If you work for a man, in Heaven’s name work for him. If he pays wages that supply you your bread and butter, work for him, speak well of him, think well of him, and stand by him, and stand by the institution he represents.

Thus begins the Apologia to “A Message to Garcia”. It would behoove Pete Sessions and John Cornyn, head of the NRCC and NRSC respectively, to heed this message. These individuals seem to have forgotten just who pays the bills and funds these committees. And to be clear, that would be THE BASE.

Slip-shod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, & half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook, or threat, he forces or bribes other men to assist him…

Those words were written 110 years ago, yet are wholly applicable to our current situation. The NRSC and NRCC seem to be embracing these things rather than avoiding them.

It is not as if the base hasn’t made their complaints known, ever hear of “Not One Red Cent“. On the contrary, upon hearing the complaints the NRSC has treated them with dowdy indifference to say the least. To the credit of the NRCC they did create the Young Guns program, but as mentioned above “half hearted work seems the rule”.

When will Chairmans’ Sessions and Cornyn remember that character matters…

Well he’s a fine accountant, but if I’d send him up town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street, would forget what he had been sent for.

Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?

Can we now trust you to run our errands, bypassing the saloons. Or, should we come to expect the continued stench of gin on your breath and failure at the ballot box?

If put to the pinch, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must vilify, condemn, and eternally disparage, why, resign your position, and when you are outside, damn to your heart’s content.

You have both been to clever for your own good and are quickly outlasting your usefulness.

Remember these words dear Sirs…

In every store and factory there is a constant weeding-out process going on.

[...]

No matter how good times are, this sorting continues, only if times are hard and work is scarce, the sorting is done finer - but out and forever, the incompetent and unworthy go.

[...]

Self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best - those who can carry the message to Garcia.

The process has begun, our collective dander has been raised and we demand answers. Will you step down so that we may make room for our own Rowan?

It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing - “Carry a message to Garcia!”

Aaron B. Gardner.

From the diaries by Erick.

Is Carly Fiorina pro-life? The question has come to the fore of late, as she publicly contemplates a candidacy for United States Senate against Barbara Boxer — and as her opponent for the California Republicans’ nomination in that race, Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, has publicly questioned her pro-life credentials. (Full disclosure: I’m a member of the DeVore campaign, so read the following with Reagan’s appropriated Russian dictum to “trust, but verify,” in mind.) An examination of the Fiorina record on this topic reveals worrying inconsistencies.

Any review of Fiorina’s pro-life convictions must acknowledge that for the past 20 months, when pressed on the issue, she has declared herself “pro-life.” This is laudable, and as it should be: the Republican Party is the natural political home for the majority of Americans who do not believe in the Democratic agenda of unrestricted abortion-on-demand, and so it makes sense that a would-be Republican nominee for office would endorse that point of view.

Unfortunately, it is all too easy to question the depth of Fiorina’s commitment to the pro-life cause. These questions range from the legitimate to the ungenerous. Among the latter would be noting, as many have, that Fiorina never uttered a public word on the topic, nor lent any support to pro-life activism, before embarking upon her political career. Indeed, pre-2008 media reports on Fiorina almost uniformly describe her as “pro-choice” — for example, this 2004 San Jose Mercury-News piece, in which “Republican insiders said Fiorina [is] moderate and pro-choice.” Like the father welcoming the prodigal son, we should laud the turn to what’s right. We should also note what it signifies: if Carly Fiorina says she is pro-life now, that is at minimum evidence of a California Republican base that embraces a conservativism and compassion that do it profound credit.

Read More →