all these factors play together.

Ponder this thought for a moment: political class candidates receive millions of dollars from big government interests precisely because of their support for liberal causes.  Then they turn around and use that money to lie to the voters and sell themselves as the antithesis of their funding sources and their opponents as the epitome of their special interests.

Headed into the next few weeks, this strategy might pay off.  We pray to God that it doesn’t.

But one thing is clear: there is no skill, merit, or virtue in what they are doing.  It is nothing but old-fashioned corruption and lies.

Read More

John Ratcliffe for Congress in Texas’s Fourth District

Tuesday, March 25th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections

Conservatives across the country are scrambling to take back the Republican party from the political class.  However, there are so many inherent challenges in unseating entrenched establishment Republicans who enjoy superior resources and ubiquitous name ID.  Yet, one of the most auspicious opportunities has gone undetected by many in the movement.  There is a candidate who is committed to upending the political class and likely has the best chance to succeed of any challenger this cycle. His name is John Ratcliffe; he is running in northeast Texas (Fourth District ) and he deserves our support.

John Ratcliffe reminds us a lot of Congressman Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) in many ways.  Bridesntine ran against an entrenched Republican on a platform challenging the establishment and pledging term limits.  He did so without the support of most national conservative groups, yet he won decisively on election night.  Ratcliffe has quietly run an effective campaign against Congressman Ralph Hall (R-TX), the oldest sitting member of Congress, and after less than three months he was able to draw the incumbent into a runoff.  Now is the time for conservatives to act.

Congressman Hall is an honorable man and a veteran of World War II.  But the contrast between the two candidates could not be any starker.  Whereas Hall has turned his position into a career devoid of any desire to fight the status quo, Ratcliffe is picking the arduous path to a congressional seat precisely because he wants to send a message to career politicians.

John Ratcliffe served as a small-town mayor in Heath, Texas from 2004-2012.  While every other municipality in Rockwall County raised taxes at least once during the recession years, Ratcliffe balanced the budget without ever raising taxes.  During his tenure, the city of Heath’s financial rating was upgraded several times by all of the major credit rating groups to AA.  As a popular figure who was urged to run again, Ratcliffe declined, even though there was no law limiting tenure in office.

Ratcliffe also has a wealth of experience in law enforcement and counter-terrorism; he served as Chief of Anti-Terrorism and National Security for Eastern District of Texas from 2004-2007 and was then appointed acting-U.S. Attorney for that same district.  During his time as U.S. Attorney, Ratcliffe coordinated the arrest of 300 illegal immigrants in one day and prosecuted many of them for identity theft and Social Security fraud.  John will fill the void within the party to fight against amnesty and for strong enforcement of our immigration laws.

John is a smart, articulate, and soft-spoken man who could have chosen an easy path to power.  Congressman Hall has already pledged to retire after this next term.  He could have gotten a head-start and worked within the system to take over from Hall in two years.  Instead, he is challenging a long-serving and well-respected incumbent while pre-emptively pledging term limits.  He understands that we cannot waste a solid conservative seat. Texas’ Fourth District should not be without a strong conservative voice in what is going to be the worst two years of the Obama administration.

Ratcliffe articulately sums up the problem with the status quo in the party by noting that too many incumbent Republicans are “conservative philosophically and operationally liberal,” seeking to be “tolerated by their conservative constituents instead of fighting for them.”  Ratcliffe notes how hard it is to downsize bureaucracy from his experience trying to shrink a U.S. attorney’s office and a local government.  That’s why he is leading by example with self-imposed term limits.

He is tired of the establishment Republicans taking conservative districts and acculturating them to dependency on the federal government.  As such, he is committed to phasing out all federal subsidies of local enterprise – subsidies which inevitably come with strings attached.  As a successful small-town mayor, Ratcliffe understands that local governments are hamstrung by federal control of functions that are inherently local in nature and will push to devolve those functions to the states.

Ratcliffe’s message is clearly resonating.  After just three months of campaigning, he has held one of the longest serving members of Congress – who has never received less than 50% of the vote in any of the 18 counties in the district – to under 50% district-wide.  John actually won two counties outright in the first round.

He is on the precipice of turning the tide for the May 27 runoff.  If conservatives fail to join the fight we will waste this seat for another two years and run the risk of paving the road for an establishment candidate to replace him in 2016.  Or we could rally behind John Ratcliffe and help change leadership immediately.  The choice is clear.

Read More

A McConnell Majority vs. an Enduring Majority

Monday, March 10th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections

One of the more trenchant lines delivered from the podium at CPAC last week was Sarah Palin’s zinger regarding the GOP “Beltway Boys”: “You didn’t build that. The Tea Party did.”  Palin was referring to the GOP House majority acquired through the 2010 midterm elections, but the same observation is apropos for the potential to win a Senate majority this year.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never met someone who shares the worldview of the Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin or Senator Mitch McConnell’s NRSC minions at a phone bank or door-to-door canvassing event for Republican candidates.  And I’m referring to general elections as well as primaries.

The relationship between the grassroots and the establishment during elections years has always been one-directional. When we beat the establishment in primaries, they often decline to endorse our candidates in the general election and actively work against them.  However, when our candidates lose, we work our tails off to ensure that the Democrat is defeated.

We all united behind the goal of defeating Pelosi in 2010, even in states where the Republican candidate was a hackneyed old-bull or establishment tool.

In 2012, when the GOP nominee was an anathema to everything we have been fighting for, we mustered the gumption to organize for him/her in a united effort to defeat Obama. Ironically, it was some of the biggest establishment cheerleaders who turned on Romney when the going got rough in the general election.

This year we stand at the precipice with the united goal of defeating Senator Harry Reid, the worst Senate leader in American history, a man who has completely gutted the Senate as a deliberative body.  We all know that when the chips are down in the fall, it is the grassroots who will be working indefatigably to defeat Democrats, even in states with milquetoast Republican candidates.

We have always built the majorities, yet the GOP beltway boys have always dismantled our majorities and disenfranchised us by voting with Democrats on key policy initiatives.  As such, it’s only fair that we have a say in choosing the nominees for whom we will work our butts off to elect in the fall.

An indeed, if we don’t work hard in the primaries, Republicans might still win back the majority (although if McConnell wins the primary, he might cost us the majority by losing his seat), but here is what to expect from the anointed leader:

“This election season, Republicans led by Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky are taking a much harder line as they sense the majority within reach. Top congressional Republicans and their allies are challenging the advocacy groups head on in an aggressive effort to undermine their credibility. The goal is to deny them any Senate primary victories, cut into their fund-raising and diminish them as a future force in Republican politics.

I think we are going to crush them everywhere,” Mr. McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, said in an interview, referring to the network of activist organizations working against him and two Republican incumbents in Kansas and Mississippi while engaging in a handful of other contests. “I don’t think they are going to have a single nominee anywhere in the country.”

If only McConnell showed such moxie against Reid and Obama on passing liberal legislation and raising the debt ceiling!

But let’s travel together into a fantasy land for a moment and assume that McConnell is personally a genuine conservative.  Let’s assume that he is merely hamstrung by being in the minority, but will fight like hell for conservatives as the newly-minted majority leader.  At best, he is likely to preside over a tenuous majority of 51-52 seats.  Facing such a united Democrat opposition, wouldn’t he want the most reliable conservative votes in order to navigate through the legislative process?

Yet, McConnell has said he will work to reelect every single liberal incumbent and ensure that conservative grassroots are defeated “anywhere in the country.”  Again, let’s assume that McConnell is chomping at the bit to push a conservative legislative agenda; why in the world would he want to reelect Senators like Lamar Alexander, Thad Cochran, and Lindsey Graham from bright red states like Tennessee, Mississippi, and South Carolina?

Putting aside those “troublesome” groups like Heritage Action for a moment, these members have terrible scores even from McConnell’s pro-amnesty allies at the American “Conservative” Union.  Cochran and Alexander each scored a 60 and Graham scored a 68.  And in the case of Graham, not only does he often vote with Democrats, he actually relishes dissenting from the party and spearheading liberal initiatives while whipping votes for Senator Chuck Schumer.  Lindsey Graham is a nightmare for any party leader who wants to push a united conservative front.

The other backbenchers can be picked off at any moment.  And even those like Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) will clearly revert to his Kathleen Sebelius days were he to win his primary and no longer fear a reprisal from conservatives.  Wouldn’t a committed conservative leader of a small majority  – even one who is not necessarily a Tea Party type – want reliable fighters like Milton Wolf and Chris McDaniel, especially given the fact that they hail from states with no viable Democrat challenger?

But, alas, we must relinquish that tantalizing thought and return to reality.  Indeed Mitch McConnell is not committed to one iota of a conservative agenda.

It is precisely because he is a finger lickin’ fraud – one who evinces a conservative image back home but stabs us in the back in D.C. – that he wants people like Graham, Alexander, and Cochran to remain in the Senate.  He wants them to be reliable votes for “must-pass” Democrat bills that he doesn’t want to publicly support.

It is precisely because, as George Will has suggested, McConnell wants to pass amnesty, that he would never support real conservative candidates.

It is precisely because he supports the agenda of K Street and his money-bundlers that he needs liberal Republicans to muddle up the conference.

It is precisely because McConnell becomes even more liberal when in the majority that he doesn’t want any bold reformers pushing bold legislation during a presidential cycle.

And it is precisely because of the prospect of McConnell presiding over a majority populated by failed politicians that we must take action now.

It’s time to build an enduring majority.

Read More

RELEASE: Madison Project PAC Endorses Dr. Bob Johnson for Congress in Georgia’s First District

Monday, March 10th, 2014 and is filed under Uncategorized

March 10, 2014

Contact: Mary Vought

mary@madisonproject.com

 

Fort Worth, TX – The Madison Project PAC, the first conservative PAC to endorse Ted Cruz (R-TX), announced today that it is endorsing Dr. Bob Johnson for Congress in Georgia’s First District:

“For those who are looking for the prototype of a Tea Party candidate, Dr. Bob Johnson is the superlative example,” said Drew Ryun, Political Director of the Madison Project. “As a former Army Ranger, full-time cancer surgeon, small business owner, and articulate conservative, Dr. Johnson is the perfect candidate to send to Congress at this critical time. His intuitive common sense and impressive background has imbued him with a strong set of conservative principles and policy ideas, the likes of which we’ve seen in few candidates this cycle.  As a doctor and a veteran, he will serve as an effective voice for free market healthcare reform and restructuring our military to meet 21st century challenges.  As a strong Christian, he will not shy away from defending religious liberty and the institution of marriage, even if the GOP establishment is scared to fight back on those critical issues.

“Dr. Johnson will move beyond the platitudes and talking points to push for conservative solutions, even if that means confronting party leadership.  There is nobody on par with Dr. Johnson in this race; he will fight for us every day of his self-term-limited tenure in Washington and we are proud to make him our choice for Congress in Georgia’s First District.”

The official endorsement can be viewed here.

The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found athttp://madisonproject.com/

###

Read More

The Great Establishment Deception on Winning Back Senate

Monday, February 24th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections

The unambiguous strategy of the GOP establishment this year has been to avoid any and all confrontation in the hopes of gliding into a Senate majority in 2015.  To that end, they have capitulated on all of the major leverage points, passed a number of Democrat spending bills, and are in the process of pushing “small-ball” legislation in the House so as not to rock the boat before November.

This pusillanimous strategy is predicated on the false hope that a bare-minimum Senate majority – comprised of the same Republicans who support these Democrat priorities – will somehow alter the landscape in Washington.  They are misleading conservative and GOP activists into thinking that as long as the GOP can hold tight on the status quo until 2015 we will enjoy robust power to push for conservative priorities thereafter.

The reality is that nothing will change in 2015.  Irrespective of the outcome in November, Republicans will control the House and have the ability to block bad legislation.  On the other hand, President Obama will still be in the White House for another two years.  Consequently, the addition of six more Senate seats with the current incumbent leaders and rank-and-file members will not change the legislative dynamic.

Republicans who lack the will or principles to fight on major issues will still use Obama’s obstructionism as the baseline for excuses not to advocate bold initiatives.  Whether it’s a debt ceiling or a budget bill, they will fear brinkmanship with Obama as much as they do now.

What about blocking bad bills?  Certainly Republicans will have the power to do so if they win back the Senate, won’t they?

Well, they already have the power to stop bad bills with control of the House, yet, time and again, we have seen a de facto Democrat super-majority in the Senate pass harmful legislation only to be rubber-stamped by the House – or at least open for consideration.

Unless we elect the right candidates for Senate, a weak GOP majority would still net enough votes to pass amnesty, an internet sales tax, omnibus bills, highway bills, or the anti-liberty “ENDA” bill.

Moreover, in some respects, these same Republicans will be even more frightened to fight for a bold conservative agenda in 2015.  As much as they would have us believe that a GOP Senate-majority is the road to the Promised Land, it will be overshadowed by the presidential election the minute they take office.

If Republicans are recalcitrant to stand for anything ahead of a midterm election, imagine how fearful they will be to even stick their fingers in the wind with the White House at stake.

“Well, we can’t get anything done without the White House anyway,” they will contend.  “Let’s not undermine the effort to win the presidency by picking fights with Obama.”

The entirety of the 114th Congress will be driven by fear of 2016.

Ok, but wait until 2017 when Republicans control everything.  Then they will really fight for a decisive conservative agenda and will overturn every inimical policy of the Obama administration.

Maybe in some dreamland, folks.

With control of all branches of government, and the undivided responsibility that comes with such power, Republicans will be even more indisposed to roll back big government.  “How can we risk losing power?”

Furthermore, let’s remember that many of the same arguments promulgated by Republicans in the minority will persist even when they are in control of the White House.  These same hackneyed politicians have already agreed to the Democrat premise of default.  So they will feel compelled to raise the debt ceiling even with full control of the government.

The current crew of GOP leaders has already agreed to the Democrat premise on immigration.  That will not change when they are in the majority.

They have already accepted the notion of a permanent federal control over transportation and agriculture policy.  That will not change when they are in power.

Republicans have made it clear that they will not publicly fight back against the growing anti-religious–liberty agenda forcing alternative lifestyles on private citizens and organizations.

In fact, these same non-leaders tend to be at their best specifically when they are in the minority.  The allurement of power only moves them to the left when they are the majority party in Washington.

Hence, whether we are talking about 2015, 2017, or well beyond, there is never an end-game for these politicians.  The pursuit of power over principle; the quest for authority for its own sake is a circuitous cycle of failure.

The only way to end the failed cycle of politics is to change the way we approach primaries.  This year would be a great time to start.

Read More

The Establishment, Allegations of Purity, and Reality

Friday, February 14th, 2014 and is filed under Blog, Elections

We all agree that Sen. Harry Reid must be dethroned.  Even from a liberal perspective, he has completely destroyed the structure of the Senate by shutting down the open amendment process, thereby eradicating the most important difference between the upper house and the lower house of the legislative branch.

This year, we have the opportunity to vanquish Reid by defeating his liberal lieutenants in conservative states like Louisiana, Arkansas, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Alaska. However, if you think that our policy woes with Washington will change one iota if the current crop of Republicans lead the majority, you haven’t been paying attention.  And if you buy into the bromide about not letting “purity tests” get in the way defeating Democrats, you are willingly blinding yourself to the reality that has played out over the past few years.

The entire conglomerate of consultants, donors, and lobbyists who control the bulk of Republicans in Washington, and the leadership in particular, do not share our values.  This is not a difference in strategy, tone, or a casualty to being the minority party in Washington.  We have witnessed this with one issue after another.  These people regard the party faithful with as much contempt as the Democrats.  And that will not change when Republicans win back the Senate – if the House and Senate are controlled by its current cadre of leaders.

This goes far beyond any legislative scorecard or analysis of voting records.  As we witnessed this week with the debt ceiling vote, most of the elected Republicans spend their time plotting political cover and manipulate their votes to ensure that our side loses, albeit without their public stamp of approval.  We don’t need votes to tell us who is on our side.  You can tell who is with us and who is against us simply by listening to them, watching their actions, and observing their associations.

Indeed, despite the allegations that we seek purity within the party, it is clear that what we want is a bold party of contrast – whether in the majority or minority.  We want a party that will offer a bold stance on immigration and the debt ceiling, for example, and fight for it with equal and opposing force.  We want loyal conservatives that share and fight for our conservative values the same way elected liberals fight for the Democrat party platform. Instead we are given a pale pastel version of Republicans who placate conservatives during election years, and then enact the liberal Democrat talking points through clandestine political efforts.

We know who is with us and who is with the political class.  Everybody takes bad votes once and a while.  Even Ted Cruz recently voted for a bad flood insurance bill.  None of us are demanding purity from him because we know that on almost every issue he is not just a vote but a courageous and effective voice for the millions of us who are disenfranchised by the ruling class oligarchy.  He fights every day in Washington for us.

Jeff Sessions is another good example. He has cast a laundry list of bad votes, and probably doesn’t believe in limited government and free markets to the same extent we do on some issues.  But he is an inimitable statesman when it comes to his core issues of immigration, budget, and welfare.  On immigration, he has offered more selfless, indefatigable leadership – both on a political and policy level – than almost any member on any issue.  He has stood as the Elijah on Mount Carmel against the entire universe of sleazy politicians and consultants in Washington who seek to subvert our civil society.  Despite his bad votes on some other issues, none of us are looking to replace him because indeed we are not purists.  We just want people who fundamentally represent our values, and Sessions has shown that his heart is with the Country Class over the Ruling Class.

The leaders in the House and Senate, along with their boot lickers, are fundamentally against us.  Many of us have known and observed this privately for years, but the debt ceiling vote – both in the House and Senate – brought their devious subterfuge out in the open.

In the House, leadership got together and agreed to pass it with Democrat votes, thereby letting almost their entire conference off the hook to vote against their true beliefs so they can play their Republican constituents like fools.

In the Senate, McConnell attempted to do the same, but was thwarted by Senators Cruz and Lee.  Then he tried to get others to vote for something he badly wanted to pass, but lacked the conviction to own.  Roll Call explains in plain English how Democrats and Republicans worked together to fool the American people by instructing the clerk not to call their names publicly and then by switching their votes.

Remember, this is just a rare glimpse into how these guys operate on most other issues.  This will not change by simply voting Republicans into the majority, especially on the critical issues of immigration and debt.

Even with the best of leaders in Washington, there will always be differences of opinion on strategy, tone, and minor issues.  But what is happening now is far beyond a strategic disagreement.  Democrats might have internal squabbles once and a while, but they are united in goose step for the inexorable promotion of their liberal values.  There is no effective dissent from even one member.  And to the extent a couple of red-state Democrats vote against the liberal agenda, it is just a two-faced game for their conservative constituents.  Whereas Republicans are just the opposite.  They privately agree with the Democrats and only vote the right way to dissuade a potential primary challenger.

As we head into the primaries over the spring and summer, we must ask ourselves the following questions: do we want to build a GOP majority on quicksand or on a solid foundation?  Do we want to go into the voting booth on November and vote for Republicans with our heads held high or with our fingers on our nose?

The right candidates are out there.  The opportunity is calling.  The choice is ours.

Read More

Release: Madison Project PAC Endorses Alex Mooney for Congress in West Virginia’s Second District

Monday, January 27th, 2014 and is filed under Press

Mooney will be a principled conservative voice for West Virginians. 

The Madison Project PAC, the first conservative PAC to endorse Ted Cruz (R-TX), announced today that it is endorsing Alex Mooney for Congress in West Virginia’s Second District:

“When we research candidates that have held prior elected office, we hold their voting record to the same level of scrutiny as we do the words they use in their campaign speeches and political rhetoric –– few pass that scrutiny as well as Alex Mooney,” said Drew Ryun of the Madison Project. “It is rare for veterans of public service to have a rock-solid record of conservative votes as well as challenging the status quo leadership in both parties that Mooney does. His record is a testament to his steadfast leadership ability. It is with the utmost confidence that we endorse Mooney for Congress, as we are certain that he will be a principled conservative voice for West Virginians.”

Daniel Horowitz of the Madison Project said: “We are proud to endorse Alex Mooney for Congress because we know that on top of saying the right things to rally grassroots conservatives, and advocating for our principles, Mooney has a history of actually backing up his words with actions and resolve. He was a Tea Party conservative long before the movement took hold with a history of beating establishment candidates. West Virginia is on the precipice of transforming into a solid Republican state, and Mooney gives it the opportunity to become a truly conservative state with a representative in Washington that will fight for issues important to reaffirming our Republic.”

The official endorsement can be viewed here.

The Madison Project supports and raises money for conservative candidates that have demonstrated a commitment to full-spectrum conservatism. The Madison Project website can be found athttp://madisonproject.com/

Contact: Mary Vought, press@madisonproject.com

###

Read More