During a weekly briefing of Tea Party Patriots local coordinators on Sunday evening, a veteran of the Reagan administration’s national security infrastructure pointed activists to the work of Pat Caddell at Breitbart.com. “Caddell was George McGovern’s pollster in 1972, and Jimmy Carter’s pollster in 1976 and 1980. The man knows the inner workings of the high command of the Democratic Party as an inside operator, so his insight is particularly valuable.”
Caddell warns Republican operatives and conservative activists to be wary of a late October surprise (even a November surprise) which could shift momentum toward President Obama if the public is not inoculated now. From Breitbart:
“October Surprises,” real and imagined, have been recurrent in US political history. The term can be thought of two ways: First, it is the simple reality that the unexpected “black swan” can emerge at any time, including on the eve of an election. Second, there’s the more nefarious idea that an incumbent could use the power of his office to affect the election. And such possible abuse by an incumbent has provoked challengers in elections to use the October Surprise phrase preemptively, as a way of warning voters to discount some last-minute bombshell.
Caddell anticipates a move by the Obama administration which could serve such a “nefarious” purpose:
[A] possible US military action against terrorists in Libya. We might first note that the entire Obama narrative on Libya has collapsed, leaving any Obama politico–including the totally political national security adviser, Tom Donilon–understandably desperate to do something to change the Libya story.
The national security expert advising Tea Party Patriots further fleshes out the potential scenario for PJ Tatler in this email:
As Commander in Chief, [President Obama] has power and authority over U.S. military assets.
His Administration has taken the art of drone strikes to a new level. See this Washington Post piece on counterterrorism adviser John Brennan’s June 2012 speech acknowledging publicly for the first time the Obama Administration’s new policy on the use of drones.
It would not stretch my imagination at all to conceive of a scenario in which the President, determined to show that he is a strong and determined leader (and in the process destroy the image of him as weak and feckless, an image clearly displayed by his administration’s response to Benghazi), would order drone strikes against militant targets in Libya — WHETHER OR NOT they were targeted against the terrorists who were responsible for the deaths of four Americans — so that he could then announce from the Briefing Room podium something along the lines of the following:
“Since the tragic events in Benghazi that took the lives of four Americans on September 11, 2012 — including my Ambassador and personal representative, Chris Stevens — my Administration has worked to identify and bring to justice those who were responsible. Today I am announcing publicly that last night, in (fill in the blank) Libya, (fill in the blank name) and (fill in the blank name) — identified by our intelligence sources as leaders of the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi — were killed as the result of military action I ordered.
“Let the word go forth to all those who would seek to do harm to the United States, its people, or its vital interests — we will hunt you down and bring you to justice.”
And then he’d walk away from the podium, and leave his national security and communications aides to spin a pliant media with the notion that a month’s worth of “confusion” and “contradiction” on what happened in Benghazi — was it the result of a YouTube video? A planned terrorist assault? etc. — was actually part of a brilliantly crafted, deliberate plan undertaken by the administration in concert with U.S. intelligence agencies, who knew within hours who was responsible for the attack, but needed to “throw them off the scent” — that is, we didn’t want the terrorists to know just how much we knew about who was responsible for the attack, so the Obama White House made the politically dangerous decision to show itself as weak and rudderless and confused DELIBERATELY to confuse the terrorists. Thus, in this spin, Obama selflessly DID THE RIGHT THING, EVEN AT GREAT POLITICAL COST TO HIMSELF AND HIS REELECTION.
I shudder to think just how deeply the MSM will plant its collective nose up his collective rear end if/when this scenario occurs. Krugman, Matthews, Maddow, Schultz … they’ll think he’s martyred himself for the good of the nation, and we’ll never hear the end of it.
If Mitt Romney, the Republicans, and their allies want to win this election, they will have to put the issue of an October Surprise into a persuasive narrative, as a way of inoculating themselves against whatever the Obamans might be able to do. After all [there is much to] suggest that the Obama administration is quite capable–a better word than “capable” might be “eager”–to use national security variables for their partisan purposes.
Caddell’s full article is well worth a read, and it’s prescription of context-building should be followed.
There is little doubt that many incumbent politicians would love for the Supreme Court ruling upholding much of ObamaCare to deprive the Tea Party movement of its bedrock issue. Yet, the bulk of ObamaCare has yet to be implemented. Governor Mitt Romney has promised to repeal it if elected president, and the stakes remain the difference between life and death.
Tea Party Patriots has produced an exhaustive video exposé taking viewers through the process which produced ObamaCare, warning of its unjust and deadly consequences. Beginning at the issue’s root, the competing medical philosophies of the life-affirming Hippocrates and the statist Plato, The Determinators offers a brief history of medical politics and relives the constitutional trauma inflicted upon the American republic by the Obama administration and their Democratic allies in Congress. The film presents a stark choice between the value of individual lives and the value of the state for its own sake. At a running time of 58 minutes, it delivers an impressive amount of content in a concise package which compels a personal response.
The film is based upon the book The Battle for America’s Soul authored by Dr. C.L. Gray, who also narrates. Tea Party Patriots has mailed DVDs of the film to undecided voters in swing states, and has now made the film available to view in its entirety on YouTube (embedded above). They are asking for help in distributing the film to as many voters as possible before November 6th
Social media is atwitter with protest from Republican delegates and grassroots activists as the Republican National Convention stands poised to vote on proposed rule changes which will fundamentally transform the process for nominating future presidential candidates. In an open letter to delegates in Tampa, Republican Liberty Caucus national chairman Dave Nalle summarizes what is at stake and urges opposition from the floor of the convention next week.
One of the cornerstones of the Grand Old Party is a belief in republicanism and the idea that power is distributed and limited by checks and balances. Those values are embodied in our Constitution and they were the basis of the Republican Party when it was founded and for most of its history. Historically this has meant that most of the power in the Republican Party has rested with the party members in the states, working as delegates through their local and state caucuses and conventions to generate policy for the party in a unique collaborative process where the voice of the people could be heard strongly.
… Now there are those in Tampa who seek to overturn this traditional structure of the party, set restrictions on the free choice of party members and introduce a new and alien process which would minimize the input of the party’s rank and file and put power in the hands of party leaders and wealthy special interests who can buy the loyalty of the mob. They have borrowed the organizing structure of the Democrats and authored rules which would cause our delegates to be bound by the votes of primary voters who may not be Republicans or share our values. They have also proposed that the presumed presidential nominee could remove our elected delegates at whim. Finally they want to remove control over the rule making process from the state parties to a small elite within the national committee of the party who can change the rules under which the party operates at any time. Without fixed rules arrived at by the consent of the rank and file of the party we [state and national delegates elected at local conventions] become pawns rather than participants in the political process.
I hope that all delegates in Tampa will join me in opposing this coup within the party. If you are a [delegate], please join with others in supporting the minority report and opposing these changes which will be voted on from the floor on Monday. If you are watching from home, please realize that the media is not covering this issue and reach out to any delegates you know and encourage them to stand up for the rights of the state parties and the many dedicated Republicans who took part in the grassroots process which makes our party unique and protects the interests of all of its members.
The text of the proposed rule changes is attached to Nalle’s letter. The RNC rules committee approved the changes last week. But the rules will not go into affect unless approved by the convention this week. If passed, these rules will make it significantly more difficult for minority delegations to effectively participate in the convention process.
It is worth pondering why the architects of these rule changes feel it necessary to shut out new blood. This “coup” as Nalle calls it is no doubt in response to the limited success of the Ron Paul organization in a handful of caucus states. Yet, Paul was unable to secure the plurality of delegates in fives states necessary to secure a speaking appearance at the national convention. His campaign never posed a credible threat to presumptive nominee Mitt Romney. So why act to silence such a slim minority within the party? Why not embrace their contribution and grow the party? Making the process more esoteric and inaccessible will only insulate future campaigns from the grassroots activists they need to recruit and motivate in order to succeed.