A New Republican Liberty Coalition
Monday, November 12, 2012
With election day now behind us, it is time for my own election day post-mortem review of what I believe went wrong and the new direction the party needs to take in order to win future elections. Let me be clear – the current Republican coalition is not working and will not win future national elections.
Let’s start with the problem of Mitt Romney himself and what he failed to do. Politics is rarely about policy; politics is about personality. Mitt Romney neither made a personal connection with voters nor made much of an attempt to do so excepting Ann Romney’s speech a the RNC. Romney was cold, often aloof, and never made a case that he understood the trials and tribulations of the average citizen. The ‘47% gaffe’ and the ‘I’m not concerned with the very poor’ gaffes are illustrative of the disconnect he had with voters. That is not to say that he didn’t have the right economic prescription for America’s ailment, but sometimes a doctor needs a good bedside manner.
Romney focused too heavily on a singular message of the economy and that singular message was undercut by some very modest, err insignificant, upticks in a small handful of economic indicators. Obama was able to capitalize on a decrease in unemployment numbers even when that decrease was as little as a tenth of a point and that undermined the only real message of the Romney campaign – the economy. His campaign may have been better served by focusing on an overall theme of ‘Weak Leadership’ which would include both his weakness on the economy and weakness in foreign affairs. The latter would have been blunted early on by the President’s success in killing Osama Bin Laden, but it would have paid off in spades with the Benghazi attack (which, to be fair, could not have been predicted). Instead, any rightful criticism of President Obama’s decisions in the context of the Benghazi attack came across as opportunistic rather than a legitimate critique of his performance as Commander-in-Chief. Mitt Romney completely failed to offer an alternative vision to US foreign affairs and the similarities between the two was never so evident than at the last debate.
Republican Senate candidates certainly did not do Romney any favors. Already facing a rather large gender gap, Senate candidates Todd Akin in Missouri and Richard Mourdock in Indiana said some supremely stupid things about rape. Granted, Romney carried both of those states but I truly believe it compounded the problem that Republicans have with women nationally and resulted in at least a half point increase in the gender gap nationally. Obama led with women by 5 points in PA, 4 points in Florida, and 5 points in Ohio. These gaffes by Republican Senate candidates may not have been enough to make a difference in and of themselves, but it was devastating when combined with the surprisingly successful and absurd claim that Romney would initiate a ‘war on women’ because he opposed subsidizing their contraception.
On to the fracturing Republican coalition…
It is becoming obvious that the current Republican electoral model is simply not working. The first problem, rightly or wrongly, is that the Republican party has a reputation for being slavishly devoted to big business. Wall Street is simply not popular with average citizens. Wall Street is the boogeyman that takes away people’s jobs and ships those jobs overseas. This demonstrates a fairly massive misunderstanding of American capitalism, but it is what it is. Few politicians personify Wall Street quite as well as Mitt Romney; Romney absorbed popular ill-will toward Wall Street and was unable to reflect any of that criticism away from himself. His history of business success and job growth should have been a positive but instead became a liability. The phrase ‘Main Street not Wall Street’ has been trotted out ad nauseum, but it’s a great line that shows the disconnect between Republicans and the economic conditions and hardships facing communities across the country. The astonishing thing is that it isn’t like Democrats aren’t bankrolled by Wall Street or big business – Republicans never point out Democrat hypocrisy in this regard in large part because they refuse to play the ‘class warfare’ game. Nonetheless, there simply are not enough Wall Street votes for the Republican Party to be able to afford being perceived as championing their interests.
The next problem with the Republican coalition is with evangelicals. Exit polls indicate that 26% of voters on Tuesday identify themselves as evangelicals and of that 26%, Romney won 78% of their vote. In the 2000 election, the last minute depression of evangelical voters almost cost President Bush the election which was a mistake not repeated in 2004 when GOP strategy was to not only aggressively court the evangelical vote but to support several anti-gay marriage ballot initiatives in key battleground states that would act as fuel to burn the evangelical electoral fire. Pervading GOP wisdom is that a national candidate must aggressively court this faction of the party’s base in order to win national elections; however, there are only so many ballot initiatives that the Republican Party can support on state ballots in order to help their GOTV effort with evangelicals. Furthermore, their influence in national elections seems to be waning; however, the problem with the evangelical vote is more fundamental. Catering to evangelical interests removes two of the most important arrows from the Republican quiver – limited government and individual liberty. More on that later.
Finally, the difference between the Republican Party and Democrat Party (and by extension the difference between Obama and Romney themselves) on foreign policy issues is very minimal. Both are Wilsonians “with a stick” who believe in the supposition that the role of the United States in the world is to both police and spread liberalized democracy. This world view has led to the abandonment of long time US allies, led to one unnecessary war (Iraq) and one even more unnecessary conflict (Libya), and led to the support of jihadist supported groups in the so-called “Arab Spring” in the naïve belief that they represented a pro-democracy alternative to US allies…despots but US allied despots all the same. This is particularly true in Egypt where Mubarak, thug though he may have been, had been responsible for regional stability by keeping the peace with Israel and covert assistance to the US in the war on terror. The US relationship with Mubarak was close and had lasted for decades. Libya and Gaddafi represented one of the biggest triumphs of Bush era foreign policy that resulted in Gaddafi repudiating prior ties with terrorism, abandoning his WMD programs, and assisting the US with intelligence in the war on terror. This effort was rewarded by the Obama Administration by supporting his ouster. Perhaps the biggest motivating factor among Obama supporters in 2008 was a pledge to radically depart from Bush era foreign policy mistakes by ending the mid-east wars, winding down the war on terror, closing GitMo, and reducing American presence in the region. Instead: drone strikes have increased exponentially, one more more localized conflicts have been jump started just as one major war has drawn down, our position in Afghanistan is tenuous, and GitMo is still open. These positions should have been exploited by the Republican Party to drive a wedge between Obama and much of his base of support – instead, Mitt Romney agreed with much of the President’s foreign policy direction and even pledged to double down.
The Republican Party, in very general terms, has for several decades offered itself up as a limited-government pro-liberty alternative to the Democrat Party. If the Democrats stand for bigger government and less liberty then the Republican Party must offer itself up as a legitimate alternative to the ‘statists’ on the other side.
The problem is that there are plenty of ‘statists’ in the Republican Party as well. The neoconservatives want a strong Federal government to promote their global worldview of spreading American-style Democracy abroad. They believe and understand that a strong central government at home is essential to their aims and goals. The religious right are ‘statists’ who want to use the powers of the Federal government to promote their worldview on issues they consider to be moral questions. The business people even have ‘statists’ who want the Federal government to issues directives, executive orders, laws, and legislation that require them to comply with a single Federal standard instead of having to comply with 50 separate states all with their own laws and regulations.
The last thing that I want is for the Republican Party to go “liberal.’ I’m not a liberal – I’m a firm believer in preserving our nation’s founding principles; whereas, liberals consider those principles to be archaic relics of a bygone era that have little to no relevance in modern society. I happen to think our Founding Fathers and Framers were absolutely brilliant and the political documents and principles they passed down are fully equipped to deal with changes in society if only those guides are followed properly.
But what you can’t do is have a party that says it’s for limited-government and individual liberty when the party’s establishment has a reputation, rightly or wrongly, of catering to Wall Street. You can’t have a party that says it’s for limited-government and individual liberty when it fights tooth and nail any attempt to extend marital rights to a group of people who are denied a basic and fundamental right given to every other American. You can’t have a party that says it’s for limited-government and individual liberty when it promotes forcing American principles upon people who don’t want it and who want only to establish governments of their choosing without American influence or demands.
The Republican Party is not immortal. Parties have died before…the Federalists, the early Republican Party of Jefferson (I know the Democrats trace their roots back to that but it has little semblance to the modern party), the Whigs, etc. In all cases they were replaced. The Republican Party must fundamentally change or a new party will take its place as the alternative to the Democrat Party. I know a lot of people reject libertarian influence within the party, but it’s the only logical place for the party to move if it’s to remain viable in future elections. So, am I proposing that the Republican Party simply become the Libertarian Party? Absolutely not. I believe the party needs to move in the liberty direction, but it needs to do so while retaining its own identity. Currently, the Republican Party is little more than Diet Democrats – I propose the party become Diet Libertarians. It needs to become the party of Barry Goldwater who was himself a libertarian leaning Republican that likely would have been kicked out of the Republican National Convention by the Mitt Romney campaign. The party needs to forge together conservative and some libertarian principles in the way that Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is able to do.
We need to remember that we tend to identify with the Republican Party because we believe the Republican Party best represents our principles. The unfortunate fact is that the Republican Party has betrayed many of the principles that we hold so dear. We shouldn’t remain unflinchingly loyal to the party unless the party remains loyal to us and our principles. We ought not be Republicans that allow our principles to shift in the wind as the Republican Party shifts in the wind in a vain attempt to win elections.
Perhaps the Republican Party will learn from this loss, but it will take a collective effort on the grassroots level to demand change. Without change, the Republican Party will continue to lose national elections as it limps along rotting from the inside out. It will either become the party that it purports to be, or it will follow the Federalists and Whigs into the dustbin of history.
Breitbart: 330K votes in 4 swing states would have given Romney Presidency
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Via Breitbart, although Romney lost to Obama by several million when you take in the national vote count, U.S. elections are won by electoral college votes. And those votes are determined by the outcomes in key swing states, which in turn are determined by the outcomes of key counties in those swing states.
With this in mind, Michael Patrick Leahy gives us a sobering realization: With just several hundred thousand strategically-sought votes, Romney would have taken the presidency.
“270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.
Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s 327,870.
Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney’s 4,162,174.
Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779
Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s 1,789,618.
Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.”
What does this mean?
Well, as mentioned earlier, it would be a huge mistake for Congressional Republicans to draw the sort of long-term lessons Democrats are using to promote their agenda. With a more effective GOTV effort, the national landscape would be vastly different than what we are witnessing now. For better or for worse, Americans will have four more years of public exposure and scrutinizing of what’s now an incontestable conclusion: President Obama’s handling of the economy has only made the lives of the average American family worse, not better.
Leahy has it absolutely right: “This election was not about grand vision. It was about small details and focused pandering to specific demographic groups.”
As we continue to educate voters on the consequences, conservatives will have more of an opportunity to define Obama’s legacy with all the forthrightness shown to President Bush in his second term.
The Conservative’s New Task: Defining a Legacy
Sunday, November 11, 2012
A Contrast in Class
From the same candidate who, in 2008, campaigned on such lofty virtues as “Unity,” “Hope,” and “Change,” now comes a new message: that Americans in 2012 should vote for nothing less than… revenge:
Revenge against fellow American citizens. That’s half the country the President urges voters to gain revenge on. It’s absolutely stunning that this would come from a sitting U.S. president. Governor Romney didn’t spare legitimate criticism of the President Obama’s failed policies, but at least he did so while consistently refusing to respond to his opponent in-kind:
By and large, Romney stuck to policy, despite Obama/Biden’s obvious contempt for Romney/Ryan; At one point, Obama shocked onlookers again when he condescended to call Governor Romney a “Bullshishitter” in a Rolling Stone interview:
Obama’s tactic throughout his entire campaign can be condensed to one word: Define, Define, Define. It’s become a truism in politics that it is far easier to simply define one’s opponent, rather than to undertake the work of engaging them. This usually entails digging up and attaching whatever negative images that might stick to an opponent in an effort to reduce his credibility–regardless of their accuracy.
Romney refused to follow suit, basically answering Democrats’ own calls for “civility.” The decision may have been a costly one; according to some analysts, Romney’s failure to address such characterizations may have done as much damage as anything else to his image, which subsequently lost him the election. Voters became disgusted with President Obama’s amateurish antics, but neither could they trust the man being characterized as somehow “out of touch” with ordinary citizens. This, despite the fact Romney’s donated far more of his personal wealth to the poor and less fortunate than all past presidents combined.
What Should we do? Learn From History
With that in mind, let’s take a look at a bit of history. This election parallels what Democrats were facing when Senator John Kerry lost his presidential bid to George W. Bush in 2004. It was with them, just as it is with Republicans today: In short, Democrats had every bit as much of a reason to think the nation had gone through a permanent “re-alignment” towards the center-right, and faced pressures to give up and capitulate.
But something else happened. The far left didn’t just give up. For the next four years, aggressive efforts led by Democrats Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Senator Harry Reid (among others) jumped on any and all opportunities to block legislative successes for Bush in a bid to define his presidency as “a total failure”. Memes which spoke of Bush as incompetent and the “Worst. President. Ever.” began popping up on the web. Every misstep, every mispronunciation, and every foible was carefully tracked, documented, and parodied before a cringing electorate–is this who we really voted for?
Every attempt to tackle important issues were thwarted by Democrats in Congress. No way in hell would they allow Bush to take credit for any reforms Democrats could later steal and trumpet as a result of their own initiative. According to the Washington Examiner, such thwarted efforts included:
- Social Security Reform
- Energy Plan
- Tax Reform
- Nominee for Ambassador to the U.N.
- Immigration reform.
Bush’s only major legislative success was successfully continuing the war in Iraq and reauthorizing the Patriot Act until Democrats took power in the 2006 elections. From there on, Bush was nearly impotent.
Think about it: Our nation was at war. And Democrats thought of nothing better to do than demoralize half the country in pursuit of control over Congress and the White House. During this time, public approval ratings reached dismal lows of both branches of government, but the long-term benefit was worth the price to the DNC. In the run-up to the 2008 elections, President Bush may well have been ineligible for re-election, but his legacy had been so tarred and feathered, so abused, that one could hardly be blamed for simply wanting the man (and the Party he was associated with) to simply “go away.” Anything to placate the endless barrage of embarrasing news coverage and opinion attack pieces against a sitting president.
The American electorate wanted a president they felt they could have permission to be proud of again. It was in this political climate that Barack Obama provided just what the public needed: A chance to redeem the American dream of all its past sins, and an opportunity to perhaps regain some sense of pride back in the presidency. One could even say the 2008 election cycle was little more than a formality: Barack Obama was going to get elected.
And so our task, friends is quite simple. The media is widely recognized to have been protecting President Obama’s legacy by refusing to ask serious questions about especially damning lapses, such as the president’s failure to respond to calls for help during a 7+ hour terrorist attack on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi. When even the San Fransisco Chronicle (!) makes note, you know it’s bad:
“Now ask yourself this: If George W. Bush were president, and the press didn’t know what he did on the evening of the Benghazi attack, do you think there would be the same focus in the media? I think we know the answer.”
This doesn’t even touch the deadly consequences of Operation Fast and Furious, where DOJ’s Attorney General Eric Holder (an Obama appointee) has been stonewalling congressional inquiry over why semi-automatic weapons were sold by the ATF to drug lords in Mexico. Observers from all sides are at odds to explain the apparent media blackout on these incidents, except to admit that had they occurred under George W. Bush’s watch, the press would have been far more aggressive in their effort to attach these incidents to his record.
This brings me to what I regret has become our major task in President Obama’s final term. For the next four years, Democrats, liberals, “progressives,” and generally those on the left-of-center are going to do all in their power to attach each setback to either President Bush or Republican “obstructionism” in Congress; while touting every advance as a direct consequence of Democrat policy in spite of Republican contribution or input. Count on it.
As for conservatives, libertarians, and anyone generally disaffected with President Obama’s performance and governing philosophy, our task is now very simple: For the next four years, we must dig up, carefully document, and then broadcast Obama’s record accurately and aggressively. Yes, it’s a very dirty job, but if Democrats and the media are only going to be telling one side of the story, it’s up to us to ensure that the negatives are included in the minds of future voters when 2016 arrives. It’s nothing short of a battle for American culture. Will half of Americans continue buying exclusively into the Democrat narrative, or will at least some of them finally have a clear-eyed understanding of just how disastrous this president’s policies have been on the average family?
That is now our task for the next four years. Be it on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, or whatever social platform is most familiar and useful: we, the grassroots, must devote our energies to defining a legacy even as we continue engaging the destructive policies of this administration.
Caving to Democrat ambition now would be premature.
Saturday, November 10, 2012
“In this Information Age, he who gathers, controls, processes, and disseminates the greatest amount of useful information in the most efficient manner, wins.”
Though I’m no Sun Tzu, this has been my personal mantra for what I call “civil combat” for a number of years.
The tactical implements of any election–with all its moving components–is always a subject worthy of study. But for Republicans, the matter is more than just academic: Intramural debates are currently ongoing over which key factor(s) may have determined the outcome of this election. Among the theories being floated around include minority outreach, candidate quality, the so-called “changing face of America,” and plain old over-confidence.
The one I find most compelling, however, is technology. According to Slate:
“In the final 10 days of the race, a split started to emerge in the two campaigns. The Obama team would shower you with a flurry of data—specific, measurable, and they’d show you the way they did the math. Any request for written proof was immediately filled. They knew their brief so well you could imagine Romney hiring them to work at Bain. The Romney team, by contrast, was much more gauzy, reluctant to share numbers, and relying on talking points rather than data.”
Combined with what appears to be the complete technological meltdown of Romney’s GOTV machine on election day, the reasons behind the razor-thin margins by which Romney lost last Tuesday are now becoming clear, and certainly explainable.
So here’s the point: Both Democrats and Republicans are naturally going to draw out large sweeping narratives from this election. Democrats (as with any victor) will tout their narrow win as a mandate, and will urge a continuance of the same policies which have kept millions of Americans out of work throughout Obama’s term. Republicans will lick their wounds, and conclude (quite prematurely) that perhaps nothing short of a drastic policy shifts will help them win back control of Washington. Already, House Speaker Boehner is seen somewhat waffling in his commitment to the Tea Party base which helped many of his colleagues get into office in 2010.
While a re-polishing of the conservative message is certainly in order, this is no time to compromise on basic principles. Both we, and other Hispanic activists have argued this point as far back as March of 2011, providing at least one compelling example of how Republicans might re-frame the debate over border security without alienating most Hispanics.
No Republican (nor any Democrat, for that matter) should forget: Half the nation’s people are with us. This election, consequential as it may be for Democrats’ policy ambitions, still spells a country evenly divided, with momentum moving against the Democrat Party’s steering of the economy. A successful GOTV machine on the GOP side would have been enough to clinch the vote for Romney.
Let’s not make that mistake again.
Some key quotes on Election Outcome:
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
A Nation Divided. – Wall Street Journal
“Mr. Obama will now have to govern the America he so relentlessly sought to divide—and without a mandate beyond the powers of the Presidency. Democrats will hold the Senate, perhaps with an additional seat or two. But Republicans held the House comfortably, so their agenda was hardly repudiated. The two sides will have to reach some compromise on the tax cliff, the spending sequester and the debt limit, but Speaker John Boehner can negotiate knowing he has as much of a mandate as the President.”
Big Tent? – Washington Examiner
“It doesn’t follow from this though that the way for the Republican Party to win again is reject conservatism. That would alienate the voters it does have in the speculative hopes of replacing them with others. You don’t build coalitions by ejecting existing components. The way to win is to make conservatism a more appealing idea and to realize that coalitions are necessary. The movement needs to think hard about how it is going to expand its base.”
Sadly, Negative Campaigning Works – Townhall.com
“Mitt Romney, for all of his faults, ran an aggressive, well-funded, honorable campaign that (generally) focused on the very profound, very big, very urgent issues of our time. He scored a major debate victory then sprinted toward the finish line, harnessing enthusiasm and momentum along the way. But it wasn’t enough. He was defeated by a small, petty, and overwhelmingly negative opponent whose turnout machine swamped all else. The unserious and unseemly drumbeat of birth control, Big Bird, binders, and Blame Bush worked. The “Kill Romney” strategy laid the groundwork for this successful approach. The president offered no meaningful or sweeping vision for a second term, but it didn’t matter. What an awful precedent. I fear it says more about the nation than it does about the opportunistic and ruthless Obama campaign.”
Libertarians to Blame? – IVN.us
“In presidential elections, especially since 2000, it is a knee jerk reaction for members of the party that lost to blame third party and independent voters. After the results of election night, some Republicans blame Gary Johnson and other third party candidates for Mitt Romney’s loss in key battleground states.
Do Republicans have an argument to make?”
On the Election…
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Baylor YCT members and friends:
Four years ago when Barack Obama was elected President, the conservative movement was deemed “dead” by many on the left. President Obama entered office with little opposition in Washington and a perceived mandate to enact any liberal legislation he wanted to, knowing he could count on his liberal allies in Congress to help him every step of the way.
What he did not count on was us.
Across America, millions of citizens across the nation, disillusioned with an ever-increasing national government, rose up to have their voices heard.
And it was. The 2010 midterm election was an historical repudiation of liberal policies that had driven this nation towards decline. Thanks to this uprising, President Obama was unable to enact some of his favorite disastrous liberal policies- including true immigration amnesty and a complete removal of the Bush-era tax cuts. For this, the conservative movement was absolutely amazing and sent a big message to those in charge that we are a voice worth listening to.
Which takes us to last night. Many Young Conservatives of Texas members spent countless hours campaigning for congressman, senators, local positions, and challenger Mitt Romney. I am amazed by and forever grateful for the amount of activism we have seen on campus, in our State, and across the nation. And although we may be disappointed in the outcome today, we should take comfort in knowing that the last 4 years has not weakened the conservative cause. It has been strengthened.
In the House of Representatives, conservatives have kept their control. In the Senate, YCT-endorsed candidate Ted Cruz won the Texas Senate seat. I have complete confidence Cruz will be a beacon for conservative values in our Senate. Locally, conservative candidates have prevailed, including Will Jones and Kyle Kacal. Although we may have been unable to take the Presidency this time around, we should all be proud of the hard work we have done to resurrect the conservative values that have built and strengthened this great country.
So, in closing, it is natural to be disappointed in the results, but do not let it dispirit you. Our work is far from over. It has just begun. More than ever, Texas has solidified its place as the Keystone of conservatism. Across the country, citizens have been awakened to the conservative movement. Conservative activism will be crucial in the next 4 years. We need everyone’s support.
Thank you and God bless,
Baylor YCT Endorses Will Jones for County Commissioner
Thursday, November 1, 2012
WACO, TX, NOVEMBER 1, 2012:
In the Mclennan County race for Precinct 3 County Commissioner, the Baylor University chapter of Young Conservatives of Texas is proud to endorse Baylor Alumnus Will Jones. In his private sector experience, Jones has proven his exceptional ability for fiscal management. These proven skills will be of great importance in dealing with $137-million county budget. Baylor YCT is very deliberate about issuing endorsements in local races. In a time when students, a primary Precinct 3 constituency, are concerned about the state of their financial future, Will Jones offers by far the highest guarantee of protection against higher taxes by committing his efforts to reduce wasteful government spending.
Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas is a non-partisan organization founded in 1980 dedicated to the founding principles of American exceptionalism, Christian ethics, and the best of Baylor tradition.
Friday, August 24, 2012
To all new students at Baylor, welcome!
You’re invited to join us tonight in the SUB at our Late Night booth so we can get to know you!
Livejournal sells its support to Planned Parenthood
Saturday, May 12, 2012
In what’s proving to be a pretty divisive move among customers, Livejournal staff are now selling user icons in $1, $5, and $10 US dollar increments to to support the business operations of Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood has been embattled recently by U.S. Congressional investigations into its activities. Among the more notable concerns: its defiance of legal requirements to report child abuse.
Founded in 1999, Livejournal is one of the longest-running blogging platforms on the web. Their popularity appears to have floudered somewhat since its founding in the U.S., but 2 million users remain “active in some way” (whatever that means) worldwide. Although Livejournal is owned by Russian-based SUP Media, it is the San Fransisco-based LiveJournal Inc. which currently runs the site under US law.
As with any private corporation, Livejournal may support whatever cause they think is worth risking their reputations for. But it’s up to responsible consumers to become informed, and use their collective voice to express their opinion. Some may want to inform advertisers that they risk losing customer loyalty should they continue to do business with organizations that support the killing of the unborn. And whether we like it or not, it’s a tactic already used heavily by supporters of leftwing causes, albeit with mixed results.
Advertisers for Livejournal are provided by Fetchback.com.
Young Conservatives at Baylor stand in support of Waco Tea Party
Thursday, March 15, 2012
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 15, 2012
CONTACT: Kathryn Richardson Public Affairs Young Conservative Texas-Baylor Chapter
425 891 2319 Kathryn_Richardson(at)baylor.edu
* * *MEDIA ADVISORY* * *
Young Conservatives at Baylor stand in support of Waco Tea Party
The Chairman of Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas announced its support of the Waco Tea Party tonight, and against a Democrat-orchestrated assault on political speech.
“Members of Baylor Young Conservatives of Texas stand in solidarity with the Waco Tea Party, and we urge Congressman Bill Flores and Senators John Cornyn and Kay Bailey Hutchison to do all in their power to end this assault on the basic rights of ordinary Americans to fully and freely participate in the political process,” said Daniel Cervera, Baylor’s chapter chair of Young Conservatives of Texas.
At the prompting of seven Democrat U.S. Senators, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued letters to hundreds of Tea Party organizations across the country, each demanding extraordinary levels of documentation of past activity, including (according to The Blaze):
• hard copy printouts of websites — A pdf file emailed to the IRS will not suffice
• Lists of all social media outlets being used (Facebook, Twitter, etc.) including hard copy printouts of every posting
• Narrative descriptions of every activity of the organization since their filing date. [The IRS does not want a mere description of an event, but full details, including who conducted it, their qualifications, who was allowed to take part in the activities and how they were selected, and if there was a fee, how much it was.]
• Details of the Tea Party organization’s members, including their names, addresses, roles, plus a corporate federal ID of all organizations which are members of the organization.
Toby Marie Walker, president and board chairman of the Waco Tea Party, confirms the WTP received a similar letter, granting only a two-week compliance window.
Democrats in Washington understand the the ability of any of these organizations to gather the funds or volunteer efforts needed to comply with IRS demands would be slim, and few likely have the financial means to mount a legal defense against what appears to be an unprecedented level of partisan targeting by the tax-collecting agency.
Consequently, legal organizations such as the American Center for Law and Justice have volunteered to donate their time and talent to defend many of these organizations, including the Waco Tea Party, against this appalling threat to every American’s right to freedom of assembly and freedom of speech.
“I further urge all leaders of local organizations in McLennan County to let elected officials know, both publicly and privately, that the protection of everyone’s basic liberties is a first priority,” said Cervera. “So long as the rights of even one public policy organization can be threatened by such brazen displays of partisanship, no one is safe.”