imothy Birdnow

In my recent American Thinker article I discussed Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson's involvement in opening the Boy Scouts to homosexual activism, but I also included other problems with Tillerson - such as his Globalist attitudes, and his support for a carbon tax. I did NOT include the fact that Exxon-Mobile donated money to Planned Parenthood (as Tony Perkins pointed out in a competing article that stole most of my thunder) but that was because a. I didn't know it at the time I wrote the piece and b. Tillerson says it was because EM was matching donations to any charity an employee chose to give to, and a number of them gave to PP. Well, he should have been more specific when he launched the matching funds program, but a mistake is a mistake and it happens. I think it's a red flag for Tillerson but am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on that particular instance.

But when you add these things together they form a pattern.

Writing at American Thinker this morning the usually brilliant Daniel Sobieski fights back against critics of Tillerson.Sobieski says:

"Tillerson supported a carbon tax as the lesser of many evils being proposed, like a full-blown cap-and-trade regime. It imposed what some, including Tillerson, might consider an unjustified cost, but it would be a predictable cost that could be dealt with. Speaking at the 37th Oil & Money Conference in England in October, Tillerson opined:

We have long supported a carbon tax as the best policy of those being considered. Replacing the hodge-podge of current, largely ineffective regulations with a revenue-neutral carbon tax would ensure a uniform and predictable cost of carbon across the economy. It would allow market forces to drive solutions.

One can be sure that a tax-cutting President Trump will rid Tillerson of such a notion. His pro-growth, pro-energy development views will serve us well in an energy hungry world and an America that needs as much energy as it can find to grow. Trump sees that as a key to making America great again. Tillerson notes the need for more fossil fuels."

End excerpt.

What's that I hear? The buzzing of a swarm of mosquitoes coming from the swamp?

The fact is, this is a fine defense if you are trying to save Tillerson's job as head of Exxon-Mobile and have to defend him to the Board of Directors, but it doesn't recommend him much. It amounts to a surrender, an acceptance of defeat even while the battle rages. That is apparently Tillerson's style; he caved on homosexuality in the Scouts despite not having lost the battle, and in fact the Courts ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts but Tillerson figured it was a pointless fight and waved the white flag. Sound familiar? It should; it's the exact same problem we had with John Boehner, with Mitch McConnoll, with so many of the GOPe types who don't want to stand and fight but rather to surrender and fight - sort of - another day.

it is PRECISELY THE STRATEGY that has gotten us into the current predicament. Our leaders are cowards. When the heat is on they conclude they lost and retreat. Tillerson is clearly what I call a William Hull Republican a man who makes his stand on top of a flatbed truck speeding away from the field of battle.

That's at best; he may actually believe a lot of this crap.

And "a tax-cutting President trump will rid him of these notions"? Huh??? Trump is the man who was a registered Democrat until 2009, the guy who gave money to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2008, a guy who supported carbon taxes and gay marriage and who said he isn't concerned with men in pink skirts using women's public restrooms. Sobieski just doesn't get it; Trump needs his people to keep him balanced, not the other way around. Someone whose views are malleable is not a good fit for a Trump Presidency. What is absolutely necessary is for Trump's people to be rock solid conservatives so as to hold their boss's infamously mercurial philosophy to the ground.

Whenever we have taken a chance on someon we have been disappointed. Why? Because the culture of Washington and the high levels of power are awash in Liberalism, and one must swim not just against a stream but up a waterfall to remain even remotely Conservative. It's the natural environment of government. We cannot expect to put a squish in a position of authority and then have them act in our interest. No; they will inevitably move to the left as pressure mounts on them. That is my big fear of Trump. Trump isn't afraid to tangle with people and is not weak, but he lacks a core that is solid enough. I am worried he can be moved and will as he settles into the swampland. A guy like Tillerson will just make things worse. And Trump is a true CEO, a man who will delegate authority. So Tillerson's view will be very important in the new Administration.

How many great candidates did the Tea Party support who immediately turned into Establishment types after being elected? Shoot, Mia Love broke her promise not to support Boehner before she was even seated. Nikki Haley turned RINO as fast as she could after her election. I could go on and on. The point is, we've been repeatedly betrayed, sometimes drastically. People forget that John Boehner was a "take no prisoners" hard right conservative before becoming Speaker, as was Eric Cantor. Ditto John Kasich, who I used to love in the old days.

And Sobieski touches on Tillerson's Russian connection, something I ignored in my article. I ignored it because I didn't think it all that pertinent to my criticisms and knew everyone would be all over that. But there is a point to ponder; Putin gave Tillerson the Russian equivalent of the Medal of Freedom, a high honor. Tillerson isn't just a business partner but a buddy, a real chum. He's too close. Being a corporate head sucking up to a plutocrat to gain access to a market is one thing, but there may be some very hard things involving the Russians on Tillerson's plate and he is going to have to stand firm with them - perhaps firmer than he can muster. What happens if the Russians invade Ukraine proper? Or Latvia? For that matter, with Russian planes buzzing American patrols we could wind up shooting at one another. Is Tillerson going to remain neutral? That's not his job; he's supposed to be the tough guy when it comes down to it. Secretary of State is not a job for a suck up.

I greatly admire Daniel Sobieski but I fear he is wrong on this. He cites exploding liberal heads, but that was guaranteed to happen with a man who both captained the most hated Exxon-Mobile AND was chums with Putin. And liberal heads will explode no matter what; they just will not accept Trump.

The worst thing you can do in this kind of political warfare (and we no longer have a gentlemanly political process but a war of political extermination) is give the enemy half a loaf - or even a quarter. Do we make food drops over enemy armies in wartime? No; we try to starve them out. The GOP has for years tossed partial loves to the starving enemy to show our good will. You can be magnanimous in victory only after ultimate victory; you don't start being a good winner while the battle still rages.

Too few on our side seem to understand that.

ADDENDUM:

American Thinker also has a rather content-free defense of Tillerson here. It concludes with a quote from the Swamprat King himself, James "Mr. Establishment" Baker in praise of Tillerson. If that doesn't turn me off on our supposed "outsider" pick than nothing will.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:04 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1339 words, total size 8 kb.