Right Online Conference: Grover Norquist
posted at 11:40 am on July 19, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I got to the morning session of the Right Online conference in time to catch Grover Norquist’s address to the Americans for Prosperity gathering. Grover has worked tirelessly for conservative, responsible tax policy, and he’s always been a delight.
No tax increase has come from DC for 15 years, the longest such period in American history. During the same period, we have had 15 tax cuts of various kinds, which he says has moved the country in the right direction. People want to be left alone, Grover insists, and want less government interference, not more. The NRA, on whose board he also sits, has the same philosophy. They don’t want to require people to arm themselves, but want to be left alone to exercise their own 2nd Amendment rights.
It’s not necessary, Grover says, that all of the conservative factions agree on all points, but they should all agree on the need to get government out of their lives. The Left, on the other hand, has a list of government mandates that is “slightly longer and more tedious than Leviticus”. The only way to combat that is to starve the government of the funds necessary to impose those mandates.
“The Left is not made up of friends and allies, but of competing parasites. If we don’t let them feed on us, they will gnaw on each other.”
The branding of No New Taxes is important. When voters elect people who take that pledge, they can reasonably expect people to resist new taxes, irrespective of any other silliness they may commit. Those who do are akin to “ratheads in a Coke bottle,” Norquist says. If you get one, you don’t just stop drinking that particular bottle of Coke, you consider switching brands and tell all your friends about it.
Norquist believes that this could be the winning issue in this election, if the Republicans are smart enough to capitalize on it. America has become an investor nation, and the tax increases that Barack Obama proposes will damage retirement funds and income. It affects more than two-thirds of all Americans, and properly posed, would cast a huge difference between McCain and Obama.
We need to fix spending as well as tax policy. Grover thinks we’re starting to make progress on this front, but we need more transparency. He thinks that within ten years every government agency in the US will have to post their expenditure details on line, which will force more fiscal discipline.
Grover Norquist’s organization is Americans for Tax Reform.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
As much news coverage as Obama gets, and not a peep in major media about conservative policies.
rockhauler on July 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM
So where do the Democrats stand on tax hikes?
Akzed on July 19, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Akzed,
If it walks on two or four legs, slithers, or flies, TAX it.
L
letget on July 19, 2008 at 11:51 AM
No wonder you have such a giant blind spot when it comes to Islamic supremacism and creeping sharia. Norquist is/was? a leading proponent. People “want to be left alone” from Islamic domination as well.
Inquiring minds want to know.
A clear statement opposing sharia finance would be a start. Can you get that Ed?
Beagle on July 19, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Grover Norquist has been responsible, more than any other individual, for the infiltration of Islamic supremacists into the highest levels of the U.S. government. See here the seminal expose by Frank Gaffney of the immense damage Norquist has done.
The continuing general ignorance among conservatives of the political aspects of Islam, and of the efforts by Islamic jihadists to impose political Islam, piece by piece, over the West, can largely be attributed to the baneful influence of Norquist. He has energetically aided and abetted the branding by CAIR and others of critics of Islamic supremacism and of those who tell the truth about this Islamic political and societal agenda as “bigots” — such that frank discussion of the full nature and magnitude of this issue has been generally unwelcome even in conservative gatherings and on conservative media outlets.
Robert Spencer on July 19, 2008 at 12:13 PM
Guess I won’t be buying his book today Robert. Interesting information. Wow.
mimi1220 on July 19, 2008 at 12:29 PM
Thank you Mr Spencer. We need that information.
CrimsonFisted on July 19, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Thanks Robert for the information. This is the first time I have heard of Norquist.
L
letget on July 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
I appreciate Norquist’s argument, or your characterization of it, Ed, but let’s be clear about a few things.
First, starving the left of funds alone will not do it. There is such a thing as deficit spending and the left has no compunction about using it and using it with impunity. I mentioned this before on another thread, here I think, to the effect that stopping increases in spending has become an insurmountable task and fighting it with the prospect of high deficits and debt only dampens it. Something more has to be done besides starving government of funds, because it is the road to bankrupting ruin.
Second, be careful of the use of the term mandates. Mandates are generally considered regulations and requirements that need no funding from government. The cost is placed on those things or people who are mandated. The simplest example is Social Security where the people don’t see 15.3% come out of their paycheck. (I’m not sure about other states, but here in NY, mandates for counties to fund medicare now comprise around 55% of county budget and their sources of funding it are property taxes and a measly bite from the overall state sales tax.)
The bottom line is starving the government of funds alone is not the answer and the focus should be multi-pronged:
– No increase in taxes,
– No unfunded mandates,
– No deficit spending.
Dusty on July 19, 2008 at 12:37 PM
While I would acknowledge the controversies to which Dr. Spencer refers (and would love to host a debate on that between Robert and Grover!), I would also point out that Grover Norquist wasn’t speaking about the war on terror, but on domestic policy. Surely we can acknowledge the wisdom of Grover’s words on tax and spending policy as conservatives and the need to hear this more from our activists and politicians.
Ed Morrissey on July 19, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Surely we can acknowledge the wisdom of Grover’s words on tax and spending policy as conservatives and the need to hear this more from our activists and politicians.
You mean we don’t have anyone else who can give us wisdom except a person who might have been considered a traitor had he lived in less forgiving times.
The central issue of our time is Islam’s war against the West and he is an enabler at the highest levels of our Governemnt.
PierreLegrand on July 19, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Grover Norquist is the perfect Trojan Horse for the Islamic overthrow of this Government.
Just because he talks purdy about taxes does not mean we should promote him given is obvious ties to Islamic Terrorists.
Grover Norquist maybe a friend of the American Taxpayer (motives highly questioned) but he is an enemy of the United States.
EJDolbow on July 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Unless your faction wants to use government to enforce personal moral strictures…
Lehosh on July 19, 2008 at 1:13 PM
Wow, you’ve got the XL tin-foil hat on, today.
It's Vintage, Duh on July 19, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Robert Spencer is absolutely correct!
Grover Norquist is an enemy of the United States; he is tied to the same corrupt Islamic “politicians” who support Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SAW)(SWT).
In addition to the article that Spencer links above, Grover Norquist is married to a Kuwaiti of Palestinian origin, and there is every reason to believe that he converted to Islam, in order to do so.
He is the ulimate “Fifth Colunm”; a practicer of “Taqiyah” in order to hide his true beliefs, motives and intentions (the same as Barack HUSSEIN Obama (PBUH)(SWT)(SAW); and sadly, he has to the highest levels of power in this country, thru the Republicans and the White House.
I would understand if this was the Anti-American/Pro-Jihadis Democratic Traitor Leftist Nutbags (TM) who this guy had fooled, but this is Bush and the Republicans who’ve welcomed this Islamic viper into their bosoms!
No wonder the Saudis, the Jihadis et.al, laugh at us and hold us in contempt; their infiltration of us, is willing aided and abetted by idiots in both parties; they (the Jihadis) can’t lose!
Dale in Atlanta on July 19, 2008 at 1:19 PM
[PierreLegrand on July 19, 2008 at 12:51 PM]
[EJDolbow on July 19, 2008 at 12:56 PM]
I thought we thought in terms of permanent interests not permanent alliances. Ed is arguing that Norquist is right thinking and persuasive on one issue but it doesn’t mean he is on all issues. Are you just saying that because of the War, we shouldn’t be bothered with winning some important domestic policy fights? Because Norquist can help to do so on this issue.
Or is it you are afraid your acceptance of Norquist’s assistance in achieving your goal on the issue of government creep will make him some Messiah on all issues? Is that the only person you will support and let help argue for an issue you believe in — some kind of Messiah of your own?
Dusty on July 19, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Taxation, its role and its excesses, should be given at least as much emphasis in schools as recycling, cucumber-condoming and the imaginary bete noire of anthropogenic CO2. But of course it never will.
Rat-head cola…Mmmmmmmm!
whitetop on July 19, 2008 at 1:38 PM
Ed:
There are indeed principles he and I could debate, but the Gaffney article to which I linked contains facts that are not in question. Nevertheless, I would be happy to debate him, but given what I referred to above about his influence in sidelining and marginalizing Islamorealistic voices, I would be very surprised if Grover Norquist ever agreed to such a debate.
Robert Spencer on July 19, 2008 at 1:40 PM
How are we supposed to go around saying “Where are the moderate and (politically) conservative Muslims?” and then condemn the one person in the conservative movement who is trying to reach out to them?
It's Vintage, Duh on July 19, 2008 at 2:21 PM
Vintage,
I think the point that Mr. Spencer and Mr. Gaffney make is that these Muslim friends of Mr. Norquist are neither moderate nor conservative. Read at least half of the Gaffney article if you haven’t already.
ConstantSorrow on July 19, 2008 at 2:51 PM
ConstantSorrow:
Precisely. His chief clients were Alamoudi, now serving 25 years in prison on terror-finance charges, and Al-Arian, who led Palestinian Islamic Jihad from the U. of South Florida.
Robert Spencer on July 19, 2008 at 3:30 PM
I interned at ATR and had regular contact with more than a few of the Muslims who he’d reached out to. They seemed just as conservative as anyone else at the Wednesday meetings, and usually far less crazy.
It's Vintage, Duh on July 19, 2008 at 3:40 PM
And I did read the Gaffney article.
It's Vintage, Duh on July 19, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Vintage:
It’s unlikely that they would have shouted “Allahu akbar” and declared their thirst for jihad at the Weddnesday meetings. But Norquist’s record is clear: Alamoudi, Al-Arian, Khaled Saffuri, etc. etc. etc. If he had sponsored individuals and groups that had taken their place alongside other American political individuals and groups and worked within the political process, then one could say that opposition to his efforts was sheer bigotry and a foolish attempt to marginalize moderate Muslims. But his proteges haven’t exactly done that.
Robert Spencer on July 19, 2008 at 3:48 PM
But you had said earlier (emphasis mine):
What’s the point of reaching out to any Muslim if, by this statement, even the ones who are “moderate” are out to destroy the American political system?
It's Vintage, Duh on July 19, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Vintage:
I don’t read the statement that way. Where do you see it saying that every self-proclaimed moderate is out to do this? But do you deny, even after the careers of Alamoudi and Al-Arian, and the well-known record of CAIR, that many who are widely known as moderates are indeed engaged in such an effort?
Robert Spencer on July 19, 2008 at 4:08 PM
Norquist is a snake. Even Stalin was right about one or two things, it didn’t make him any less of a villain.
Grayson on July 19, 2008 at 5:45 PM
I think the reaction here indicates some of the immense fog that surrounds this issue. I point out that Norquist has aided and abetted Islamic supremacists at the highest levels of government, and we end up discussing whether or not it is good to reach out to moderate Muslims.
Sure, it is great to reach out to moderate Muslims. It is also great not to be fooled by false moderates, as Norquist was — unless he knew what they were about all along.
Robert Spencer on July 19, 2008 at 5:56 PM
Yes, Ed moderating a debate between Robert Spencer and Grover Norquist would be golden. That’s a podcast I’d download. I betcha a cold sody pop the good Doctor would eat Grover’s lunch, too.
Islamists = bad
taxes = bad
Not that difficult, Grover!
357 on July 19, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Hey Grover, is not Jizya a tax?
Maquis on July 19, 2008 at 8:38 PM
How are we supposed to go around saying “Where are the moderate and (politically) conservative Muslims?” and then condemn the one person in the conservative movement who is trying to reach out to them?
Islam cannot be dealt with…its founder was not a moderate. Its practices when followed are not moderate.
I don’t go around saying we need to deal with “moderate” muslims. I say we need to deal with those Muslims who are only muslim in name, like so many Christians. Though Christuians don’t have the example of thier founder to lead them astray.
Grover is a snake…
PierreLegrand on July 19, 2008 at 9:36 PM
Um, why are we supposed to CAIR–I mean, “care”–that Islamofascist and head of Arabs for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist, spoke at anything conservative? Beyond nauseating that you wrote this tribute to him–and ignored completely his giant Islamofascist stain on America. Kinda like writing about Hitler’s great achievement of timely train arrivals. As someone who has been repeatedly victimized by Grover’s Islamofascism, I find this post beyond sickening.
What the heck was he doing at a right-wing blogging conference? A jihadist blogging conference keynote address would be more appropriate for this bearded–in many ways– scumbag.
Debbie Schlussel on July 19, 2008 at 11:33 PM
For more on Grover, here’s the piece I wrote for National Review Online, which Rich Lowry–a month later–removed at Jihad Grover’s, the White House’s request, and Islamofascist Al-Qaeda White House employee Suhail Khan’s request (Grover got him the Bush Admin job).
FYI, Grover got the NRA to disinvite me (they later re-invited me) from speaking at their convention because he was upset that I wrote about Sami Al-Arian’s Islamic Jihad activities. Again, Ed, sickening that you fawn over this pan-Islamist lout.
Debbie Schlussel on July 19, 2008 at 11:41 PM
Debbie:
It’s a fair bet that Grover’s addressing this conservative bloggers’ conference is a good indication of why you and I were not.
Best
Robert
Robert Spencer on July 20, 2008 at 12:16 AM
This is very disturbing. Actually I know nothing of Norquist except that his name comes up in conservative circles. Have conservatives been fooled again and allowed a wolf in sheep’s clothing into our midst? It sure sounds like it.
Maxx on July 20, 2008 at 12:28 PM
I too would love to see a debate between Mr. Spencer and Mr. Norquist. I believe Spencer has a standing “any time, any where” offer to anyone willing to take the Islamic side. Would Norquist do it?
Put it to him, Ed.
PattyJ on July 20, 2008 at 5:43 PM
The scary part being that Norquist had access to the President. One of “W”’s inner circle, as I understand it.
Norquist will also be remembered as someone who has labored intensely to keep the southern border wide open and the cheap illegal labor flowing. So one monster question must be answered, “why would someone with close ties to radical Islam work so hard to keep the southern border porous and unprotected”? If you came to the same conclusion that I did you’re probably breaking out in a cold sweat about now. Here’s some more: (Link)
Darvin Dowdy
Darvin Dowdy on July 20, 2008 at 6:59 PM
Comment pages: