Hennessy's View

I see is all the time. Supporters of Establishment candidates complain that their opponents are establishment, too. 

We saw it in the Missouri 2nd District.  We see in the GOP Presidential primary.  The last refuge of the Establishment’s candidates is to spread the pain of the Establishment label.

What many people don’t get is what the Establishment label actually means.  It’s time everyone understood this.

The Establishment’s candidate is the candidate the Establishment chooses for us. 

Got that?  Please repeat it.  Say it out loud.  Write it down if you have to.  Just don’t forget it.  If it helps, add an apostrophe-s to Establishment, as in “Mitt Romney is the Establishment’s candidate.”

Remember the Frank Capra movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington? Mr. Smith was the Establishment’s appointment to the US Senate.  (In that case, the Establishment chose the wrong guy for their own narrow interests.) Indeed, the Establishment’s candidate might be as un-establishment or anti-establishment as you can get.

Everyone who works with, for, on behalf of an established political party is part of the establishment. For that matter, anyone who votes in a primary in which he must choose a party’s ballot joins the establishment. Every candidate who runs as a Republican or as a Democrat is a member of the establishment. Libertarian candidate?  Libertarian establishment.

Simply running for a party’s nomination does not make one the Establishment’s candidate, though.  Nor does having been an office holder.  Or an appointee. The Establishment’s candidate one year can be the Establishment’s enemy in another election.

When people reject the Establishment’s candidates, they’re not rejecting party affiliation; they’re rejecting political elites telling them whom to vote for.

If you reject government telling you how to live, you should reject a Party telling you how to vote.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Obama’s dictate that Catholic organizations must participate in contraception and abortion has nothing to do with healthcare or rights or contraception or anything of the sort. Not at all. Modern dictatorships don’t operate that way.

Obama just destroyed the free practice clause of the First Amendment, and that’s exactly what he intended.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Obama declared jihad on Christianity.

Obama exercised absolute power—the power he warned us about at the State of the Union address.

Notice his “compromise” on the matter. Today, Obama ordered insurance companies to provide contraceptives and abortifacients to employees of the Catholic church  . . . for free!

Obama has told us that he despises the Constitution because it “reflected fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.” 

Subordinating the Catholic church to his despotic rule is just one step in his perverted mission to fix those flaws.

Time to open up a can of crusade on this potentate.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Ed Martin Jr. of St. Louis has redirected his fire to the Attorney General race, and this is great news for everyone except Chris Koster.

Back when Ed Martin was talking about running for the Republican nod to take on Claire McCaskill, I had another thought.  Well, a bunch of people had another thought: Ed would make an outstanding Attorney General.

*********UPDATE*********

HUGE list of endorsements on Ed’s official press release. 

******************************

I guess I was right.

I wasn’t disappointed that Ed chose to run for Todd Akin’s US House seat. Ed would make a great conservative legislator.  And as I said before, so will Ann Wagner, who can now focus on  . . . whichever Democrat decides to give a concession speech at 7:01 pm on November 6.

But, at this pivotal moment in history, as Attorney General, Ed Martin will be Missouri’s general in the war on Washington abuse.  Here’s why.

First, Ed has used his law license for the good of society, to protect life, to defend the wrongly accused, and to advance his—our—conservative principles.  He’s not a lawyer who’s in it for the money.  I’ve met some of the people he’s helped, and I’ve heard their stories.

In these battles, including a nationally covered battle against Illinois’s criminal Governor Rod Blagojevich, Ed Martin was tenacious, principled, and victorious.

Missouri needs an AG who will fight for the right things. 

Second, Ed understands that the battle for liberty over the next 12 years will be fought between the states and Washington. The states—and only the states—have the Constitutional power and the economic leverage fight Washington and win. 

The Several States vs. US Government will be ugly,long, and painful. [Insert your analogy here.]  Most people will lose their stomach before it’s over. People—even good conservatives—will want to throw in the towel and heel to the Washington monster.

Ed won’t.  He understands that Congress, with its entrenched establishment and elitist snobbery, is as close to a lost cause as you’ll find.  He wants to be one of 50 state attorneys general who, with their governors and secretaries of state, beat Congress into submission.(I said “ugly.”) 

Ed Martin has a clear path to take on turncoat Democrat Koster in November.  That fight begins today. When Ed prevails in November, Missouri will have an Attorney General who actually has read and understands the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution—and a man who’s smart to know it matters.

Previously on Hennessy’s View about Ed Martin:

Give Me 5 Minutes, And I’ll Give You a New Friend

Name the One Tea Partier in the Race

11 Minutes of Exactly What We’re Talking About

Popularity: 2% [?]

What’s the difference between a caucus and a primary?

Who’s allowed to attend a caucus?

How do I find out my caucus location?

When it the caucus?

How long does it take?

How to do I get ready?

This Is Important Stuff

These are just some of the questions I have about the Missouri Republican Presidential Caucus scheduled for March 17. And I’m not the only with questions. 

That’s why St. Louis Tea Party Coalition has asked caucus expert Ruth Carlson to begin preparing us for this journey.

On Thursday, January 19, Ruth will give us the fundamental, most important, basic information about the caucus process. 

Don’t Skip the Primary

Plan to vote The Missouri Presidential Primary on February 7, 2012. Plan to vote. Know why? 

Because Ruth told me it’s important.  Apparently, party insiders sometimes try to challenge caucus-goers they don’t know. Voting in the Republican primary will insulate you from these charges. Even though the law only requires that you be a registered voter in the district, the insiders sometimes try to put up barriers.

And that’s just one of the important lessons Ruth will teach.

So, mark your calendar right now.  Plan to be at The After Party on Thursday, January 19 at 7:00 pm. Location is:

Fallon’s Irish Bar and Grill
9200 Olive Blvd.,
Olivette, MO 63132

You can set a reminder here.

Popularity: 1% [?]

It depends on how you score.

I see three scoring scenarios:

1. Best conservative performance
2. Best electability performance
3. Best positional performance

Conservative performance is pretty clear: whose answers appeal to conservatives?  (Does not mean conservatives believed the candidate meant what he said.) This is not Tea Party scoring, either. I’m not limiting my evaluation to the 3 core Tea Party principles of Constitutionally limited government, free markets, and fiscal responsibility.  This is broader conservatism.

Electability performance means the candidate appealed to general election voters. This doesn’t meant centrist—it means not scaring the crap out of people who aren’t politics wonks. (That’s most voters, by the way.)

Positional performance means the candidate did what what he had to do based one his current standings in he nomination process.

On conservative performance, I have to go with:

1. Santorum
2. Perry
3. Gingrich / Romney

Electability

1. Santorum
2. Gingrich
3. Romney

Positional

1. Romney
2. Santorum
3. Gingrich

If we give 3 points for first place, 2 for second, and 1 for third, we get this composite ranking:

1. Santorum: 8 points
2. Gingrich:  6 points
3. Romney:  5 points

What does it all mean? 

Santorum should move up a bit in the polls before the New Hampshire primary, but not enough to win.  He needed Romney to finish out of the top 3 in this debate. 

Gingrich needed to pull Romney out of the top 3 and get closer to Santorum than he did.  This hurt Newt.

Romney improved his chances, but he didn’t close the deal.  The longer he lets Santorum and Gingrich stay in the game, the more vulnerable his lead becomes.

Popularity: 3% [?]