America’s
Europe
Asia-Pacific
Africa
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com on Facebook, or Twitter Race42012.
What would you say to your Opthamologist if he told you that after being blind from Macular Degeneration that there was now a cure that could be done in an hour to make you see again?
Being legally blind since the age of thirteen, I was never able to get behind the wheel like all my peers at sixteen and have that independence. I struggled with anger and depression for many years. I learned to have peace and to just be thankful for what I do have. Yet, there were still struggles, learning to walk with a cane for one was a big battle that I have overcome recently.
Whether you are legally blind like me, or completely blind due to Macular Degeneration, it is still hard. When you hear good news such as, a simple cure, your hopes fly. I do not have Macular Degeneration, but I do have Retinitis Pigmentosis. I know that stem cell research is going on for that disease.
A cure is good news, but how did they find this cure? Well, it is from harvested embryonic stem cells. As a mother I find that unethical. I would have to turn it down. Even though I would have to turn it down, I can understand those who would be battling over the decision. It would be very tough for me to turn it down, but knowing that I did not abandon my faith and beliefs just so I could have sight would comfort my soul. I will continue praying, and hoping that more cures will come using adult stem cells.
This is the second and final part of my interview with New Jersey gubernatorial candidate, Steve Lonegan. The first part can be viewed here:
MM: Alright, well I noticed you’ve been critical of bipartisanship.
SL: Yeah, bi-partisanship means capitulating on your beliefs. In a Democratic administration, bipartisanship means you do what we say, or you’re out to be an obstructionist.
MM: Sure, but I guess I’m wondering, in New Jersey right now, it’s almost 2 to 1 Democratic legislature and…
SL: So you think the Republicans would have the guts to stand together on every issue, but instead they…let me tell you something, in the 8 years there are five bills passed that are just job and economy destroying bills…Paid Family Leave you already mentioned, Project labor agreement which requires that every job a town or city does is done with union wages. Anything whether you’re painting a bathroom, what have you. The Card Check bill which is, in New Jersey, taken away the secret ballot for people being unionized. It’s one of the worst bills in the country. Binding arbitration which now appoints an arbitrator who decides binding contracts on a local level, taking away local officials’ ability to fight for the tax-payers, and the worst small business taxes in the country. And even though the Democrats have this major majority, not one of those five bills was able to be passed without Republican votes. The Democrats never had the votes to pass one of those five bills, so the Republicans had to fold every time to pass bills the Republicans shouldn’t be supporting. Had the Republicans held the line on those bills, none of them would have passed.. But, they were able to give them the stamp of bipartisanship, and the Governor stood up and said “this is bipartisan job-destroying bill”. And that’s why the Republican Party is in the minority, and that’s why they’re going to stay in the minority if they continue to operate like this.
MM: Now if you get elected Governor, and you’re still in the minority…
SL: When I get elected Governor.
MM: (Laughs) When you get elected governor, how are you going to overcome the Democratic opposition to eliminating 4 government departments…that’s one of your priorities I guess.
SL: Well, I’ll tell you, there’s an interesting dynamic here: it’s called necessity. The state’s income tax revenue is down 15%, sales tax 20%, corporate income tax 89%. The state legislature can carry on all they want, but they’re going to be facing a real reality come next January. I’m going to have the benefit of not trying to cut government when we have prosperity and cash flow. It’s harder then, it’s a lot easier now. But, the other issue is that we’re going to win the assembly when I’m the candidate. But, I also happen to have enough votes in the Senate, as it stands, to have a veto-proof vote. So I can line-item veto, and I can also hold up every judge and every appointment the Democrats could ever want. So we’re going to start playing some good-old fashioned hard-ball politics in Trenton.
MM: Last week, Christie pulled out of a scheduled May 5th debate…
SL: He’s pulled out of every debate, in every forum, we’ve made in the last 6 weeks.
MM: So I guess you think New Jersey Republicans would benefit from more debates?
SL: Chris Christie is scared to death to debate me. He cancels every single one, and is doing everything he can to avoid every debate possible, and I’ll tell you right now, when I debate him, I’m going to take him apart piece by piece. I will expose him for the big government, liberal Republican that he really is and I’ll ultimately win the primary.
MM: So would you…I guess the two debates that are required by law, they don’t include any other candidates?
SL: No, just one on one…yeah, it’s going to be great.
MM: Both you and Christie have taken some heat from the media for campaign decisions. Christie I guess scheduled a fundraiser with a lawyer he gave a no-bid contract to, and you sent dollar bills attached to mailings.
SL: My, real quickly, my direct mail company did a direct mail fundraising package that’s been done hundreds of times in this country, including by 9 sitting Senators and about 30 congressmen. It’s very similar to the March of Dimes, when they put the dime in the envelope, and it simply says, I put this dollar in the envelope to get your attention.
MM: I think I heard, just before I left, that’d you gotten your matching funds…
SL: Yeah, I got my matching funds. They were questioned, but it was resolved… I don’t know when an American dollar bill became a bad thing, by the way.
MM: You’ve made a point of mentioning Chris Christie’s lack of elective experience. Why do you think it’s so important for New Jersey’s next Governor to be a politician?
SL: You mean experience to be Governor? I’m not sure..
MM: Well, he was…he has some experience doing something, so why do you think that your experience is more relevant?
SL: Well, I ran a business in the state for 25 years. Manufacturing business, retail business, you know 60-70 employees. I ran a town for 12 years…I’ve been a hands on CEO style manager for almost three decades. Chris Christie’s an attorney, and albeit a very good attorney, you’re not going to lawyer your way out of the state’s current fiscal management problems. So you need a Governor, who can operate like a CEO and knows how to run a business, not a lawyer, who simply can sit down and write legal briefs.
MM: I’ve read that you’re a Catholic, one of the few demographics the GOP did well with in 2008…
SL: The Republican Party has not had a Catholic at the top of the ticket, in New Jersey, since 1970. I’ll be the first Catholic statewide candidate in almost 40 years.
MM: Is that…do you know if their have been any major Catholic Governors since then, for either party?
SL: The last Republican Catholic was William Cahill in 1970…let’s see…no, no others. I’m not sure about Jim Florio, you might want to check. I’m not sure what Florio was, but I know on the Republican side.
MM: Well, I was wondering, how does the party start expanding beyond evangelicals, Catholics, and business-oriented people.
SL: By providing a vision for economic prosperity that benefits everyone. Right, that’s the only issue right now in this country; the economy and taxes. Republicans should be talking about cutting taxes across the board, cutting the size of government. There’s nothing else to talk about. But, the only problem is, they need to execute on it once they get elected. Or they get elected, and then they don’t do it. That’s when they lose elections.
MM: Well, I guess that’s what the tea party stuff is about.
SL: Well, the tea party stuff I think is more than that. It’s, on the surface it’s about taxes but below the surface people are realizing that there are fundamental changes occurring to our society and our nation by virtue of Government growth and more mutating of our constitution and our role in the world. So it’s more than taxes.
MM: Ok, two months ago, Michael Steele became the chairman of the RNC and a lot of people were excited at this result, but since then, he’s been a bit of a disappointment. I know you expressed frustration at his performance. Why do you think a guy who’s so personally likable has stumbled so much?
SL: I can’t answer why, but a lot of it has to do with the people you surround yourself with, and your advisors and the team you build. That’s one of the biggest challenges there is. Hopefully Mr. Steele just got some bad advice in the beginning and he can put things back on track.
MM: Ok, race42012 mostly covers political races, but it’s also part of what we call the new media format. That means we sometimes go off-topic. For instance, in the last month we’ve had blog posts on Britney Spears, Katy Perry, and McDonald’s Sweet Tea…
SL: For President? (laughs) Oh, sorry.
MM: But, with the collapse of newspapers, this more free-ranging media seems like the future. Why is it, then, that so few politicians are taking advantage of the possibilities these internet tools offer.
SL: We’re trying. I mean, we’re working to adapt as quickly as possible, using blogging, using email, using our website, using youtube, I have lots of videos on my website, using Facebook. It’s a rapidly changing media, and it is a challenge, but the other issue we face in a Republican primary is the majority of our voters are over fifty years old, over sixty years old. That’s not even a problem, I’m over fifty and I’m pretty computer savvy. But, we still deal with a lot of older voters who are still relying on traditional media. So we are doing both and it’s kind of neat. We do our tweeter blogging, and we use it constantly, we’re probably doing it tonight.
MM: So in the general election, you’ll maybe expand it a little bit?
SL: I hope to expand it by building a big email list, I’ve done email fundraising.
MM: So speaking of the media, what do you read? Any good websites or mostly print media?
SL: I’m an avid reader, but the last couple of months I haven’t had a lot of time to read. Actually, the last book I just finished reading was Mark Levin’s new book Liberty and Tyranny. Terrific book by the way.
MM: Yeah, I was hearing him talk about that on the way here.
SL: Yeah, really good book. But, no I get articles, I read a lot of my articles off the internet now, papers.
MM: New Jersey papers?
SL: Yeah, Star Ledger (inaudible). I also like George Will’s a lot, I read all of his stuff.
MM: Ok.
I don’t want to get into the debate over whether or not David Paterson was showing disrespect for the disabled in a recent comedy skit at a media dinner. However, I will point out that he is a raging hypocrite. I simply cannot believe that he had the gall to do this after all of his bellyaching over Saturday Night Live’s portrayal of him. So, Governor, could you please explain why we can’t poke fun at your blindness, but you can poke fun at someone else’s paralysis. I’d really like to know the difference.
Now, all we have to do is hope that Andrew Cuomo decides that he doesn’t want to be Governor.
Oh…and I will give Paterson props on one element of his performance – it’s not every day that you get to watch a blind guy do a cartwheel. Nice job, Governor!
Rasmussen’s daily presidential approval rating tracking poll this morning shows some faltering numbers for Obama once again:
President Obama Job Approval Ratings
- Approve – 55%
- Disapprove – 45%
- Strongly Approve – 33%
- Somewhat Approve – 22%
- Somewhat Disapprove – 15%
- Strongly Disapprove – 30%
Remaining at 55%, the lowest percentage of Americans yet approve of Obama’s performance. At 45% , the highest percentage yet disapprove of the job he’s doing.
The “strongly approve” is also at the lowest ever.
From UPI: Protests and a walkout by delegates disrupted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as he delivered remarks Monday at a U.N. anti-racism summit in Switzerland.
The presence of Ahmadinejad at the Geneva conference already prompted several countries, including the United States, Israel, Canada and Germany, to boycott the first U.N. gathering on discrimination and racism in eight years.
Delegates left as Ahmadinejad accused Israel and the West of making “an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering … in order to establish a totally racist government. Protesters interrupted Ahmadinejad as he began to speak, shouting: “”You’re a racist.”" Security officers removed at least two protesters from the chamber,
Ahmadinejad has said Israel should be destroyed and called the Holocaust, in which 6 million Jews were killed, is a myth.”
Kudos to the country that allowed the clowns (literally) through security, to protest Ahmadinejad’s speech.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com on Facebook, or Twitter Race42012.
Former Bogota Mayor, and current New Jersey Gubernatorial Candidate, Steve Lonegan recently agreed to sit down with me to discuss New Jersey politics, the upcoming Republican Primary, and his vision of Government. He’s currently locked in a tough primary battle with former US Attorney Chris Christie. Here’s the first half the interview. The remainder will be posted at around 7 pm:
MM: First of all, yesterday was tax day and I know you spent it attending 4 tea party rallies, around New Jersey, according to your campaign website…
SL: Four tea parties, we spoke at a Republican club and then I ended up at the Rutgers Republican club, Libertarian Club at 9:30 at night.
MM: So what was the atmosphere like?
SL: (To aides) What was… what was that group called again?…Young Americans for Liberty.
MM: Ok
SL: It’s very good to see forty conservative, Republican students , you know, in a room at 9:30 at night.
MM: Did you get to talk to them afterwards?
SL: Yeah, I spoke to them for quite awhile.
MM: Ok, cool…speaking of taxes, how has your past leadership of American’s for Prosperity affected your interest in fiscal issues?
SL: Well, my interest in fiscal issues really began back as a businessman and developed significantly as a mayor, but I really brought that experience, as a mayor, when I went to work for the think tank. So if anything, I brought my experience on fiscal issues to AFP.
Mm: Do you think that’s helped you, you know, with your message. Allowed you to project it to citizens…?
SL: Oh yeah, definitely. It gave me an opportunity to do something I’m passionate about, and that is, work on policy issues and lecture and speak on them…
SL: Because, you know, Americans for Prosperity is an educational foundation, so I had the opportunity to do a lot of writing and lecturing, teaching.
MM: Yeah, I heard you helped stop a lot of tax increases (crosstalk)…
SL: We stopped, I led the effort to stop two ballot questions in 2007. I led the effort to stop the Governor’s toll-hike plan, and a number of other policy issues. And as a mayor, before that, I actually filed a historic lawsuit back in 2000, when we had a Republican Governor, they went out to borrow 8.7 billion dollars without voter approval which was, at the time, the largest bond issue of any state in American History. They tried it without voter approval, which was required under our constitution. And I did that when I formed an organization called Stop the Debt, and I raised the money and I brought that case to the state Supreme Court.
MM. According to the Press of Atlantic City, you’ve criticized the Paid Family Leave Program…
SL: Yes, I have…
MM: Which extends 6 weeks vacation, at 2/3’s pay, to people who have for, instance, they’ve just had a child in the family…I was just sort of wondering…
SL: People could have had a child perhaps, according to the bill, a relative who has psychological, needs psychological comfort, which means that if you’re a guy working in New Jersey, in the wintertime, outdoors and you decide you’ve had enough of that and Aunt Sally down in Florida needs 6 weeks of comfort, you can take off, go to Florida for 6 weeks and get paid. So it’s really cute the way the liberal left likes to wrap up their policies in emotion-based nonsense, but somehow or other, for several thousand years, human beings have managed to raise their babies without a government program, and this is just another extension of the entitlement state and their whole cradle to grave philosophy. ..(crosstalk)…I’m not only a critic of, I fought it tooth and nail, and when I’m governor I’m going to overturn it. It’s kind of funny, they talk about New Jersey’s the second state in the country to have it…you know what the first one was? California. Now that’s a good model, right? So it’s another anti-business policy that gives businesses a reason not to come to this state, because they know that every year, every one of their employees can take six weeks off.
MM: Ok, because well, I know that are some people in the Republican Party who have promoted ideas to maybe double the child-tax credit, and things like that at the national level, to promote families and make it easier for people to raise families, and I wonder do you not see this in that mode or is it…
SL: Oh no, not at all, this is a job destroying bill that encourages people to take time off from work. It penalizes employers…(inaudible). You know people have babies without government programs. You know, when I was building my business back in the 1980’s, when I had my first daughter, I didn’t even have insurance. I’d just started my company, I couldn’t afford it, I had to- my wife had her baby- the next day I went to work, you know. So this whole ridiculous idea that suddenly, a mother having her baby wants her husband home for six weeks, I mean good Lord, I don’t know any wife who wants her husband home for six weeks (laughter).
MM: So this primary race has seen the New Jersey Republican gatekeepers basically close ranks around Chris Christie. They think he’s the only electable candidate. What do you think it says about these Republicans, that even with Corzine’s approval rating in the 30’s, they’re still concerned with nominating the most electable candidate?
SL: I don’t think these gatekeepers have a gate to keep, and they certainly don’t seem to exercise much influence, because last week we filed the state record petition signatures, 11,220. That’s more signatures than Chris Christie and Jon Corzine combined. So what that demonstrates, is we have a powerful grassroots movement, and we have the support of the voters, rather than the support of a few union-influenced, connected, party bosses.
MM: Sure, sure. Speaking of that, according to, as of last weekend, it said you’d raised 700,000 dollars.
SL: We’re over 800.
MM: Over 800? Ok. But, at the time I guess Christie had raised 1.1 million. Are you surprised he hasn’t raised more, considering…
SL: Well, let’s think about this Matt. You’ve got Steve Lonegan and a bunch of grassroots activists and taxpayers, and the entire Republican machine, all the party bosses, could barely raise more money than me. They don’t seem all that strong do they? That’s the best they could do? The entire Republican establishment. Hah! I have, I am closing in right now on 10,000 donors. That will be the state record, for any candidate. They have less than 1000 donors. So I have a massive group of donors who are giving 50, 100, 250 dollars and they have a handful of party insiders who are all getting government contracts for…(inaudible). That’s the problem with New Jersey, it’s the problem with the country. So…
MM: Do you have any idea how much money Corzine will pump into the race?
SL: No. Probably a lot. I really don’t care how much he spends. Doesn’t matter. He can’t spend enough money to sell his failed programs. The whole country’s going to, and here’s the other thing that’s got me, and see this is hilarious…the Republican bosses were actually criticizing me cause 40% of the money I’ve raised is outside the state. I’ve actually raised money from all 50 states, including Wasilla Alaska, by the way. Which is not a state, that’s just a town. I actually have a check from Wasilla, but the point is, I’m raising money from the entire country. So who’s going to be the best to raise money to beat Jon Corzine? Right, the guy who’s only source of income is a few party hacks, or somebody who can inspire people from here to Alaska to Hawaii to donate to a New Jersey campaign.
MM: Speaking of that, I guess, I watched your CPAC speech but at one point you claimed the Wall Street philosophy of capitalism and innovation was under attack. Now I understand what you’re getting at here, but don’t you think praising the wall street philosophy is something that people could take the wrong way?
SL: Well, that’s my job to educate them. But, the wall street philosophy of free market capitalism has done more to elevate this economy then any other philosophy in the world. When my opponent Chris Christies stands up and says this has caused our state’s fiscal ruin, it just demonstrates that he has no idea about economics and believes government’s going to be the answer to the state’s problems. So no, this all-out attack on wall street and free market capitalism has to stop and you were seeing that yesterday at these tax-payer tea parties. People were starting to fight back against this nonsense.
MM: What do you think of the coverage of the tea parties? Have you seen any of it?
SL: I was so busy doing them, I really didn’t get to see how they were covered…so I can’t really answer that.
MM: Because, it seemed pretty ridiculous, other than Fox News.
SL: Well, I figured that.
MM: Ok, I guess I want to talk a little bit about how you’d win in a general election. I read an interesting anecdote in the Daily Record about an independent voter who was registering as a Democrat, just to vote against Corzine in the primary.
SL: Registering as a Republican you mean.
MM: No, no. I guess Corzine has a few Democratic challengers or whatever.
SL: We last week pushed about 1000 people from Democrat to Republican.
MM: Your campaign?
SL: Yeah, we ran a radio spot. We ran a whole change of party project which ran for a couple of weeks, and we were busy for two weeks doing their change of party cards.
MM: Huh, well..this independent voter said that he wanted anybody but Corzine, but he was not so sure about the Republicans. So I guess I’m wondering, yeah Corzine’s massively unpopular, but how do you get people to vote for you, and not just against him.
SL: Well, you draw a line in the sand, and you put forth a vision for a better economic future for all New Jerseyans. Talk about limited government, lower taxes, better economic growth. That’s what people want to hear, especially today. But, if you put up a candidate who’s just going to tinker around the edges, and be vague, and sort of be Democratic-Lite, Republicans will lose again, and that’s the risk they take if they run Chris Christie, cause Chris Christie sounds a lot more like Jon Corzine than he does a Republican.
MM: Do you think that’s really his philosophy, or do you think that’s just something…
SL: I do…well it’s something else I’ve watched in politics in New Jersey over the past twenty years. It’s just, the Republican party has completely failed to stand for its principles and has not had the courage to stand up whether it be Paid Family Leave, project labor agreements, or even ballot questions. Since, the people in New Jersey have not been given an alternative, they say, we’ll just vote for the Democrats.
MM: Sure, sure.
SL: We don’t have two parties in New Jersey, we have one party…the Party of Big Spenders.
Apparently, the left has become so arrogant that they believe we no longer know how to do simple math. The Huffers are boasting in big, bold letters that President HopeNChange is cutting the budget. Unfortunately, the guys at Hotair remembered their 4th grade math. Obama is cutting $100 million out of a $3.5 trillion budget. That’s 0.0029%. Wow. Now there’s some fiscal discipline! You sure showed us, Huff!
The Great Recession tests the Charlotte and American Character
We are going to have a hard time no matter what plan wins this weekend. The issue re times is, will the plan ensure long hard times.
I wrote those words amidst the credit crunch last September when Charlotte’s unemployment rate was under 6%. It now stands at over 10%. Friends and business associates lose their jobs every week and nearly all live in constant worry about their future.
No matter which TARP plan had been adopted by Bush’s Paulson (pictured above with Bernanke), Obama’s Geithner (pictured below), or whomever McCain would have imposed, America was going to have a hard time given the mistakes in policy I document below in a re-print of my column foreshadowing the likely generational test of American character we were about to endure.
The enduring has begun and I am now convinced that the recession is, indeed, accurately titled by Examiner.com in our network-wide accounting of same taking place today, as The Great Recession.
Any chance that the hard times could be limited was lost with the election of Barack Obama and his massively irresponsible policies that have will keep investors on strike for years to come and that promises to destroy America’s currency.
The new president and Democrat majorities (Speaker pictured with President above) had a chance to limit the recession to post-WWII averages but forfeited that chance with a stimulus bill that only stimulates government growth. The only reason the economy hasn’t plummeted faster and that the stock market has had a mini-rebound is due to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s printing press stimulus.
From September:
Many Americans are now in the midst of a year-long hard time born of skyrocketing energy prices and/or the housing/credit crunch. It has been nearly impossible to get small business loans for many months and home loans for all but the top ten percent of credit risks for many more months.
This column has long chronicled the Democratic Party’s explicit policy of energy self suicide since 1978 in restricting access to expanded oil drilling and their regulations (especially including the Endangered Species Act and environmental lawsuits) making the building of oil refineries and nuclear power plants nearly impossible.
Below, I discuss the artery-hardening diet the Democrats have force-fed the credit markets since 1998 that is the cause of the present crisis. But before we look at what got us to this precipice, let us look at where we are.
Bush Debt vs Obama Debt (see chart and recounting of September crisis in original article at Examiner.com)
April 2009
We now know that they were not held accountable in 2008. They must be held accountable in 2010 and if we want to limit the damage that will cause more real hard times and that will have to be repaired after 2010, Tea Party-inspired Americans must let their representatives in Congress hear their voices NOW so that they will stop:
Cap and Trade or EPA regulations that will devastate the poor, lower and middle income families, large and small businesses, and the over all American economy with the higher energy prices Obama said we needed to be taught a lesson and to bankrupt the coal industry;
The $3.6T budget that will devastate the US Dollar, bankrupt the nation and mortgage the future of America’s next generation to foreign bondholders; and
Socialized medicine.
They must be held accountable politically. Their policies must be rejected economically.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Examiner.com columns
Legal Editor for The Minority Report
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
I’ve been doing a lot of thinking lately about the brewing hostility between moderates and conservatives in the Republican Party. Not only does it look like “RINO-hunting” is back in vogue, but we now have “Charging RINOs” to go with them. Meghan McCain, for instance, seems almost giddy about the prospect of a civil war over the soul of the GOP.
Now, personally I fall firmly on the conservative side of this skirmish and there are people who I think the party can do without. On the other, I’ve never been a big fan of “RINO-hunting” or even the term “RINO”. There are a lot of center-rightists in this country, and in many cases they are a great asset to the GOP (and at the very least we need their votes). In fact, I’ve realized just how two-minded I am on the issue by examining my own opinions on two potential Senate primaries in 2010.
On one hand, I would love to see Pat Toomey knock off Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania. On the other, I have openly advocated taking out Louisiana’s conservative-yet-tarnished Senator David Vitter and replacing him with the extremely moderate Rep. Anh “Joseph” Cao. So, why take out one centrist while working to elect another? For me, the answer lies in defining the difference between what I would call a “constructive moderate” and a “destructive moderate” (or, if you’re not into tact, a “true RINO”) – and I can find no better prototypes than Specter and Cao.
We’ll start with Specter. He’s not necessarily a liberal, and he votes with us most of the time – so it’s hard to make the case that he’s in the wrong party. Furthermore, he seems pretty strongly rooted in his socially and fiscally moderate beliefs. He’s not a guy who operates with his finger in the wind, and I respect that. However, there is a serious problem with his attitude. He has no problem labeling himself as a Republican, running on our tickets, and cooperating with our legislators when we happen to agree with him on something. However, when there are disagreements (and they occur often), he goes completely AWOL.
Not only does he vote with the Dems, but he makes a show of shoving it in our face and kvetching about what a horrible party we’ve become. Yes, he’s with us more often than not, but he only gets excited when he’s poking us in the eye – and he is happy to soak up press that results from being the guy tearing down GOP plans from within. He’s not interested in building the party as much as he is in being the kicking, screaming voice of an otherwise long-dead brand of Rockefeller Republicanism. He has become a cancer, and he needs to be cut out – period.
Now, let’s look at Rep. Cao. He may be almost four decades younger than the Gentleman from Pennsylvania, but like Specter he seems to be a moderate if there ever was one. He’s been a Republican less than two years, he’s open to working with Democrats, and he flirts with breaking ranks on every single budget vote. Furthermore, he is more than happy to request lots of earmarks for his district. Now, in his defense, I would note that he always comes down right on those budget votes and that, as the representative of New Orleans, he has more justification for those funding requests than any other Congressman. Still, we can safely say that he is clearly a moderate on everything but the life issue.
However, Cao’s attitude is radically different than Specter’s. He’s the type of guy who got into politics because he genuinely wanted to help people, and he talks constantly about the fact that his goal is always to do what is best for his district. And whereas Specter is bridge-burner, Cao is a bridge-builder. He’s there to build consensus solutions, and while he sticks firmly to his center-right principles, he’s willing to work with both parties to make sure things get done. That, in my opinion, makes him a class act and the very definition of a statesman. Far from being a cancer, he could be a productive coalition builder in Congress for years to come.
This brings me back to my original point about the rise of moderate voices like Meghan McCain, who not only claim to be the only future of the GOP, but are ready to go to battle for their cause. I happen to have a good deal of respect for Miss McCain, but people like her need to decide whether they are with Specter or Cao. They can work with us to help acheive our common goals – in which case, I’m ready to support them wholeheartedly. However, if they continue the march toward some sort of apocalyptic ideological confrontation between the various wings of the party – they will find themselves significantly outnumbered and doomed to failure.
So, Meghan, shall we build bridges or burn them? The choice is yours.
Alex Knepper has called Rick Perry a “traitor.” Basically Knepper is accusing Perry of treason. Treason is defined in the Constituion as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Is Perry levying war against the United States? Is he supporting an enemy of the United States or giving them aid and comfort? Let’s review Perry’s quote:
Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that…My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.
Perry argues there is a danger of disenfranchisement that could hurt the country His statement is impolitic, it is not treasonous, not even close. Even going on the record as favoring secession wouldn’t be treasonous as long as you didn’t actually endorse taking up arms to achieve the goal. This is why groups like the League of the South and the Second Vermont Republic are not arrested,. Advocating a political platform doesn’t make you a criminal, no matter if that would be off the wall. If Perry had advocated secession, I certainly wouldn’t someone that hotheaded as Governor.
Alex writes:
Anyone whose response to “should we secede?” is anything other than “Of course not; America is the greatest country on Earth and anyone who thinks that the American project is a failure is a deluded fool” should be considered looney tunes at best and an outright traitor at worst. Rick Perry falls into the category of the treacherous because he is a sitting governor and has more responsibility to uphold than a nutty militia member hiding out up in Idaho.
The irony is that in attacking Governor Perry as a crazy militia man, Alex is in effect behaving as a vigilante, rewriting the definition of treason as he sees fit. Constitution? Who needs a stinkin’ Constitution when Knepper’s on the case.
The question of secession itself is an interesting one. Do I think secession can be done legally? No, though courts have never ruled on this issue, I think the idea of legal seccession doesn’t ring true to me for a very simple reason. There’s nowhere in the Federal Constitution, or as far as I’m aware in any State Constitution laying out provisions explaining a process for secession or for severability of the union.
Imagine if there were a right to secession. Wouldn’t it be bizarre if this right were intended, but no one left behind any legal instructions on how secession was to be accomplished? In Southern States during the Civil War, it was ratfied by majority vote. Somehow that doesn’t quite seems a sufficient process.
Secession is always an extra-legal, extra-constitutional process. I definitely agree with Alex that secession should not occur, indeed so does Governor Perry who said, “We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it.”
So, the problem seems to be that Perry hinted that possibility some time in the future, there could be secession. Is this unreasonable?
In Alex Knepper’s world, sure. Alex seems to be under the impression that America is magic. There is nothing that can be done to it, no matter how idiotic, insane, inane, or infantile that change it from the Bright and Shining City on a hill to a tyrannical house of horrors.
History tells us otherwise. The Romans enjoyed a great degree of freedom in the Ancient world, but the Republic gave way to the Empire. In our country, we’ve seen freedom recessing, and the very foundations of the nation crumbling.
Is it impossible that some evil could come on the nation that is so bad that a response of seceding from the Union is viewed as justifiable? I don’t consider it probable, but it is possible.
Imagine a scenario where the Constitution has been suspended and a dictator has taken over the federal government. Or imagine a genocidal regime ordering killings of racial or religious groups in mass numbers. Or what about a pure Communist regime that abolishes private property and the free market system?
It’s the stuff of world history, and only arrogant fools assume it couldn’t happen here. We thankfully have many safeguards that generations ago would have been considered foolproof. Unfortunately, we’ve been busy the last few years trying to prove ourselves fool enough to do it.
Conversely, anyone talking secession as a serious option RIGHT NOW is a hothead. Given that hundreds of thousands died last time we tried secession, I’m certainly NOT looking for a repeat. I’d rather people NOT discuss secession as it’s definitely NOT on the table at this moment. However, I don’t think it constitutes treason to do so.
Over the American Spectator, Philip Klein takes a look at Steve Schmidt speech, making the case for gay marriage. Here’s Schmidt:
It can be argued, although I disagree, that marriage should remain the legal union of a man and a woman because changing it to admit same sex unions would undermine the most basic institution of a well ordered society. It can be argued according to the creeds and convictions of religious belief, which I respect. But it cannot be argued that marriage between people of the same sex is un-American or threatens the rights of others. On the contrary, it seems to me that denying two consenting adults of the same sex the right to form a lawful union that is protected and respected by the state denies them two of the most basic natural rights affirmed in the preamble of our Declaration of Independence – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That, I believe, gives the argument of same sex marriage proponents its moral force.
Now Klein, responding:
This is more or less where I stand. My political beliefs are always rooted in the basic idea that people should have the freedom to do what they want as long as they do not harm others in the process, and I don’t see how allowing two people of the same sex to marry harms a third party. In my ideal world, government’s role would be limited to granting something akin to civil unions for everybody and the concept of marriage would be preserved for religious institutions, who would have the right to marry or not marry whoever they choose. But as long as government is in the marriage business, I just don’t see the harm in extending marriage rights to same sex couples.
I think there are better and worse arguments for gay marriage, and conservative cases like Schmidt’s (he goes a little deeper in the speech), are at least rhetorically more persuasive than the stuff coming from the left. But, I think both Schmidt and Klein have missed the mark here. Schmidt simply cannot mean that the Declaration of Independence demands that the government recognize any union between two consenting adults. What if I wanted to form a union, with my neighbor, where I all-but made myself his slave? Would the government be required to “recognize and respect” that union, through the legal code? No doubt Schmidt would answer no, because slavery is unAmerican. Fair enough. How bout this… what if I wanted to form a union, with my neighbor, where we agreed to perform the Warrior Yoga pose, every day at precisely 9 am. Would the government be required to write a law to accommodate our union, and change the tax code to reflect our quirky, devil may care, symbiosis? Of course not, and it’s not hard to imagine all sorts of examples like this.
To this, Schmidt and Klein might complain that I’ve created fanciful scenarios, which aren’t examples of marriage. Yet, this is precisely what gay marriage opponents argue; that whatever gay unions are, they aren’t marriage. You could think it all sorts of nice that two people wish to come together to celebrate that elusive quality crooned about by Pat Benatar and Sara Bareilles, and nonetheless feel that this isn’t what the government’s promoting through marriage. And this is the point: not that gay unions are harmful- that’s something for people to hash out, individually, through their religion and conscience- or un-American, but that they’re not the sort of union that would justify legal recognition. Whatever you think of that argument, Klein and Schmidt are pretty clearly not addressing it.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
In an event that the MSM will largely ignore, the Obama administration effectively gave itself power to regulate carbon dioxide, with serious ramifications for the auto and coal industries:
The government took a major step in that direction Friday, concluding that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases “endanger public health and welfare” under federal clean air laws, that they help cause climate change, or global warming and pose an enormous threat “in both magnitude and probability.”
It is the first time that the federal government has said it is ready to use the Clean Air Act to require power plants, cars and trucks to curtail their release of climate-changing pollution, especially carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.
The agency said the science pointing to man-made pollution as a cause of global warming is “compelling and overwhelming.” It also said tailpipe emissions from motor vehicles contribute.
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson cautioned that regulations are not imminent and made clear that the Obama administration would prefer that Congress address the climate issue through a broader “cap-and-trade” program that would limit heat-trapping pollution.
But she said it was clear from the EPA analysis “that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations” and steps are needed to curtail the impact.
Even if actual regulations are not imminent, the EPA action was seen as likely to encourage action on Capitol Hill.
It’s “a wake-up call for Congress”—deal with it directly through legislation or let the EPA regulate, said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., who chairs the Senate committee dealing with climate legislation. If Congress doesn’t move, Boxer said she would press EPA to taker swift action.
…In addition to carbon dioxide, a product of burning fossil fuels, the EPA finding covers five other emissions that scientists believe are warming the earth when they concentrate in the atmosphere: Methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
This really infuriates me. Obama has unilaterally (remember how they hit Bush so hard for all his so-called unilateralism, even though he sought international support for the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions?) enabled the government to damage the economy, for the sake of chasing an unproven scientific theory. He has got to go in 2012.
In my previous article, I called Governor Rick Perry a traitor for his outlandish suggestion that the secession of Texas might be an appropriate reaction to increased federal spending. To my genuine shock, I was mostly condemned by site commenters, most of whom told me that Perry was “standing up for state sovereignty” or that he was merely being hyperbolic, akin to the juveniles who threatened to move to Canada upon the re-election of George Bush. Disgruntled ex-Ron Paul aide Eric Dondero decided that I am a “RINO” because I refuse to play along with Rick Perry’s neo-Confederate crap.
Of course, I never said a word about the 10th Amendment — which I obviously support — and no sitting Democratic governor ever threatened to move to Canada.
And I also so happen to love this country more than to threaten to bolt whenever the federal government implements policies that I disagree with.
I frequently refer to Harry Reid as a traitor because, throughout the course of the Iraq War debate, he undermined American unity and morale for the sake of political expediency. Rick Perry has just done the same thing. We’re facing uncertain times, with a terrible recession, difficulties in Afghanistan and with our projection of power abroad, and mounting federal debts and deficits. Rick Perry’s solution to all this? Fire up the crazies. Hint at dissolving the union. Anything but unity! Anything but constructive solutions!
Anyone whose response to “should we secede?” is anything other than “Of course not; America is the greatest country on Earth and anyone who thinks that the American project is a failure is a deluded fool” should be considered looney tunes at best and an outright traitor at worst. Rick Perry falls into the category of the treacherous because he is a sitting governor and has more responsibility to uphold than a nutty militia member hiding out up in Idaho. (On the bright side, we’ve found the leader of the ODS movement.) He’s undermining America at the basest of levels.
Thankfully, the man’s hubris is self-defeating and his vanquishing at the hands of the eminently reasonable Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is all but assured in the upcoming primary.
EDIT: Commenter Tommy Boy adds “I’m a little upset because he’s created another way for the left and the media to dismiss arguments against greater federal intrusion into the states.” It’s a good point. Perry’s completely right about the 10th Amendment and I fully supported Texas’ resolution. It was a great way to grab publicity for states’ rights causes. Now Perry just makes states’ rights proponents look like a bunch of loons. Thanks a lot, traitor boy.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
Gail Collins rightly takes Rick Perry and the “secede from America first” crowd to task, in her newest column. She writes:
This all started during the recent anti-tax protests. You undoubtedly saw the pictures of the demonstrations full of people wearing teabags or tricorner hats who kept comparing themselves to the founding fathers at the Boston Tea Party. True, when it comes to taxation without representation, they were slightly different from colonial New Englanders on the minor point of having representation. But let’s not be picky.
I have not been all that impressed by the tea party movement, for various reasons. Whatever you think of the country’s fiscal climate, it’s hard to argue that we’ve reached some kind of high tax plateau. There were whole generations of Americans who never even contemplated tax rates this low (think 1930 til 2002). Do the tea-partiers expect Obama to raise the top marginal rate to 85%? Why would he, when he’s so blaisse about trillion dollar deficits? So, we’re very far from loyal Englishman tossing overboard the symbol of their empire, after an agnozing decade long discussion about representative government and the taxation system. If we must have tea parties, we’d be better off conjuring the image of a little girl sitting on a pink chair, chiding her teddy bear to use only one lump of sugar. At least that has the advantage of conveying a message of restraint. But, some of Collins’ criticism is frankly bizarre, and riddled with the sort of assumptions that mar a liberal’s shot, even when they have the right target. She goes on:
Have you ever noticed that the states where anti-tax sentiment is strongest are frequently the same states that get way more back from the federal government than they send in? Alaska gets $1.84 for every tax dollar it sends to Washington, which is a rate of return even Bernard Madoff never pretended to achieve. Yet there they were in Ketchikan waving “Taxed Enough Already!” signs and demanding an end to federal spending.
Also, have you noticed how places that pride themselves on being superpatriotic seem to have the most people who want to abandon the country entirely and set up shop on their own?
These are meant to be exasperated asides- to other bunkered, cosmopolitan liberals- but they don’t make a whole lot of sense. If Alaskans want to “end federal spending”, and they benefit from federal spending, doesn’t this make them more, not less, principled? So what exactly is she implying here? Or is this the typical Marxist pabulum about false consciousness? The other bit is no better. Conservatives have just spent 8 years listening to liberals who threatened to move to Canada; presumably so they could die waiting for a surgery; some of us spent 2 hours listening to a liberal praise a country where that’s one of the better ways to go. Liberals invented the “I’d take my ball home in defeat, only home is a bastion of imperialist swine and Gaia pillagers” tact; some conservatives are only just now picking it up, and they’re rank amateurs in comparison. I’d quote the rest, but it’s more of the same. To be sure, these conservatives are terribly worrying. Tea parties are harmless enough, but secession is deadly serious and every sensible conservative should look askance at Perry’s comments. But, Collins does liberals no favors by taking legitimate criticism of a fringe, though vocal, element of the conservative movement, and injecting it with silliness.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
***DISCLAIMER*** This post is NOT to be viewed as being anything other than my personal opinion concerning how to debate liberals and democrats who decide to comment on this site. It in no way reflects the views of the site owner (unless he decides to weigh in on this topic), nor is it a specific refutation or condemnation of those who have acted/will act in ways contrary to this advice.
I’ve noticed that a few new names have surfaced recently, and they’ve had the decency to self-identify themselves as liberals and democrats. I get the whole attitude of “This is a Conservative/Republican site,” but that’s not a good reason to get impatient with them, call names, and in general be dismissive of their comments. In a sense, they are guests on this site, and it’s never a good thing to treat guests badly. As conservatives, we are/should be better than that.
Other than just being decent, there are practical reasons to play nice. They didn’t come here on accident, and they didn’t comment purely to stir things up. Ok, the latter’s an assumption, but even if they did, that doesn’t change the need to be respectful. Their comments are opportunities to win converts to conservative ideas, plain and simple.
Some of you may say “Hey, they’re committed liberals! They’re never going to change their views, so why does it matter?” First, if conservatism IS a better, more rational political philosophy than liberalism (and I believe it is), several should be convertable on the basis of superior ideas alone. From personal experience, I have witnessed a relatively non-political person (who thought (s)he was a liberal democrat) discover a strong conservative streak through exposure to politics. Treating them poorly simply because they’ve labeled themselves as liberal and democrat is a sure way make sure they DON’T consider conservatism.
Philosophically, however, there are committed liberals who aren’t convertable on the basis of argument. Surely, it shouldn’t matter how you treat them? Again wrong, and for more reason than just because “we’re better than that.” Think for a minute, here. When you respond to a liberal commenter, are you just responding to them? No, anyone who’s viewing that thread can see, and I’m certain there’s several people that do that who aren’t committed to liberals or conservatives, Democrats or Republicans. Why not take the opportunity to show them that a conservative response is a reasoned one, and employs facts to make their arguments without resorting to cheap theatrical ploys and childish name-calling?
The facts of the political situation is this: conservatism (and Republicans) is in trouble electorally. The senate elections of ’10 aren’t really favorable to us, and there’s virtually no chance we retake the Senate (we’d have to win some 30 senate elections out of 34(?), and that’s pretty much unheard of). That being the case, we all should make the extra effort to do what we can to bring in new voters, and if it means a little extra patience with people you disagree with, is that really so much to ask?
Dana Milbank confirms something I’ve already noticed on the left.
The left is now The Man and The Establishment. They give orders to auto and bank CEOs as if they were waitresses. There are plans for cap and trade, socialized healthcare and bills protecting abortion. Isn’t this what liberals always wanted?
Still liberals on blogs and on television are animated by seething hatred and anger.
It makes sense for Republicans to be a bit frustrated given that they have no say in the United States government and disagree vehemently with the government’s actions.
You’d think liberals would be graceful towards their vanquished foe as Obama promised. Instead I noticed liberals exhibiting as much anger and hatred now as before when Bush was President. It’s as if after finally defeating a foe, liberals sulk away in anger because they’re not allowed to kill them.
Milbank mentions this common sentiment among liberals:
“I am angry because the whole Republican party has not been rounded up and thrown into a black site,”
I also commonly see the left refering to Republicans as mental defectives or as fascists. It’s almost as if some Democrats need someone to hate. If Republicans just died en masse, I think many Democrats would have to pretend Republicans were still around just to have someone to hate.
H/T: Gary G. Howell
I suffered through the European apology tour, the pro-Palestinian rhetoric, the new Cuba policy and the Chavez embrace, but now I have had enough;
…delivered a blistering 50-minute speech that denounced capitalism and U.S. imperialism as the root of much hemispheric mischief. The address even recalled the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, though Ortega said the new U.S. President could not be held to account for that.
What was Barry’s response?
“I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old,” Obama said, to laughter and applause from the other leaders.
Mr. President, charm is a great weapon, but we expect our President to defend our values and national interests. President Obama continues to prove his campaign critics correct, that when it comes to foreign policy, he is not ready for the big job in the big house. I somehow doubt John McCain would have sat in the conference silently and allowed a Sandinista to humiliate the United States.
Our nation and President were also humiliated by Bolivia’s Morales, as he used the summit to announce that his authorities have prevented an assassination plot (hint-it was an American plot).
“Obama said three things: There are neither senior or junior partners. He said relations should be of mutual respect, and he spoke of change,” Morales said. “In Bolivia … one doesn’t feel any change. The policy of conspiracy continues.”
He said if Obama does not repudiate the alleged assassination plot, “I might think it was organized through the embassy. I want to gain confidence,” he said. “I don’t want meddling in my country.”
Oh, and while all of this was occurring, Laura Ling and Euna Lee remain in a North Korea prison, soon to be on trial for espionage and Iranian clerics were convicting and imprisoning a US citizen.
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com or Facebook.
In a sort of continuation of Max Twain’s “President of the world? Not so much.” post yesterday, Israelis have begun to worry about Obama’s stance toward their country:
Watching the drama unfold inside Israel, the increasingly tense dialogue between US President Barack Obama and new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is taking on all the trappings of a duel.
Almost every day brings news of another sore point between the two countries, a source of yet further inflammation of their once warm relations.
…No less a figure than White House chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel — whose father fought with the militant Zionist group the Irgun, and whose appointment had provided such reassurance to Israeli officials — was quoted this week laying down the law to Israel.
If Israel wants US help to defuse the Iranian threat, Mr Emanuel was reported to have told Jewish leaders in Washington, then get ready to start evacuating settlements in the West Bank.
…Then on Thursday came the news that Mr Netanyahu’s planned first meeting with President Obama in Washington next month had been called off.
Mr Netanyahu had hoped to capitalise on his attendance at the annual American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in Washington to visit the White House.
But Administration officials informed Mr Netanyahu’s office that the President would not be “in town”.
Washington sources added that the Obama Administration would not be continuing the tradition that had developed during the Bush years of hosting Israeli prime ministers whenever they showed up in town, sometimes with just a phone call’s notice.
…While Mr Netanyahu has refused to endorse a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict agreed to by his predecessor, President Obama has made it abundantly clear that the US will accept nothing less than Israel living side by side with a sovereign Palestinian state.
Mr Obama is also demanding a freeze on Jewish settlement expansion in the West Bank, and has dropped the Bush administration’s opposition to Hamas being part of a future Palestinian Authority government.
That sure doesn’t sound like change we can believe in.
A new Quinnipiac poll shows that Florida residents prefer Charlie Crist to run for another term as governor:
Closer to home, Florida voters prefer 42 – 26 percent that Gov. Charlie Crist seek another term in Tallahassee rather than the U.S. Senate. The feeling is consistent across the political spectrum and across the state.
This may weigh on Crist’s 2010 decision, but I still say his style would fit better in the Senate. However, with the prevalent anti-Washington sentiment among much of the general electorate, if Crist really does want to run for president in 2012, he would serve himself best by running for another term as governor.
Chris Cillizza made a post about fundraising in his “The Fix” blog Thursday. He included some noteworthy names. In the “Heroes” category:
Mitt Romney: Like him or hate him, you have got to give the former Massachusetts governor his due — he can raise money with the best of them. Romney collected $300,000 for his Free and Strong America PAC in March, bringing his total fundraising for the organization to more than $870,000 for the year. Romney will, without doubt, set the pace for the 2012 Republican presidential field — the standard by which all cash-collection for GOPers will be measured.
Rob Portman: National Republicans promised that the former Ohio Congressman was a star in the making and, in the first quarter at least, he delivered on that promise. Portman’s $3 plus million raised total was slightly misleading as it included a $1.4 million transfer from his old House account but the $1.7 million he collected in the first three months of the year are damn impressive anyway.
Mark Kirk: The Illinois Republican is trying to decide whether to run for governor or Senate (or neither) in 2010 and his first quarter numbers — $696,000 raised — showed that he would be a formidable presence in either contest.
And in the “Zeroes”:
Roy Blunt: For a former member of the House Republican leadership who is allegedly the pick of the Missouri party establishment for the state’s open seat race, Blunt’s $542,000 did not impress — especially when compared to the $1 million plus Secretary of State Robin Carnahan (D) collected in the same time period. If there was any doubt whether former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman would run for the GOP nod, there shouldn’t be now.
Palin Watchers: The Alaska governor’s “Sarahpac” isn’t filing a report until July — taking advantage of new disclosure requirements at the FEC. That means we have to wait three more months to figure out whether or not she can transfer the energy for her among grassroots GOPers into actual campaign dollars.
Jim Bunning: You can’t say that the Kentucky Republican didn’t warn us. Bunning told reporters recently that his fundraising was going “lousy” and he didn’t disappoint with just $263,000 raised in the first quarter of 2009. While Lt. Gov. Dan Mongiardo (D) didn’t blow the doors off with $430,000 raised in his first quarter as a Senate candidate, he is already in a stronger cash position that Bunning. Um, not good.
Rob Simmons: Knowing he was going to be running against embattled Sen. Chris Dodd (D) and with poll numbers showing he was well ahead of the incumbent, wouldn’t it make sense for Simmons to seed his Senate account with a few hundred thousand dollars raised for the first quarter? Apparently not. Simmons reportedly didn’t raise any “meaningful” money in the first three months of the year; Dodd, for his part, raised more than $1 million.
We see discouraging news from Simmons, as Dodd has made his seat ripe for the taking. I don’t exactly understand why Cillizza placed SarahPAC in the Zeroes category, as he didn’t talk about the organization’s actual fundraising performance. On the other side, Mitt continues to rake in the big bucks, perhaps hinting at Kristofer’s somewhat controversial post about Romney’s fundraising capabilities and deep pockets giving the GOP its best chance to take down Obama in 2012.
We cheered recent actions by self-described coalitions of moderate Democrats, primarily in the U.S. Senate, who, with unanimous Republican support, blocked passage of the huge energy tax called “cap and trade” and wondered aloud if this marked the Dawn of Blue Dawg Democrat power.
It didn’t.
The only other signs of potentially powerful coalitions that could block bailouts, massive budget deficits and higher taxes were statements by some prominent Blue Dawg Democrats and some votes in losing causes on the (non) Stimulus and Omnibus Spending bills as well as the Budget.
The fact is that even if all 47 of the Blue Dog Coalition (BDC) voted against the Obama/Pelosi agenda in the House, they couldn’t stop it. But far from all of them vote against their dear leaders, even after having campaigned against such liberal policies. Only 8 Democrats voted against the Stimulus and 20 against the Budget (12 of whom were non-blue liberals that thought the $3.6 trillion too little).
Heath Shuler (D-NC), a self-described fiscal conservative from Western North Carolina and one of the stars of BDC inexplicably voted for the budget after having voted against the Stimulus.
It seems that the blue dog brand of fiscal “responsibility” most resembles the kind that got former Republican Senator Bob Dole called the “tax collector for the welfare state” during his presidential campaign in 1996:
This year and next, big deficits are needed to pull the economy out of the ditch. But in the longer term, deficits must come down. The ”pay-go” rule, a Blue Dog obsession, is the way to impose discipline. It requires lawmakers to offset the costs of legislation with tax increases or spending cuts.
By the way, these centrists are not Lite Republicans. When Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican, said, ”I want to ask my friends, the Blue Dog Democrats, do you really want all this government?” he truly asked the wrong question.
The Blue Dogs have no ideological objection to government. They support such Obama priorities as healthcare reform. They just want them paid for.
I don’t think the large number of democrats and independents that drank tea on tax day were clamoring for higher taxes. I think their definition of fiscal responsibility means reducing the size of government and that potentially the most powerful political message sent by the Tea Parties is to Blue Dawg democrats that they best vote like they talk.
Consider the bold Freshman talker from Eastern North Carolina, Senator Kay Hagen:
The Democrats’ newest female star senator, Kay Hagan, surged into office last fall, swinging on the coattails of Barack Obama and his progressive message of change.
But since taking the oath of office, Hagan has signaled repeatedly that she won’t fall in lockstep with her president.
In her first three months in Congress, Hagan has criticized Obama’s budget, sponsored an opposition bill to a piece of tobacco regulation legislation that he supports and joined a conservative-leaning group of Democrats calling themselves the “Moderate Dems.”
Still, she has voted with Obama on every major piece of legislation so far.
Talk has always been cheap and has gotten a lot cheaper during this recession, but it appears that the notion that there are very many moderate to conservative democrats with the courage and inclination to vote that way is still a myth I dubbed “Drawl and that’s all” three years ago.
I do applaud the efforts of Evan Bayh (D-IN) and Ben Nelson (D-NE) in reducing the Stimulus, voting against the Budget, blocking Cap and Trade for now and slowing comprehensive health care reform, again, for now, and hope that their coalition can slow the Obama agenda. But one would have more of chance to have one’s hopes realized by pulling for the Washington Nationals to win the NL East than that moderate Washington Democrats will actually accomplish anything.
Even their efforts on cap and trade are being undermined by the Obama Administration via regulatory classification of the air we exhale as a pollutant.
The fact is that one, and nearly only thing voters accomplish when they replace an elephant with a cross bred jack ass and a blue tick hound is to empower San Francisco liberals to nearly triple Bush deficits; slash defense; raise taxes; appease enemies; and keep job producing investors on strike.
Maybe the pork they bring home will go to different constituents, but I doubt that and the soothing sound of their conservative rhetoric will suffice as a substitute for not stopping failed liberal policies that threaten the prosperity Americans expect.
Voters must watch what Blue Dawgs do rather than what they say.
Maybe if they invite them to a party and replace the Obama/Pelosi/Reid Kool-Aid in their water bowls with tea, they can make the Dog’s bite as big as their bark.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed.
Yes, in my shameless bid for self-promotion, I am citing a poem I wrote long ago (when I did such things). Feel free to critique, or even discuss something else altogether. This will be the last time I post a poem for the open thread (at least until I find or write some more!).
The Dark of the Night will Lose to the Light (more…)
Just another taste of where this nation is headed. Is it me, or does Obama seem most comfortable with the Russians, the Chinese, and Chavez?
U.S. President Barack Obama on Friday greeted and shook hands with Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez during an impromptu meeting with the anti-U.S. leader at the Summit of the Americas.
Photographs released by the Venezuelan government showed Chavez, a fierce foe of former President George W. Bush, smiling and clasping hands with Obama at the start of the summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders in Trinidad.
“I greeted Bush with this hand eight years ago; I want to be your friend,” Chavez told Obama, according to a Venezuelan presidential press office statement.
Chavez, a staunch ally of Cuba, had became one of the Bush’s administrations most strident critics. In March, he called Obama at best an “ignoramus” after the U.S. leader said Chavez obstructed progress in Latin America.
Ties between Washington and Caracas have frayed under Chavez, who often accuses U.S. officials of trying to topple him. Chavez expelled the U.S. envoy to Caracas in September in a dispute over U.S. activities in Venezuelan ally Bolivia.
Former soldier Chavez says socialist revolution can counter U.S. free-market policies in South America and he has become a standard-bearer for anti-U.S. sentiment in the region. But Washington has branded him a threat to regional stability.
Hot on the heels of Governor Rick Perry’s anti-American comments about secession and Tom DeLay’s dogged refusal to disavow them, we find that a fifth of Texas would like to secede from the Union.
In case you don’t quite recall what Perry said:
Texas is a unique place. When we came into the union in 1845, one of the issues was that we would be able to leave if we decided to do that…My hope is that America and Washington in particular pays attention. We’ve got a great union. There’s absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, who knows what may come of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we’re a pretty independent lot to boot.
And…
We are very proud of our Texas history; people discuss and debate the issues of can we break ourselves into five states, can we secede, a lot of interesting things that I’m sure Oklahoma and Pennsylvania would love to be able to say about their states, but the fact is, they can’t because they’re not Texas.
However, the latest Rasmussen Reports poll in the state finds that if the matter was put to a vote, it wouldn’t even be close. Three-fourths (75%) of Lone Star State voters would opt to remain in the United States. Only 18% would vote to secede, and seven percent (7%) are not sure what they’d choose.
A full quarter of Texas would either vote to secede from the United States or isn’t sure?
What is going on here? And what is happening when the former House Minority Leader — from our side, by the way – is interested in defending such a sentiment?
A silver lining? Kay Bailey Hutchison will oust this traitor, and Tom DeLay’s reputation, to put in in Texas-speak, is about as low as a snake’s belly.
This insight warrants a front page post, as Race42008 had received thousands of comments on the potential Lieberman Vice Presidential nomination.
I am not sure if any of our FPP’s or second page contributors made this point (sore loser statutes) at the height of the VP debate?
Former McCain veep vetter and Washington power lawyer A.B. Culvahouse made clear in remarks before a Republican lawyers group today that the campaign had investigated the legal issues surrounding putting Democrat-turned-independent Joe Lieberman on the GOP ticket last year and determined it would be a difficult task.
“Five states have sore loser statutes … [making] it very difficult for someone who’s not a member of the Republican Party to become the vice presidential nominee if they only switch parties to become a Republican shortly before the convention,’ Culvahouse said in public remarks at the Republican National Lawyers Association annual meeting aired on C-SPAN.
Culvahouse specifically noted the example of West Virginia, a state Republicans have relied on in recent elections, saying “the constitutionality of that statute has already been litigated in West Virginia.”
“So you were looking at going to the Supreme Court, which is not particularly appetizing,” he said.
McCain’s close friend and colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham was pushing Lieberman, and McCain himself was widely thought to be intrigued by the idea.
But Republicans warned of a revolt on the convention floor.
And now we learn there were some very real procedural roadblocks in the way of a fusion ticket, as well.
Tommy Oliver, Aron Goldman, Matt C, Kavon Nikrad and DaveG, all reported on the Lieberman VP speculation last fall.
–
Update: There seems to be some confusion over the ‘sore loser statute’. The statute seems to be state based and from my research, it may be interpreted differently by each state party/constitution.
Examples: Ohio, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
Ohio Code: (A) Notwithstanding section 3513.31 of the Revised Code, if a person nominated in a primary election as a party candidate for the office of representative to congress for election at the next general election withdraws as such candidate prior to the eightieth day before the day of such general election …, the vacancy in the party nomination so created shall be filled by a special election held in accordance with division (B) of this section.
Gamecock, please assist us with interpreting this law.
Surprisingly, Olbermann is not the craziest person in this video. That alone puts this into a special category of left-wing vile that stands out as some of the most hateful speech you will ever hear on television. Olbermann always tends to appear mild (hard as that is to believe) when paired with the disgusting Janeane Garofalo, who often offers up gems like this:
JANEANE GAROFALO: She dated him, so either she suffers from Stockholm Syndrome – a lot like Michael Steele, who’s the black guy in the Republican party who suffers from Stockholm Syndrome, which means you try and curry favor with the oppressor.
KEITH OLBERMANN: Yes, you talk about self-loathing.
GAROFALO: Yeah, and there’s, any female or person of color in the Republican party is struggling with Stockholm Syndrome.
Get that? If you are a person of color and you don’t act and think the same way as liberal people of color, then you have a mental disorder. I’m pretty sure suggesting that members of a certain race should all act and think the same way is…umm…RACIST.
As for Olbermann, what can really be said at this point. The face of this network used to be Tim Russert. Now, it’s Kieth Olbermann. That is something that should send a chill up and down the spine of every person who was ever lucky enough to watch Mr. Russert and unfortunate enough to catch a glimpse of Mr. Olbermann.
Here are a few of Janeane Garofalo’s fellow liberals protesting. Unlike the tea parties that focused on taxes, Garofalo’s fellow liberals protested things like the U.S. Marines and a 9/11 Memorial. I guess Susan Roesgen was too busy to interview these protesters over there on CNN. Content warning:
I used to think there was no liberal that the French would not adore. Apparently, I was wrong. It turns out that President HopeNChange is not just lousy here at home, but all around the world too! When a liberal like Obama can’t even win over the President of France, then I think the whole ‘he’s loved around the world’ propaganda goes up in smoke.
Mr Sarkozy is pouring cold water on President Obama’s efforts to recast American leadership on the world stage, depicting them as unoriginal, unsubstantial and overrated. Behind leaks and briefings from the Elysée Palace lies Mr Sarkozy’s irritation at the rock-star welcome that Europe gave Mr Obama on his Europan tour earlier this month.
The American President’s call “to free the world of the menace of a nuclear nightmare” was hot air, Mr Sarkozy’s diplomatic staff told him in a report. “It was rhetoric – not a speech on American security policy but an export model aimed at improving the image of the United States,” they said. Most of Mr Obama’s proposals had already been made by the Bush administration and Washington was dragging its feet on disarmament and treaties against nuclear proliferation, the leaked report said.
Sarkozy’s is also not fan of Obama’s base, the media:
On the personal side, the French President is needled by the adulation for an unproven US leader whose stardom has eclipsed what he sees as his established record as a world troubleshooter. “The President is annoyed by what he sees as the naivety and the herd mentality of the media,” said a journalist who is privy to Elysée thinking.
Essentially, Sarkozy has described Obama as weak, naive, vapid, empty, and doing things that Bush already did. The French bashing a liberal President? Now that’s change I can believe in.
What a speech and what charisma! Watch out Barack!
Out of Alaska, Palin’s star shines
Palin stands against abortion during Ind. speech
Some in the crowd wore white “Palin 2012″ T-shirts. Earlier, GOP National Chairman Michael Steele described her as one of the party’s standard bearers
Political Analysts Speculate On Palin’s Presidential Hopes
Just take a stroll over to Sarah Palin’s Facebook page and you’ll find 540,000 supporters all but begging her to run for president in 2012.
There are many anti-tea party talking points going on out there, let me go ahead and tackle a few:
Talking Point: Obama has only been in office 86 days. How can you protest him? He hasn’t been in office long enough to have even done any damage.
A: Under Obama’s watch we’ve seen a $797 billion Stimulus bill that’s a Pork-filled Christmas Tree to the left. In addition, his budget has come out and scorers at the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office say it will run up $9.6 Trillion in National Debt over 10 years.
TP: You idiots! Obama hasn’t raised your taxes! He hasn’t even raised taxes on the top 5%, you cretins! He’s cut your taxes.
A: I noticed the extra money on my pay stub and will send it to Republican causes.
In all seriousness, Senate Democrats are suggesting that Obama’s meager $12 a week tax cut be axed after 2010. In addition, Obama has already raised taxes on tobacco in order to pay for his S-Chip expansion. This hits working and middle income folks the hardest, as they make up the largest percent of smokers. Of course, it will be noted that they could and perhaps should quit, but you better pray they don’t because then your whole SCHIP program collapses like a house of cards if they do.
In addition, Obama’s proposals are full of expenses to the average American worker. His Cap and Trade deal will cost thousands to the average U.S. family in higher utilities. More importantly, is the future taxes Obama is bringing on us through his reckless and unprecedented deficit spending that will increase future taxes exponentially, as well as devaluing our currency through incessant inflation.This will shrink the value of everyone’s savings and retirement.
Plus, on top of that, Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) is talking about implementing higher taxes next year, rather than in 2011. Either way, when higher taxes are implemented it will have the effect of driving investment and capital out of the country. Do you think we can handle that?
TP: Oh yeah, where were all you deficit hawks during the Bush Administration?
A: As someone who personally spent 40 minutes scraping the Bush/Cheney 2004 Bumper Sticker off the back of my car-Shut up!
Conservatives were plenty ticked off under Bush. That’s why you had groups like Club for Growth challenging big spending Congressmen. You had the Porkbusters effort. Perhaps, the more common response though was a passive aggressive one. Republican campaign funds dried up, conservative voters didn’t show up at the polls in 2006, or to a large degree in 2008 either.
Of course, there were some people who chose to forget deficit spending during the Bush years. They usually defended this by stating we were in a War and pointed to the fact that deficits were at a sustainable level of under 3% of GDP, Obama’s deficits are in a much higher range that most economists say are completely unsustainable.
TP: Oh yeah, if you weren’t happy with Bush, why did most of you guys vote Republican?
A: Well, a lot of people did stay home or give “Blue Dog” Democrats who talked like Republicans a chance to govern. The vast majority of these Blue Dogs turned out to be lapdogs that went along with the President’s irresponsible spending programs.
Others did stay home, but for those who voted for Republican, either: 1) they supported someone who was doing good work in Washington or 2) voted Republican because they had a sense of how bad the Democrats would do if given the chance.
TP: Hey Genius, I don’t see you raising any solutions.
A:
TP: Ha! There are way too many Democrats in Congress for you to get any of that passed.
A: Not for long.
TP: Oh come on, America is laughing at you. Yesterday was the day conservatism died and the Republican Party ceased being a serious contender for winning elections.
A: The left is laughing, but America isn’t. Americans are concerned about this Administration’s run-away spending. If you find an example of a political movement that suffered doomsday as a result of hundreds of thousands marching for its causes, please let me know.
Gov. Palin’s appearance has generated unprecedented interest for this event:
The banquet in The Centre’s Bill Brooks Exhibition Hall has sold out of 2,180 tickets. Almost 800 additional tickets have been sold at $16 each for a live broadcast feed in the building’s auditorium.
An Insiders View on Sarah Palin
Palin came to Philadelphia in preparation for her vice-presidential debate. For those four days I was right there by her side and was very active with the advance team first and then with the debate prep team. … I think she has great potential to be a leader of the Republican Party. I think she was pushed into a role she wasn’t used to. I think that the McCain campaign treated her very badly. – Penn College Republicans chairman, Peter Devine
–
Palin battles the Obama administration over missle defense
In an open letter to the Obama’s Secretary of Defense, Palin stated;
“Your announcement of a proposed $1.4 billion reduction of the Missile Defense Agency’s budget is not the best decision for today’s threat environment. Alaska is committed to supporting continued missile defense implementation at Fort Greely and the development of future technology through our Kodiak Launch Complex, which has access to the Gulf of Alaska Maritime Exercise Area.
“I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program. It has the clear potential of impacting Alaska, Hawaii, and possibly the West Coast, with a nuclear-armed warhead. I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect our global missile defense shield.”
“I am deeply concerned with North Korea’s development and testing program which has clear potential of impacting Alaska, a sovereign state of the United States, with a potentially nuclear armed warhead,” Governor Palin said. “I can’t emphasize enough how important it is that we continue to develop and perfect the global missile defense network. Alaska’s strategic location and the system in place here have proven invaluable in defending the nation.
Our early opposition to reduced funding for the Missile Defense Agency is proving to be well-founded during this turbulent time,” Governor Palin said. “I continue to support the development and implementation of a defensive missile shield”
–
Palin fights for energy independence/domestic development
Some highlights from Governor Palin’s meeting with Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar;
“The fact that Alaska’s OCS potential to produce oil and gas is world-class is supported by the best peer reviewed scientific estimates. Alaska’s oil and gas resources can and should be a major part of the implementation of any creditable energy plan for our nation. Alaska has proven that these resources can be developed safely, but Arctic exploration and development is a slow, demanding process. Delays or major restrictions in accessing these resources for environmentally responsible development are not in the national interest or the interests of the State of Alaska.”
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com
Susan Roesgen, an Obama-supporting CNN correspondent, was called out by a protester following her biased coverage of a tea party held in Chicago.
Susan Roesgen may not have what it takes to be a reporter, but she is clearly qualified for other jobs such as Obama Press Secretary, Daily Kos Blogger, and host of MSNBC’s Countdown.
