07/3/15

How Can Scott Walker’s Team Hire Someone Like Brad Dayspring?

By: John Hawkins
RightWingNews

Scott Walker’s campaign caught flack for hiring Liz Mair earlier this year. Liz, whom I know and respect despite the fact she’s well to the left of me on a number of issues, made the mistake of slamming Iowa’s position in the primary system. Most conservatives don’t like Iowa having so much sway in the GOP primaries, but most conservatives also aren’t working for a candidate who’s running in those primaries either. After Walker caught flack from Iowans over Mair’s remarks, she ended up resigning. That’s too bad because Liz is an excellent digital media strategist, but once her comments became a big enough issue to actually hurt Walker in the primary, it put him in a very difficult position.

Today, he’s in a much worse position because Scott Walker’s Unintimidated PAC has hired Brad Dayspring.

Some people might excuse Scott Walker for this hire because he currently can’t coordinate with the PAC. However, people in the know realize that’s a cop-out. The PAC is run by former high-level Scott Walker staffers who would NEVER deliberately do anything he doesn’t agree with. Furthermore, you can be sure that there was PLENTY of coordination between Walker and his staffers right up until the moment he was legally unable to continue to do so. Is it possible that he personally approved the hiring of someone like Dayspring beforehand? Absolutely, but a big part of the value of PACs like this one is that they create a degree of separation between the candidate and the PAC. The PACs can run dirty ads and they can hire dirtbags who will undermine grassroots conservatives at every opportunity and supposedly, the candidate can’t be blamed.

Well, not this time.

Walker shouldn’t get a pass if his PAC keeps Dayspring on staff — and this is no small matter. If Walker becomes our nominee and wins the election, many of the staffers on his campaign and his PAC will end up working in the White House. The people holding those positions will have a tremendous impact on the sort of policies we’ll see. For example, one of the reasons that Ted Cruz has been such a champion of conservatives is that he ended up bringing in a number of staffers from Jim DeMint’s office. When a politician surrounds himself with those sort of staffers, it’s no surprise when he ends up fighting the good fight. On the other hand, when a politician is surrounded by people like Brad Dayspring, you can be sure he’ll end up fighting conservatives. Want an example? Brad Dayspring used to work for Eric Cantor. Was any grassroots conservative sorry when Cantor was beaten by Dave Brat?

Please.

Now, maybe the PAC just didn’t do its due diligence on Brad Dayspring. For example, maybe the PAC didn’t realize that he has a teen porn problem. Do the staffers who run Scott Walker’s PAC approve of that? People should ask them.

Here’s a little excerpt from Breitbart that will give you an introduction to one of the most loathsome people in the Republican Party and someone no grassroots conservative should ever trust.

There’s perhaps no Republican operative from the establishment side of the party, however, who’s been more effective in eliminating conservatives nationwide throughout the movement in recent years—and Team Walker’s decision to bring Dayspring aboard just a few months after the similarly problematic Liz Mair was let go could backfire in a significant way. The 2016 GOP presidential primary is shaking out to mirror the larger fight inside the Republican Party—the conservative grassroots is hungry for a Washington outsider, while the establishment side of the party is more interested in attempting yet again to win a general election without the GOP base.

“Brad Dayspring is well known as a despicable establishment operative who specializes in slander and character assassination against conservative candidates,” Mississippi state Sen. Chris McDaniel—one such conservative Dayspring personally frequently attacked—told Breitbart News exclusively on Wednesday. “He is the perfect example of why conservatives no longer trust the GOP. He’s little more than a paid attack dog, without principle and honor, the personification of everything wrong with our present political system.”

McDaniel added:

“Scott Walker appears to be a good man with solid conservative instincts. But his hiring of the unstable Dayspring is an insult to honorable political discourse. If Dayspring is aligned with Walker, then conservatives should be warned to look elsewhere for leadership.”

Here’s more from Brent Bozell.

“Gov. Walker should have known better than to hire Brad Dayspring, the worst GOP anti-conservative hit man in Washington,” said Brent Bozell, the conservative chairman of ForAmerica and president of the Media Research Center. “Brad Dayspring has a despicable record using character assassination to besmirch the reputations of conservative candidates and public policy leaders. He’s paid to do the ugly work of the Washington establishment. He is the personification of everything that’s wrong in politics today. Gov. Walker, people are policy. If you want conservatives’ support, you need to get rid of this cretin immediately.”

Here’s Mark Levin on Dayspring.

Mitch McConnell’s National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) hit man, some idiot named Brad Dayspring, does not intimidate me and will not silence me with his sleazy inside-the-beltway tactics. In fact, I am more fired up than ever.

…Now, let me be clear. I hold McConnell and the chairman of the NRSC – Jerry Moran of Kansas – personally and politically accountable for the sleazy intimidation tactics of their current and former staffers. My opposition to McConnell’s re-election is underscored by pathetic behavior like this. Conservatives should not give a dime to the NRSC, money which is used to pay the salaries of these hit men and empower McConnell, et al.

Here’s more from Redstate.

As we have documented here on RedState, Brad Dayspring was one of the loudest lying voices in the dishonest, dishonorable, and disreputable campaign the NRSC waged on behalf of the mildly profoundly senile, corrupt, and adulterous Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) 46%. In this campaign Dayspring was front and center in lying about challenger Chris McDaniel. In fact, the scorched earth campaign waged by Dayspring against McDaniel exceeded any campaign the NRSC has ever run against a Democrat. He was also instrumental in launching attacks on the challenger to Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) 70%, Dr. Milton Wolf….

…Though there is no monetary teat, or other appendage, Dayspring won’t pull to extract cash, he routinely accuses conservatives, like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 100%, and conservative organizations like the Family Research Council of putting fund raising ahead of principle– which to Dayspring equates with whatever Establishment corruptocrat he’s being paid to support. At a time when the best man for his wedding was under arrest for child pornography (and favoriting pornographic tweets) he accused Mark Levin and the Senate Conservative Fund of pay-to-play purchases of Levin’s book. This is simply another of the lies Dayspring has told, knowing them to be lies. And then he moves along to yet another lie.

….There is no way I will support Governor Walker so long as Dayspring is affiliated in any way, no matter how tangential, with his campaign. This hiring of a casual liar, of a man who sets about to destroy the reputations of anyone he is told to attack speaks ill of Governor Walker. If he keeps Dayspring, it also tells you that Governor Walker is no conservative. He has now become the designated establishment candidate. If Dayspring stays with the campaign, conservatives must oppose him no matter the cost.

I like Scott Walker a lot. He’s one of my favorite candidates in the race, but if Dayspring is allowed to continue on with his PAC, grassroots conservatives would be wise to be very cautious about rallying behind Walker. I would also strongly recommend that NO ONE give any money to Scott Walker’s PAC or his campaign as long as Dayspring is affiliated with it. If you’re a grassroots conservative, this guy is not your friend and no one who wants him in a key position is your friend either.

You can tell a lot about candidates by watching when they’re willing to stand and fight. The fact that Walker fought the UNIONS in WISCONSIN and WON three elections in four years going toe-to-toe with them speaks very highly of him. However, if his staffers are the sort of people who know what they’re getting with Dayspring and are willing to lose the support of a lot of grassroots conservatives to keep him on board, that tells you they’re planning to spend a lot of time FIGHTING CONSERVATIVES if Walker gets elected. We have too many people like that in Congress as it is and we certainly don’t need one in the White House.

So, if you’re concerned, tweet Scott Walker and the PAC’s digital media director, Brittany Cohan. You should also send an email to Unintimidated PAC. Be honest, but polite. If you’re a conservative fan of Walker who’s concerned, say so. If you don’t intend to give any money to the campaign or PAC as long as Dayspring is there, say so. Give them the benefit of the doubt — for now. But, if they hang onto Dayspring, it’s a neon warning sign about Walker that’s fifty feet high and conservatives should heed it.

04/22/15

If Hillary Clinton Wants to ‘Topple’ the One Percent, She Should Start With Herself

By: Benjamin Weingarten
TheBlaze

Hillary Clinton, without a hint of irony, has reportedly called for “toppling” the 1 percent. So the putative favorite for the Democratic presidential nomination intends to target those who — like herself, her husband and the benefactors of her family foundation – are the wealthiest of the wealthy.

If Mrs. Clinton is seeking to upend a system that pays off a select group of elite insiders who profit by undertaking cronyistic, anti-free market acts, I applaud her. But if Mrs. Clinton is rather seeking to punish the few who have amassed great wealth by producing goods and services for their fellow man, Hillary ought to be pilloried.

Hillary Clinton. (AP Photo/Molly Riley)

Any national conversation convened by Mrs. Clinton on disparities in wealth should begin with a long look in the mirror. Hillary and Bill Clinton have obtained their wealth not by meeting a true market demand, but by transacting in the political marketplace of power and influence.

Distasteful as we might find this, one cannot blame them – at least to the extent to which they were not effectively compensated for fulfilling or seeking to fulfill their end of a bribe.

For though an extreme example of successful political entrepreneurs, the Clintons are a mere symptom of a problem created by government itself, which like all institutions seeks to protect, preserve and enrich its own.

People like the Clintons, Eric Cantor, Deval Patrick and thousands of other well-connected ”public servants” find highly remunerative work while out of office because political access and protection are prized in the marketplace.

Political power is only prized by the marketplace because there is something to be bought. Political payoffs, to our nation’s detriment, are simply seen as the cost of doing business.

Stated differently, because we have a hyper-regulatory state today that is all-intrusive and all-powerful, currying political favor may be the difference between life and death, endless riches and cataclysmic failure.

This state of affairs effects corporate executives whose profits may rest on regulations that keep out or handicap competition, antitrust rulings that prevent competitors from merging or the receipt of government contracts and subsidies. But more broadly, it encompasses an endless army of accountants, lawyers, regulators, compliance officers, human resource professionals and even investors whose jobs exist solely due to such a system.

In a truly free economy – as opposed to the caricature of one provided by the Left — the marketplace votes on who succeeds and who fails by rewarding those with the skills, talents and ambitions to provide something the public deems of value.

When an enterprise fails, its resources – from land, labor and capital to intangible assets like intellectual property and market information – are picked up by more capable hands and put to better use.

In such a system, the so-called ”1 percent” – unlike in socialist countries – does not consist of a static class of politicians and their cronies, but rather, a dynamic class of individuals who rise and fall based on the marketplace. This is another way of saying that businesses succeed and fail based on the ever-changing demands and preferences of the people.

Of course, not only the political class but many others in today’s 1 percent would be adversely effected by abolishing the hyper-regulatory state and implementing a loophole-free intelligible tax code where all compete on an open and level playing field.

That America still retains even a semblance of dynamism in the face of our hundreds of thousands of pages of indecipherable regulations, a byzantine tax code not to mention the increasingly whimsical enforcement of property rights is a testament to the undying creative spirit that has yet to be extinguished by a political class that in effect is hellbent on doing so.

Americans in general, and Hillary Clinton in particular ought to remember that the government in Washington D.C., unlike the one percent and the rest of the private sector, does not create anything. Rather, its denizens take the wealth of others – including that of our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren – and redistribute it. In the process, the jobs “created” are at root non-productive: They merely serve as one pocket from which to funnel money from another. These jobs represent a massive diversion of resources from activities that society would otherwise reward to those which dissipate wealth.

This is a tragedy not just in economic terms as a “deadweight loss,” but in human terms in the waste of the talents and ambitions of those who would be better served focusing their energies elsewhere – developing truly great and transformative goods and services to the benefit of all, while in so doing creating fulfilling work for others.

The trillions of dollars in wealth diverted today further would be better allocated by the public rather than by politicians. Imagine what Steve Jobs might have accomplished had Apple’s tax dollars remained with him and not been entrusted to the federal government each year.

From a moral perspective, should you have control over what you have created, or should government have a first claim on the fruit of your labor?

For Mrs. Clinton who has also railed against money in politics, a Constitutionally faithful and thereby limited government that stopped concerning itself with every aspect of our lives would have the doubly positive effect of discouraging individuals and businesses from “investing” in politicians through the funding of their campaigns. After all, successful individuals invest their time, energy and capital where it will receive its highest return. There would be very little return to be generated if government solely concerned itself with the clearly enumerated powers of the Constitution.

Fairness does not consist in tearing down our fellow citizens, but in treating them equally on the basis of merit. And little is more antithetical to a free society than rewarding people based upon how well they wield the threat of government control.

Here’s to hoping that Hillary topples the government-created one percent, beginning with herself.

Feature Image: AP Photo/Elise Amendola