Update October 11th: Norquist continues his attack on Cruz, here. Tea Partiers and conservatives generally need to keep their distance from Norquist—he is poison!
I’m back writing here this morning instead of at RRW because we have an investment at PTPR in our Grover Norquist archive (which runs to over 80 posts!) and this story needs to be posted.
Last week in the Washington Post Grover Norquist blasted Senator Ted Cruz, which begs the question (again!)—on which side is Grover Norquist on?
Just ten days ago, we posted this at Refugee Resettlement Watch about Norquist’s business interests making him a leader of the Open Borders movement in Washington (nearly 3,000 people sent this post to their facebook friends!).
My reference in the title (above) is to this 2011 story where Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) called out Norquist for his “work” in helping questionable Islamists work their way into the US government. Wolf told his fellow House Members that they could never again say they didn’t know about Norquist. Is it possible that Norquist has been a ‘sleeper’ in the Republican Party for decades?
Here is what J.Robert Smith says at American Thinker about this latest Norquist attack on his ‘fellow’ Republicans (emphasis mine):
The mainstream media loves it when conservatives step out to criticize… conservatives. Hence, the gleeful coverage of Grover Norquist’s criticism of Ted Cruz. Norquist used the Washington Post’s WONKBLOG feature to unload on Cruz. He did so to the Post’s Ezra Klein last Wednesday.
The gist of Norquist’s criticism of Cruz is that he’s the Music Man. With a smile and a lot of glib talk and airy promises — and a few snappy tunes — Cruz duped enough House Republicans and grassroots conservatives into backing a play to defund ObamaCare that had a snowball’s chance in hell of passing. Moreover, Cruz’ maneuver succeeded only in disrupting the Republicans’ well-calibrated strategy, vexing GOP insiders.
But Richard A. Viguerie, a maker of the Reagan Revolution, and very much committed to making another conservative revolution, writing in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, had this to say about Cruz, et al:
Sens. Lee and Cruz have, through their principled opposition to funding ObamaCare, re-energized millions of grassroots conservative voters who were turned off by the Republican establishment’s content-free technocratic campaign in 2012.
Smith wraps up his analysis (read it all) with a question for Norquist:
Here again, Cruz’ instincts were correct. The fight against ObamaCare must be audacious and taken next year to the voters in stark terms, giving them clear choices.
It’s Republican insiders — like Norquist — who are so immersed in the Washington game that they fail to appreciate the hunger at the grassroots for leadership committed to national transformation — for not just an end to ObamaCare, but a revitalization of the nation premised on founding principles.
Or maybe they do appreciate that hunger but want no part of it. What’s your answer, Grover?
Once upon a time I came upon a reference to Grover talking about his inspiration to get into the political arena and he said this about an obscure little book—it is entitled ‘I led three lives’ by Herbert Philbrick, a book no longer in print, about a 1940’s era Soviet sympathizer who became a triple agent. Norquist says the book made him an anti-communist (I’m not doubting that), but what if his interest was really in how Philbrick managed his three lives?
Call me crazy, but I can’t help thinking about it every time I see Norquist as the spoiler on our side of the political aisle.