Originally posted at The Right Scoop

Karl Rove is fighting for his influence within the Republican party after a thorough defeat of his candidate, Mitt Romney.

In Rove’s “win some, lose some,” reaction to what just happened, it is evident he does not see what is clear in the eyes of mainstream America-that his political games that crush conservatism and advance moderate candidates may well have lost us the country.

George W. Bush’s Presidency was hijacked by the largest attack on the nation on 9/11/01, and whether it is agreed upon how he dealt with it, he kept us safe. However, he increased entitlement spending and big government under his banner of “compassionate conservatism,” and as Dan Riehl pointed out in “What Conservative Movement?” Bush was no conservative, and in fact, hostile toward the conservative movement.

“What is this movement you keep talking about in the speech?” the president asked Latimer. Latimer explained that he meant the conservative movement — the movement that gave rise to groups like CPAC. Bush seemed perplexed. Latimer elaborated a bit more. Then Bush leaned forward, with a point to make. “Let me tell you something,” the president said. “I whupped Gary Bauer’s ass in 2000. So take out all this movement stuff. There is no movement.”

Mark Levin points out that Bush was to Obama what Hoover was to FDR, paving the way for massive explosion of liberal policy by being open to liberal ideas.

Ralph Benko writes, “The End Of The Karl Rove Death Grip Signals A Reagan Renaissance” in Monday’s Forbes, explaining the way forward for the ‘non-existent’ conservative movement.

Liberals do not grasp the distinction between Ronald Reagan and (either) George Bush. This blind spot creates a massive confusion and hazard to their ambitions. Obama defeated neither the Reagan Narrative nor Team Reagan. Team Bush appropriated, and then marginalized, both. Obama beat Team Bush, not Team Reagan. The implications are huge.

Conservatism wins elections, and Karl Rove’s brand of Republicanism divides the party, therefore losing elections. You needn’t go further than his Crossroads performance. According to the Sunlight Foundation,

“The Sunlight Foundation, which tracks money in politics, calculated that only 6 percent of Crossroads money went to winners; by comparison, the Service Employees International Union, an old war horse of Democratic politics, had a 70 percent victory rate.”

So what is Rove’s reaction?

More money.

Rove argued today that Romney lost in part because President Barack Obama outspent him on TV when outside groups are taken out of the equation.
“This shows that money does matter in politics,” Rove said on Fox News, where he is a paid commentator.

Less conservatism.

Where until now it battled only in general elections and against Democrats, Crossroads is considering whether to start picking sides in Republican primaries. The idea would be to boost the candidate it deems most electable and avoid nominating the kind of flawed and extreme ones who cost the party what should otherwise have been easy Senate wins in Florida, Missouri and Indiana.

Less money to conservatives.

The vast majority of funds spent by American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS were invested in races they ultimately lost: the presidential race (where they spent at least $110 million), as well as Senate races in Virginia (at least $10 million spent trying to elect George Allen), Florida (at least $7.7 million spent helping Connie Mack), Wisconsin (at least $7.3 million to elect Tommy Thompson), Ohio (at least $6.3 million to help Josh Mandel), Indiana (at least $3.3 million on Richard Mourdock), and Montana (at least $3.2 million on Dennis Rehberg).

It is no wonder Rove is trying to blame candidates in Florida, Missouri and Indiana. After spending $11 million in two of the races, he neglects to explain how the moderate candidates in the other races lost with twice as much cash thrown at them. Florida’s Connie Mack, and Indiana’s Richard Mourdock won their primaries handily, and Crossroads pulled their money from Missouri following Akin’s remarks on abortion. From a party perspective, it was considered very bad form of Rove to pull the money after it was clear Akin was not going to step out of the race, but, given the results of the other races, perhaps it did not matter. Of course, he lent to the acid-hate and influence of the left by publicly and forcefully denouncing Akin, just like he did when O’Donnell won in the Delaware primary in 2010, defeating Mike Castle.

Rove’s influence on the consultant class pushed the narrative that a conservative cannot win in Delaware, which he made damn sure of on television everyday, and now is pushing the same narrative that Mourdock should not have been picked by the grassroots of Indiana, defeating an extremely liberal Dick Lugar. Lugar went on to split his own Indiana Republican party, refusing to endorse Mourdock, the same tactic Rove used with O’Donnell and Castle.

So Rove’s plan forward is to spend money in the primaries to defeat these “flawed and extreme” candidates that are primary winners because they get support from the grassroots.

That decision will not save him, will divide the party further, and will lead to more calls for a third party. I’m quite confident of my predictions, but if even one of the three assertions in the previous statement comes true, the Republican party will continue to lose election after election.

Rove’s characterization of a flawed and extreme candidate is establishment-talk for a conservative, brought to clarity by Benko’s article in Forbes. The conservative argument that Brent Bozell makes, “If I had 1/100th of Karl Rove’s money, I would have been more productive than he was,” shows the distinction between Rove’s thought that more money is the key, when it is how it is spent that is instead, the key.

Philosophy is not important to Rove and the rest of the Bush Mandarins as Jeff Lord pointed out,

But the first order of business for the Bush transition was turning out all of the Reaganites as quickly as possible. It was said of Bush appointees that, unlike Reaganites, they had mortgages rather than ideologies. Paul Weyrich said that he had always feared that the election of Bush meant the arrival of “country club Republicans who couldn’t wait for the end of the Reagan administration.” (Secretary of State) George Shultz’s top aide at the State Department, Charles Hill, recalled, “It was suddenly clear that this would be an adversarial transition. The new people were not friendly. The signals were: get out of here as fast as you can.” Newt Gingrich cautioned, “We are not Bush’s movement.”
The tone was set. And it quickly got worse.

Rove’s way of thinking pervades every bit of the so-called conservative partisan media, and he’s not a conservative, as Benko points out, he is instead a Bush Mandarin. Let us not forget the influence of Rove. He is the idol of the DC consultant class, whom I have dubbed, “Rovians.” He is a political commentator for Fox News, and writes in the Wall Street Journal. Fox News is owned by NewsCorp, Rupert Murdoch, who also owns the Wall Street Journal, both mediums which are becoming quickly and more blatantly liberal. He is in control of a vast amount of money, which he raised, I understand, no problem, but then he is asked repeatedly by Fox News anchors what his take is on every Republican candidate. He is asked what his predictions are, county by county, scrawled on a white board. He influences every key Senate race, and during the primaries, positioning his preferred moderate candidate, and as David Lane points out in this Business Insider piece,

Karl is far more formidable…in the presidential Republican primary in 12′, Karl stepped on Rick Perry and then Newt Gingrich every chance he got — albeit with deceit and sophistication — and elevated Mitt Romney at strategic, crucial points along their way to the Republican nomination — Rove’s candidate.

As an example of how sophisticated Rove is…Karl Rove was out raising money to keep Santorum alive until they could kill Newt — Santorum basically ran for Governor of Iowa in 2011, visiting all 99 counties; Santorum, out of Iowa, had no organization, no money and no chance in 2012 to be the Republican nominee; he was only a stalking horse for Mitt Romney — Rove kept Santorum alive until he could kill Rick Perry first, and then Newt Gingrich.

Considering that Rove is already making plays in the primaries, and wants to zero in on primary candidate nominations, could it be possible that he would swing money to a third party? Or perhaps a Democrat in the general?

Lane’s assertions are illustrative of Rove’s blindspot for what wins elections. After all the work Fox News put in to pushing for Mitt Romney during the primaries, putting Rove on the stage for the Iowa primary, proved his ineffectiveness in prediction then.

That evening, Joe Trippi looked at the same numbers as Rove did, and concluded Santorum would win.

“I can’t believe it but Rick Santorum is going to eke past Romney and win this thing.” Karl looked down at his sheets of equations and said he couldn’t believe it either – that Santorum was going to give Romney a dogfight no one had really expected – but he had Romney with a slight mathematical advantage. The two of us had calculated the race in minutes to within a tenth of a percent of each other.

Trippi goes on to say that Rove is masterful at predicting outcomes, but I remember that night, when Rove figured Romney would still win when the total number of counties still out were Romney counties, and everyone was waiting on a truck, that would deliver the necessary votes for Romney. Santorum ultimately won the Iowa caucus, with no money, just county to county old-fashioned-sleep-in-your-car campaigning. And conservatism.

With his mathematical ability to predict outcomes, Rove is ignoring that face to face interaction with voters is crucial to winning elections, a point he sort of expressed during the Sean Hannity radio program on Monday, but missed the point again. When asked what to do going forward, Rove answered,

“I hate to say it, but we need to copy what Howard Dean did,” he told Hannity. “And that is make our ground game in all 50 states.”

Rove said Republicans had a “reasonably good” ground game in Florida and Ohio, two major battlegrounds they ended up losing to President Obama. (Mitt Romney’s Florida adviser said in the days after the election that the state was “winnable” for Romney but that the organization there was lacking.)

Rove told Hannity that the lack of GOP ground game made a big difference in other states.

“We didn’t have a ground game in a lot of these states with Senate races and so we lost North Dakota by 3,300 votes,” he said. He added the lack of ground game also cost the GOP a chance at winning the Senate seat in Montana. “We need to have a better ground game in all 50 states,” Rove said.

Any question Rove would advise what ever ground game he could muster next go-round be Bush team players?

“Crossroads served as referee, says CEO Law. “Conservative activists tend to act like six-year-olds on soccer teams,” he explains, “with everyone grouping around the ball and getting in each other’s way. Karl’s idea was that all of these organizations should share information, coordinate polling, reduce redundancy.”

Rewriting history about what won the day in 2010, Rove asserts that it was his efforts with Crossroads who “served as referee” with AFP, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Chamber of Commerce. When the fact was that the tea party grassroots went all out to put conservatives in the House of Representatives. Conservatism won in 2010, but Rove reaches toward the same plan made by Howard Dean a Democrat, (who lost) and plans to fight the grassroots conservative tea party going forward.

The good news for tea party Reagan conservatives is, that his plans going forward are self-defeating. The bad news is, Rove can and will take down the Republican party.

The fact is, that the grassroots is already effective in the primaries, proving there is more conservative boots on the ground than moderate “Bush Mandarin” types. Also, there aren’t party moderates who would knock on doors like the tea party does, especially if they are told by Rove that their candidate is superior, and is bound to win. As Benko writes, they have the same blindspot as Rove and the left.

The only question is, will the tea party Reagan conservatives stay with the party? A lot depends on how obstinate the Bush team is. They just lost a huge election, and plan on losing more. The conservatives in the party are not so interested anymore in voting for the establishment pick, a point lost on the Rovian class. The results of the election compared to the hype prior should be evidence enough that Rove was wrong by prediction and strategy, during the most pivotal election ever.

An election Rove figured was winnable by an electable candidate, and drove the narrative until the results proved him very, very wrong.

“Of course it’s the same old story. Truth usually is the same old story.” -Margaret Thatcher

Tagged with:
 

15 Responses to GOP needs to leave Bush era behind including and especially Karl Rove

  1. Lawson says:

    Rove, a joke. We, the People know what's going on. Crap on these peoples' verbalizations. Sick of it on TV–even on Fox. No one is actually speaking the Truth. So tired, but will NOT give up. NO WAY! An election that was very, obviously STOLEN. We have to keep on fighting!! We must have the Courage to continue, whether we have the strength, or not!

  2. Jaynie59 says:

    Going after Rove is all well and good but it doesn't address the real problem. The real problem with conservatism today is that it has lost the culture war. The simple fact that Fox News Channel is considered Right Wing, even by most of the conservative intelligentsia, is proof of that. The simple fact that people considered staunch conservatives compare Keith Olbermann with Rush Limbaugh is proof of that. Now that's Keith is gone, it's Bill Maher and Rush Limbaugh. Or Louis CK and Rush Limbaugh. Or Roseanne and Rush Limbaugh. Just name any low life scumbag degenerate waste of human skin and you'll find some conservative pundit or blogger who accepts the narrative that Rush is "just as bad". Bite me.

    It's not enough to attack a Karl Rove. They'll always be around because there will always be enough stupid people who will give them money. Keep that in mind. Karl Rove gets paid for his services by Fox News, but he gets millions and millions from people who just give it to him. They give it to him gladly.

    Attacking the Republican Establishment does no good if we don't also defend real conservatives and attack anyone who attacks them. Has a single conservative blogger defended Dick Morris? Anywhere? I haven't seen any defense of him. Oh, that Hannity appearance was all over the place. Nice going Sean. We can always count on Sean Hannity to feed the liberal narrative. But he means well, and he's such a decent guy we can't stay mad at him. At least I can't, no matter what dumb thing he says.

    Conservatives are fooling themselves if they think it's demographics. It's not. It's hate. The Progressive movement has succeeded in poisoning the culture against anything pro-America. Conservatism means racist. The Constitution means slavery. Republican means racist/sexist/Evil-with-a-captial-E. I don't know a single person who will ever vote for a Republican for any reason at any time and every one of them is white.

    Conservatives can't win this culture war if they don't accept the nature of the enemy and none of them are willing to accept it. They're too busy attacking each other to see how they've been surrounded and isolated. A good offense is useless when there is no defense to retain ground won. And that's the problem. Until conservatives recognize that they cannot reason with people who not only want you dead, but they want you to die a slow painful death, they're never going to gain ground. They hate this country and everything it stands for. They hate you. They hate your ancestors. They hate your children. They hate your grandchildren. They hate your dog.

    • Jen Kuznicki says:

      Morris the toe sucker isn't a conservative.

      • Jaynie59 says:

        So what? Defend him anyway. Until conservatives fight back just as hard as liberals attack there is no hope for this country. Ted Kennedy killed a woman. Robert Byrd was a leader of the KKK. Bill Clinton was credibly accused of rape. Barack Obama supports infanticide. The Democrat Party is full of lowlife scumbags who get rich off the suffering of others and all you care about is that Dick Morris sucked a womans toes?

        Oh, right. We don't sink to their level. Right? We're better than them, right? Right. That's why they always win.

        How about this? After Obama staged his phony defense of Rice by attacking McCain and Graham, Kelly Ayotte should have held a press conference, ALONE, and attacked Obama and Rice and challenged both of them in the strongest, most strident language she could muster. She should have said how OFFENDED and INSULTED she was by their attacks on HER. Make it personal. Make it ugly. Put THEM on the defensive for once.

        Can't do that. That would be rude.

        Yeah, right. Dick Morris is a toe sucker. Way to fight back.

        • Jen Kuznicki says:

          So you want conservatives to defend conservatives, and when I say Dick Morris isn't a conservative, you say, so-what-defend-him-anyway. What are you pissed about? I think I clearly fight through written words, if there is some other thing you think I should do, go ahead and suggest it. But I will not defend Dick Morris because I don't even think he's a player, he's always hawking a book, he's not incredibly intelligent, and his allegiances are questionable at best. I know a lot of RINO's love to hear what he has to say, but I'm not really interested.

          Start a blog if you are interested in getting your thoughts out there, if you continue to imply that I'm not doing what should be done, take it upon yourself.

          • Jaynie59 says:

            I'll start my own blog when I can afford it and have the time to actually write. Contrary to what you might think, I have a pretty good idea how hard blogging is. It's easy for me riff on someone else's original essays, it's not that easy to come up with coherent ideas that are actually readable.

            Listen, you don't want to defend Dick Morris, fine. I just used him as an example. But why is it that conservatives have no problem vomiting all over themselves to defend scumbags like Juan Williams and other lying, shameless, hate filled liberals because they occasionally state the obvious? It's insane. Rush Limbaugh makes a joke about Sandra Fluke being a slut and a prostitute and every top conservative blogger couldn't wait to throw him under the bus. Michelle Malkin has repeatedly attacked Ann Coulter. Do I even have to detail the terrible things said about Sarah Palin by conservative women?

            Just forget it. It's hopeless. Nice guys really do finish last and conservatives are just too decent to do what it will take. I just wish sometimes that conservatives could direct some of the outrage and disdain they have for each other towards the real enemy. That would be liberals.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            You don't need money to start a blog, I work 40-60 hours a week sewing. true, you have to organize your thoughts.

            Ann Coulter deserves to be pointed out as what she is.
            http://jenkuznicki.com/2011/11/i-wont-sit-by-whil
            http://jenkuznicki.com/2011/12/ann-coulter-has-lo
            http://jenkuznicki.com/2012/02/coulter-cheers-the
            http://jenkuznicki.com/2012/03/ann-coulter-is-a-f

            Now, do you want to talk about who is a conservative and promotes conservative thought, or do you want to defend those who are throwing conservative out like everyone to the right of Bill Maher is a conservative?

            What's a matter? We are supposed to sit by and accept every lib idea while attacking the left who gave them to us? You really don't seem to understand the issue, you are for taking off the gloves, something I get chided about here, but you don't see the problem with those supposedly representing conservatism who push liberalism.

          • Jaynie59 says:

            I'm not a conservative. I'm an ex-liberal and what conservatives do not seem to understand is that it's not about liberal vs conservative anymore. It's way past that point.

            More than half this country hates this country and everything it stands for. Yes, they do and they proved that on November 6th. Oh, they don't think they do and will get very upset and offended at the mere suggestion they hate America. Sure, the vast majority of them are just stupid, lazy people who have no idea what's going on in the world. But to them abortion means freedom, government grants liberty, and the only Evil they know is Right Wing Christian Conservatism. Oh, and Obama is the first black president.

            I'm not going to argue with you. When you have more animosity towards Ann Coulter than you do to Ed Morrissey then there's no point in trying to explain why he is a much bigger problem to conservatism than she is.

            What do I know? I'm just an ex-liberal who reveres Mark Levin and Rush and still can't think about Andrew Breitbart without crying. I still can't believe Obama won.

          • Jen Kuznicki says:

            You need to organize your thoughts. It's always liberal vs conservative. those are identifiers.

            I'm not so sure that the nation is dominated by those who hate America. There was a lot of fraud, and a lot of poor management on Republican's part. Also, Romney did not appeal to Reagan Democrats, the 10 million or so that would not vote for Obama, but did not vote for Romney.

            Inner city votes against their own future, it's sad, isn't it? Things will continue to fall apart, and misery will increase, and they will still stand for whoever can rile them up.

            Why should I have animus toward Morrissey? Did he throw me and Sarah Palin under the bus, demoralize conservatives nationwide? nope. Coulter did.

  3. task says:

    Conservatives are not Karl Rove's nemesis. If anything it is the other way around. We spend as much effort defending conservative principles and candidates from Rove, who deliberately undermines these candidates and our principles, as we do against the progressive propagandists. Rove and the Republican Party support moderates and when they are nominated most conservatives will generally vote to support whatever we get. That is not true of Rove and company. They go out of their way, if they do not get their way, to pull the rug out from under conservatives candidates that have fairly won their primaries and need all the help that they can get against the liberal alternative.

    Criticizing Dick Morris is logical considering how wrong he often is. We don't really dislike him because Morris does not get in our way by disseminating inaccurate info. On the other hand Rove has a lot of power and clout that directly affects outcomes and he has not been kind to small government, liberty conscious conservative candidates that could often be dragged over the finish line if it was not for the lack of financial republican commitment. Then when our candidate loses Rove and company blame it on his/her conservative credentials instead of what they did not do to help them win. Rove is a drag on the conservative movement and has now shown himself to be counter productive even to the type of non conservative traditional Bush era republican he supports. The result is that we lost. Would it not be better to lose on clear solid principles that people trust you will be committed to than to just offer a modest alternative to the progressive alternative?

  4. task says:

    The GOP is not Constitutional. I posted this on Facebook but it deserves more attention. They can be called the GOP but never the Constitutional Party. If I were thinking of a 3rd party and am not, that should be the party name.

    A low info-info voter is a problem because they along with our Congress and President somehow think that democracy is what America is about and that is very far from the truth, from our constitutional heritage and from our natural rights as human beings. It is the very ignorance of these voters, which Congress and the Executive exploits, that think that majority rule is Supreme. We have several branches of government, if they do their job, along with the limited enumerated powers that made for a bulwark against majority rule, because the Framers understood that majority rule was as bad or worse than George the 3rd. Our federal political process was designed for low decision making and a small government presence in the life of the individual sparing, of course, the 10th Amendment.

    John Adams remarked, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." I'm sorry but from what I have seen low-info voters have been manipulated by our Congress and the President, and most recently Justice Roberts who all now seriously violate their Constitutional Oaths.

  5. task says:

    The recent election loss at a time when every economic indicator over the previous four years should have catapulted Romney to victory, started me to seriously think; not think about Romney’s failures, not about what the conservative movement should have done or about two parties which were once upon a time closer at their furthest distance than they were even in FDR’s time (and that say a lot). In fact other than 1860 we have never been. As a people, so divided. A thought often wonders about its’ origin as much as what it is about; something must first ignite its awareness. I was stunned that a nation as great as ours could be so philosophically wrong? After all our Founding principles are as basic as Newtonian and Quantum physics. We know they are right and that they work yet so many still believe otherwise. It was a though some universal timeless law had been proven fundamentally wrong. Is the world truly flat when it was thought to be round because so many things work the way they do?

    The issue suddenly started to gain clarity as a read an article this past evening by Xavier Lerma in the English version of the Pravda, which describes Putin’s dismay that the communists have won in America, and lost in Russia and that although we should avoid the Soviet mistake that cost the Russians’ seventy-five years of suffering, under the USSR, we (Americans) elected a President, for a second term, with a cultist personality, who promotes the Communist Manifesto without calling it so, by mesmerizing an illiterate society; this is a President that lies about less taxes yet supports more taxes and promotes peace by advocating wars in Egypt, Libya and along the Mexican border. In fact Putin states that Stalin’s fools and Obama’s fools share the same drink of illusion. Obama bailed out those businesses that voted for him by hiking the debt to over 16 trillion while doing nothing for the tragic unemployment rate for blacks and minorities.

    But why did this happen? Surely a land founded upon liberty did not need to be told about its’ value. I then reread the address given by Alfred Smith’s 1936 radio address (two term NY governor) and things became a little clearer. At that time Herbert Hoover had lost the election, not only because he was not a conservative and contributed to a spending folly that led to the despair of the depression but because the republican platform was long, unreadable and not understandable as opposed to the democratic platform which was a clear, concise, covenant with the people who entrusted it to be faithfully kept. And since the history of the Republic no President had so faithfully committed himself to the principles upon which he ran; yet four years latter Smith describes what was not carried out and how far adrift FDR had gone. Despite being a progressive when it came to public safety nets he (Smith) was far more of a Constitutionalist than most anything we have today.

  6. task says:

    Smith’s first argument was class against class. He stated: “It has been freely predicted that if we were ever to have civil strife again in this country, it would come from the appeal to passion and prejudices that comes from the demagogues that would incite one class of our people against the other. In my time I have met some good and bad industrialists. I have met some good and bad financiers, but I have also met some good and bad laborers, and this I know, that permanent prosperity is dependent upon both capital and labor alike. And I also know that there can be no permanent prosperity in this country until industry is able to employ labor, and there certainly can be no permanent recovery upon any governmental theory of "soak the rich" or "soak the poor.”

    His second argument was government by bureaucrats. He stated: “The next thing that I view as being dangerous to our national well-being is government by bureaucracy instead of what we have been taught to look for, government by law. Just let me quote something from the President's message to Congress:” "In 34 months we have built up new instruments of public power in the hands of the people's government. This power is wholesome and proper, but in the hands of political puppets of an economic autocracy, such power would provide shackles for the liberties of our people.” Smith replied: “Now I interpret that to mean, if you are going to have an autocrat, take me; but be very careful about the other fellow. There is a complete answer to that, and it rises in the minds of the great rank and file, and that answer is just this: We will never in this country tolerate any laws that provide shackles for our people. We don't want any autocrats, either in or out of office. We wouldn't even take a good one.”

    Smith especially drew attention to the first campaign plank which read: "We advocate immediate and drastic reduction of governmental expenditures by abolishing useless commissions and offices, consolidating departments and bureaus, and eliminating extravagance to accomplish a saving of not less than 25 per cent in the cost of the Federal Government." He stated, “Well, now, what is the fact? No offices were consolidated, no bureaus were eliminated, but on the other hand, the alphabet was exhausted. The creation of new departments — and this is sad news for the taxpayer — the cost, the ordinary cost, what we refer to as housekeeping cost, over and above all emergencies — that ordinary housekeeping cost of government is greater today than it has ever been in any time in the history of the republic.”

    Smith went on to disparage an unbalanced budget by reminding the government of another campaign plank which read: "We favor maintenance of the national credit by a Federal budget annually balanced on the basis of accurate Federal estimate within revenue." He stated: “How can you balance a budget if you insist upon spending more money than you take in? Even the increased revenue won't go to balance the budget, because it is hocked before you receive it. What is worse than that?”

    And Smith knew that taxes are not the answer. He commented: “Now here is something that I want to say to the rank and file. There are three classes of people in this country; there are the poor and the rich, and in between the two is what has often been referred to as the great backbone of America, that is the plain fellow. That is the fellow that makes from one hundred dollars a month up to the man that draws down five or six thousand dollars a year. Now, there is a great big army. Forget the rich; they can't pay this debt. If you took everything they have away from them, they couldn't pay it; they ain't got enough. There is no use talking about the poor; they will never pay it, because they have nothing. This debt is going to be paid by that great big middle class that we refer to as the backbone and the rank and file, and the sin of it is they ain't going to know that they are paying it. It is going to come to them in the form of indirect and hidden taxation. It will come to them in the cost of living, in the cost of clothing, in the cost of every activity that they enter into, and because it is not a direct tax, they won't think they're paying, but, take it from me, they are going to pay it!”

  7. task says:

    What about States Rights as defined by our 10th Constitutional Amendment? This is where his safety net idea was founded… upon that Constitutional principle and hence he recognized the limited federal Government role. The democrat platform stated: “We advocate the extension of Federal credit to the States to provide unemployment relief where the diminishing resources of the State make it impossible for them to provide for their needs." This was his response: “That was pretty plain. That was a recognition in the national convention of the rights of the States. But how is it interpreted? The Federal Government took over most of the relief problems, some of them useful and most of them useless. They started out to prime the pump for industry in order to absorb the ranks of the unemployed, and at the end of three years their employment affirmative policy is absolutely nothing better than the negative policy of the Administration that preceded it.”

  8. task says:

    The democratic platform stated: "We favor unemployment and old age insurance under State laws." He stated: “Now let me make myself perfectly clear so that no demagogue or no crack-pot in the next week or so will be able to say anything about my attitude on this kind of legislation. I am in favor of it. And I take my hat off to no man in the United States on the question of legislation beneficial to the poor, the weak, the sick, or the afflicted, or women and children. Because why? I started out a quarter of a century ago when I had very few followers in my State, and during that period I advocated, fought for, introduced as a legislator and finally as Governor for eight long years, signed more progressive legislation in the interest of the men, women and children than any man in the State of New York.” And although I did not always agree with his policies it was apparent that he embraced the Constitution’s 10th Amendment. And Smith noted yet another anti-Constitutional practice preached as part of the democratic campaign but ultimately never adhered to. "We promise the removal of Government from all fields of private enterprise except where necessary to develop public works and national resources in the common interest." Smith remarked: “NRA! A vast octopus set up by government, that wound its arms around all the business of the country, paralyzed big business, and choked little business to death. Did you read in the papers a short time ago where somebody said that business was going to get a breathing spell? What is the meaning of that? And where did that expression arise? I'll tell you where it comes from. It comes from the prize ring. When the aggressor is punching the head off the other fellow he suddenly takes compassion on him and he gives him a breathing spell before he delivers the knockout wallop.”

    Now let us try and understand through Alfred’s Smith’s own words what he thought the Democratic Party had morphed itself into by way of taxes, subsidizes and controls. The Democratic party stated: "We condemn the open and covert resistance of administrative officials to every effort made by congressional committees to curtail the extravagant expenditures of Government and improvident subsidies granted to private interests." Smith replied: “Now, just between ourselves, do you know any administrative officer that has tried to stop Congress from appropriating money? Do you think there has been any desire on the part of Congress to curtail appropriations? Why, not at all. The fact is that Congress threw them right and left — didn't even tell what they were for. And the truth, further, is that every administrative officer sought to get all that he possibly could in order to expand the activities of his own office and throw the money of the people right and left. And as to subsidies, why, never at any time in the history of this or any other country were there so many subsidies granted to private groups, and on such a huge scale. The fact of the matter is that most of the cases now pending before the United States Supreme Court revolve around the point whether or not it is proper for Congress to tax all the people to pay subsidies to a particular group.” Again the party stated that: "We condemn the extravagance of the Farm Board, its disastrous action which made the Government a speculator of farm products, and the unsound policy of restricting agricultural products to the demand of domestic markets." Smith replied: “What about the restriction of our agricultural products and the demands of the market? Why, the fact about that is that we shut out entirely the farm market, and by plowing under corn and wheat and the destruction of foodstuffs, food from foreign countries has been pouring into our American markets — food that should have been purchased by us from our own farmers. In other words, while some of the countries of the Old World were attempting to drive the wolf of hunger from the doormat, the United States flew in the face of God's bounty and destroyed its own foodstuffs. There can be no question about that. Now I could go on indefinitely with some of the other planks. They are unimportant, and the radio time will not permit it. But just let me sum up this way. Regulation of the Stock Exchange and the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, plus one or two minor planks of the platform that in no way touch the daily life of our people, have been carried out, but the balance of the platform was thrown in the wastebasket. About that there can be no question. Let's see how it was carried out. Make a test for yourself. Just get the platform of the Democratic Party, and get the platform of the Socialist Party, and lay them down on your dining room table, side by side, and get a heavy lead pencil and scratch out the word "Democrat," and scratch out the word "Socialist," and let the two platforms lay there. Then study the record of the present Administration up to date. After you have done that, make your mind up to pick up the platform that more nearly squares with the record, and you will put your hand on the Socialist platform. You don't dare touch the Democratic platform.”

    Now the question still remains as to why we voted the way we did?