Anti-gay bigotry/propaganda in modern American politics was developed and has been championed by socially conservative male politicians and political activists. Anti-gay bigotry is used to form alliances between Christian sects, hate groups and as a wedge issue to score political points with the uneducated class and misinformed Christian conservatives.
This year, we have witnessed two major events fuelled by politicized homophobia.
Just this past month, the Vatican began a 15th century style witch-hunt to “purge gay men from the priesthood“. This move is a political one, developed to draw attention away from the ramped pedophilia that exists within the churches Priesthood. Although the mandatory psychological tests may expose gay Priests and satisfy many of the church members, these gestapo-like actions will do nothing to resolve the issue of removing child predators from the church pews.
LDS church leaders exercised their democratic right to organize and fund-raise in favor of the pro-8 ballot initiative and in fact were responsible for 1/3 of the total donations raised for the effort. The tactics used by local leaders of the LDS church could be described in no less of a way than militantly anti-gay. According to the WSJ, LDS church leaders forced members to donate by saying, “that their souls would be in jeopardy if they didn’t give“. Many anti-8 activists and journalists suspect that the ‘nuclear’ approach taken the LDS church to the pro-8 fight had very little to do with moral or spiritual believes, but more to do with politics and building ties with evangelicals Christians and Roman Catholic leaders.
Jim Garlow, pastor of the evangelical Protestant Skyline Church near San Diego and a leading supporter of Proposition 8, said, “I would not, in all candor, have been meeting them or talking with them had it not been for” the marriage campaign. But he noted how Roman Catholics and evangelical Protestants have formed tight bonds through their joint work against abortion, and he said a similar process might occur with Mormons.
What are the motivations behind vigorous counter-attitudes to homosexuality? What motivates church leaders, politicians and political activists to promote a homophobic agenda in American society? The answer may be simple.
Freud believed there was a relationship between repressed (or “latent”) homosexuality and homophobia, and in fact there is significant evidence to prove this fact. Dr. Henry Adams of the University of Georgia, was the first to attempt to test the proposition empirically. The results? Individuals who score in the homophobic range on the ‘Homophobia Scale’ demonstrate significant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli. Thus, those who are the most vocal and militant in professing homophobia, are in fact, acting out the battle within their own inner-ego’s, gay tendencies.
Upon further research, I discovered evidence of this to be true. My example is that of Pastor Ted Haggard. Pastor Haggard was a leader in the social conservative movement, a rock-star of sorts. After years of preaching homophobic surmons to his 14,000 member church, Pastor Ted was exposed for being a closeted gay male. Freud and Adams were correct in this case. Pastor Ted was scoring high on the ‘Homophobia Scale’, all while entering in to ‘secret’, gay relationships.
According to wikipedia;
Haggard has condemned “homosexual activity.” In the documentary Jesus Camp, one scene shows a sermon where he preaches, “we don’t have to debate about what we should think about homosexual activity. It’s written in the Bible.
Pastor Ted’s anti-gay rhetoric may have helped him grow his congregation and career, but the damage his homophobic propoganda did to our society and our children, all because of his inability to face his own conflicts is inexcusable, albeit understandable.
So the question remains, how do we convince our political and church leaders and activists to put aside this wedge issue for political gain? How do we convince them to accept and announce their alternative lifestyle, to bring piece and liberty to our society? Until America can answer these questions, homophobia will continue to be used as a wedge issue, promoted by those who struggle with their own internal sexual identity.
Gov. Romney talks about the auto bailout on CBS’s The Early Show:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFuGTT74rU0&eurl=http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&nolr=1&q=Mitt+Romney&btnG=Search[/youtube]
Martin King that is…
After the most liberal state in the nation rejected same-sex marriage at the ballot box for the second time this decade, protests rallies were held across the nation, including here in Charlotte.
Some gay rights activists point to the defeat of same-sex marriage with the passage of Proposition 8 in California and similar bans approved in Arizona and Florida on this past Election Day as evidence of hate:
“We need a movement in this country,” said Joanie Beasley of Gastonia. “It is time we said no to all bigotry and hate. It is time we demanded our civil rights.”
Bigotry and hate, merely to favor maintaining the over 5000 year old definition of the institution of marriage, which is the institution most responsible for making civilization possible?
Civil rights?
There is no civil right to marry a person of the same sex ratified in any State’s constitution (including North Carolina’s) or the U.S. Constitution, although, judges in Massachusetts and Connecticut essential re-wrote their respective Constitutions to find such a previously “hidden” right.
Beasley, 53, sang along with the crowd Saturday, closing her eyes at the chorus of “We Shall Overcome.” She attended the rally with her partner Nancy Leedy, also 53.
As a veteran trial lawyer that has represented gays in discrimination claims, I think many gay activists make a huge mistake trying to marry their cause to the Civil Rights Movement for blacks and other racial and ethnic minorities.
First of all, it was not necessary for judges to twist the meanings of words in constitutions to support their claims. Thurgood Marshall, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. (pictured) could point to the 14th Amendment, ratified by supermajorities of Congress and the States, soon after the Civil War, as the basis of their equal rights.
Secondly, many activists in the present movement are essentially demanding that Americans approve of their “lifestyle”, which, translated, means their sexual preferences and behavior. This is a political loser.
Lastly, a distinct, but vocal minority of those hurling bigot and hate epithets at supporters of traditional marriage, resort to the sine qua non of hate: violence.
The real haters have physically harassed churchgoers (especially Mormons), destroyed property and engaged in various other obnoxious physical and non-physical acts that in no way remind one of those that made the tune of “We Shall Overcome” famous.
Clearly, these miscreants in no way represent the overwhelming majority of gays and lesbians, many of whom don’t even favor changing marriage laws. But the leaders of those who do, need to take a page out of MLK’s book and denounce the violence done in their name much as King denounced Black Panthers and the pre-conversion Malcolm X.
I once counseled an openly gay legislator to seek legal changes based on the American concept of “individual” rather than group rights. This is a proven political winner.
Many states have enacted laws that address concerns of inheritance, hospital visitation, and other issues. Moreover, many Americans have no problem with civil unions, especially if they are available to individuals without regard to inquiries of sexual preference.
These successes are being achieved the old fashioned way, free speech to persuade followed by votes by We the People in states and localities.
One day Americans may favor changing the definition of marriage. That day has not yet come. But some gay rights activists want to force the issue on the states thru the courts and point to President-Elect Barack Obama’s campaign statements of his desire to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.
That act, signed by President Bill Clinton, provides that no state could be required to respect same-sex marriages in other states. (There are Constitutional issues under the Full Faith and Credit Clause that the U.S. Supreme Court has never addressed, I would note).
I think this would be a huge political mistake given the overwhelming opposition to same-sex marriage and given the damage court imposed social views anathema to those of most Americans can have on the body politic, such as Roe v. Wade’s instant legalization of abortion that arrested evolution on the issue in the states.
The best path for gays to one day achieve their civil rights goals is to insist on a civil debate worthy of Martin Luther King and which engages all of the body politic, rather than having judges cram their agenda down America’s throat.
Further reading:
-Dennis Prager: Is Gay the new Black?
-Michelle Malkin: The Insane Rage of the Same-Sex Marriage Mob
_________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
It’s going to be close folks. Of the three most recent polls (results below), only one has Chambliss outside of the MoE.
Thankfully, Gov. Palin is heading to Georgia on Monday and it appears that Sen. Obama will follow through with his decision to sit this one out.
Politico/InsiderAdvantage Georgia Senate Runoff Poll, conducted November 23rd, 2008.
- Saxby Chambliss 50%
- Jim Martin 47%
The Politico/InsiderAdvantage poll surveyed 523 likely voters.
Public Policy Polling Georgia Senate Runoff Poll, conducted Nov. 22-23, 2008.
- Saxby Chambliss 52%
- Jim Martin 46%
PPP surveyed 871 likely voters on November 22nd and 23rd. The survey’s margin of
error is +/-3.3%.
DSCC Georgia Senate Runoff Poll, conducted Nov. 21-23, 2008
- Saxby Chambliss 48%
- Jim Martin 46%
The poll of 600 likely voters has a 4% margin of error.
Fed says it will buy mortgage-related assets
The insanity will just not end. Our government plans on bailing out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.
From the AP:
WASHINGTON – The Federal Reserve said Tuesday it will buy up to $600 billion in mortgage-backed assets in another attempt to deal with the financial crisis.
The Fed said it will purchase up to $100 billion in direct obligations from mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as the Federal Home Loan Banks. It also will purchase another $500 billion in mortgage-backed securities, pools of mortgages that are bundled together and sold to investors.
The $600 billion effort on mortgages came as the Fed also unveiled a new program to help unfreeze the market that backs consumer debt such as credit cards, auto loans and student loans.
I understand the theory of trying to ‘prevent a recession’, or at least limit the severity of one, but not only is this current deficit spending unsustainable, how about the moral obligation we owe our children and grandchildren? For the fiscal year 2008, expect the federal deficit to exceed $1 trillion.
If you are asking yourself if we have hit rock bottom yet, the answer is no.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the U.S. Treasury Department have warned that debt levels will increase dramatically relative to historical levels, due primarily to mandatory expenditures for programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and interest. Mandatory expenditures are projected to exceed federal tax revenues sometime between 2030 and 2040 if reforms are not undertaken. Further, benefits under entitlement programs will exceed government income by over $40 trillion over the next 75 years. The severity of the measures necessary to address this challenge increases the longer such changes are delayed. These organizations have stated that the government’s current fiscal path is “unsustainable.
Congratulations to the Chinese government, who in September of this year, became the #1 owner of US Treasury Securities, totaling $585 billion dollars (or 20.45%).
Recommended reading:
Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Legal Editor for The Minority Report
_______________________________________________________________________
-Not based on history, especially including the past 24 months.
Merely allowing Bush tax cuts to expire is cause for joy?
One of the factors restraining investors since 2006 and even before the Fannie Mae housing/credit crunch bubble burst, has been their knowledge that income from any investments would be subject to higher tax rates after 2010.
Hear the breathless, panting Drive-By media:
Obama is said to be reconsidering one key campaign pledge – his proposal to repeal the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans. Several people familiar with the discussions told The New York Times that he instead might let those tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011, effectively delaying any tax increase while he gives his stimulus plan a chance to work.
So we are supposed to jump up and down that the same Democrat policy that helped gring the economy to a halt since they took power in 2007 will continue?
Filibuster threats from the Senate Democratic Party minority prior to their return to the majority in 2006 blocked GOP attempts to making the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax rate cuts permanent. Those are the tax cuts that prevented a recession after 911 and which fueled economic growth from 2002-2006 that exceed GDP averages of the 70s, 80s and 90s.
What is it about economic growth that Democrats don’t like?
One of the other main factors that has caused investors to go on strike over the course of the permanent Obama campaign has been the prospect that he or another tax raising Democrat would win, coupled with the prospect that Obama would accelerate the tax hike.
Yet, we are supposed to swoon at his feet if he merely doesn’t accelerate? McClatchy’s James Rosen catches his breath enough to report:
Some Republicans might be won over [to the Keynesian stimulus package] should Obama decide not to repeal the Bush tax cuts for those making more than $250,000. By letting the cuts expire after 2010, as the law provides, Obama would in effect delay the tax increase that high-income taxpayers would have faced in the next year or two under his original plan.
That could have both economic and political benefits. Obama would not be open to the charge from Republicans and other critics that he is raising taxes in a recession, which many believe is counterproductive.
The press is treating the prospect that Obama would not raise taxes sooner as action, while unwittingly conceding the obvious fact that tax hikes hurt the economy.
Let’s take this one step further. What America needs are tax rate cuts, especially on capital and corporations. The whole Paulson bailout plan was made necessary due to a lack of capital available for loans. And America’s corporate tax rate is one of the highest in the world.
Moreover, while I have no objection to a stimulus bill in theory, the fact is that government spending of that kind doesn’t change investor behavior like supply side tax cuts, unless it is on a war-like scale, and even then it usually is accompanied by inflation and can’t be sustained for long wars.
The evidence is in. Witness GDP from 1929-1940 vs. the early 60s and 1983-2006.
Too bad most Democrats and the press know so much that isn’t so, like:
By letting the tax cuts expire, Obama would get the benefit of higher revenues in 2011 and beyond to help finance his promised health care plans without having to propose raising taxes on the affluent, and without the Democratic majorities in Congress having to take a vote on a tax increase.
Such ignorance. Lower tax rates increased tax revenues following JFK (pictured rocking above just before delivering tax cut speech) , Reagan and Bush 43′s tax rate cuts. The whole news article reeks of political maneuvering, as opposed to sober economic analysis.
The GOP needs to hammer these facts home. They must not accept scraps from the President-Elect’s tax table. Demand the main course. Obama professes to admire JFK and Reagan.
Let’s remind him why he should and demand tax cuts now, rather than being content to settle for delays in tax hikes. Let’s put him in a rocker like JFK’s if we have to.
____________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Let me turn to some “named candidates” we haven’t discussed in recent days. Politico made a list of 12 potential candidates for 2012. Of these candidates, five will or had better be governors come time for the 2012 elections. If they’re not Governors, they’ve either been defeated, impeached, or died. Then again, they could have also foregone a gubenatorial election to run for President.
We look to governors as our Presidential candidates because of their experience as state executives. However, the sitting Governor running for President is a rarity. From 1980 to 2008, you only had four who tried to run for President from a sitting Governorship: Michael Dukakis (1988), Bill Clinton (1992), George W. Bush (2000), Bill Richardson (2008). On the other hand, you can’t even count all of the former Governors and U.S. Senators who’ve run for President. You’ve had more sitting members of the House run than you have sitting Governors.
Why is this? Unlike being a Senator or Congressman, people care if you show up for work. You are a chief executive of a state, running a microcosm of the federal government. You can’t just take off for 2 years and run for President. It’s tough for Governors to do two full time jobs well. One or the other will suffer to some extent. While, we live in an electronic age, you will not have masses of Governors able to dedicate the time and attention necessary to run.
The idea that we’ll have more sitting Governors running in 2012 than have run in the last 28 years. Some of these Governors may take the plunge, but I wouldn’t bet the mortgage money on it. Here’s my thoughts on these candidates:
UPDATE
In the comments, Caroline pointed out that I talked about Palin having children, but not the other candidates. Fair enough.
Haley Barbour’s children are grown. Charlie Crist has none. Bobby Jindal has 3 children, currently ages 2, 4, and 6 who in 2012 will be 6, 8, and 10. This would be another reason not to expect a Jindal run in 2012.
Governor Huntsman has seven children, five natural, and two adopted. His adopted children will be 12 and 6 respectively in 2012. Generally a candidate will pause before entering the Presidential race with a child under 12. I therefore will downgrade my bet on Huntsman to about a 37% chance.
Continuing to blog “Do the Right Thing”
Chapter 5 has one of the best titles in the book, “Welcome to Washington, DC: The Roach Motel.”
Hucikabee’s indictment of Washington and the federal government for overspending and fiscal responsibility is pretty stunning. He quotes New Dealer Henry Hopkins whose mantra was, “Tax and tax, spend and spend, elect and elect.”
He write:
Yes, what might be called the Hopkins plan worked—worked, at least, to enlarge the federal government. But as they say, “There’s no such thing as a free lunch.” Somebody has to pick up the check. And that somebody is the ordinary American taxpayer, who is easy to forget amid all the frenzied excitement of a New Frontier, or a Great Society, or a “Yes, we can.”
Huckabee defines his spending philosophy as follows, “I often said that we need to be able to look an elderly widowed lady in the eye and say, ‘Here’s how and why we just spent your money.’ If we can do that with a good conscience, it’s probably a good expenditure. If not, it needs rethinking.”
Michael Steele is out with his campaign website. That every campaign, even one that is essentially limited to less than 200 people in the U.S. and its territorities has a website is somewhat odd. However, Steele gives an interesting picture of what his chairmanship might look like:
Do you have a great new idea for the future of the Republican Party or just think their is room for improvement? Now you can text your ideas directly to Michael Steele. Text Steele to 66937 today!
To send a text simply follow these steps:
1 – Select messages on your cell phone
2 – Dial the Short Code 66937
3 – Enter Message “Steele” and send
4 – You will then receive a return message confirming your registration. Just repy back – Y.
5 – You are now able to text your ideas to the Steele website. To do that -
- Select Message and dial the short code 66937
- Start your message with @Steele (and then text in your thoughts)
I guess it’s a great opportunity to provide an idea to fundamentally transform the GOP in 150 characters or less. I don’t think any of us R42012 frontpage posters are going to make it. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)
It does seem to be a consensus among most candidates in the race that new media needs to be used more. However, I think we need more specifics, because while the text idea is interesting, it seems a little gimmicky.
Stilleto heals.
The New Yorker reports this statement from Mike Huckabee:
Neither was he quite so unperturbed by the Palin pick: “I was scratching my head, saying, ‘Hey, wait a minute. She’s wonderful, but the only difference was she looks better in stilettos than I do, and she has better hair.’ It wasn’t so much a gender issue, but it was like they suddenly decided that everything they disliked about me was O.K. . . . She was given a pass by some of the very people who said I wasn’t prepared.”
He did also say he was somewhat surprised by not receiving more consideration in the Veepstakes. During the campaign, the word was that he was running for Vice-President and the word stopped after McCain clinched.
Some may take Huckabee’s statement on Palin as a cut. I don’t think it was. If he wanted to use a cut on Palin, he’d have argued he had more experience or something like that.
Some of the arguments against Huckabee such as that he didn’t have the experience to be President or governed a small state seemed bizarre at the time. In light of the fact that Palin has governed an even smaller state for a shorter period of time, they seem amazing out of step.
There are some minor differences on the issues. Huckabee is more open towards a man-made cause behind global warming than Palin. Huckabee’s gubernatorial record has more heartburn for some fiscal conservatives in than Palin, but then again a shorter time on the job may make a difference in that. But down the line, they’re far more similar than different, something that some of the most ardent supporters of both try to deny.
Two things stand out in Palin’s favor over Huckabee as to the disparate treatment. First, she’s never been a pastor. I think much of the resistance against Huckabee comes from his pre-politics occupation. The image of the clergy has been battered to a great degree and is more likely to arouse libertarian “theocracy” paranoia. Second, as the position of pastor is largely misunderstood, it’s harder to relate to Huckabee as someone “just like you” than with Palin, who’s been a commercial fisherman and “hockey mom.”
The second thing that stood out in her favor is that she was “unbloodied” by the primary process as Huckabee put it. I think Palin worked as well as she did is that she wasn’t Huckabee or Romney, each of whom had been pummelled by various conservatives for various reasons. Palin has been further helped by the fact that while, in the primaries, the issues and perceived flaws in Candidates’ records and experience were blown out of proportion, in the general, conservatives defended her, which ultimately gives her a coat of armor. With some of the unflinching defenses offered of Governor Palin by many folks, it’s going to be harder from a credibility point for these same people to come out and attack her four years hence.
Of course, the downside for Palin is that while Romney and Huckabee defined themselves, she remains an unknown as to what she will actually advocate. What tax reform plan will she support? What will she propose to do about Social Security? What will her foreign policy be like? There’s a lot of question marks and she’s been defined to a large extent by her work in the McCain campaign and some of that will need to be undone. (If she says the word maverick again after 2008, I’ll be very surprised.)
UPDATED in Advance
Response to Predicted Comment:
“What is this? Your 7 trillionth post about Huckabee?”
Actually, I’m not keeping count. This was a story I saw and knew that eventually somebody would post about it, so I decided to do it first.
The primary calendar is broken. Let’s face it. The calendar is a holdover from the ancient days of political history when candidates wouldn’t even enter the primary race until after a few of the early primaries had gone by… and states have taken that calendar and made haphazard changes to it over time that have only their interest in mind and not the national party’s.
It’s like building a small house back in the 40s, and then having each subsequent owner add a new addition to the house through the next sixty years with no rhyme, reason, or overarching vision for what the house could (or should) be. In the end, you still have a house. One that you’re able to live in. But one that has no flow, that makes certain things more difficult than they should be, and that you know could be better.
The current primary calendar rewards and punishes certain things that ought not be rewarded and punished, and forces candidates to do certain things they shouldn’t have to do. For example, the calendar is designed to reward rich candidates and punish candidates with little money. It boosts candidates with star power and punishes those with low name recognition (unless they have gobs of cash). It allows a candidate to focus on one or two states, which handicaps them for the general election where you have to run in at least 20 states simultaneously. It gives unnatural boosts to candidates that emphasize certain characteristics of philosophy instead of focusing on the whole party and country. It forces candidates to enter the race way too early in order to try and raise way too much cash for a race that is way too expensive.
Additionally, I believe it’s high time for the national parties to take control of the primary process. It’s time to end the awkward dance of state parties and state governments and national parties all trying to plan the same calendar – when all three groups have different agendas and goals in mind. This “too many cooks” syndrome reared its ugly head several times in the lead up to the 2008 primaries, and is just another example of why this isn’t working the way we’re currently doing it.
The list could go on and on. But suffice it to say that, despite assurances from some in the party that have their head in the sand, the system is broken.
(And just to ensure that this does not come up in the debate, I’ve been advocating for changing the primary calendar long before Romney lost – in fact, I was advocating changing it before the candidate field was even set for 2008 and before I settled on supporting Romney.)
Having said all that, there are three current plans that seem to have the strongest chance of getting looked at by the party: Rotating Regionals (proposed by the National Association of Secretaries of State), the Delaware Plan, and the Ohio Plan. However, my belief is that none of these three plans do enough to address the issues with our calendar.
Rotating Regionals
The country is divided up into four regions (Northeast – 11 states, South – 13 states, Midwest – 11 states, and West – 13 states). Iowa and New Hampshire still go first, and then one region goes at a time on the first Tuesday of March, April, May, and June. Every four years, the region that goes first would rotate.
Problems: this creates a de facto regional candidate favorite every election. If the northeast region went first in 2008, we probably would have had Giuliani as our nominee. If the south region went first, Thompson would have gotten the nod. If the west region went first, the Democrats would have nominated Bill Richardson. The point is, the primary process becomes much less about vision and policy and positions and becomes infinitely more about regional strength of a candidate. If the first region is the midwest, but our strongest candidate hails from the northeast in a particular year, he/she basically has no chance if a midwesterner is on the ballot. Additionally, this method leaves no way for candidates with low cash flow or name recognition room to do anything, as they would have to compete in a dozen states at the same time right off the bat.
Luckily, both the RNC and the DNC have rejected this proposal in the past, but the NASS is still campaigning for it and pushing the idea.
The Delaware Plan
Divides the states into four different groups again, but it takes away first-in-the-nation status from IA and NH. Also, this time the states are divided based on total population. The smallest 12 states would vote on the same day in March (including Iowa). The next smallest group of states would all vote on the same day in April (including NH), then the third group votes in May, and finally, the largest 13 states would finish the process off in June.
Problems: Basing where a state gets to vote in a political primary order based solely off of total population seems silly. I’m sure the Democrats wouldn’t be too happy with WY, ID, AK, ND, SD, and MT getting first dibs to choose their candidate, for instance – and all those states are in the first group. States ought to be ordered based on some kind of political importance, not just total population regardless of registered voters, party ID, voter turnout, primary delegates, etc. And again, starting the process off with 12 states right off the bat limits your candidate field to only those who are incredibly well-funded.
The Ohio Plan
This is a little more complicated plan. Under the Ohio Plan, four states reserve the right to go before everybody else: IA, NH, NV, and SC. Then, after those four states hold their primaries, the 14 “small states” hold their primary at the same time. This group includes: AK, DE, HI, ID, ME, MT, NE, NM, ND, RI, SD, VT, WV, and WY – along with all non-state primaries such as DC, Guam, PR, etc.
Those 18 states would remain the same every election. The remaining states are then divided into three rotating “pods”, labeled X, Y, and Z. Each election, the pod going “first” (i.e., after the early state and small state groupings) will rotate. The pods are as follows:
Pod X: Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Wisconsin, Utah, and Washington
Pod Y: Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia
Pod Z: Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Problems: This plan appears to try and balance liberal and conservative states in each pod, as well as balancing regional interests in each. However, you’re still stuck with the same problem – you have more than a dozen states holding primaries on the same day (except in Pod Z), resulting in four “super Tuesdays” in a row after the early states are out of the way. Furthermore, you have those four early states continuing to hold far too much influence, only to be followed up by a slew of “small states” that candidates will potentially ignore anyway. This plan requires a lot of travel in a short period of time and again denies lesser known or lesser funded candidates the same opportunity as rich competitors.
The Real Solution?
I think it is high time to tear down this mess of a remodeled house and set up a system that is relevant to the current culture and will be pliable enough to last into the foreseeable future without any major problems arising. I have devised my own plan to fix the primary calendar, which I will dub the “Wyoming Plan”, and will unveil it here on Race42008 tomorrow afternoon.
H/T: Marc Ambinder.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBoJDXW-ly0&eurl=http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/palins_not_going_anywhere.php[/youtube]
PAC spokesman Sal Russo said they have received $2 million in donations for the ads, which will start running tomorrow in Alaska and will include a national buy. “We wanted to give Sarah Palin the reassurance that despite the critics, Americans by and large appreciated her service and want her to continue to be a voice.”
He said there was some “back and forth” about whether the political ad would air on the television networks. He said it would air on cable news outlets. In Alaska, the ad is airing in primetime Wednesday.
I can hear all the potential 2012 candidates saying to themselves…”I have no chance to secure the nomination if Palin runs”.
I have been preoccupied lately with the aftermath of Prop 8. To be honest it has been pretty amazing what has happened in the name of tolerance. Of course, I probably have a stronger interest than I normally would have, since people of my own faith (including some whom I know) have been subjected to blacklisting, property damage, death threats and even have been sent letters with white powder that shut down LDS temples in Los Angeles and Salt Lake City.
But this latest video to hit YouTube takes the cake. You can read the story surrounding it here. Basically a group of college age Christians who have been singing on a certain street corner in the Castro district of San Francisco for years was shown the true meaning of tolerance. What began as a peaceful sing-in turned into them being doused with hot coffee, beaten over the heads with their own Bibles, and people threatening to kill them. The Kicker? They actually had nothing to do with Prop 8. they only showed up to sing songs of Jesus.
The video picks up by the time the police finally told them they had to leave because they could not guarantee the safetyhood of their lives anymore:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PrRxFoBSPng[/youtube]
I will be first to say that the reaction here on the part of the mob is pretty human. No doubt some of them have received the same type of harassment throughout their lives and now having gay marriage overturned feel the last straw has been placed on their backs. I think the man at 2:08 pretty much is representative of that. A past president of the LDS church once said “For every sin their is an unmet need.” In the case of this sin of mobocracy, there has been an unmet need of love and compassion over the years, despite what some might think of their actions.
Yet, on the other hand, we have the simple fact that Prop 8 was won on the notion that Gay Marriage would in fact become a detriment to the Freedom’s of Religion, Speech and Thought. The final commercial aired by the Courage Campaign depicting Mormon missionaries rummaging through two beautiful lesbians homes only solidified that. And now, since Prop 8 has passed the list of religious targeting has become nearly unfathomable.
While many on this site would argue that the Gay Agenda might not have in it’s plans the curtailing freedom of Speech and Religion, the simple fact remains that their are large swath of Gays and Non-Gay Activist who do, and that is the reality religious people have to deal.
I am guessing those Christians who were having their lives threatened in the above YouTube really didn’t care if this mobocracy was representative of the gay movement as a whole or not, all they cared about was being able to sing their songs without having hot coffee thrown on them and death threats yelled at them. Which, at this point seems unimaginable.
October 31, 2008
Apparently Governor Huckabee and Ed Rollins spoke just prior to the election and Mike’s future prospects as a candidate for office dominated the conservation.
Although I was not privy to the call, I am guessing it went a little like this…
Ed Rollins: Hello?
Governor Huckbee: Ed, how have you been? It’s Mike Huckabee.
Ed Rollins: Mike, no so great, Republicans have no money, I cannot find a job. I might have to sell the condo in Daytona Beach.
Governor Huckabee: Ed, that is tough luck, but I might have some good news for you?
Ed Rollins: Really, can you get me a job with Free and Strong America PAC?
Governor Huckabee: No Ed, it appears as if John is going to be defeated next week, so I was thinking of re-activating the campaign, for 2012. Are you interested in leading the effort?
Ed Rollins: No chance Mike.
Governor Huckabee: Why?
Ed Rollins: You still have no paid me for last effort.
Governor Huckabee: Well, I have a book coming out and I promise you it will make money. In chapter 4, I am frying up all my enemies like an Arkansas rattle-snake roast. Writing it was like playing whack-a-mole with the boys who denied me the nomination.
Ed Rollins: Governor, you have very little chance for success in 2012, maybe you should host a talk show?
Governor Huckabee: Ed, I have strong support within the evangelical community, who are they going to support in 4 years?
Ed Rollins: They’ve gone to Palin.
Governor Huckabee: But I get large, enthusiastic evangelical Christian crowds at my events.
Ed Rollins: Mike, you show up at their churches, they are already there.
Governor Huckabee: What about the youth vote, I won that?
Ed Rollins: Palin.
Governor Huckabee: Hillbillies?
Ed Rollins: Palin.
Governor Huckabee: Nascar dads?
Ed Rollins: Palin.
Governor Huckabee: Gun owners?
Ed Rollins: Palin.
Governor Huckabee: Compassionate conservatives?
Ed Rollins: Palin.
Governor Huckabee: Anti-immigrant vote?
Ed Rollins: Palin.
Governor Huckabee: Flat tax supporters?
Ed Rollins: They do not believe you.
Governor Huckabee: How about Wall street?
Ed Rollins: You called them greedy, they are with Romney.
Governor Huckabee: Ed, what am I supposed to do with my time, an honest pastor makes very little money? I promised my wife a new RV, with a built in jacuzzi.
Ed Rollins: Run for the Senate.
Governor Huckabee: Really, do you think the party will accept me?
Ed Rollins: They have no choice, they cannot recruit enough Republican candidates for most of these races.
Governor Huckabee: Alright, I’ll do it, will you run my campaign?
Ed Rollins: I can’t, I am busy.
Governor Huckabee: What are you doing in 2010?
Ed Rollins: Trying to convince Jindal to run, before he is ready.
Over the weekend, SC GOP Chairman Katon Dawson made it official and declared his candidacy for the RNC Chair:
South Carolina Republican Party Chair Katon Dawson, one of the highest-profile Republican state leaders, told the Associated Press Sunday he will seek the chairmanship of the Republican National Committee.
Dawson joins Anuzis and Steele as the only three officially announced candidates, with others such as Saltsman most likely about to enter the fray. Also, Greer has announced he will throw his hat in the ring in the coming weeks if he doesn’t see a “visionary” and a “strong leader” in the group.
We continue our blog of “Do the Right Thing” because while certain people think we shouldn’t do it, others think its useful to take a more broad look at what Huckabee is saying in the book for more reasoned analysis and discussion, rather than taking a few quotes out of context.
Secondly, this book is fairly popular. My brother went into Borders and they were all out, this CNN i-reporter had about 800 people show up in Bentonville, AR and there was record-breaking lines in Cedar Rapids. I think because this is a book that people are reading, it’s important to know what’s in it and what’s it about.
In Chapter 4, Huckabee mentions rivals, but it’s pretty sparing. He briefly discusses Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani’s position on abortion, has a kind work for Former Governor, HHS Secretary, and short-time Candidate Tommy Thompson and then talks about the irony of Bob Jones endorsing Mitt Romney to get a winner when Romney finished with half the votes of Huckabee or McCain and was beaten by Fred Thompson.
The focus of the book is on “Faith Voters.” Huckabee chided the media for labeling everyone concerned about social conservatives as an “Evangelical Voter” writing, “Many of these voters are Catholic, Jewish or even nonreligious.” If some are non-religious, I’m not certain the term “faith voter” is particularly apt, but probably more so than “Evangelical Voter”
Huckabee grabs a hold of the theme of homelessness as an analogy for cultural conservatives suggesting that political operatives running campaigns have a similar understanding that most people do to the homeless. “We know of them, but we don’t really know about them. We know what they are, but not who they are.”
Carrying this forward, he writes:
Increasingly, these voters are expected to be satisfied with a crumb of attention from the ruling class, but no one wants them to show up at the main table. If anything, they are expected not to get in the way, not to be that visible during the day, not to engage in conversations with the political elites. Just like during the holiday season when the swells often show up to dish out a plate of turkey and dressing, the politically homeless can typically expect to be permitted visibility during the two political “Holy Days,” the primary and the genral election, when the unwashed masses of religious zealots are expected to dutifully attend rallies holding signs, pull all-nighters doing yard-sign placement and literature drops, ring doorbells, man phone banks, and stand at polling places. They are expected to make the noise at the election night party in the main room, even though most of them won’t be able to get near the nice finger food being served to those whose large checks have apparently exempted from the kind of street work done in the trenches.
The faith people are driven by a simple desire to preserve simple principles of faith, family, and freedom for their children. They are not expecting to be named an ambassador to a European nation or invited to a sleepover in the Lincoln bedroom. They are not expecting to attend the inauguration, because the trip would cost more than two months of their salary. They have no illusions about sitting next to the first lady during the State of the Union or catching a ride on Air Force One. They did none of what they did in order to get more involved with the government, but rather to keep government from getting even more involved with rearing or educating their children, confiscating their hard earned paychecks, or adding to the burdens on their already stressed-out employers.
This is definitely a passage that will resonate with frustrated cultural conservatives and it defines their feelings and where much of the tension comes.
Huckabee then spends several pages talking about his conversations with the Arlington Group, a group of religious conservative leaders which he thought at the time could provide his campaign a shot in the arm. The group, in a move that symbolizes much of the lethargy in the cultural conservative movement, ended up endorsing no one. Huckabee said he was “spared” as the endorsement would have basically turned him into a candidate of the Arlington Group and given the sheer volume of questions asked about his faith, that would not have been good.
Huckabee pays homage to Cultural Conservative movement: Jerry Falwell, D. James Kennedy, and Bill Bright. Huckabee suggests that the giants are dying or becoming less active and the current Arlington Group is wavering as they had “become more enamored with the process, the political strategies, and the party hierarchy than with the simple principles that motivated the founders.”
Huckabee points to several up and coming leaders who are more concerned about principles than the horserace mentality. Some of these names I find kind of odd: Don Wildmon has been around a while, and Michael Farris since the 1990s and Beverly and Tim LaHaye for quite some time, but I think that’s some sense of diplomacy in not lumping them in with some of the other Christian Conservatives who were criticized.
Huckabee’s criticism of Gary Bauer has made headlines. Huckabee went after Bauer for telling he was more focused on national security than traditional cultural conservative issues. Huckabee wrote, “…it occurred to me if a pro-family organization was now focusing on the might of the military and the role of the CIA in combatting terrorism, then it was no longer a pro-family group, but a national security group, just like dozens of others similiarly focus. It would be like the NRA saying, ‘Well, we we still care about guns, but what we really want to focus on is global warming.’ When an organization can’t even focus on its focus, it’s hopelessly lost.”
Bauer has fired backsaying Huckabee wasn’t conservative enough on multiple issues, and furthermore:
Immediately after attacking me for talking less about life and marriage, he writes about Christians like himself who have, “…an expanding concern for issues like human poverty, AIDS, disease, and hunger.” So the problem is not about whether these newer issues are important. Rather, it concerns which issues have become so important that they should join the list of most important issues. ”
Actually, this is something wrote about. In the same paragraph Bauer quoted, Huckabee said, “The irony was that while I was being rejected because I thought Christian groups should be addressing this expanded list of issues, those who rejected me for that were the ones who said that my views ought to include a certain orthodox on global warming, terrorism, and torture.” Let the reader decide who’s side irony’s really on here.
Bauer concludes his piece with this statement, “After he is finished attacking all those who he thinks denied him the GOP nomination, I look forward to working with him to reform the GOP and revitalize the conservative movement. ”
Actually, Huckabee doesn’t so much say that the Arlington Group denied him the nomination but rather that current cultural conservative leaders are ineffective, divided, and more focused on Inside Baseball than the issues their constituents care about. Huckabee doesn’t say, “If not for Gary Bauer…” He rather suggests a need for new voices and that new leaders are emerging.
The rest of the chapter includes Huckabee’s feelings on being pegged as the religious candidate, as well as his annoyance at the “game show” style of Presidential debates that in many cases left him with half the time of other candidates and questions that weren’t relevant.
He recognized the key turning point of the campaign was at the Values Voter Debate in Ft. Lauterdale, Fl. where Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani, and John McCain skipped out and the debate was not carried by major TV networks. That, he considered the start of the Huckaboom.
He also pointed to the debate hosted by Tavis Smiley and largely targeted towards minority audiences that Huckabee attended while other candidates dodged. Minority outreach is kind of hard when you won’t go and outreach to minorities.
If there’s one thing in this chapter, I’ll criticize Huckabee for, it’s the use of somewhat obscure scripture allusions that I’m not even sure most Christians know. Sadly, most of our churches don’t teach the finer points of 2 Samuel and 2 Kings and I’m not sure how many Christians, let alone secular folks, will get the allusions to Elisha and to King David’s prophet.
Popular liberal atheist Jonathan Haidt has gotten into some trouble among the mostly liberal atheist community (limited as that community is).
Haidt researched differences between conservative and liberal morality. He did this in all regions of the earth including the US, Europe, East Asia and developing nations.
He found liberals, conservatives and everyone focused to varying degrees on five moral dimensions.
These moral sentiments are universal in all cultures.
The strength of each sentiment varies depending on culture and politics.
Haidt found an interesting pattern. In every region of the Earth, liberals tend to emphasize the first two moral sentiments at the expense of the last three.
In America, very conservative individuals value all five moral sentiments equally. As you move left individuals tend to ignore the last three sentiments and give slightly more focus to the first two.
So Liberals focus mostly on Harm/Care and Fairness/Justice while Conservatives focus on Harm/Care and Fairness/Justice but also Loyalty, Authority/Respect and Purity/Sanctity.
It may be a good idea to watch this video where Haidt explains his findings to an atheist group. I think we conservatives could glean some important information here.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc[/youtube]
One of the first topics, I talked about on Race42012 related to the defeat of 3 pro-life ballot measures: A personhood amendment in Colorado, in South Dakota another measure failed that would ban abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and to save the health or life of the mother, and another measure in California requring parental notification before abortion.
Jill Stanek pointed out something quite interesting in her WorldNetDaily column :
The defeat of abortion ballot measures across the country… may have been the result of divisions among anti-abortion groups. …Opposition to the measure in South Dakota came from the anti-abortion groups American Life League and South Dakota Right to Life. The groups did not support the measure because of its exceptions to the abortion ban – cases of rape or incest or in narrowly defined instances “to preserve the health or life of the woman.” …
Voters defeated South Dakota’s measure by 55 percent to 45 percent, but the state produced a win for Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain, who opposes abortion rights. …
In Colorado, the failed Amendment 48 measure … found opposition from Americans United For Life and National Right to Life, which questioned the timing and the approach of the measure…
It’s very hard to get pro-life legislation passed when you have National Right to Life and other pro-life groups lobbying against it. At the same time, some people who were personally pro-life refused to support the California or South Dakota measures based on the fact that they still allowed abortions under some circumstances. Stanek has more anecdotal evidence of this (some e-mails sent to her) than a hardline specific organized group, but it’s still a factor.
Stanek breaks the problem down into two groups: Purist hardliners or Incrementalist hardliners. Any law that allows abortion under any circumstances is bad according to the purists and unacceptable as it doesn’t protect all unborn children.
The position of the Incremntalists position is somewhat more complex:
Incrementalist hardliners opposed the South Dakota measure because they feared it wouldn’t survive a Supreme Court challenge. They feared Obama would win and add to the number of pro-Roe justices, already in the majority. They opposed the Colorado personhood amendment for that reason and also because they feared a huge loss would look bad for our side. They supported the California parental notice proposition.
I’ll add that certain incrementalists lobbied the bishops in both Colorado and South Dakota to oppose the pro-life endeavors, causing their “ambivalence.”
My problem with incrementalist hardliners is they operate from a place of fear. Jesus said we’re to be shrewd as snakes, but when at a certain point we behave more like the 10 spies who scouted Canaan, I’m out. Isaiah 46:12-13: “Listen to me, you stubborn people who are so far from doing right. For I am ready to set things right, not in the distant future, but right now!” In other words, it is never wrong to do the right thing. This is not blind faith.
Stanek reports that South Dakota Right to Life actually sent out mailers opposing Measure 11 (that’s an odd way for a pro-life group to spend its donations). If there’s a takeaway lesson here, perhaps it may be that divisions within the pro-life movement may make passing pro-life ballot measures impossible and that voters who might vote for Pro-life candidates are going to have one reason or another to reject pro-life legislation at the polls. That’s why we have a republican system of government. We elect people and expect them to sort out the details.
In less than two months, Barack Obama will be President of the United States. He will preside over a Congress that is heavily Democratic. Because presidents have their greatest amount of political capital during their first year in office, Obama will almost certainly use 2009 to pursue that perennial Democratic policy goal that is always just out of reach: national health care.
It seems hard to believe that after all the wailing and gnashing of teeth on the issue, the United States may have some sort of national health care system by the end of 2009. But that’s where we are. So here are my questions for you on a lazy Sunday morning…
1) Will President Obama tackle health care during 2009?
2) If yes, will either or both houses of Congress pass significant health care legislation?
3) If yes, what will ObamaCare look like as it is signed into law?
I’ll start:
1) Yes.
2) Congress will send something to Obama’s desk by the end of next year.
3) ObamaCare will probably involve the federal government “going public,” as it were, with the massive group health plan currently enjoyed by federal employees. Opening up this plan to the public as sort of an optional national group health plan would be the most politically feasible way for Democrats to create a national health care system without raising the specter of mandates and rationing and all of the other negatives that tend to drive Americans away from greater government involvement in health care. Given Obama’s almost overly-cautious selection of Administration officials thus far, he appears to be tacking to the Clintonian center-left, which is why I don’t think he’s likely to propose some sort of full-blown European system. We may also see a Massachusetts-style requirement that all Americans own some form of health insurance, and a requirement that private insurance companies cover pre-existing conditions. Basically, I suspect we’ll see a sort of center-left version of RomneyCare. It won’t be a single-payer system or the American version of the NHS, but it will constitute a real change in the way the government interacts with the health care industry.
Thoughts?
On the heels of Barack Obama’s increasingly impressive popular and electoral vote win (yes, the % margin continues to grow), I must lay out my extended thoughts for the first time. For a number of reasons, I decided more than a month ago to remove myself from this site until after the election. I believe that the commentary had become too divisive and extremely distracting to actual issues affecting real Americans. We seemed to be harping more on William Ayers, rather than focusing on John McCain’s own mistakes. You know your party has gone awry when the chairman of the Virginia Republican Party must resort to tying Obama to Osama bin Laden in an attempt to rally supporters. In all, I remain disappointed in my party and I realized long ago that we had no right to expect the American people to send us back to the White House.
I. Why Obama Won- A Final Review
Now, let’s settle some things that have arisen since November 4: I cannot agree more with Sean Oxedine’s thoughts on the election and its meaning for the Republican Party going forward:
Republicans didn’t lose because they were too conservative, or not conservative enough, or didn’t ban abortion, or wanted to ban gay marriage. They lost because they were given the reigns of power, and they didn’t perform. If you look at the big party changes across recent American elections: 2006/08, 1994, 1982, 1980, 1974, 1966, 1958, they share a common thread: The in-party screwed up.
There is no way around it: Barack Obama can thank President Bush for his victory. I was never a believer in the theory that a wave of minorities and young voters would sweep Obama to victory. In fact, besides a slight increase in African-American turnout, both Hispanics and younger voters (18-29 year-olds) did not turnout as strong as expected. These groups did not vote more, they just voted differently:
Vote by Race
Vote by Race
Other interesting numbers, these broken down by educational level:
High school graduate:
Some college:
What does all of this mean? In the end, Obama won largely because he picked up a large swath of lower to middle-class white voters (many who had voted for Bush in 2004) in former GOP states, including Florida, Indiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. In addition, Obama gained a substantial number of Latino voters who had also voted for Bush four years ago, thus fueling his Western victories in Colorado, New Mexico, and Nevada.
If there is ever a clear indication that this election was a referendum on President Bush, Chuck Todd provides us with the best evidence:
Many have attributed Obama’s win to his organization, his performance among minorities and young voters, his nearly unlimited campaign cash, and his response to the economic meltdown — and all deservedly so. But don’t forget how big of a role Bush’s unpopularity played in this election. With the single exception of Missouri (which barely went for McCain after a delayed call from NBC News), Obama won every state where Bush’s approval rating was below 35% in the exit polls, and he lost every state where Bush’s approval rating was over 35%.
These statistics demonstrate that the American electorate has not moved to the left as much as it may seem. We remain a center-right nation. A distinct group of people did not approve of Bush’s performance, yet still could not bring themselves to vote for Obama. Likewise, I believe that many voters liked and respected John McCain, but simply could not support him because of the “R” next to his name. All conditions considered, the American people were just not going to return a Republican to the White House this time around. (more…)
As my blogging of “Do the Right Thing” continues, Chapter 3, ” Is There Something About ‘Created Equal’ You Don’t Understand?” focuses on the pro-life issue.
Huckabee finds his grounding for the pro-life position in the Declaration of Independence’s statement: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Huckabee writes, “Our Founding Fathers began with the idea that the most basic rights come from God, who created us, and not from the whims of a civil government. The purpose of government, in their view and in mind…is to protect and preserve those basic rights, not to create them or grant them. Those rights transcend government itself.”
Huckabe considers the issue of a culture of life which he defines as going beyond abortion as one of two ultimate issues, the other being the need for self-government discussed in Chapter 2. Huckabee sees dire consequences from a failure to recognize the sanctity of life. “To ultimately get it wrong would us on a path from which there would be no return. It would mark the tragic and dramatic reversal of the idea we are all created equal. It would replace the noble principle with the view that some people are indeed worth more than others; that worth is determined merely on the whims of other human beings who, without benefit of due process or any checks or balances, could make the decision to end the life of another human being…”
He writes that he received around from the audience of the left-leaning Daily Show when he stated that the Pro-Life position doesn’t mean “we should only care about a child during gestation…To be truly pro-life means that we should be just as concerned about the child who is eight years old and living under a bridge or in the back seat of a car, or the life of an elderly person who is eighty years old, terminally ill, and living in a long-term care facility.”
How does Huckabee approach war and the death penalty in his view of the culture of life? He argues the check and balance of a shared responsibility between Congress and the President in making war shows respect for life. And when it comes to the Death Penalty, thorough Judicial review before implementing the death penalty signals a respect for life. In a previous book, Huckabee recounted how he thoroughly reviewed information on all sixteen of the executions that occurred during his time as Governor.
Huckabee does not view overturning Roe v. Wade as ultimate victory in the pro-life cause, as “the right to life is a fundamental right that can’t be taken from you and that does–cannnot—vary from state to state.”
Huckabee closes the chapter with a poignant story of a woman in Seattle he met who handed him a picture of her four year old daughter and told him that her daughter had been a frozen embryo for four years before she was adopted. The mother reminded Huckabee that “She is exactly what some want to use for experimentation and for stem cell research…Please don’t forget her.”
Huckabee lays out a solid pro-life case in the chapter that includes a good overview of the stem cell research debate, including pro-life support for adult stem cell research. Some will not be happy with him saying that merely overturning Roe is not enough, however he writes, “It may take a period beyond my lifetime to see it come to pass, but I do pray that one day we will be clear as to the value and worth of every human life.”
Republicans should quickly embrace Obama’s concept before the Democrats get in the frontseat.
Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner for Examiner.com
This is a brilliant idea, even if the President-elect came up with it.
Republican and conservative office holders, radio talk show hosts and columnists (including your humble examiner in his The civil right of Americans to bail themselves out three days ago) have been all over TV, radio and the Web rightly advocating bankruptcy for bankrupt companies and decrying any bailout that keeps bloated union contracts in tact and that lets Reid, Pelosi, Franks and Dodd (The Three Horsemen and National Velvet of the American economic Apocalypse) run the auto industry like they run Amtrak and Fannie Mae.
Learn to declare victory when it smacks you in the face, Loyal Opposition.
Show your loyalty to America and back up Barack Obama on his essential rejection of a bailout with this concept:
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is looking into a “prepackaged” bankruptcy for Detroit’s automakers as a possible solution to the industry’s financial crisis, Bloomberg News reported today, citing an unnamed source familiar with the matter. A representative of Obama’s team has already contacted at least one bankruptcy law firm about the idea, according to the source. In a prepackaged bankruptcy, a company would go into court with financing ready after reaching agreements with lenders, workers and suppliers on what each would give up and on a business plan, Bloomberg reports.
Getting out front on this would also address the serious political concerns of Pat Buchanan in his As GM goes, so goes the GOP:
Are Republicans aware of what they are about to do? When workers, execs, engineers, dealers, salesmen and suppliers are all factored in, the Big Three employ 3 million people who contribute $21 billion a year to Social Security and Medicare, and $25 billion in federal income taxes. Add in all the businesses that depend on the auto industry, and we are talking about one-tenth of the U.S. labor force.
As columnist Tom Piatak of Chronicles and Takimag.com writes, 850,000 retirees, and their families, depend for pensions and health care on the Big Three. If they go under, the burden falls on us [Up to $50K per retiree per year under current federal law]. And to let the auto industry die is to write America out of much of the economic future of the planet.
Our examination doesn’t buy all of Pat’s trade ideas, but does agree that government policy has greatly burdened the auto industry and that both politically and economically, the GOP needs to be part of the solution.
We have one President-Elect at a time. He’s right on this one. He echoes conservatives. Accept victory on the issue of Detroit automakers.
Pre-packaged bankruptcy or bust!
Legal Editor for The Minority Report
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
How the GOP can and should help the new President help America, and in the process help themselves.
Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine as legal editor for The Minority Report
We start on two fronts today.
The first is the Eastern Front, or, more precisely, the Middle Eastern Front, where conclusive evidence of total victory by the Armed Forces of the United States emerged this week with the approval of a security agreement endorsed by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and President Bush that would have U.S. combat forces out of Iraqi cities in 2009 and out of the country by 2001. A separate agreement would establish an alliance against terrorism between the U.S. and Iraq in the heart of the Middle East.
We the People rule in America and whether or not President Bush, President-Elect Obama or the Drive-by media will declare the obvious and honor one of the greatest achievements by the United States military in history, we must.
Mission Accomplished! Job well done. Twenty-five million purple-fingered citizens freed by the United States and allies in the War on Terror while the United States has suffered no more attacks on the homeland since September 11, 2001.
We heed Finrod’s call: Henceforth, November 22, 2008 shall be Victory in Iraq Day!
The second front is the Western Front, or, more precisely, the Domestic Front of western Civilization.
We have only one president at a time, and he gave us a gift late this past week with his “prepackaged bankruptcy” trial balloon that would reject the top-heavy government-directed, save the bloated union contracts and insist upon more profit preventing government regulations bailout plan.
The GOP has been rightfully calling for bankrupt automakers in file bankruptcy (as if), and to re-structure (break the union contract) more on the order of the non-union BMW plant in Spartanburg County, S.C. and other auto plants across the South that don’t have their hands out reaching for our pockets.
Grand Old party, can you hear? Obama has uttered the desired words. Accept the deal before the balloon pops! GOP should ride shotgun on Obama “prepackaged” Detroit automaker Bankruptcy idea.
Other matters on various fronts where Republicans can help themselves and America by helping Obama:
1) Champion our freedom-fighting allies in Columbia, Georgia and across South and Central America and Eastern Europe. Make it impossible for a President Obama to resist helping the least of these by shoving the faces of the heroes that have made America safer fighting communists and other terrorists in Columbia and elsewhere as well as those in Ukraine, Poland and Georgia facing off an overreaching Russian bear that have within their memories life before the Berlin Wall fell.
Demand that we reward them all by passing CAFTA, complying with our SDI agreement in Eastern Europe and bringing more nations into NATO.
2) Champion Liberty at home, i.e. the free market, and especially the civil right of Americans to bail themselves out as the best Jobs Program. Demand that Americans be turned loose from government regulations that prevent them from drilling for more of their own oil, building nuclear power plants and starting new businesses free of burdensome Sarbanes-Oxley, snail-darter protecting and mar-to-market laws, regulations and accounting practices. If you find Enron-ing going on, prosecute them (like Bush did) but nix the criminalization of business risk taking.
The government caused these economic hard times by distorting the free market thru Fannie Maes and Endangered Species Acts. They endanger the species called American Exceptional-ism.
On 60 Minutes last Sunday, I saw a more sober Messiah, post-his first intelligence briefing by his soon to be predecessor that has kept us safe since 911 and since his Rubin-Summers briefing. He lauded the free market to CBS in those 60 minutes that in all the minutes of the campaign.
He will want to be re-elected. He will want to be seen as championing the underdog.
Well, let’s call our underdog witnesses to the stand. The underdogs are We the People trying to make a living. Put us on TV, radio and shout from the rooftops.
Maybe even engage in a little civil disobedience? Like maybe drilling for oil in ANWR and then writing a Letter from an Anchorage Jail?
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com and Charlotte Observer columns.
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
[Postscript: Finally, I was inspired once again by the newest of Citizen Journalists, Sherry Falls Lyle in Alabama, a staunch conservative American, who recently wrote that we should address our national changes as like a mother and a new born child:
"It takes bravery and courage to come together and face the unknown, or "change", in our lives and in our country.'
Sherry challenges us to go beyond our comfort zone.
After so many years of power, too many of which were spent appeasing liberals, it won't be comfortable serving under one, especially as a minority. But when served up softballs like the the "prepackaged bankruptcy" we must seize the change moment, It ought to make us more comfortable that the unchanged liberal democrats in Congress are on the other side.]
This can’t be good for the GOP in that state. Shuler is about as good as they come for D’s, and from what I gather, was just re-elected in a strong GOP area with 62%. Of course, he was one of the all time great quarterbacks here for a few years, before turning into a horrible one in the NFL:
U.S. Rep. Heath Shuler is not yet sworn into his second term, but some Democrats hope he sets his sights two years from now on a run for the Senate.
That election would pit Democratic nominee Shuler, a star quarterback at Swain County High School and the University of Tennessee, against U.S. Sen. Richard Burr, who played defensive back at Wake Forest.
Shuler said he has not ruled out a run for Senate, but wants to focus now on Congress.
“First and foremost, I am going back to Washington and work on the economy,” Shuler said. “At this point in time we need to focus on the economy.”
Shuler won re-election last week with 62 percent of the vote over Republican Carl Mumpower, an Asheville city council member.
Shuler has established himself as the kind of middle-of-the-road Democrat who can win a statewide election. After he knocked off eight-term incumbent Charles Taylor in 2006, Shuler was approached about running against Sen. Elizabeth Dole.
“It was my first term, and we decided against it,” Shuler said in an interview Wednesday.
Thankfully, I don’t live in NC because I could never vote against Shuler… after spending a good part of my youth proudly wearing my #21 jersey on the drive up to Knoxville every Saturday.
I love Bobby Jindal and think he would make a great president. The reason I don’t write a lot of pro-Jindal posts is that I don’t believe he’s going to run. Today, he made a visit to Iowa, but made his intentions perfectly clear:
But Jindal said the speculation is misplaced. He said he’s running for re-election and has no plans to seek the White House.
“The most important thing for me is to be the best governor for the state of Louisiana,” the governor said in an interview. “If the people of Louisiana will allow me, I’m going to serve for two terms.
“I’m not running for president.”
Said Bill Jempty at Wizbang: “Why do politicians have to pretend they don’t have ambitions for higher office? By lying about it they only reinforce the notion that a elected politician can’t tell the truth. ”
Let me go ahead and make a wild suggestion that will scandalize everyone. Maybe, just maybe, like Condi Rice in 2006 and 2007, Bobby Jindal isn’t running for President. Unlike with fellow Governor Sarah Palin, for Bobby Jindal, it will impossible to run for President and run for re-election as he’s up in 2011 at the same time the presidential race is starting.
Louisiana is the type of state that needs two terms to fix. In addition, he’s previously stated, he wants his kids to grow up in Louisiana.
He’s a great American and maybe he can be pursuaded to run in 2016 or 2020, but realism requires when someone flat out says “No.” that we take them at their word.
Someone who is open to running will say, “It’s too early.” or if they’re really sneeky they might say, “I don’t intend to run.” If you’ll recall, outgoing Senator Larry Craig said he intended to resign, but as he didn’t say he would resign, he changed his intentions. Those type of people you can speculate on because they used a weasel word, but when someone says no, it’s time to move on. There won’t be a Jindal candidacy in 2012.
Check out some of the ballots being contested by the Coleman and Franken campaigns up in Minnesota. Coleman’s lead has been narrowed to a little over 100 votes with over 60% of precincts reporting. Looks like we’ll eke this one out by a few votes.
Here’s a pathetic claim from the Franken campaign:
It’s a vote that was “intended to go to Franken,” they say!
Here’s a pathetic claim from the Coleman campaign:
It’s an “arrow to Norm,” they say!
Check them out and witness, to steal a joke from Jon Stewart, American democracy inaction!
We continue to blog through Mike Huckabee’s, “Do the Right Thing.” Chapter 2 mentions no other candidate or campaign. It’s entitled, “The Best Government of All.”
Those who’ve heard Huckabee’s “Hucktown” speech will find this chapter quite familiar as Huckabee lays out his case that the best government is self-government.
Writes Huckabee, “If we want less civil governemnt (as conservatives desire) or more civil liberties (as liberals desire), the answer is having more civil people who govern themselves by living their lives according to the moral code of behavior that asserts it is unacceptable to lie, steal, cheat, hurt, disrespect, or murder another person.”
Huckabee then goes into his “Hucktown” comparison. Contrasting one town where people show personal responsibility`and another where they don’t. Low Divorce rate, high graduation rate, honest businesses, clean streets, and a low crime rate keep “Hucktown” government at a minimum. While “Yourtown” is the opposite and has high government spending.
Huckabee points out that the ultimate solution for Yourtown is not increasing government programs and services as that will drive businesses and residents out of town and lead to an economic collapse or issuing big cuts in school spending, police, or trash collection which would leave the place less attractive to business, but rather be for the citizens of Yourtown to excercise personal personal responsibility.
Now, it can be rightly pointed out that there are probably some innovative things that Yourtown could do such as starting Yourtown Charter School or outsourcing trash collection to an innovative new company started over in Gatestown, but ultimately the cost of societal decline will eventually drag Yourtown down.
Some of the more interesting stats Huckabee mentions include this: “Children born out of Wedlock are 700 percent more likely to be poor than those is stable two-parent homes. Eighty-eight of unwed mothers without a high school diploma will end up in poverty, but only 8 percent of with a high school diploma, who marry, and their first child after the age of twenty will end up in poverity. It would seem logical that if we were really serious about lessening the horrible impact of poverty upon others, we would strive to do all we can to get an education; get married; and remain in a stable, loving, monogamous relationship; and have children in the context of a strong family.”
There is a counterpoint raised by Steve Schippert:
Let’s turn Huck’s words around in a more logical order. Has this supposed fiscal conservative ever stopped to consider that “the breakdown of family and individual responsibility” is “directly related to” many of the bloated programs that make up “a lot of the cost of government”? Has he looked at the inner cities – or depressed rural areas for that matter – and wondered just how much government subsidizing of single parenthood has contributed to the breakdown of families? It’s not the only cause, to be sure. But it is more of a contributor than a cure.
Schippert raises a point. The way the well-intended Aide to Family with Dependent Children worked, it created peverse insentives to have out of wedlock pregnancy. Also much of the welfare structure led to some of the mutual aide societies people used to rely on ceasing to exist. Welfare reform alleviated the “Welfare Queen” situation, but it has yet to change our society’s mores. Government programs can cause problems, but eliminating government programs can’t necessarily get rid of the problems government created. Can a culture in decline have a limited government, history would suggest no.
Huckabee also writes of being Governor at the time of the Jonesboro shooting and the outrage that occurred when it was found out the killer would be released on their eighteenth birthday because no one in Arkansas history had imagined children as young as eleven would be mass murderers.
Huckabee also had a very interesting section that did touch on the prison issue and a paradox he faced with a prison population that had increased from 8,000 to 14,000 while he was in office, leeading to a $220 million prison budget. He wrote, “Interestingly, some of my conservative brethern thought we should lock more people up, keep them longer, eliminate parole and clemency, and yet cut the budget to the prison system at the same time. Even without a math degre, I understood those numbers just don’t add up.”
The bad thing about this chapter is that it ends with an anecdote that just doesn’t seem to fit it (it must have been a favorite memoryy) so a strong chapter had a bit of a flat ending.
The answer’s not surprising, Gallup did a poll and found three candidates chosen by a Majority of Republicans and Republican leaning Independents as candidates they’d like to see run in 2012:
All other candidates including Bobby Jindal and Charlie Crist are going to have a tough road to hoe.
Palin’s numbers among conservatives stand out as do Mitt’s numbers among moderates. It doesn’t seem Republicans are hankering for “new voices” which could be pretty bad news for presumptive candidates like Pawlenty. Republican voters with their conservative tendencies tend to go with familiar faces and whoever’s next in line. The debate is ultimately over who the next person in line is, and if two of these big three get in, I’d take 3:1 odds that no one else is going to come in and take the nomination.
The media is all in an uproar because Sarah Palin gave an interview while turkeys were being slaughtered in the background.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92I6-M2vAbQ[/youtube]
I’m shocked. Here I thought that Turkeys died of being too darn happy. Will these leftists get a grip? Nobody thought anything of it until MSNBC got hold of the footage.
Why would she be worried about doing a shot there? She issued a pardon to a turkey to help promote the business. If you promote a business, you’re not exactly ashamed of it. This is how you get your turkey, if it offends you gather around the table and have Thanksgiving tofu.
