Tito Muñoz goes to the McDonnell/Bolling establishment playbook against Jeff Frederick...

...and deserves to be taken to task for it.

With the header "In Case You Missed It From Today's Bearing Drift Blog Post:"...the Muñoz campaign emailed me the text of this Hoeft hit-piece on Jeff from Bearing Drift from Friday, followed by "Authorized and paid for by Friends of Tito Muñoz".

I'll start by fisking the piece itself, and then we'll deal with Mr. Muñoz and his campaign.

"Jeff Frederick attempts a recast"

We'll see about that one.

"After being removed from office by the Republican Party of Virginia as Chairman, the once three-term state delegate, Jeff Frederick, is trying to cast himself as an outsider in his bid to become the Republican nominee for state senator."

He doesn't NEED to 'try.' You and the rest of the old-guard and Bob McDonnell's minions were out to get him from the moment he routed Hager at the convention to win the chairmanship. Or, as a friend of mine who sits on SCC related it to me.." It's the same people who have ALWAYS run RPV, and they know how close they were to losing it all, losing control with Jeff as chair." So yeah, I think we can definitively say Jeff Frederick is an outsider.

"In a recent mailing to voters in the 36th District, Frederick says he wants to “End Politics As Usual in Virginia.”

“Our families deserve someone who will stand up to the career politicians. They deserve an honest, independent, common-sense voice.”

It’s interesting to note that Frederick, who did serve for six years in the House of Delegates, wants to serve another four in the state Senate, was chairman of the RPV, and is running for the Republican nomination, is not actually running as an independent candidate; he wants the endorsement from one of the two political parties that dominates our political system to back his bid."

I think Hoeft is showing us a bit of how he thinks... "this guy is trying to be a Republican, therefore he'd damn well better march in lockstep, OR ELSE! No 'independent voices' allowed!" Way to be hyperliteralist, by the way. I'm just going to GUESS that perhaps Jeff means 'independent' in the intellectual sense, not in the sense of being independent of a political party. Quite a shock to you and your friends, no doubt, Mr. Hoeft.

"He writes:

“The career politicians in Richmond have made a mess of our economy and have put future generations at risk.”

Interesting choice of words. So, would that mean that Governor Bob McDonnell and his leadership team who have built Virginia into being #1 for business and balanced the budget without raising taxes have “made a mess of our economy”?"

Well, he just might. Not to break up your circle of RINO-McDonnell-worship, but he balanced the budget using federal money, and has given tax breaks - effective tax hikes for the rest of us - to businesses to move to Virginia. That sounds like standard-issue establishment behavior to me, it's not conservative or honest, and it won't fly with me. I'm sure Jeff meant primarily the current members of the Senate of Virginia, but hey, you brought up your hero McDonnell.

"This coming from the man who almost buried the Republican Party of Virginia? RPV is just now overcoming the tens of thousands of dollars in debt Frederick ran up on the party’s credit card. If you want a Microsoft Office product, just visit the Obenshain building on Grace St. in Richmond.

“Sure, they talk about creating jobs, but, in reality, they vote time and time again for job-killing tax hikes, new regulations and more wasteful government programs.”

If he’s talking about his presumptive Democratic opponent, State Sen. Toddy Puller, then, yeah, he has a point. But Lieutenant Governor Bill Bolling, the state’s chief jobs creation officer, has done more than talk – he’s delivered. And Virginia has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country. It’s still not good enough, because there are people still out of work, but it could be much worse if not for public servants like Bolling."

Firstly, Jeff demolishes the "10 charges" in Mr. Hoeft's linked piece here. Regarding that cute little Microsoft joke, a large amount of MS Office packages were an in-kind contribution to RPV months before Jeff Frederick became chairman. As regards Bolling, THIS is again indicative of the RINO mindset... Government or "public servants" can't create jobs. The main thing government can do is get out of the way and let the private sector create them. Again... you brought these guys up, Mr. Hoeft, not me. Just sayin'.

"Frederick has every right to want to earn votes from the people of the 36th District, but he could try to do so with a little more discretion and credibility."

The only ones lacking in discretion and credibility here are you, Mr. Hoeft... and the Muñoz campaign.

Speaking of the Muñoz campaign, I'll take this opportunity to state I am a Jeff Frederick supporter in the primary and have been since learning of his interest in running in the 36th. Having said, that, I liked Tito Muñoz well enough, having met him a couple of times at events, and would have happily worked to help him defeat the odious Toddy Puller in November had he gotten the nomination. Given the eagerness of he and his supporters to push this hit piece by Hoeft, I'm having to rethink that. If he and they will stoop so low so quickly, perhaps he should question his fitness for public office. I can overlook his stumping for the mediocre (and that's being very kind) John McCain, we were all pretty worried about an Obama presidency, and justifiably so as it turns out. But to instantly seize on this sort of establishment hack attacking Jeff... well, he just hurt himself and his conservative credentials. Badly.

Jeff Frederick for Senate of Virginia, 36th District. That is all.

All good things...

You know the rest. I've neglected NVC for far too long, and it's time to hang it up. I've enjoyed posting here, but Facebook has gotten a lot of my attention and energy the past couple of years, and I'm just not motivated to give NVC the attention it deserves. You'll be able to find my blog rantings at The Liberty Zone occassionally, or on Facebook. Thanks to my fellow bloggers and readers for all your help and support over the last 3-4 years.

I won't make this blog disappear or anything, but I won't be adding to it for the foreseeable future.

Take care.

I just can't stop myself...

...from fisking this piece from stereotypical neoconservadouche Chris Malagisi. This guy is one of Newt Gingrich's henchmen, and periodically plugs him, and even started this page on facebook to "draft" Newtie. I, of course, couldn't stop myself back then, either... and this appeared. Whoops.

Anyway, away we go...

"Ron Paul Wins the Democrat Presidential Debate – oh wait!

By: Christopher N. Malagisi 05/06/11 8:49 AM"

My, my, my... aren't we funny, Chris?

"Earth to Rep. Ron Paul and former Gov. Gary Johnson – you are running for the Republican nomination for president, not the Libertarian or Democrat nomination."

They know that, Chris. Do you? Contrary to your views, there's no political party called the "Fusionist Party" or "Neoconservative Party". Hate to break it to you.

"At various times throughout the Republican primary debate last evening, I had to remind myself I was actually watching a Republican debate. Without the interludes of Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Sen. Rick Santorum, and CEO Herman Cain, you would think that Ron Paul and Gary Johnson were participating in a Democrat presidential primary debate, siding with Democrats on major social and defense policy initiatives. "

Translation: "Hey, wait a minute... not everyone is espousing imperialist foreign policy and authoritarian social policies! Is this some kind of joke? I thought we'd sufficiently co-opted this party and run off the old-school conservatives that these views weren't prevalent any more!!!"

"Why do Republicans let people like Ron Paul and Gary Johnson participate in Republican presidential debates? They are obviously trying to win the “Who’s more Libertarian?” or “Who’s the least Republican” debate as opposed to the actual Republican debate taking place."

Well, gee, Scooter, maybe it just might be possible that there are significant components of the Republican primary electorate who've gotten tired of your Douchebag Conservatism! No, couldn't be...

"For the record, I do not disparage Paul or Johnson from running for president as they have served their country honorably nor do I fundamentally disagree with them that our country is in deep budgetary and economic peril."

Translation: "But now, let me disparage the two guys that were onstage who embrace the philosophy I truly hate and fear, conservatism. Problem is that they're so damn CORRECT on fiscal issues, even a devout neocon stoolpigeon myself is unable to sufficiently shroud the issues in mist! Blast!"

"Nor do I for one minute pretend the Republican Party is a homogenous entity where everyone agrees with everyone. Republicans have always had internal disputes over philosophical emphases and the occasional policy difference."

Translation: "But I sure would like things that way, and guys like me work every day to try and make them so. Did I mention Newt is THE MAN, and the embodiment of everything we'd like to morph the Republican Party into? Speak not ill of him, he is infallible!"

"The Republican Party as a whole though is based on five fundamental principles – individual freedom, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense, and preserving our traditional values and heritage. The modern Republican Party is based on the foundation of the conservative movement."

Okay, Chris, let's look at what the influx of former Trotskyite statists, aka neoconservatives, have done to those supposed "fundamental principles." Incidentally, the former Democrats knows as neoconservatives bear ideas which are neither new, nor conservative in any recognizable form.

Individual freedom: The Republican party has drifted far away from support of individual freedom in many ways. The creation of DHS, TSA and the attendant security theater in airports, which accomplishes NOTHING, other than violating travelers' civil liberties. Support for a greater, more intrusive federal government... medical records, financial records, property rights, the list goes on.

Limited government: What a joke. The Republican Party has been ripped so far off its moorings, it would hardly be recognizable to Calvin Coolidge. The party establishment has given up trying to roll back what the progressives have inflicted on Americans since 1932. They're not even trying to eliminate the Department of Education any longer, one of Ronald Reagan's stated goals! With the bunch in charge now, supposedly the goal is to "fix" massive unconstitutional ponzi schemes known as Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare! Either they're guilty of craven ideological cowardice, or they support those programs. I tend towards the latter explanation. Why? Because the GOP establishment came up with huge expansions of government like Bush's Medicare prescription drug boondoggle, the Department of Homeland Security, and "No Child Left Behind." The GOP... slightly less collectivist than those other guys... Vote for us!

Free markets: Also a joke. Support of the cabal known as the Federal Reserve, and its constant monkeying with the markets. GOP-led Congresses and administrations bear some blame for the housing bubble, the dot-com bubble, the farm bill, the bailouts, the stimuli, and many other statist interventions in the economy. They also love doling out corporate welfare.

Strong national defense: Here, at least, the record is decent. The GOP has generally opposed the Democrats' attempts to weaken our military over the past 50 years or so. The real problem here is the GOP's relationships with the various elements of the military-industrial complex. It propagates corporate welfare like the F-35 "competitive engine", and creates a conflict of interest at the highest levels of government.

"Preserving our traditional values": Once upon a time, REAL conservatives understood that social mores and cultural traditions were passed down from one generation to the next by the people, not the government. Men like Robert Taft and Barry Goldwater understood this. Regrettably, Ronald Reagan gave the social "conservatives" a seat at the table, and they haven't gotten up.

"The conservative movement is a coalition made up of three disparate, yet amenable groups – classical liberals or libertarians, traditionalists, and anti-communists – or modernly referred to as fiscal, social, and defense conservatives. While each entity emphasizes different issues, they all work together in a political compact of sorts with a shared sense of reason operating within tradition. They also understand that together, as a fusionist coalition, they have the best chance of winning elections and actually legislating their conservative principles."

There are a number of issues here, the most prominent being the inclusion of the social "conservatives" as some kind of integral part of a conservative coalition. The second most prominent is that ANY conservative principles have any chance of "being legislated" with the current gang. This book lays it all out, from the perspective of a REAL conservative.

"In order for any modern candidate to win the GOP nomination, they must embody these conservative principles, or at least appeal to these constituencies. With the exception of primary fiscal issues, Paul and Johnson consistently deviated and at various points were even hostile to the social and defense conservative branches."

I can hear it now: "How DARE those guys get off our script! We NEED to invade third world hellholes every few years for sketchy reasons! We NEED to appease the religious nuts by instituting invasive authoritarian social policies at every level of government! Harrumph! Harrumph!" Well, Chris, the last GOP presidential nominee even resembling a conservative was Ronald Reagan, and he had to compromise with those in the GOP who were, well... not conservative. The last true conservative to obtain the GOP nod was Barry Goldwater, 47 years ago.

"Throughout the debate, Ron Paul stated positions that were contrary to mainstream Republicans. Nearly every response oozed of antipathy towards successfully concluding our military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan and utilizing enhanced interrogation techniques, even for the likes of Khalid Sheik Mohammed – the mastermind of 9/11."

Oh my goodness, not positions "contrary to mianstream Republicans'... anything but that! (To be fair, I disagree with Rep. Paul and Gov. Johnson on enhanced interrogation techniques. These people aren't protected by the Geneva conventions, since they're not soldiers.)

"He is against the use of prisons for enemy combatants, humanitarian and foreign aid, the reorganization and consolidation of our homeland security, traditional marriage, the AZ illegal immigration act, wants to get rid of the federal reserve, intonated a return to the gold standard and at one point stated he was for legalizing drugs such as heroin and cocaine – I’m not kidding."

Well, no kidding, Chris... of course he's against humanitarian and foreign aid, DHS, the Federal Reserve, and wants to return to the gold standard and sound money. HE is an actual CONSERVATIVE... unlike YOU.

"The debate moderators at one point had to ask Paul and Johnson how they expected to win the Republican nomination with anti-Republican viewpoints such as these."

What both Chris and the moderators either don't fully understand or don't choose to acknowledge is that political parties are brands, not ideologies. For most of the 19th century, the Democrats were the exponents of limited government, not the GOP. Things change.

"Politically though, no modern presidential candidate has won the Republican nomination being fiscally imprudent, negligent on social issues, and anti-defense. Look at the most recent Republican presidential nominees and how they were able to appeal politically to the three main constituencies."

Oh, THIS will be good.

"While prickly with the conservative base, John McCain knew he had to win over enough people from each of the three main groups to win the Republican nomination. His position of strength was national security having served in the US Navy and was the leading proponent in congress for the Iraqi surge. He was consistently pro-life and appealed to economic voters using the line that government spending like drunken sailors was an insult to drunken sailors."

John McCain won the nomination because everything broke just right for him. Rudy didn't make an effort until Florida, when it was too late; Fred Thompson didn't have a real campaign, Huckabee was rightly seen as a tool of the religious nuts and couldn't get much support outside that base, and the three candidates who could be called conservative in some way, shape or form, Ron Paul, Duncan Hunter and Tom Tancredo, were marginalized by the party establishment and media. He won by default.

"George W. Bush unabashedly was a social conservative referring to his reaffirmation of Jesus Christ in his adult life during the 2000 campaign. He appealed to fiscal conservatives touting his plans for tax cuts and appealed to defense conservatives supporting a missile defense shield and a non-nation building approach to foreign policy."

Simply put, Bush had the religious nut vote in his back pocket, along with the establishment types... he then flat-out LIED about a "humble foreign policy" over and over again before pursuing a neocon agenda once in office. Running to the right of John McCain is no big trick.

"Like McCain, Bob Dole had a thorny relationship with conservatives but appealed to defense conservatives having served in combat. He was pro-life and appealed to fiscal voters by promising a 10% across-the-board federal budget cut and selected the tax cut icon, Jack Kemp, as his running mate."

Bob Dole got the nomination because of the weakness of his competition; no other reason. Lamar Alexander? Alan Keyes? Come on. It was "his turn".

"You can see a consistent theme among these candidates that allowed them to appeal not only to the Republican base but to the national electorate as well. Republicans should reassess their standards of participation in nationally televised debates or risk losing or hurting their brand further."

No, not really, Chris. What republicans need to do is re-examine their own priorities, and see if they match the principles they claim to believe in, starting with "limited government." They also need to reassess the standing of self-appointed gatekeepers.

"Again, Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have every right to run for president, but they are not Republican or traditionally conservative."

Hahahahahahahah!!!! What a complete crock! Those guys are each more conservative than you, Newtie, Rick Santorum and John McCain combined on your best day.

"While Donald Trump may have questionable political discrepancies of his own, he recently summed it up best that Ron Paul has zero chance of winning. The Libertarian Party is still looking for their nominee, gentlemen."

The one with "questionable political discrepancies is YOU, Chris. Thanks for playing.

"Christopher N. Malagisi is the President of the Young Conservatives Coalition, a National Review Institute Washington Fellow, and an Adjunct Professor at American University teaching “The History of the Conservative Movement: 1945-Present" and "Campaigns & Political Activism"

Holy hell, THIS guy teaches a class on "the conservative movement"? I'd bet his students barely even hear about "Mr. Republican" or "Mr. Conservative", since they clearly would stand forthrightly against his neocon worldview. No wonder AU is so far left!

Spare me your smarm, your condescension and your arrogance. No sale. Don't you have a Newtie event to go to?

The walking talking stereotypical neoconservadouche in all his glory.

The Coming Fighter Gap

Once again, Robert Gates has been shown to be wrong, wrong, WRONG on the F-22. And it's going to hurt us. Badly. Today, Mackenzie Eaglen and Lajos F. Szaszdi of the Heritage Foundation released What Russia’s Stealth Fighter Developments Mean for America, a look at what the forthcoming fifth-gen Russian PAK FA stealth fighter, meant to rival the F-22, will do to our hold on air superiority over the next 10-20 years and beyond.

Let's quote Secretary Gates, as per the paper's abstract:

"Defense analysts, officials, and industry personnel have long believed that the U.S. F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter would not face serious threats from foreign fifth-generation fighters for the next 20 years. In September 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates repudiated claims of a looming “fighter gap”—a deficit between the services’ fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements. “[T]he more compelling gap,” he argued, “is the deep chasm between the air capabilities of the United States and those of other nations.”"

Whoops. Thanks to Secretary Gates' termination of the F-22 program, ostensibly due to its expense (duh, you kept cutting it back, OF COURSE the price per aircraft is going to go up) at 187 aircraft, instead of the roughly 500 originally planned, and the serious problems with the F-35's various incarnations (none of which come close to matching the stealth or air-to-air capabilities of the F-22 Raptor), including rising costs which may even force the cost per plane near what we're paying for the Raptors. We may as well have bought the 500 Raptors, from a budgetary perspective.

To make matters worse, Eaglen and Szaszdi tell us the Russians will be looking to sell the PAK to people like Algeria, India, Vietnam, Libya, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Indonesia, Malaysia, Kazakhstan, and yes... the People's Republic of China. Doesn't that sound like a good time? They're all going to have fighters superior to the F-35 and the Typhoon, and the near equal of the Raptor. Maybe a LOT of them. Thanks, Gates!

Hopefully the GOP will do something to resuscitate the F-22, and quick, in Congress after the New Year. But in the current fiscal climate, I doubt it.

Gingrich strikes again... this time on health policy...

...spouting in this speech about hoe the right needs to move from rejection of federal helath policy (the correct and Constitutional course) to "replacement" (the neoconservadouche, liberal-lite course of action) to modernize conservatism.

PLEASE, someone shut this clown up!

Gerson just won't stop...

disparaging conservatives every chance he gets, like in this Post piece.

Listen to this clown:

"And even a vast political victory does not change an iron law of politics: The quality of candidates matters. Serious, mainstream Republican Senate candidates could have won in Delaware and Nevada. But Christine O'Donnell was not serious. And Sharron Angle - warning of "Second Amendment remedies" in case of political loss - was not mainstream. Weak, poorly vetted Senate candidates were the main reason that while Republican gains in the House were historic - the largest in 72 years - gains in the Senate were not.

O'Donnell and Angle were gifts of Sen. Jim DeMint and Sarah Palin to their party. Tea Party enthusiasm and shallow ideological purity were supposed to be better than outdated, "establishment" attributes such as achievement, wisdom or qualification. This approach to politics is expected of DeMint, who has gained national prominence by accusing his Republican colleagues of compromise. Coming from Palin, however, it is a threat to the Republican future."

First off, I admit O'Donnell was absolutely nuts and stood no chance. The upside is that she defeated Mike Castle, a Democrat in GOP clothing. Castle immediately had consultations at the White House after losing the primary to O'Donnell. That's a fair measure of his conservatism, or utter lack thereof. Better to have a real Democrat that we can oppose in 2016.

Angle was a Bidenesque gaffe machine at times, butwould have made a fine Senator and is personally a very nice lady. Reid's victrory was a function of his power as Democrat leader in the Senate and his seniority, as well as some ham-fisted tactics by the gaming industry and unions. Fortunately his son got housed in his bid for the state house.

But listen to Gerson... "shallow ideological purity"... You mean ACTUALLY STANDING FOR SOMETHING, YOU DOUCHE??? Please, shut up, Gerson. As much as you try and snow people, "Roman Catholic social thought" is never going to be an impetus of conservatism. Ever. It's liberalism wrapped in a religious shroud.

Jim DeMint is currently America's finest Senator (pending the arrival of Rand Paul) and has been for several years. Gerson could learn a thing or thousand from him. But, let's move on...

"This election season called that perception into question. Palin's support for O'Donnell showed poor political judgment. But Palin went further, also endorsing Constitution Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Tancredo in Colorado, one of the most divisive figures in American politics.

Tancredo has made a career of fanning anti-immigrant resentment and lobbing ideological grenades. The people who voted Barack Obama into office, in his view, "could not even spell the word 'vote' or even say it in English." The National Council of La Raza is "a Latino KKK without the hoods or the nooses." Miami is a "Third World country." Pope Benedict's embrace of immigrants is all about "recruiting new members," in an attempt at "faith-based marketing." "The guy sitting in the White House," says Tancredo, is a greater threat to the Constitution than al-Qaeda. "If his wife says Kenya is his homeland, why don't we just send him back?"

It was one of the best outcomes of Election 2010 that Tancredo was exiled from any position of public trust. But it is disturbing that Palin found Tancredo to be the "right man for the job." Her endorsement raises the question of whether Palin has any standards for her support other than anti-government rhetoric. Either as a power broker or a candidate in the 2012 election, Palin's increasingly erratic political judgment should raise Republican concerns."

Guess what, Mikey? Tom Tancredo is not "divisive" (a word liberals whip out to imply racism or whatever when they're losing an argument badly) and is positively correct about all of the above. Go ahead..bring some logic, you DC loser. No? That's what I thought. I'm no fan of Sarah Palin, but she made a fine choice in endorsing the Tank. My only quibble is his not seeking the GOP nomination from the start. If he had, he'd have won easily.

This election cycle is a repudiation of Gerson and all his little GOP establishment friends. I can't wait for the day when McConnell and his ilk are cleaned out of leadership, both in Congress and the GOP itself. But hey, Gerson will insist on some kind of excuse. Douchebag conservatism at its finest.

Karl Rove, establishment tool.

Here he is ripping on the victorious Christine O'Donnell.

This guy sucks in every way, shape and form. It makes me vomit that his book is subtitled "My life as a conservative in the fight" when he's spent the past 10 years tearing down conservatives and boosting moderates and neocons. Please, go away, Karl.