Thursday, April 30, 2015

The Pride of Ohio 8 doubles down to please his House Democrat base which unanimously supports corporate welfare via Export-Import Bank. Boehner would even add $20 billion to ExIm crony free for all


"Thousands of jobs would "disappear pretty quickly" if the Export-Import Bank were to expire abruptly when its charter runs out at the end of June, House Speaker John Boehner said on Thursday.

The Ohio Republican has asked Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling, R-Texas, to come up with a plan to overhaul or wind down the operations of the bank, which helps finance exports of U.S. products such as jetliners and wind turbines [and coal].

"There are thousands of jobs on the line that would disappear pretty quickly if the Ex-Im Bank were to disappear. So I told the chairman he needs to come up with a plan," Boehner told reporters. "Because the risk is that if he does nothing, the Senate is likely to act. And then what?"

Boehner's unwillingness to let the bank's operations abruptly end is at odds with deputies such as Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., who said Tuesday that he supports letting the bank's charter expire.

Many conservative Republicans want to kill the bank outright, saying it finances too many questionable projects and favors some businesses over others. But the bank enjoys sweeping support among Democrats, and other GOP lawmakers support business groups who say it sustains U.S. jobs.

Boehner said he'll support any plan Hensarling can advance through his divided panel. But the Texas Republican, who is a sharp critic of the bank, appears at odds with a host of the bank's GOP supporters that populate his committee.

In the Senate, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., opposes renewing the bank's charter. But he's signaled he'll allow an up-or-down vote that would likely go the bank's way.

Boehner's comments raised the possibility that he would allow the House to vote on a Senate bill if Hensarling's committee failed pass a plan to change the bank's operations or wind it down." via Free Rep.


More on Ex-Im Bank corporate welfare:

JP Morgan says the Ex-Im bank is “free money:”

3/15/15, "On Ex-Im Bank, the Democrats Are the Real Corporate Shills," The Daily Beast,

"Its primary activity is to extend cheap loan guarantees and direct loans to foreign companies to buy U.S goods under the pretense of boosting exports and creating jobs.

Don’t buy it. Economists have shown that these kinds of export credit subsidies will never raise the overall level of trade. The subsidies are also hurtful (PDF) since they simply redistribute wealth away from unsubsidized American firms, employees, and consumers and direct it toward a tiny number of beneficiaries....

When it comes to being pro-big business, conventional wisdom says the Republicans are most likely to distribute the goods. It’s a valid criticism. Republicans are indeed big supporters of business interests. But these days, they are second to the Democrats. Case in point: The congressional Democrats’ recent and unanimous support for the Export-Import Bank. A bill recently introduced by Democrats would reauthorize the bank’s charter for seven years and expand its lending ability by $20 billion....
The bank’s data show that it overwhelmingly benefits some of the biggest, most politically connected firms in America. In fact, in 2013, 64 percent of the bank’s activities benefited 10 companies, such as Boeing, General Electric, and Caterpillar. And these companies’ customers aren’t poor either. For instance, the bank subsidizes wealthy foreign borrowers—like mining heiress Gina Rinehart, owner of the Ex-Im-financed Roy Hill Iron Ore Mine and Australia’s richest woman. She could easily find private capital without government privileges. It also subsidizes numerous state-owned companies in wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia and fast-growing airlines (PDF) like Lion Air and Air Emirates.

Maybe more interesting is the fact that the biggest beneficiary on the foreign buyer side is a company named Pemex. It is a super gigantic Mexican state-owned petroleum company with a market capitalization of $416 billion. And yet it has benefited from $7 billion in U.S.-taxpayer-backed financing since 2007. I wonder how Democrats reconcile that handout with their well-known anti-fossil fuels stance....
But the biggest beneficiaries of all are probably the lenders who earn interest on loans whose risk is borne by American taxpayers. No one explained it better than a JP Morgan banker (whose firm just happens to be the biggest private lender that benefits from Ex-Im), when he said that the bank is “free money”—that is, for the firms who know the right people."...
Ex-Im Bank officials are appointed by the White House:
1/9/2009, "PEBO (Pres. Elect B. Obama) to Name Fred Hochberg to Head Export-Import Bank," ABC News, Huma Khan
6/6/13, "Senate panel backs Hochberg for second term at Ex-Im Bank," Reuters
Export Import Bank Chairman and Board of Directors are Obama appointees.

Ex-Im Bank fossil fuel financing reached a peak of $9.6 billion in 2012 fiscal year.
7/3/14, "U.S. Ex-Im Bank weighs loan to major India coal project," Reuters, by Valerie Volcovici

"The U.S. Export-Import Bank is considering financing a massive coal-fired power plant in India
despite the fact the Obama administration has called on domestic and global public lenders to stop funding coal-plants in his climate change strategy.

The board of the Ex-Im Bank, the United States' export credit agency, voted last December to stop funding coal plants overseas - except in certain circumstances - in response to President Barack Obama's Climate Action Plan, which called on U.S. and international lenders to do so.

"We are currently reviewing the application, which we received last month, to determine if it satisfies our criteria of 'reasonable assurance of repayment' and to ensure that it adheres to our environmental and other policies," an Ex-Im official said....
Democratic Senator Joe Manchin from coal state West Virginia plans to offer compromise legislation to renew the bank's charter by five years on the condition that it permanently removes the restrictions on lending to coal projects.

The Ex-Im Bank in January temporarily suspended enforcement of a lending ban to high-carbon intensity projects until September due to a provision of a House appropriations bill that defied the president's climate action plan.

This opened the window for the India project to apply for an Ex-Im loan guarantee.

The coal project being reviewed by the bank
is a 4,000 MW integrated power plant and coal mines located in India's Jharkand state in northeastern India.

It had initially been proposed by India's government as part of a strategy to add an additional 100,000 megawatts of generation capacity by 2017. Residents surrounding the coal mining and power project have protested against it.

The supercritical plant, which uses more efficient boilers than traditional coal-fired power plants, is owned by Reliance Power (RPOL.NS), Tata Power (TTPW.NS) and coal mining company NTPC.

The Ex-Im Bank does not disclose which U.S. vendors have applied for the loan until the loan is approved.

In 2010, the bank agreed to $900 million in loan guarantees from Reliance Power (RPOL.NS) to buy mining equipment from Wisconsin-based Bucyrus, now owned by Caterpillar (CAT.N) to build a power plant in central India."...
Fossil fuel financing has flourished under Obama:
Jan. 14, 2014, "U.S. spending bill aims to dilute curbs on overseas coal financing," Reuters, Valerie Volcovici

"The Ex-Im Bank's fossil fuel financing reached a peak of $9.6 billion in the 2012 fiscal year, according to environmental group Pacific Environment."...
Export Import Bank Chairman Hochberg is an Obama appointee. Judge Contreras who ruled in this case is also an Obama appointee:
1/23/2015, "Greens Can't Sue ExIm Bank for Coal Loan," Rebekah Kearn,

"The U.S. Export-Import Bank need not face claims that a $90 million loan guarantee to a coal company will damage the environment and threaten public health, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.

     Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Center for International Environmental Law and four other environmental groups sued in July 2013 , claiming that the bank and its Chairman Fred P. Hochberg authorized a 3-year, $100 million loan to Xcoal Energy and Resources from PNC Bank without conducting environmental analysis required under the National Environmental Policy Act.

     The loan enabled Xcoal to mine $1 billion worth of coal from mines in Appalachia, transport it by rail to ports in Baltimore and Hampton Roads, Va., and sell it to overseas customers.

     The plaintiffs claimed that the loan deal would pollute the air and water with toxic coal dust, aggravating respiratory conditions such as bronchitis and asthma, and that toxic metals in coal dust from the mines would increase people's risk of cancer and kidney damage.

     They also claimed that small dust particles contribute to haze, alter the nutrient balance in water bodies, and diminish ecological diversity.

     In response, ExIm Bank claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing and that it was not necessary to conduct a NEPA-compliant environmental study for a loan guarantee.
On Wednesday, District of Columbia Federal Judge Rudolph Contreras agreed with the ExIm Bank, and found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the loan guarantee.

     To establish standing in cases alleging violation of procedural rights, such as NEPA lawsuits, the plaintiff must demonstrate a specific rather than general interest in the matter, show that the government's failure to conform to the procedure at issue will harm the plaintiff's interests, that the government's failure to act is the cause of the plaintiff's alleged injuries, and that the court can provide actual rather than speculative relief, the ruling states.

     The defendants acknowledged that members of the four environmental groups suing on behalf of their members would likely be harmed by pollution from coal exportation, but argued that the groups lacked standing because they did not prove that the loan would cause Xcoal to export more coal or that vacating the guarantee would force Xcoal to export less coal.

     In rebuttal, the groups asserted that ExIm's loan enabled Xcoal to export more coal than it could without the guarantee, and that canceling the guarantee until the bank completes NEPA analysis would force Xcoal to decrease coal exports and thus reduce pollution.

     Contreras was not persuaded. He found that the administrative record and declarations from the parties demonstrate no link between ExIm Bank's authorization of the loan guarantee and the amount of Xcoal's coal exports.

     Though the groups' members believed NEPA compliance could better protect them from the effects of coal pollution, their "hopes or beliefs than an order rescinding the guarantee would redress their injuries, however genuine, do not constitute 'specific facts' showing redressability," Contreras wrote.

     In contrast, the defendants supported their position with specific facts, such as Xcoal's using other lines of credit to boost its coal exports, to prove that rescinding the guarantee will accomplish little to protect the plaintiffs' members from pollution, the ruling states.

     "The proposition that Xcoal would export less coal if the court orders the bank to rescind its guarantee is, at best, entirely conjectural in light of the availability of alternative funds and Xcoal's stated commitment to exporting the same volume of coal regardless of whether the loan guarantee is rescinded," Contreras wrote.

     Since the four groups cannot refute the defendants' assertions that the European banking crises is easing up and that Xcoal is using only 30 percent of its available $535 million in credit, they lack standing for failure to establish redressabillity, Contreras added.

     The Center for International Environmental Law's and Pacific Environment's claims for organizational standing based on suffering "injuries to their organizations' missions, activities, and resources" due to ExIm's guarantee also failed to impress the court because neither could not show that they suffered actual harm.

     Both groups contended that the guarantee interferes with their express missions
to protect the environment, and forced them to expend resources on environmental advocacy and public education, but neither could back up those claims with specific facts or explain how allocating additional funds for advocacy differed from their typical program activities and costs, according to the ruling.

     An action that merely frustrates an organization's goals is not enough to prove actual injury, and without proof of such injury, the plaintiffs thus lack standing, Contreras wrote.

     The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied as moot the plaintiffs' motion to include extra-record evidence.

     The plaintiffs were Chesapeake Climate Action Network, the Center for International Environmental Law, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, the West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, and Pacific Environment."

Daily Kos says, Ex-Im Bank Pres. "Hochberg has a long history of supporting controversial coal projects backed by unscrupulous companies." Hochberg only carries out Obama's wishes:

5/6/13, "U.S. Export-Import Bank Shady Coal Scheme in Mongolia," Daily Kos, nicoleghio

"Once again, U.S. Export-Import Bank (Exim) Chairman Fred Hochberg is using our taxpayer dollars to finance a dangerous fossil fuel project. This time it’s Rio Tinto’s Oyu Tolgoi gold and copper mine and the associated coal-fired power plant in Mongolia. What’s even more galling is that Hochberg and the Exim board of directors approved the project in April despite what amounted to a vote of no confidence in the very same project by the U.S. Treasury, which abstained from a decision on funding from World Bank Group’s International Financial Corporation (IFC).

When explaining their abstention, Treasury officials stated, "The ESIA does not provide a sufficiently detailed analysis of associated facilities and cumulative impacts, notably concerning a coal-fired power plant that will likely be needed to provide reliable power for the project." Clearly these were trivial matters for Mr. Hochberg and Exim that should not come between them and a new destructive coal plant.

The sad part is we now know that the situation is much worse. At the time of the World Bank vote, Rio Tinto was telling officials that a final decision had not been made on whether or not they would construct a coal-fired power plant. But in Mongolia, they were already making preparations on the ground for the plant. In other words, Rio Tinto was lying in order to get funding from the IFC and the U.S. Government -- and it worked because neither the World Bank nor Exim did the necessary due diligence to check Rio Tinto’s claims. Did I mention this is your tax payer dollars at work?

Our partners at Accountability Counsel did check, and it wasn’t that hard. They traveled to Mongolia and took a tour of the mine with a Rio Tinto official. Not only did he tell Accountability Counsel that he had not heard any talk of reconsidering the decision to build the coal-fired power plant, he pointed out where the worker housing was already under construction. It is the white line in the distance of this photo provided by Accountability Counsel.

Of course, Hochberg has a long history of supporting controversial coal projects backed by unscrupulous companies, so we’re hardly be surprised. But we can’t let him, or the US Government off the hook for decisions like these. It’s clear that abstention votes are not enough. Going forward Exim and Treasury must vote “no” on fossil fuel projects, especially dirty coal projects. It’s way past time for the World Bank and the U.S. Export-Import Bank to get out of the coal business."
-- Nicole Ghio, Sierra Club's International Campaign
Sierra Club says Export-Import Bank destroying Great Barrier Reef:

9/28/2012, "US Ex-Im Bank President Fred Hochberg Underwriting Destruction of The Great Barrier Reef, Again?"

"The US Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im), and its president Fred Hochberg, have never met a coal project they don’t like. At times it’s so bad we don’t know what century the institution thinks it is operating in. Now despite a worldwide uproar over their interest in one of the world’s largest coal ‘mega-mines’ in Australia they have been linked to another Australian mega mine ( Underwriting the havoc this would wreak on the Great Barrier Reef is an unacceptable use of US tax payer dollars and it’s time Ex-Im Bank came clean on its involvement. 
It’s not surprising to hear over-eager developers link the Ex-Im Bank to these projects because the institution has a long history of supporting fossil fuel projectsand that track record is getting worse. It got so bad that the Sierra Club wrote an open letter to President Fred Hochberg because we have witnessed first hand the destruction these projects are wreaking on communities and livelihoods (check out our blog on the Sasan coal project in India).

But our pleas were callously ignored as President Hochberg ok’d a massive expansion of coal finance in every corner of the globe. From Kusile in South Africa, to Sasan in India, to Xcoal in the US, to these proposed mines in Australia, it appears that Ex-Im Bank cares little for the damage the institution is causing to communities around the world not to mention the reputation of this administration.

The problem however is that the public does. And that public stretches from Australia where the mining would take place, to India where the coal would be burned, to the US where the financing would come from. This global outcry was captured in part by Avaaz’s petition to #savethereef (consider taking a minute to tell Fred Hochberg personally via twitter: @fredhochberg), but also by media scrutiny in India, the US, the UK, and Australia. It appears that while President Hochberg may consider designations like ‘World Heritage Site’ pesky obstacles, the global public considers them treasures.

Which is why Greenpeace Australia’s recent report on massive coal export expansion plans that would trample the Great Barrier Reef, and the global climate, was so damning. They found that if underwritten by institutions like Ex-Im Bank the world would add emissions the size of the country of Canada while increasing traffic through one of the world’s greatest natural wonders. For an excellent visual representation of this lunacy check out Greenpeace’s short video:....
So how did President Hochberg react? By quietly talking with another Indian company to finance another mega mine - this time with Adani group, whose record of violations (PDF) would give most institutions pause. Not Ex-Im though. After all, it makes sense that being linked to a scandal plagued Indian coal sector beset by ‘coal-gate’ investigations would be of little consequence if you are willing to finance the destruction of a global treasure like the reef.

But at the end of the day these may be over eager developers looking to increase the perception in the financial community that their projects have legs. The truth is with prices at near 2 year lows the Australian mining community is understandably worried that these projects are no longer viable. That is why the vociferous claims from Adani and GVK may be making their way into the press at this opportune moment.

But if that’s true, it’s easy enough for President Hochberg to condemn these public statements, and publicly dissociate the bank from this scandal. Instead he has been silent which leaves a huge question mark over US involvement. But let’s not put words in anyone’s mouth. Let’s let President Hochberg speak for himself.

So Mr. Hochberg, where do you stand? The world is waiting for your answer."

- "Justin Guay, Sierra Club International Program"


Comment: The "answer" to "the world" was Obama re-appointed Hochberg in 2013 to a second four year term.

65.4% of Ex-Im loan guarantees over past 17 yrs. have gone to Boeing:

8/27/14, "65.4% of Loan Guarantees Made by U.S. Government Bank Benefited Boeing," CNS News, Ali Meyer

"In the seventeen-year span from 1997 through 2013, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, which is an agency of the federal government, provided 65.4 percent of its loan guarantees to foreign organizations so they could buy products from Boeing,
according to the bank’s annual reports. The Ex-Im Bank has posted its annual reports going back to 1997 on its official website."... 



Southern California drug tunnel found connecting to a home in Mexico. No arrests made-AP

4/28/15, "Illegal border tunnel found leading from Mexico," AP, San Diego

"U.S. Border Patrol agents have found a suspected drug tunnel with lighting and a rail-car system that connected to a home across the border in Tijuana, Mexico.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman Lauren Mack said agents patrolling west of the San Ysidro port of entry Tuesday morning found a sinkhole close to the U.S. border fence that opened up into the tunnel.

Mack says the tunnel was about 220 yards in length, had a cart inside and the walls shored up. But it was still under construction.

Macks says no drugs were found, and no arrests have been made.

Drug cartels have increasingly turned to tunnels to smuggle their loads into the United States. More than 75 tunnels have been discovered along the border since 2008."


Wednesday, April 29, 2015

Saudi king annouces major cabinet reshuffle, Prince al-Faisal finally out as foreign minister-Al Jazeera

Veteran foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal is among those replaced. 

4/29/15, "Saudi king replaces crown prince in cabinet reshuffle," Al Jazeera

"Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz has relieved his younger half-brother of his duties as crown prince and appointed his nephew, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, as the new heir apparent.

The reshuffle was announced by royal decree via state television early on Wednesday. Salman relieved Crown Prince Murqin from his post, which was reportedly done upon his request. Mohamed bin Nayef, 55, the grandson of the founder of Saudi Arabia, was appointed as crown prince and also minister of interior.

Al Jazeera's Mohamed Vall, reporting from Jizan in the country's south, said the moves represented a major change in Saudi Arabia. 

"This is the first time that a grandson of the founder of the country [Ibn Saud], rather than a son, is appointed crown prince," our correspondent said.

'Political earthquake'

Khalil Jahshan, the executive director for the Arab Centre of Washington from Fairfax, Virginia, said that the reshuffle constitutes a "political earthquake of the greatest magnitude".

"The Saudi Arabia we knew a few hours ago is no longer," Jahshan told Al Jazeera, adding: "These are serious changes that will have repercussions not only domestically but also internationally.

"This is a very decisive answer by King Salman to the doubts that many experts have expressed since he came into power with regards to his health, his decisiveness and his control over political matters in the kingdom. And this is his unequivocal answer."

King Salman also appointed his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as deputy crown prince, and replaced veteran foreign minister Prince Saud al-Faisal with the kingdom's Washington ambassador Adel al-Jubeir.

Faisal "asked to be relieved from his duties due to his health conditions," said the royal decree published on the official Saudi Press Agency, adding that he was appointed as an adviser and a special envoy of King Salman, as well as a supervisor on foreign affairs.

The latest nominations, part of King's Salman second cabinet reshuffle since he acceded the throne on January 23, come amid increased tensions between Sunni Saudi Arabia and its regional Shia rival Iran, following the kingdom's military intervention in neighbouring Yemen.

Jubeir has shone recently as he spoke frequently to reporters in the United States in defence of his country's decision to form a coalition launching air strikes on Iran-backed rebels in Yemen.

Faisal was first named in 1975, making him the world's longest-serving foreign minister.

He was sworn in again as foreign minister last month after Salman undertook a major government shakeup but left some veteran faces including Faisal in their posts.

Born in 1940, Faisal had been in the United States for back surgery when Salman was crowned ruler of the OPEC kingpin this year.

Also announced via royal decree, labour minister Adel al-Fakieh was appointed as economy and planning minister, and Mufrej al-Haqbani was appointed as labour minister, state television reported.

King Salman, 79, came to power in January after the death of his half-brother, King Abdullah at the age of 90." via Free Rep.


Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Mexico, Pakistan, the Philippines and others are never blamed for forcing out their own; America and Europe are always faulted for not being more welcoming. Best way to stop mass, illegal immigration is for other societies to emulate Western standards so there's no need to emigrate-Hanson

4/28/15,  "The Strange Case of Modern Immigration," Victor Davis Hanson, National Review

"Is immigrating from less-developed countries to the West a good or a bad thing, for host and guest? Is the immigrant angry at, or nostalgic for, the country he left? Is he thankful to or resentful of the country he has come to? Does the Westerner know why the other seeks him out or why he himself chooses not to emigrate to the non-West? These questions and dozens like them are not so much never answered as never even asked. The result is chaos....

The failed Arab Spring, the Balkan unrest, and the Islamic wars in the Middle East have created a sort of chaos in which millions of people have no desire to stay home and face violence and death. What the non-Westerners see on cable television and the Internet are scenes of a carefree, wealthy West where things seem to work in a way they do not at home — and without any editorializing on why that is so....
The downtown of almost any European city is full of impoverished non-Western immigrants. Yet in ten years, some of those same Middle Eastern immigrants will demand space for new mosques, while they would never have allowed a church to be built in their homeland, and many newcomers will have complaints against their hosts about their own lack of parity with the established citizenry. Such is the strange effect of contemporary Westernism upon immigrants.

In other areas, recent war and revolution are just the latest chapters in an old book of endemic poverty, high birthrates, and failed governments that incite their poor to seek entrance by any means necessary into Europe. The migrants’ assumption is that being a poor visitor inside Europe is preferable to what they had at home. Someone with a menial job in Paris or on public assistance in the United Kingdom feels lucky because of what he knows housing, medical care, public safety, and nutrition are reduced to in India, Pakistan, Libya, the Philippines, or Syria. The most zealous Muslim often chooses to live among Christians, agnostics, and atheists rather than under an Islamic theocracy at home — even as he sometimes damns his host and praises the country he will never return to.

Something similar is snowballing on the southern border of the United States. Illegal immigration from Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America has been a challenge for the United States for over a half-century. Many of the symptoms are similar to Europe’s experience with unlawful immigration — as we saw last summer, with busloads of children heading northward across the border. 
Government has abjectly failed in Latin America. These governments are at most indifferent to their people’s departure, and often encourage them to leave. Elites callously see multiple advantages in losing their own people, especially when remittances arrive in the billions of dollars and provide sustenance for those whom the government cannot or will not assist.
Within the United States, communities of poor immigrants can serve as powerful lobbying groups for even more immigration — as they do now in Europe as well. Amnesties and blanket naturalizations eventually create bloc voters. In the United States, anchor children draw in more immigrants. The home government is never blamed for forcing out its own; the new host is always faulted for not being more welcoming....

Given the role of high tech and massive government aid in redefining Western poverty, the endless argument for ever more massive expansions of social services becomes more difficult without new populations of desperate Asian, African, and Latin American poor. Indigent immigrants ensure statistical imbalances and lead to charges of Western failures in fairness and equality. To take one example, without constant illegal immigration, the diverse Latino population in the U.S. would soon reach parity with the majority population — in the pattern of the past Italian-American immigration experience. But somehow, if an Oaxacan immigrant has inadequate access to health care, education, and legal representation in his first year of unlawful residence in the United States, he then can become fodder for a blanket indictment of Western nativism, racism, and xenophobia and he and his advocates are acutely aware of that anomaly....

But something apart from its mostly illegal nature is disturbing and new about immigration to the West today — largely ideology, and attitudes about assimilation and integration. Western societies have altered their traditional strength of introspection and self-criticism into a banal sort of nihilistic self-hatred. The richer and more leisured Western societies have become, the less confident they are about the values and history of their own culture, which has so blessed them. Only the bounties of capitalism allow one the leeway to damn it. The schizophrenia has reached such an absurd level that Americans are unable or unwilling to recognize why they do not wish to live in Mexico, or why millions of Mexicans wish to live in their country, and the British do not recognize why they do not emigrate to Pakistan, while millions of Pakistanis wish to live in Britain.

Westerners accept that these one-way correspondences are true. Nonetheless, they are incapable of articulating the social, economic, and political causes for the imbalances, namely the singular customs and heritage that make the West attractive: free-market capitalism, property rights, consensual government, human rights, freedom of expression and religion, separation of church and state, and a secular tradition of rational inquiry. Much less are they able to remind immigrants from the non-West that they are taking the drastic step of forsaking their homelands, often rich in natural resources, because of endemic statism and corruption, the lack of the rule of law, religious intolerance, misogyny, tribalism, and racism — the stuff that does not lead to prosperous, safe, and happy lives.
From such ignorance — or moral cowardice — bedlam arises, of the sort we are seeing in the Mediterranean and on the United States’ southern border. Sheepish Westerners ask little of immigrants while providing them low-paying jobs or public assistance. Newcomers as a rule seldom learn promptly the language of their adopted country; they are not expected to act as guests who strictly respect the laws and mores of their hosts rather than demanding to implant their own, which they have just rejected with their feet. They sense that trashing the West stokes the guilt of the Westerner and works far better than emulating his habits. They also detect in Western diffidence about European and American culture a sort of cowardice, and they understandably massage that lack of confidence, as if the reasons why thousands leave the Middle East, Pakistan, or Mexico were neo-imperialism, colonialism, and corporatism — that is, Western culpability — rather than self-inflicted pathologies. They are confident that such charges will resonate in the West, providing some strange sort of psychological penance to Western elites ambivalent about the sources of their own wealth, leisure, and privilege. These are the ingredients of a disastrous salad bowl, as opposed to the successful melting-pot culture of the past. Admitting only legal immigrants on ethnically blind criteria of education and skills is seen by the nervous Westerner as discriminatory and therefore unfair.
Still, all this dishonesty puts open-borders advocates in a dilemma. In theory, any restriction of immigration, any insistence that it be solely legal, any secure border enforcement is pilloried. But here follows a disconnect. Why would critics of Western governments’ supposed insensitivity demand that they extend such insensitivity to the multicultural “other”? To take one American example, why would ethnic-studies programs on the one hand teach largely the racism and nativism of America, and the forgotten glories of indigenous civilizations in Mexico, while on the other hand politicizing our immigration policies as largely a racist attempt to keep people of color out? Is the U.S. then toxic or attractive? Is it because Mexico is so wonderful that millions choose to leave it?
Or, in longer-range terms, why would Mexican nationals emigrate and wish to stay unassimilated, only to replicate the Mexico they have forsaken? One of the most disturbing aspects of the promotion of illegal immigration is the left-wing advocate’s visible anger at the U.S. — as if to say, “Millions from superior non-Western societies have a right to live in an unattractive West.”"
Immigration to the West will remain a moral and intellectual embarrassment until Westerners insist that newcomers arrive in numbers that can be assimilated, that they meet meritocratic criteria that are ethnically blind, and that they come legally and on the terms adjudicated by the host. Europeans and Americans need not be chauvinistic, but they do need to be candid about why people leave one country for another. From such knowledge comes realization that the best way to stop mass, illegal immigration is for other societies to emulate Western paradigms so that there is no need to emigrate — after all, Japanese and Singaporeans do not hide in cargo boats to reach California
But to do all that, Westerners need first to understand their own culture and then to defend it. Europeans and Americans need not think that the West must be perfect to be good. And they should recognize that millions in the non-West increasingly are certain that the West is far better than their own alternatives — even if they are as unsure why that is so as they are careful to keep quiet about it."

Ted Cruz sweeps 5 official GOP Straw Polls in South Carolina this past week

4/28/15, "SC: Ted Cruz Sweeps 5 official GOP Straw Polls,", Javan Browder

"The past week was a very good one for Ted Cruz in South Carolina, as he swept the straw polls at four bi-annual Republican county conventions, and one county GOP Executive Committee bi-monthly meeting.

The first came as Cruz won the Anderson County GOP convention straw poll as follows: Cruz 27%, Walker 25%, Rubio 15%, Huckabee 9%, Graham and Perry 6% each, Santorum 5%, Bush, Paul and Carson 1% each.
But the biggest prizes came for Cruz as he won Greenville, Spartanburg and Aiken GOP convention straw polls all on the same day as follows:

Greenville: Cruz 28%, Walker 22%, Carson 8.5%, Rubio and Santorum 8% each, Bush 5%, Paul and Huckabee 3% each, Graham 3%, Perry 2%, Fiorina 1%

Spartanburg: Cruz 32%, Walker 30%, Santorum 14%, Paul 7%, Others 16% combined.

In the Aiken straw poll, voters could vote for multiple candidates by listing their 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices. Scott Walker got the most total votes, but Cruz edged Walker out in 1st choice votes as follows: Cruz 36%, Walker 32%, Rubio 14%, Santorum 9%, Paul 6%

And finally, late last week came the Dorchester county GOP Executive Committee straw poll: Cruz 30%, Walker 25%, Carson 16%, Rubio 11%, Paul 7%, Graham 4%, Santorum 2%, Kasich 2%
Greenville and Spartanburg are by far the two largest and most populated GOP voting counties in the state and count for more than 20% of the total GOP primary vote. The two counties accounted for nearly half of Governor Haley’s 2010 general election net votes.

In order to vote in a GOP convention straw poll, a person must attend their bi-annual precinct reorganization meeting, and be elected as a delegate to their county convention, and pay a registration fee to attend. In the case of the Dorchester Executive Committee, individuals have to attend their precinct reorganization meetings and be elected as a Precinct Committeeman which makes them a voting member of the county Executive Committee. So these straw polls are not ones that can have outside people brought in to vote and sway the results. 

While GOP convention and Executive Committee straw polls do not fully represent the primary electorate as a whole, they are a sampling of the most active members of the Republican Party and conservative activists. Having command of their early support can help propel a candidate to later success with the general electorate.

When looking at the numbers from all 5 straw polls combined, four interesting things stand out as a pattern:

1. Ted Cruz won each poll by a pretty consistent margin, and with a pretty consistent percentage of the vote.

 2. Similarly, Scott Walker came in a consistent 2nd place by a similar margin, and took a similar percentage of the vote in each poll.
(Take a look at the matchup in all five polls between Cruz and Walker.)

Greenville: Cruz 28%, Walker 22%  
Spartanburg: Cruz 32%, Walker 30%
Anderson: Cruz 27%, Walker 25%
Dorchester: Cruz 30%, Walker 25%
Aiken: Cruz 36%, Walker 32%

3. Jeb Bush did not get above 5% of the vote in any of the polls, and in Dorchester and Aiken he received zero votes.

4. Similar to Jeb Bush, Rand Paul scored very low in all polls, especially in Greenville 3%, and Anderson 1%.

Steven Wright, a conservative activist from Dorchester was a voting member in Dorchester’s straw poll. Wright said that he is excited to be helping with the grassroots effort for the Ted Cruz campaign. “The American people are ready for a leader that does what he promises. Senator Cruz has been an active fighter for freedom and limited government in the U.S Senate. I see a large amount of grassroots support here in the Low Country for Senator Cruz. The grassroots are ready to take our country back and we see Senator Cruz as the only candidate in the race who will do that. Wright said.

One of biggest GOP straw poll prizes in SC will be awarded this Saturday evening as paying attendees of the annual Silver Elephant Banquet cast their votes. Ted Cruz will be one of the attending speakers. Unlike the county conventions, attendees to the banquet do not have to be elected, merely purchase a $40 ticket. It will be interesting to see the results." via Free Rep.


If Iowa caucuses were held today, Ted Cruz would win-Steve Deace on Breitbart radio, 4/26/15

Deace appeared on 4/26/15 Breibart radio show

4/27/15, "Iowa Radio Host: Religious Freedom Top Conservative Presidential Issue," Breitbart, Robert Wilde

"Nationally syndicated radio host and columnist for the Washington Times, Steve Deace, explained that there are three specific issues animating the 2016 Republican presidential contest.

If you are weak on these, don’t even show up,” Deace cautioned conservative Republican presidential aspirants. “This is sort of the triumvirate of issues. That is amnesty, that is religious freedom, and the other is Common Core. If you are soft on these issues, or have been in the past, you’re done.”

The author of Rules for Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again, told Breitbart senior writer and guest host of Breitbart News Sunday airing on Sirius XM Patriot radio channel 125, Matthew Boyle, that religious freedom is going to be a major vetting tool.

The first amendment has been taken for granted by both parties until now. It is a bigger issue this time now for evangelicals than even the life issue is,” Deace insisted. “If you don’t have the freedom to live out your faith in public as an American citizen under the Bill of Rights, your opinion on other matters is actually irrelevant.”

Voted one of the top 100 talk-show hosts in America, according to Talkers Magazine, Deace explained that the left’s goal is to “marginalize the Republican base, drive them underground so that they can’t take a stand on other issues of a conservative magnitude.” Deace thinks that most Republican candidates don’t fully recognize this strategy, with the exception of Governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, and Texas senator Ted Cruz.

If you look at how Cruz has stood out on the religious freedom issue and how quickly he has come here and organized Iowa, if the caucuses were held today, he would win. And, he might even win convincingly,” said Deace, who lives with his wife and children in Iowa. “Cruz right now is putting together the parameters of an organization that, if he stays on the road he is on, he will be difficult to beat here.

Moreover, Deace told Boyle that he is not convinced that all establishment Republicans are “all in” with Jeb Bush. He pointed out that Marco Rubio “is making a play for some of Jeb’s establishment support.” With the addition of Ohio Governor John Kasich and Michigan governor Rick Snyder gaining establishment support, Deace contends that the word is getting out among GOP insiders that Jeb Bush is no longer the “establishment standard-bearer” that he once was." Free Rep.



TV cameraman attacked by Baltimore rioters


4/27/15, "Our @CCTV_America cameraman was just attacked by protestors and his camera stolen. #FreddyGray," Jim Spellman twitter. CCTV is China news service in English

Journalists attacked and injured in Baltimore riots

Monday, April 27, 2015

George Soros gleefully predicted riots on US streets, "Yes, yes, yes," he said, and it will be an excuse for cracking down and strong arm tactics to bring about a repressive political system constraining individual liberty-Newsweek, Jan. 2012

1/23/2012, "George Soros on the Coming U.S. Class War,", John Arlidge

"You know George Soros. He’s the investor’s investor—the man who still holds the record for making more money in a single day’s trading than anyone. He pocketed $1 billion betting against the British pound on “Black Wednesday” in 1992, when sterling lost 20 percent of its value in less than 24 hours and crashed out of the European exchange-rate mechanism. No wonder Brits call him, with a mix of awe and annoyance, “the man who broke the Bank of England.”...

Occupy Wall Street “is an inchoate, leaderless manifestation of protest,” but it will grow. It has “put on the agenda issues that the institutional left has failed to put on the agenda for a quarter of a century.” [Soros says]...(parag. 16)

As anger rises, riots on the streets of American cities are inevitable. 

Yes, yes, yes,” he says, almost gleefully. The response to the unrest could be more damaging than the violence itself. It will be an excuse for cracking down and using strong-arm tactics to maintain law and order, which, carried to an extreme, could bring about a repressive political system, a society where individual liberty is much more constrained, which would be a break with the tradition of the United States.”"... (parag. 17, 4th parag. from end)


In response to Baltimore riots, son of Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos says greater concern is that US political elite over past 4 decades has shipped middle class and working class jobs out of cities like Baltimore to third world dictatorships like China and others-Washington Post

4/27/15, "Son of (Baltimore) Orioles owner Peter Angelos tweets perspective on Freddie Gray protests," Washington Post, Cindy Boren

"The son of Peter Angelos, the Baltimore Orioles’ owner, expressed frustration that the message sent by protests over the death of Freddie Gray was overwhelmed by the temporary lockdown of Camden Yards during the Orioles’ game Saturday night.

John Angelos, the Orioles’ executive vice president and second-highest ranking official, pleaded for a bit of perspective in a series of tweets that revealed compassion and an awareness of the community in which he lives. (The tweets, in response to a fan named Brett, are combined here.)

"Brett, speaking only for myself, I agree with your point that the principle of peaceful, non-violent protest and the observance of the rule of law is of utmost importance in any society. MLK, Gandhi, Mandela and all great opposition leaders throughout history have always preached this precept. Further, it is critical that in any democracy, investigation must be completed and due process must be honored before any government or police members are judged responsible.

That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night’s property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good, hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American’s civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state.

The innocent working families of all backgrounds whose lives and dreams have been cut short by excessive violence, surveillance, and other abuses of the Bill of Rights by government pay the true price, and ultimate price, and one that far exceeds the importances of any kids’ game played tonight, or ever, at Camden Yards. We need to keep in mind people are suffering and dying around the U.S., and while we are thankful no one was injured at Camden Yards, there is a far bigger picture for poor Americans in Baltimore and everywhere who don’t have jobs and are losing economic civil and legal rights, and this makes inconvenience at a ballgame irrelevant in light of the needless suffering government is inflicting upon ordinary Americans.""


Rush Limbaugh mistakenly claims Marco Rubio walked back his amnesty pitch which heck was just a one time misstep the Tea Party reacted to. When Mark Levin has Rubio on his show he gets the same tingle Limbaugh does

4/26/15, "Limbaugh: Rubio can't help supporting amnesty because he's Hispanic," American Thinker, by Newsmachete

"Get this: Rush Limbaugh forgives Rubio's support for amnesty in part because...he's Hispanic. Yes, Rush Limbaugh strongly implied that  Rubio's Hispanic nature compelled him to push amnesty! Here's what Rush said:
Now, I know Rubio has lost a lot of luster with some people on the Tea Party side because of his flirtation with the Chuck-U Schumer gang on amnesty and immigration.  You can maybe chalk it up to two things. Chalk it up to novice naivete, trying to get his feet wet and establish himself within the power circles of the Senate.  Or another explanation for it could have been that, given his Hispanic heritage, he almost had to, in the sense of identity politics, if he had any chance at all of securing any votes from that sector, he had to come out in favor of it.
This is the very same bigotry of low expectations that we have come to expect from liberals – lower standards for women and minorities simply because they are women and minorities. Marco Rubio didn't have to come out in favor of amnesty because he was Hispanic; Ted Cruz is Hispanic, and he didn't feel compelled to come out in favor of amnesty. Despite his Hispanic background, Cruz found a better answer: following the law.

[Rush] But whatever, he's walked it back now, and we'll just see how this is all gonna play out with Tea Party people.
Since this was written, Rush may be unaware that since the time that Rubio has "walked it back," he has actually "continued walking it" by saying, in Spanish to Jorge Ramos, that he supports continued amnesty for "DREAMers," even before the border is secured.

[Rush]... he's an emotional speaker. In fact, at some point last night, a couple of points it looked to me like he almost might tear up.
We don't need another John Boehner.

The one thing about Rubio, whether you disagree with him on what he did with amnesty and then walked it back or not, he does not have a likability problem. He is instantly likable. He's motivational. He's inspirational in a Reaganesque way
Why do we want an inspirational leader who inspires people to do the wrong things?

He is a great communicator, significant communicator, has a conservative message. Just over here he has that misstep on immigration with the Tea Party.
Rubio didn't have a "misstep" with the Tea Party. He misled the voters of Florida. He campaigned against amnesty, was elected, and immediately went in the opposite direction. This is the only thing of consequence he has pushed since he was elected; what exactly is his "conservative" message?

Listen, I get it. He's young, he's handsome, he reminds people more of Ricky Martin than Cheech and Chong. But pushing leaders to the forefront simply because they happen to be Republican and they happen to be from a minority is the wrong policy.

I'm starting to think that Rush gets a tingling in his leg when it comes to Marco Rubio, just as Chris Matthews does for Obama. Mark Levin does it too when he has Rubio on his show and soft-pedals this "minor misstep." We're conservatives; let's treat everyone the same regardless of race, and let the chips fall where they may, okay?"


4/14/15, "Rush Limbaugh really really likes Marco Rubio," Washington Post, Aaron Blake

"Perhaps the biggest question Marco Rubio's nascent presidential campaign faces is whether conservatives will forgive him for spear-heading comprehensive immigration reform in 2013.
And one very well-known conservative has.

On his radio show Tuesday, Rush Limbaugh devoted plenty of time to praising Rubio in what can only be described as glowing terms

Yes, he said he wasn't happy about the "amnesty" thing, but he also seems to have pretty quickly moved past it. He even volunteered some excuses for Rubio.

A sampling:

"...Marco Rubio is a serious man, he has a serious message, and he has a very unmistakable joy in spreading that message, in informing people. He knows how to deliver it. He knows how to deliver it live. He doesn't have to announce on Twitter. He doesn't have to announce with a series of posts on social media. He can do it live in front of real people with a real camera. And he's an emotional speaker. In fact, at some point last night, a couple of points it looked to me like he almost might tear up. Now, I know Rubio has lost a lot of luster with some people on the Tea Party side because of his flirtation with the Chuck-U Schumer gang on amnesty and immigration.  You can maybe chalk it up to two things. Chalk it up to novice naivete, trying to get his feet wet and establish himself within the power circles of the Senate. Or another explanation for it could have been that, given his Hispanic heritage, he almost had to, in the sense of identity politics, if he had any chance at all of securing any votes from that sector, he had to come out in favor of it. But whatever, he's walked it back now, and we'll just see how this is all gonna play out with Tea Party people....The one thing about Rubio, whether you disagree with him on what he did with amnesty and then walked it back or not, he does not have a likability problem. He is instantly likable. He's motivational. He's inspirational in a Reaganesque way because he has that family story, and he relishes telling that story. He thinks it's inspirational. It was to him, and he wants it to be for everybody. He is a great communicator, significant communicator, has a conservative message. Just over here he has that misstep on immigration with the Tea Party. Time will tell if that can be overcome. Now, we will see also if his policies match his rhetoric. His rhetoric is great, his persona is great, his energy is great. He's a natural leader, it appears, and there will be a certain number of people who will relish and enjoy making Rubio their champion."...

Key word here: Reaganesque.

The Limbaughs of this world, quite simply, don't just forgive something like "amnesty." That Limbaugh is willing to set that aside in this case is a testament to two things:

1) That conservatives want to be able to like Rubio because they see his potential, and

2) That Rubio did himself plenty of good by bringing his immigration message directly to conservative talk radio.

As we wrote at the time, Limbaugh gave Rubio plenty of credit for having the courage to bring his case for immigration reform directly to Limbaugh's airwaves. "You're meeting everybody honestly, forthrightly," Limbaugh said with Rubio on the line in January 2013. "You’re meeting everyone halfway."
At the time, I remember being struck by how well Rubio handled himself during these interviews, bringing such a message into hostile territory. And it looks like he did himself plenty of favors with it, no matter that the bill wound up failing.
There will certainly be people who can't forgive him for the immigration thing, but a good messenger can overcome such obstacles. And Rubio, as Limbaugh notes, can be a really talented one."

March 2015: Rubio hires former "prominent" Romney official" Rich Beeson:

3/13/2015, "Mitt Romney warms to Marco Rubio as young senator cultivates relationship," Washington Post, Costa and Rucker 
"Rubio has signed up two prominent former Romney officials in recent weeks. Rich Beeson, Romney’s 2012 national political director, has been tapped as Rubio’s likely deputy campaign manager, while Jim Merrill, Romney’s longtime New Hampshire strategist, is on board to play the same role for Rubio."...

Added: Marco Rubio's hiring of former Romney advisor and long time GOP parasite Rich Beeson makes it impossible to view his candidacy seriously. Beeson blatantly underperformed at the job of running Romney's 2012 campaign and wasn't at all embarrassed about it. Apparently Beeson knew he had a permanent ride on the GOP gravy train. 


Rich Beeson is a central figure in the incestuous bleeding of the Republican Party:
11/28/12, "The Incestuous Bleeding of the Republican Party," Erick Erickson, RedState
"Strip away the candidate and coalition and it is on the fifth floor of 66 Canal Center Plaza where the seeds of Mitt Romney’s ruin and the RNC’s get out the vote (GOTV) effort collapsed — bled to death by charlatan consultants making millions off the party, its donors, and the grassroots."...  

Rich Beeson was a partner at FLS Connect, a vendor for 2000 Bush-Cheney, 2004 Bush-Cheney, 2008 McCain-Palin, and various NRCC business. Beeson eventually moved to the RNC where as political director he gave the RNC’s multi-million dollar phone vendor contract to his former company FLS Connect without entertaining bids from other companies. In 2012, Beeson moved from the RNC to Political Director of Team Romney. FLS Connect now got business from both the RNC and Team Romney. Another company, Targeted Victory LLC, enters the picture sharing an address with FLS Connect. Both companies receive millions from Team Romney. Unfortunately, Targeted Victory was in charge of the failed ORCA Romney get out the vote program:
Erick Erickson: "As of October 26, 2012, Targeted Victory had been paid $64 million by Team Romney and FLS Connect had been paid $16.5 million. And now the “L” in FLS Connect, Jeff Larson, will perform the autopsy on why Election Day and its related operations collapsed. I bet I know which companies won’t be blamed."


3/17/2014, "Revenge of the Republican consultants," Politico, Kenneth P. Vogel

"Ten of the consulting firms that formed the core of the push to elect Mitt Romneyreaping a combined $1 billion in the process — have survived a tea party assault and are again among the highest-grossing and best-positioned players in Republican politics.
The firms and their consultants have been paid more than $19.6 million for 2014 campaign work through January, according to a POLITICO analysis. They’ve also cemented relationships with some of the GOP’s rising stars, setting up the firms for even bigger paydays headed into the fall, when costly advertising and mail campaigns begin, and for a 2016 presidential campaign expected to be the most expensive in history.

It’s both vindication for top Republican operatives— who were ridiculed by tea partiers for squandering hundreds of millions of dollars and blamed for blowing the party’s chances at capturing the White House and the Senate — and an illustration of the irreversible privatization of politics.

The firms of Romney’s digital director Zac Moffatt and political director Rich Beeson Targeted Victory and FLS Connect, respectively — as well as the firm that made huge sums buying ads in 2012 for Karl Rove’s American Crossroads helped establishment favorite Bradley Byrne defeat a tea party primary rival and then a Democrat in a closely watched 2013 Alabama special congressional election.

Targeted Victory, FLS and a handful of other Romney-linked firms are also working for Sens. John Cornyn, Mitch McConnell and Marco Rubio; Rep. Paul Ryan; the Republican National Committee; the National Republican Congressional Committee; and a variety of establishment-oriented super PACs like Rove’s American Crossroads, while FLS and the firm of Romney’s top strategist, Stuart Stevens, helped New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie win reelection.

“People are either doing good work or they’re not and, if they’re not, the market will ultimately correct itself,” said Moffatt, whose firm was paid $112 million in 2012, and has collected $3 million in fees through January, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission and the Internal Revenue Service."...


Republican campaigns start from scratch every election cycle. The Democrat Party is in permanent, year-round campaign mode:

"Our opponents manage a permanent year-round political machine through Labor Unions and progressive groups. For the left, the campaign never ends. We are still conducting campaigns based largely on volunteer efforts which fold up the tent and disappear until next time. We start nearly from scratch every two years. The Dems never stop organizing and building."...

12/1/2010, "Don't Congratulate Ourselves Too Much for 2010 Election Win: 2012 Won't Be So Easy," Mike's America



The 2012 Romney campaign was a sham from day one. Romney refused to give any of his famous money to the campaign when it desperately needed it, even left the campaign trail when he was needed in the stretch to raise more money:

9/25/12, Why doesn’t Mitt Romney contribute to his own campaign? Reuters, Michael Waldman
"Lately, Mitt Romney has been so consumed with fundraising that his aides have had to defend his absence from the stump....

Romney, for whatever reason, has failed to use his personal wealth to pay his campaign’s bills. His refusal to self-finance is one of the mysteries of this campaign.

In fact, four years ago the former governor gave his own campaign nearly $45 million. He even donated a Winnebago trailer.  “I’m not beholden to any particular group for getting me into this race or for getting me elected,” ABC News quoted him as saying. “My family, that’s the only one I’m really beholden to — they’re the ones who let their inheritance slip away, dollar by dollar.

The Romney boys can sleep easy: Their dad’s assets are worth nearly $250 million, according to financial disclosure forms. But he has put only $150,000 into this year’s run, through a joint gift with his wife Ann to a Republican committee last spring.

Romney’s campaign surely could use the money. His summer fundraising was less robust than it appeared, since much of it was committed to party committees not controlled by him. His campaign borrowed $20 million as a “bridge” loan to keep ads on the air before the general election began. Even the super PACs have less on hand now than seemed likely just a few months ago.

His strategist Ed Gillespie bemoaned the time Romney must spend fundraising."...


The grassroots appear to have battered wife syndrome by clinging to the GOP:

When you have the Chief of Staff of the Republican National Committee and the political director of the Romney campaign, and their two companies get $150 million at the end of the campaign for the ‘fantastic’ get-out-the-vote program…some of this borders on RICO [the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] violations,” Caddell told the crowd. “It’s all self dealing going on. I think it works on the RICO thing. They’re in the business of lining their pockets.”

“The Republican Party,” Caddell continued, “is in the grips of what I call the CLEC–the consultant, lobbyist, and establishment complex. Caddell described CLEC as a self serving interconnected network of individuals and organizations interested in preserving their own power far more than they’re interested in winning elections....
If you can’t see racketeering in front of you, God save you.”"...
In 2008 the GOP ran the same sham it did four years later in 2012, proving it was never serious either time:

11/3/2008, "Democrats Far Outspend Republicans On Field Operations, Staff Expenditures," Wall St. Journal, By T.W. Farnam and Brad Haynes 

"The national and state Democratic parties are spending far more heavily than their Republican counterparts on field operations, after years of ceding the advantage in ground-level organizing to the Republican voter-turnout machine.

Finance records show Democrats have hired five to 10 times more paid field staff in swing states than the Republicans.

Democrats have set up 770 offices nationwide, including in some of the most Republican areas of traditionally "red" states.... By comparison, Republicans have about 370 offices nationwide....

Democrats have increased their staff expenditures from $30 million to $56 million -- and they employed an estimated 4,500 workers making more than $1,500 a month as of mid-October, the latest information available. Sen. McCain and the Republicans had about 1,100 at that point 

The expansion was made possible by Sen. Obama's decision to decline public financing for his campaign, freeing himself from its spending caps. Instead he has relied on the legions of supporters who have already contributed over $600 million.

Sen. McCain is limited to spending the $84.1 million he accepted from the government after his September nomination. Sen. Obama is on track to spend more on television advertising than any candidate in history, likely spending more than $100 million on ads in October alone."...
Marco Rubio's pal Rich Beeson was front and center with the good fellas at the 2012 post mortem at the pathetic Bob Dole political monument in Kansas:
Beeson begins speaking above at about 2 min. YouTube image

Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics, Kansas, You Tube image

From You Tube page: 

"Published on Dec 13, 2012

Prominent political practitioners including strategists, journalists, and pollsters analyzed the 2012 election results....

Panelists include:

Brent Colburn, national communications director for President Obama
Katie Gage, deputy national campaign manager for Governor Romney
Jeremy Bird, national field director for President Obama
Marlon Marshall, deputy national field director for President Obama
Erin McPike, national political reporter for RealClearPolitics
James Hohmann, national political reporter for POLITICO
Jerry Seib, Washington bureau chief of The Wall Street Journal
Jeff Zeleny, national political correspondent for The New York Times
Joe Lenski, exec. vice president & co-founder of Edison Media Research
Nancy Dwight, 2012 Dole Fellow and Republican strategist

Filmed on December 7, 2012 at the Dole Institute of Politics."  


In 2007 Peggy Noonan wrote that conservatives had been thrown out of the Republican Party by the Bushes but kept hanging around as if they had
battered wife syndrome.:

6/1/2007,Too Bad,” Peggy Noonan, Wall St. Journal, 

President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder.”

“What President Bush is doing, and has been doing for some time, is sundering a great political coalition. This is sad, and it holds implications not only for one political party but for the American future. 

The White House doesn’t need its traditional supporters anymore, because its problems are way beyond being solved by the base. And the people in the administration don’t even much like the base. Desperate straits have left them liberated, and they are acting out their disdain. Leading Democrats often think their base is slightly mad but at least their heart is in the right place. This White House thinks its base is stupid and that its heart is in the wrong place.
For almost three years, arguably longer, conservative Bush supporters have felt like sufferers of battered wife syndrome. You don’t like endless gushing spending, the kind that assumes a high and unstoppable affluence will always exist, and the tax receipts will always flow in? Too bad! You don’t like expanding governmental authority and power? Too bad. You think the war was wrong or is wrong? Too bad. 

But on immigration it has changed from “Too bad” to “You’re bad.”

The president has taken to suggesting that opponents of his immigration bill are unpatriotic–they “don’t want to do what’s right for America.” His ally Sen. Lindsey Graham has said, “We’re gonna tell the bigots to shut up.” On Fox last weekend he vowed to “push back.” Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff suggested opponents would prefer illegal immigrants be killed; Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez said those who oppose the bill want “mass deportation.” Former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson said those who oppose the bill are “anti-immigrant” and suggested they suffer from “rage” and “national chauvinism.”

Why would they speak so insultingly, with such hostility, of opponents who are concerned citizens? And often, though not exclusively, concerned conservatives? It is odd, but it is of a piece with, or a variation on, 
the “Too bad” governing style.