• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

By now, people should be beyond surprise when a tea-party candidate upsets an establishment Democrat or Republican – either in a primary or regular election. After all, they’ve had a year to get used to it.

Nevertheless, the tidal wave of tea-party-candidate victories continues to surprise – and upset – many media pundits and, even more so, establishment politicians. Every possible attempt has been made to marginalize the tea-party people as extremists, but I think it’s safe to say that that’s a battle that was over a long time ago – and the losers were the hate-mongering Left and disbelievers on the establishment Right.

But now we’ve crossed into a danger zone. Trent Lott says that “as soon as (newly elected tea-party people) get here, we need to co-opt them.” And, once again displaying the RINO willingness to compromise principles, House Republican leader John Boehner said, on “Face the Nation,” that he would vote for a tax cut for people making under $250,000 a year (leaving out those with incomes higher than $250,000) if that’s his “only option.”

Finally, the shocker: The ever-astute Karl Rove, who has been a strong tea-party supporter, allowed a bit of establishment bias to surface when he lambasted the tea party’s newest star, Christine O’Donnell. I have no doubts that Rove sincerely believes that establishment candidate Mike Castle, a nine-term congressman, had a much better chance of winning Joe Biden’s old Senate seat in Delaware than O’Donnell.

But that misses the point. In fact, in an unintended way, the great nonentity David Gergen – of CNN non-fame – made the best case against Castle by lamenting, “O’Donnell’s opponent knew how to work with Democrats.” How’s that for an endorsement?

The question is, what do establishment Republicans think they would have gained by Castle’s election to the Senate? The notion that the Republican’s main goal should be to get majorities in both the House and Senate is badly flawed. Having a majority doesn’t mean anything if a significant number of that majority repeatedly backs socialist bills offered up by Democrats. They may just as well be Democrats.

So long as Republicans in the Senate include constitutionally subversive progressives like John McCain, Richard Lugar, Orrin Hatch, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham and Olympia Snowe – to name but a handful of examples – having a “majority” is meaningless.

What a large number of Republicans cannot seem to come to grips with is that tea-party people are simply everyday Americans. In fact, most tea-party people have never gone to a tea-party rally, but feel just as strongly about what is happening to America as those who are actively involved in the movement.

If there is any hope for the Republican Party to survive, the word compromise must be eradicated from the minds of philosophically confused “conservatives” in their ranks. You cannot compromise between right and wrong. You cannot compromise between freedom and slavery. You cannot compromise between stealing and respecting the property of others. You cannot compromise between constitutional and unconstitutional.

Shamefully, a number of establishment Republicans have borrowed the favorite strategy of the Left: Isolate and disparage your opponent. It’s like the last gasp of a dying dinosaur. Christine O’Donnell has been broke most of her life. Christine O’Donnell had a tax lien filed against her. And Christine O’Donnell lost her home through foreclosure as a result of that tax lien.

Calling all RINOs: Tea-party voters do not view these as negatives. Christine O’Donnell is us! She represents everything tea-party people are mad about. Tax liens make them angry at Washington, not at the person who is on the receiving end of the tax lien. Foreclosures make them mad at Washington, which is the real source of most people’s financial problems, not at the person whose house has been foreclosed.

Tea-party voters are savvy enough to realize that none of Christine O’Donnell’s personal misfortunes would stop her from voting no to every unconstitutional spending bill served up by congressional progressives. That is what they are looking for in a candidate.

Say what you will about Sarah Palin, she gets it. So does Michele Bachmann, Paul Ryan, Jim DeMint, Ron Paul, Tom Price and a bunch of other tea-party types in the House and Senate. None of them are perfect when it comes to voting – it’s an ugly, rough-and-tumble contact sport up there on Capitol Hill – but they’re at least making a sincere effort to dramatically reduce government spending and government power. If all Republicans in the House and Senate were in line with them, the future of both our economy and our freedom would look much different than it does today.

Half or more of the American people don’t want candidates with experience. They don’t want candidates with blue-ribbon credentials. They don’t want candidates with Kennedy-like pedigrees. They want everyday folks to go to Washington and repeal Health-Care Hell and every other piece of legislation that is unconstitutional. And, yes, they want all entitlement programs phased out.

They also are turned off by the “tactfulness” Republicans employ when they talk about progressives, socialists and communists in our government, whether they be in Congress, the judiciary or the White House. They want in-your-face bluntness, honesty and courage. They know this is the last train out for America and Western civilization, and they want the go-along-to-get-along professional politician to be given the boot.

Anyone who still doesn’t get all this is going to be caught off guard by the civil war that is coming after the Nov. 2 elections. I truly believe that only one side can survive this war, and whether the U.S. goes into decades-long New Dark Ages of tyranny or once again becomes the freest, strongest, most respected country in the world will be dependent upon which side wins.

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.