Boo hoo hoo, Alaska misses its pork. Sarah Palin and the Alaska Republican Party say that Mark Begich should resign and run against Ted Stevens in a special election:
Gov. Sarah Palin (R-Alaska) called on Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska ) Thursday to step down from his seat and run in a special election in the wake of the Justice Department’s decision to drop corruption charges against former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Begich narrowly defeated Stevens in 2008, a contest overshadowed by Stevens’ October conviction.
Palin’s call came after a reporter at the Fairbanks News Miner emailed her a copy of a statement by Alaska Republican Party Chairman Randy Ruedrich calling for Begich to step down.
Asked for her response, Palin simply wrote back: “I absolutely agree.”
When the reporter wrote back to confirm that Palin meant she’d like to see Begich resign in order to hold a special election, the governor responded: “Yes.”
In an email to POLITICO, Palin spokeswoman Meg Stapleton confirmed the governor’s position. “She absolutely agrees that there should be a special election,” Stapleton wrote. “Stepping down to hold the special election would be the right thing to do.”
Can’t say I disagree, honestly. But Lord knows Begich isn’t going anywhere. For his part, he says that he absolutely will not resign.
The Iowa Supreme Court says the state’s same-sex marriage ban violates the constitutional rights of gay and lesbian couples, making it the third state where gay marriage is legal.
In a unanimous ruling issued Friday, the court upheld a 2007 Polk County District Court judge’s ruling that the law was unconstitutional.
Stop voting on this issue. Gay marriage is inevitable. It’s going to be nationwide in a matter of years. It will probably come through the courts. This is a losing issue for the Republican Party in the long run, and your grandchildren are going to think that you were bigoted jerks. Drop it!
Remember Ward Churchill? That University of Colorado professor notorious for calling 9/11 victims “Little Eichmanns”?
Well, a dingbat jury has found that he was unjustly dismissed from his post as professor of “ethnic studies,” and the ever-illuminating New York Times has this to say about the traitor:
The jury seemed at least partly undecided on what to think about the man at the center of the fight, whose essay made him a polarizing national figure.
Americans were “polarized” over the man who compared 9/11 victims to Nazis?
Which “Americans” did they poll to get that result? Noam Chomsky, Medea Benjamin, and Howard Zinn?
Hillary Clinton is a polarizing figure. Sarah Palin is a polarizing figure. Ward Churchill? Not so much.
Ah, but we’re not done yet. The article also asks this burning question:
Is Mr. Churchill, as his supporters contend, a torchbearer for the right to hold unpopular political views? Or is he unpatriotic or — as his harshest critics contend — an outright collaborator with the nation’s enemies at a time of war?
Is he unpatriotic? Let’s do something crazy, assume that words have meaning, and say that a working definition of patriotism is “love of country.” I know it’s out there, but bear with me.
If you believe that your countrymen are little Nazis, then can we safely, objectively say that you are not patriotic? I’m just asking.
This is the Times trying to be objective. But covering “all sides” doesn’t mean that you interview both a Holocaust survivor and a Nazi. Sometimes, things really are just plain as day. And yet the news media are stunned — stunned! — that their industry is dying.
—
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com
Over the last couple weeks I’ve been becoming disillusioned from politics and from Republicans in general.
It’s not so much that I suddenly recognize Republican mistakes or the hurdles that lay before conservatives. I like to think I was aware of those before the election.
What’s discouraging me is the sense that our politics are so screwed up that no good can come from politics.
I have this feeling that American voters have decided to embrace a politics of comfortable suicide just like Europe. They don’t think of it that way but they have embraced the idea that government exists to smooth out the rough edges of life. Government is being asked to replace the roles of family and community.
Read Charles Murray‘s recent columns if you want to know why a large liberal welfare state is a form of national suicide.
How long is it before a cradle-to-grave welfare state is put in place that stifles the American spirit?
I used to think it was a gradual process but now I see Obama rapidly putting in place a political structure that will forever change America to be more like decadent Europe.
I’m not an apocalyptic guy given to bold dark visions of the future. However what I see points me towards despair about America and American voters.
What can I look at to cheer up about America?
Where are the silver linings in the gray clouds ahead?
Where are the glimmers of hope that Americans may not be committed to a European path?
Speaking of Mitt… I’m kind of scratching my head over this one. Discuss…
Romney breaks with GOP on the issue of deregulation
By Reid Wilson
Posted: 04/01/09 08:09 PM [ET]Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R) said Wednesday that his party needs to take a fresh approach to government regulations in the wake of the economic crisis that has rattled the U.S. and world economies.
In an interview with The Hill, Romney said, “We as Republicans misspeak when we say we don’t like regulation. We like modern, up-to-date dynamic regulation that is regularly reviewed, streamlined, modernized and effective.”
Romney’s comments come as he mulls another run at the White House and the Republican Party grapples with how to come up with producing solutions to the housing and financial crises that were triggered by a variety of factors, including a lack of government regulation and enforcement.
…
“You have to have regulation, and we value regulation. What we don’t like is when you have regulation that was written in the 1920s or the early 1900s that hasn’t been updated for modern events.”
Romney added that regulations on some parts of the financial sector are “overly burdensome” while others are “nonexistent.”
Romney, who was a successful businessman before running the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics and winning election as the Bay State governor, said Congress was right to pass the controversial Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) last fall, but drew a distinction between preserving the nation’s financial system and bailing out companies.
“Had TARP not been passed, you would have seen a cascade of collapses of banks in America,” he said. “It’s not the jobs of bankers that TARP was designed to save; it’s the jobs of all of us.”
Similarly, Romney is among the many Republicans who support a stimulus plan, but not in the form Congress passed in February.
“The best stimulus with the highest multiplier effect is one which gives money back to people rather than having government spend more, and so I think they got it wrong. It’s too much weighted toward spending, too little weighted toward tax reductions,” Romney said.
The son of the former chief executive of American Motors, Romney’s comments jibed with those of some Republicans who have said bankruptcy is the only hope for the flagging U.S. auto industry.
“It is viable if we have a thorough and complete restructuring, not at the superficial level but at the fundamental level,” Romney said. “It doesn’t look like the UAW [United Auto Workers] or the bondholders have the stomach for taking the kind of haircut they need to make the companies viable. I think bankruptcy is looking more likely, given the failure of the parties to make the necessary sacrifice.”
Romney believes that one way to attract more minorities to the GOP is to pass immigration reform before the next election, saying the issue becomes demagogued by both parties on the campaign trail.
“We have a natural affinity with Hispanic-American voters, Asian-American voters,” he said.
Speaking in his Ritz-Carlton room with a pair of blue jeans on the dresser, Romney declined to criticize immigration hard-liners like former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), who backed Romney after he dropped his own presidential bid. Romney argued that all 2008 GOP candidates — including Tancredo — strongly favor legal immigration.
With the economy remaining a top concern for the vast majority of Americans, Romney’s experience as a businessman could come in handy as Republicans search for a credible voice to rebut President Obama.
UPDATE:
I put the italics around his remarks concerning Tom Tancredo because I thought he was wrong about Tancredo’s position, at least as what he stated during the primaries.
It turns out, I was right:
John Roberts then played a clip from the debate where Tancredo stated, “Are we actually ready to say, ‘Enough is enough’? We have to stop all legal immigration except for people coming into this country as immediate family members or refugees.”
“Did you really meant to say that?” asked Roberts. “Believe it or not, yes,” answered Tancredo. He went on to explain that in the past, big waves of immigration have been separated by periods of low immigration that gave time for assimilation. “Give us time to assimilate the people who have come here,” he urged.
It’s what I originally thought. Romney misspoke when he said Tancredo was strongly in favor of legal immigration. Until the immigration crisis is resolved, Tancredo, in fact, supports no immigration.
I thought that title would grab people’s attention. With so many Romney supporters counting themselves among the visitors of this site, I wanted to generate a serious, substantive discussion about the Governor. I’ve wanted to do this for a while, and I finally decided to follow through on it:
By most accounts, Mitt stands as the current frontrunner for the 2012 Republican nomination. From a personal perspective, I have maintained a skeptical view of Romney in the past, with concerns about the strength and depth of his conservative convictions (remember the important distinction between someone being conservative and someone being a Conservative). However, I believe that the Governor’s extensive executive experience and proven track record of managing turnarounds could hold the key to saving America from the Democrats’ Roadmap to Socialism and safeguard our nation’s long-term security and prosperity. From a broader perspective, we Republicans must use the 2012 primaries to vet the candidates with the utmost precaution and care, because we must nominate the absolute most capable individual to lead the party out of the wilderness and restore order to our country. This is where I hope the wisdom of Romney’s supporters will come into play, by granting me, and hopefully other readers of R4’12, a deeper understanding of the man who has generated such strong enthusiasm among so many people. With that said, I would like to open the dialogue by asking some important questions regarding Romney’s viability in 2012.
I’m really looking forward to reading and learning from the comments. Please everyone, let’s remain respectful and have an intelligent debate about a man who could become our next President.
Before the counting of absentee ballots even begins, Jim Tedisco has already taken the lead (by 12 votes) after voting machines were re-canvassed and errors were corrected.
From PolitickerNY
I’m never one to mince words when it comes to my opinion of the Huck. As most know, I ain’t a fan of Huck, Huckanomics, or much else.
However, Terry McAuliffe needs to lighten up and drink a beer or something. Seriously, the joke was in poor taste, as usual but the last thing Huck is calling for is “voter suppression.”
From the Huffpo:
While campaigning for Republican Virginia gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee jokingly made reference to voter suppression. He told supporters that it’s “their job” to keep McDonnell opponents from the polls: “Let the air our of their tires … keep ‘em home. Do the Lord’s work.”
McDonnell’s fans laughed, but Democratic candidate Terry McAuliffe isn’t amused. He sent a letter to his own supporters highlighting Huckabee’s comments. “People died for the right to vote in this country,” he writes, “and we have to protect it.”
The full letter:
We just found out that while campaigning for Bob McDonnell, Mike Huckabee told a crowd of Republicans that if they know people who aren’t going to vote for Bob, it’s their job to “Let the air out of their tires” and “keep ‘em home.” He even called voter suppression “the Lord’s work.”
This is no joking matter. People died for the right to vote in this country, and we have to protect it.
The General Assembly recently debated election reforms to help prevent voter suppression. But when Republicans on a House of Delegates Subcommittee voted to kill those reforms in a back room, Bob McDonnell sat in silence. Now, when one of his most public supporters is encouraging voter suppression, Bob’s sitting in silence again.
It’s time for Bob McDonnell to do the right thing for a change. And I need your help to put the pressure on him.
Click Here to Tell Bob McDonnell to Stand up for Voting Rights and Support Reforms to Stop Voter Suppression.
Look, one of the reasons I got involved in politics is that I love getting people engaged in the democratic process. The only way our system works is if we make sure people aren’t denied a chance to participate. That’s just one of the reasons that in the wake of the problems we saw in Florida during the 2000 election, I founded the Voting Rights Institute when I served as chair of the Democratic Party – so we could take action against intimidation, election errors, and disenfranchisement.
But we need to do more to prevent voter suppression here in Virginia. To get the job done, we’re going to need support from people on the other side of the aisle. That’s why it’s so important that you encourage Bob to get on board with election reform today.
Click Here to Tell Bob McDonnell to Stand up for Voting Rights and Support Reforms to Stop Voter Suppression.
Thanks,
Terry
McAuliffe needs to stay at a Holiday Inn Express for a few nights. This is laughably ridiculous.
They have no intellectual history. There aren’t any idiosyncratic, Republican heroes in recent history. Republican politicos like Bush1, Howard Baker, and Ford were moderate temperamentally and pragmatically, but they didn’t promote some sort of moderate ideology. They were modest outliers within an already existing ideological tradition; arguably right of center deviations from the mostly liberal ideological tradition of Republicans like Rockefeller and Romney. But, this deviation was never explicit. They weren’t trying to “reform” the party and would have failed had they tried; they lacked the ideological history to make their own brand of “moderation” anything more than a peculiarity of personal circumstances or a surrender to political realities. Yet, most reform Republicans want to do more than tinker around the edges of conservatism. What they’re proposing is an essentially different version of Republican intellectual orthodoxy. To make that kind of case at all, they need a comparable intellectual history. Why? Well, think about it. If I want to make a conservative argument, on a given issue, I don’t necessarily need to know too much about the issue. I have a set of ideas in my head (limited government, tradition, stability, anti-statism, etc) that give me a sort of short-cut to “answers”. Even better, I live in a country where those ideas have been so vibrant within the last 40 years, that even an ordinary citizen can sort of understand what I’m getting at. The reformists have almost nothing like this. They need to be running not just from something, but towards something. And that something has no roots. Before, I go farther, I’d like to talk a bit about realignment, because I think it’s relevant. If I had to make a thumbnail sketch of “realignment cycles”, it would look something like this:
1. The dominant party (party 1) experiences a great loss.
2. The former “out” party (party 2) consolidates its gains, by not screwing up too badly and winning a few more elections.
3. Intellectuals within party 1 now have the freedom to craft a new narrative, given the failure of the party during the previous vision.
4. Party 2 experiences set-backs due to overreach or ideological tunnel vision.
5. The new intellectual vision within party 1 takes advantage of these set-backs, and attacks party 2.
6. Some politician comes forward, and finally articulates that new vision in a broad way, while simultaneously attaching that vision to something in party 2′s intellectual history.
7. Party 1 regains its previous glories, but the decks have shuffled and the visions and coalitions of each party looks different.
That’s a perfect realignment cycle. Unfortunately, it’s rarely that clean. In 32′, Hoover loses and Roosevelt very clearly consolidates Democratic gains. This should lead us to step 3, where Republican intellectuals begin to lash out against the Republican orthodoxy that led to the loss. But, there’s a problem. It’s not clear what that Republican orthodoxy consisted of. The Coolidge laisezz faire model was never the Hoover model. Moderates attempt to pin the loss on that more conservative model, but come out a little muddled. What’s more, the moderates- like our moderates of today- have no intellectual history for their ideology. The 20′s ended nearly 100 years of intellectual conservative consensus, on the right, and near consensus on the left (with a few deviant types in the progressive tradition in the late 19th century). So you have steadily more moderate Republican candidates (Landon, Wilkie, Dewey, Dewey, Eisenhower), but none of them have a terribly compelling philosophy. The moderates take over the party (though still, not right away), but they don’t do much with it.
In fact, in the 40′s and 50′s, you start to see the real seeds of Republican realignment. Intellectuals like Buckley and Kirk begin to paint a broadly more conservative vision of the world, as the moderate Republican establishment fails to make gains with their vision. Even Eisenhower’s success is accompanied by massive Republican losses elsewhere. Nixon loses in 60′ on the moderate line, and finally the seeds planted by people like Buckley come to flower in Goldwater. But, we don’t have realignment yet, because points number 4 and 6 aren’t in place. To make a lot of history very short, Reagan finally comes along in 80′, when the Democratic orthodoxy is beseiged, and pitches the now fully developed intellectual vision, and ties it to Democratic institutions and ideas (remember his repeated admiration for Roosevelt).
What does this mean for today’s reformist Republicans? Where are the parallels? Well, it’s obvious that they too have a “Hoover” problem, and likely a much bigger one at that. Attempts to pin Republican losses on “the conservative vision” are bound to be unpersuasive, given that Republican losses occurred with men like George W. Bush, who explicitly rejected parts of that vision, at the helm. Republican orthodoxy, to the extent that it’s been challenged at all, has only been challenged by sort of neo-paleocons like Pat Buchanan. The bulk of our reformists are flying in the dark, much like the moderate Republican types in the 30′s. Like those Republicans, their most obvious ideological influence is the man who led the party into disaster. Unlike those Republicans, they don’t have the luxury of breadlines to scare Americans from conservatism, semi-permanently. If they hope to make their vision prevail, they’ll need to spend a lot longer than 4 years laying the groundwork.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com
With today’s YouTube announcement of his candidacy, we get out first official look at Candidate Simmons. Is this the man to take down Chris Dodd? Discuss.
Race42012 is pleased to present the following Op-Ed by frequent Page 2 contributor Liz Lane (a.k.a. Liz)
————————
There is lots of angry talk on politically conservative blogs lately, as to who or what groups should be “kicked” out of the Republican Party in order to make the party effective once again. That talk is unproductive. A vote is a vote, the party can and should make room for anyone. Thusly, along with the full-on conservatives, we have cafeteria-style conservatives: Fiscal conservatives with wild social values, social conservatives that love big government, spendthrifts that want to shrink government, etc. This is all fine and good, and illustrates beautifully the freedoms we enjoy in this country. We encourage all of them to vote with us.
Party leadership, however, cannot have that same luxury of arbitrary inconsistency if the party is to be viable. THERE HAS TO BE A HIGHER STANDARD FOR CONSERVATIVE PARTY LEADERSHIP. Please realize that the magnetic ability of any party to attract adherents depends primarily on the purity of the party leadership, and its congruence with the party message. The leadership must walk the walk. No hypocrisy allowed.
What message do conservatives expect to have promoted by their party of choice? Our message has been referred to as the three-legged stool: Social, economic, and political conservatism. This message must be communicated by and reflected in both the private lives, and the public speech of the party leadership in order to attract a passionate, committed following. Stay with me now, people.
The liberal leadership can get away with a substantial amount of hypocrisy every third election cycle or so. Why is this? My best two guesses are 1. They have convicts and dead people voting them into office, two groups quite unconcerned with hypocrisy, and 2. They are the default party, only elected into office when the Republicans have really screwed up. As in our present day situation.
As an illustration, let’s start with the obvious. There is one conservative thing about Obama – his rhetoric. If I’m not mistaken I’ve heard the terms “pay as you go,” “invest and save”, and “transparency”, slide down his silvery tongue in public settings. Contrast that conservative-friendly talk with the reality of a $10 trillion advance government bonus already paid by the generous and trusting taxpayers for services yet to be rendered. Painfully recall the ongoing parade of Obama administration appointees that are lobbyists or tax cheats, who if forced to withdraw are replaced by tax cheats of a slightly lesser degree. I could go on, but in the interest of keeping your attention I think it’s safe to say this president has got hypocrisy goin’ on, and not a lot of squeaks from their electoral base thus far.
Conservatives however, cannot get away so handily with hypocrisy. It is much more incongruent with the conservative message of responsibility. Responsibility, trust, integrity, you know, the foundational virtues of a strong and thriving society. So what happened to that grand message as of late?
Two problems with the rank and file of our party have allowed diluted and ineffective leadership to infiltrate and represent the party. Problem number one is the widely held belief that a person who is liberal in their personal life, can still be a good conservative leader publicly. This dilution has come about, of course, by an increasing number of rank and file Republicans who accept this inconsistency in their own lives.
Ineffective leadership has also come a slummin’ due to problem number two – the overwhelming desire of conservatives to fit in. To be loved. To be accepted into the loving liberal brotherhood. And in order to gain that acceptance, concessions have to be made in leadership choices so as not to anger or offend the liberals. These concessions are typically relaxed or abandoned standards of conservatism. (see Exhibit 1A John McCain) Consequently we see hypocrisy creep into our conservative message. Our image becomes adulterated to the point that it loses it’s appeal to the many strong, conservative Americans that are busily living their conservative lives, making up the finest building blocks of our society by growing traditional conservative families, creating businesses and paying their bills on time, complaining about trashy programming aimed at their kids and wishing their taxes weren’t so high.
Now, a sidebar for the people who think that conservatism can be only skin deep, and not necessarily go to the core of the person in order to be effective:
Once I posted a comment on a political blog that Newt Gingrich would not be a serious contender for leadership in the Republican Party because of his personal marital infidelity at a time when he was publicly condemning President Clinton for marital infidelity. ( Now, any holdouts still want to contend this occurrence is not hypocritical?) Nonetheless my post was met with an onslaught of protestations that personal character does not a leader make. I was admonished that one doesn’t have to be honest personally in order to be an honest political leader.
Alright. Say I concede that issue (which I absolutely do not). Stir in a Republican senator from Idaho who promotes family values publicly but is caught in the airport restroom promoting anything but that. Mix well with another Republican exposed for soliciting young boys, throw in a dash of embezzlers elected into office under the conservative banner, have a Republican president grow the government debt before leaving office to appease the incoming liberal leadership, etc. etc. etc.
The end result then, necessarily becomes what we have now. A party in which no one trusts. A party that seems to have no common direction, and no apparent leadership. When you are lead by a bunch of hypocrites, it’s tough to come to a consensus on who can be trusted to call the shots. The party loses it’s attraction to conservatives of every stripe. The magnetism that comes from a trustworthy, predictable brand name is lost, and the membership scatters and squabbles amongst themselves.
If we want to differentiate ourselves from the Liberal/Socialist/Democratic Party in the most meaningful way, how about becoming the party of “what you see is what you get.” And remember, just chanting it doesn’t make it so – we must choose leadership that reflects that principle, in order to make it a reality. Let’s use another popular republican as an illustration of this point.
Perhaps a good example of the kind of conservative purity and integrity we might seek in a party leader is…..Sarah Palin. Perhaps not. But go with me here. Why the instant attraction to Sarah by many conservatives the minute she walked onto the national stage?
Well that’s easy – you could tell where she stood on the issues by just LOOKING at her. Abortion? The value of achievement and motherhood for women? Just take a gander at the fam and Sarah’s own career path. Gun rights? Well, she’s from Alaska, animal pelts hanging behind her in the home videos. Fiscal responsibility? She shops at Wal-Mart, for goodness sakes. Palin was so easy to read. Her uncontrived, All-American demeanor – it was a beautiful thing. She sent shock waves through the conservative movement and folks couldn’t throw the door mat over the quasi-conservative old guy that brought her up on the national stage fast enough to get to HER.
In contrast, the liberal movement was caught unprepared. After a hasty conference, they responded to conservative enthusiasm by pointing out that Palin’s accent was hickish and unsophisticated. She dressed like a school teacher. Attractive beauty queen? Why no actually, she looked very much to liberals like trailer trash. She wasn’t advanced enough to realize you should abort your own offspring if they aren’t genetically perfect, and what was she doing bearing children after 40 years of age anyways, for goodness sakes. That just illustrated bad political judgement. In short, the liberal MSM sank their teeth into their distorted image of Palin in a visceral, gut reaction aimed at destroying the real-conservative-deal whose solidly principled being incidentally shed a harsh and revealing light on the hypocrisies they themselves exhibited.
Was there any substance to their attacks? They tried vigorously to insist Palin was dishonest, embroiled in scandal, but couldn’t substantiate anything. Apparently they’re still trying, the whole experience was so painful for them – they don’t want a repeat appearance. Palin still draws a crowd. Palin was pretty much devoid of the hypocrisy the masses have become so accustomed to in their career politicians, and core Republicans responded predictably.
Ahhh, remember the excitement of it all? The swell of hope that a worthy proponent of conservatism just might have stepped onto the national scene, and just might have a shot at influencing the direction of our country? Unadulterated conservatism speaks to people, my friends.
To summarize, I attribute our party’s current sorry state in large part to that widely held belief that a politician’s personal life doesn’t matter. It results when too many conservatives swallow whole the assertion that you can be a two-faced spendthrift, tax-cheat, adultering ex-convict, and still serve a term or two or three or four as the finest public servant in state history. Can you credibly argue that a person is not the sum of his/her choices?
Well, not so fast. In a party that, boiled down to its purest form says, “Trust me, I am who I say I am and I keep my promises, value your freedom, pay bills on time, live within budget, and preserve life in its most vulnerable forms,” it is not that hard to detect when the messenger is saying, do as I say, not as I do. And it’s an immediate turn off, both to real conservatives, as well as to potential converts weary of the same hypocrisy manifested in their respective parties.
Do we have any purely conservative candidates in our party? I mean fiscally, socially, AND politically conservative? You bet we do. And we need to pick the very best to fight our way back into the game. Who qualifies, you ask?
Well, fellow conservatives, that is a post for another day. As you retire to the quiet of your own personal study, just remember as history has shown, when true conservatism leads, the masses follow. Until then, we just wait, and bicker, and suffer under the current administration, struggling for an identity.
Connecticut may be getting a Republican Senator next year, if these numbers from Quinnipiac are to be believed:
Quinnipiac 2010 Connecticut Senate Race
- Simmons (R) – 50% (43)
- Dodd (D) – 34% (42)
Approval Ratings
- Simmons (R) – 39/12
- Dodd (D) – 33/58
Survey was taken March 26-31 of 1,181 registered voters. Numbers in parentheses are from the March 10, 2009 poll.
Dodd also loses by 4 points and 8 points to the other two GOP primary challengers.
As the Q pollsters themselves wrote, “A 33 percent job approval is unheard of for a 30-year incumbent, especially a Democrat in a blue state. Sen. Christopher Dodd’s numbers among Democrats are especially devastating. Since the AIG controversy, his approval rating among Democrats is down to 51 percent, and only 58 percent of Democrats will vote for him against Simmons, who at this point is the best known and strongest Republican challenger.”
Out of power in both houses of Congress and the White House, one would think that like the Republican Party, the Pro-Life Movement is in the wilderness and without leaders. However, this couldn’t be further from the case… In fact, the Pro-Life Movement is more united then ever. Case in point: the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner held earlier this month in Washington, D.C.
In case you are unfamiliar with the Susan B. Anthony List (SBA), founded in 1994, it is EMILY’s List, except the opposite: it elects Pro-Life women to Congress or Pro-Life men running against Pro-Abortion women.
This past election cycle, its connected PAC bundled and earmarked over $1 Million into key races across the country. Besided electing pro-life candidates, it mobilizes over 150,000 pro-life activists nationwide to lobby Congress on critical life issues, and even helped form the Pro-Life Women’s Caucus for the women it helps elect. It also trains future generations of activists by conducting training academies on college campuses.
Unlike many Pro-Life organizations, SBA was not left in the dust by technology, as it has a very clean, cool website. SBA also has over 1,000 friends on Facebook, is active daily on Twitter and has its own “SuzyB” blog.
SBA founder and president Marjorie Dannenfelser and former chairman Jane Abraham, with the help of Jeri Thompson, were the braintrust behind the wildly successful Team Sarah Ning website of over 60,000 members which helped defend Sarah Palin against attacks during the general election.
But, back to to the dinner, which was held at the historic Willard in downtown Washington. The dinner was so packed that there was barely any room to move around in the biggest ballroom the hotel had to offer.
To show how united the Pro-Life Movement is in the face of a White House and Congress lead by Obama and Pelosi, there were all sorts of factions of the Pro-Life movement present.
I saw many of its Catholic leaders, many of its Protestant leaders. I saw one of the leaders of the troops on the ground, 40 Days for Life founder David Bereit. I saw some of its leaders in Congress, such as Cong. Trent Franks, Cong. Jean Schmidt, Cong. Marsha Blackburn, Cong. Joseph Cao, and Cong. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who gave a fantastic speech centered on her baby boy with Down syndrome. I saw Romney backers, I saw Brownbackers. I saw Thompson backers, which was easy since Fred and Jeri Thompson headlined the dinner. I saw Ken Blackwell, I saw Michael Steele staffers. I saw past members of Congress, such as Sen. Spence Abraham, Cong. Mike Ferguson, and Cong. Bob Livingston. I also saw future pro-life members of Congress, such as Rob Wasinger, who is a candidate for Congress in Kansas.
The mood wasn’t what you’d expect: instead of being depressed about the number of babies that will be aborted due to Obama’s anti-life policies or the millions of tax dollars that are being funneled to Planned Parenthood, the mood was… wait for it… of hope. All the speeches were about looking forward, about pro-lifers taking back Congress.
This was especially evident when SBA gave out their annual Susan B. Anthony List Trailblazer Award, which is given to young women who are making a difference in the battle to end abortion. It was especially a proud moment for my family, as my sister, Christina, was given an award for her work in the pro-life movement (she got her start in the movement as SBA’s first intern long ago). However, the climax of the night was when Lia, a very bright 12 year-old girl, received the award for a very compelling and persuasive speech on abortion to her class (which of course, school administrators tried to censor) that was put up on YouTube and has been viewed by over 500,000.
SBA also used the occasion to announce its new, groundbreaking project, “Votes Have Consequences,” a program that will target members of Congress who vote out-of-step with the pro-life views of their district. The project is being headed up by former Cong. Marilyn Musgrave, and will start targeting members in Fall of this year, well ahead of 2010 elections.
Overall, the night was a smashing success for the Pro-Life Movement. It strong, is here to stay, and isn’t going anywhere until every unborn child is welcomed into the most prosperous nation on Earth and women are protected from the horrors of abortion.
Billy Valentine is vice president of Students for Life of America and can be reached at billyvalentine(at)gmail.com
Susan B. Anthony List Trailblazer Awardees with Jeri Thompson and Marjorie Dannenfelser at the Susan B. Anthony List Campaign for Life Dinner.
12-Year Old YouTube Star Lia with Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-OH)
Many people, no matter the circumstances, are eager to run a primary challenger to incumbents they feel have strayed from the three-legged stool conservative positions and are hurting party image. Similarly, many people NEVER want to run a primary challenger against an incumbent, claiming that a 50% conservative Rep is always better than a 20% conservative Dem.
Votes for who runs the chamber are very important, as that decides who will be driving the agenda. In this respect, I’d prefer to vote for a Rep who was less conservative than the Dem opposing him, as that Rep will put in someone who will put forth a more conservative agenda than the Dem will.
Also to consider, however, is the impact that person has on the national picture. Does this person hurt the GOP image in relation to the top two or three issues that voters care about (anything beyond that is unlikely to hurt the party nationally)? If so, it may be better to lose that seat to Dems, even though it costs you a leadership vote, on the basis that their presence hurts you nationally, and may end up costing you several seats in other areas.
Cases in point for 2010: Sens Specter and Vitter. Spending and the economy are top issues for voters right now (unless you can provide evidence to the contrary, that’s what I’m going with). Sen Specter cut a deal on the “stimulus” for a share of the pork (and has a record of supporting pork), while Sen Vitter voted no (and I’m not sure of his record overall, but it hasn’t been nationally prominent if he has). Both would vote for a more conservative leadership, so both have value. Sen Specter, however, has publicly and prominently crossed the line supporting pork (which is against what the the Rep position on spending SHOULD be), while Sen Vitter has not. I’d certainly say “no” to primarying Sen Vitter, and I’d be indifferent to primarying Sen Specter.
Another case in point from 2008 was Sen Stevens. Yesterday, his conviction was overturned, a result that, had he won the case or had the charges been dropped before the election, he almost certainly would have won the race. To me, this isn’t a missed opportunity or an issue of regret. I am glad he’s no longer in the Senate. He hurt the party image in an area where it needs help. He was a major reason the GOP lost, and here’s why. Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008 because they didn’t have credibility on fiscal discipline. Sen Stevens was a MAJOR player in spending abuse, and because of his greed, and the greed of others like him (cough, Pres Bush, cough), the GOP tarnished the disciplined spending image gained in 1994 to 1998, in turn allowing Dems to exploit the issue and win seats.
In short, I’m not yet actively seeking to primary Sen Specter, but he tries my patience on a very important issue to voters and I wouldn’t be sad to see it happen.
So apparently the Democrats have a new line of attack to demonize Republican proposals to actually practice long-term fiscal responsibility, save America from Pres. Obama’s horrific budgets and erase the “Party of No” image applied by the Dems: equate the GOP’s alternative budget with Herbert Hoover. Witness none other than Mr. Tingly Leg himself, Chris Matthews, spreading the misinformation through the Democratic Party’s news outlet, MSNBC:
On the contrary, Chris, let’s take a look at Hoover’s real record, taken from everybody’s favorite online encyclopedia:
Does that sound like the House Republicans’ alternative budget, which would, among other things, cut the corporate income tax to 25 percent, exponentially simplify the tax code, reform Medicare and Medicaid to enourage innovation by the states, enhance portability, and facilitate competition (which equates to “gutting Medicare”, as I have seen one Democrat blogger put it), and expand and diverisfy America’s domestic oil exploration and production? Matthews speaks about deflation as if the government can control inflation and deflation with the flip of a switch. News flash, Chris: the government spending in the name of fighting deflation will trigger inflation, which is a tough foe to defeat once it rears its ugly head.
In an episode of cruel irony, consider the next paragraph of Hoover’s Wikipedia entry:
Franklin D. Roosevelt blasted the Republican incumbent for spending and taxing too much, increasing national debt, raising tariffs and blocking trade, as well as placing millions on the dole of the government. Roosevelt attacked Hoover for “reckless and extravagant” spending, of thinking “that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible,” and of leading “the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history.” Roosevelt’s running mate, John Nance Garner, accused the Republican of “leading the country down the path of socialism”.
Does all this double-speak constitute a greater offense than Obama and other Dems so frequently blasting Bush for “reckless spending” and “the greatest peacetime increase in government spending in America’s history”? I’m not sure, but the bottom line is this: Republicans should follow Rep. Ryan’s lead and formulate additional innovative policy proposals that leave the Dems fumbling for answers, as Ryan did with Matthews at the end of the video clip, and offer foresighted alternatives to the Obama administration’s Roadmap to Socialism.
1) Mitt Romney - Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. His financial advantage, his organizing ability, his economic expertise, his CPAC win, and the bridges he is building with his PAC to congressional Republicans will help Mitt stay atop this group well into the campaign. This time, the governor will be able to apply his resources to organization and message instead of introduction. His recent performances in interviews have been great, and he continues to be the strongest messenger against Obama’s economic agenda.
2) Mike Huckabee - Huck is the biggest beneficiary of Palin and Jindal’s stumbles. With the fresh faces vying for much of the same voters Huck will rely on, mistakes on their part only help his chances. Unlike Palin, Gov. Huckabee’s organization is working very well, and Huck is making appearances and fundraising and proving to be the steadiest of candidates other than Romney. Palin and Jindal still have more star power, but if they don’t get their acts together, Huckabee with be the big winner. He will likely have the first chance to be the populist voice for the GOP if the other contenders fail to catch up soon.
3) Sarah Palin - Governor Palin’s fumbles are continuing, as her Alaska team communication struggles with SarahPAC continue to create bad headlines for the former VP nominee. Jindal’s bad speech will remind many in the party how important communication ability is, and no one connects as well as Palin. However, if her team continues to struggle with it’s most basic functions, she will turn off insiders, organizers, and the advisers that she will need to mount a successful run. The love the base has for her will likely keep her a front-runner, but her team needs to get it’s act together, and soon.
4) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford is probably the biggest GOP winner from the Stimulus debate. He is quickly becoming a favorite of both insiders and the liberatian/Ron Paulites. That kind of combination could make Sanford the real dark horse in 2012. With Jindal and Palin both stumbling, watch for Sanford to continue to rise. Sanford is a very skillful politician, with a vice grip on one of the most important primaries, and with a record that can both appease the base and attract Libertarians and moderates.
5) Newt Gingrich - Palin’s stumbles are Newt’s opportunities. Newt is standing in for a big fundraiser, recently became a Catholic, and is clearly building networks for a run. He seems far more serious now then his ‘Will I or Won’t I’ vanity-driven teases in 2008. Gingrich has reformed his image somewhat, from the polarizing figure of the mid-90s to the idea-man of American Solutions. A ‘New Contract with America’ could be a big vote getter and help the former Speaker control the debate. At age 69 in 2012, however, he may be too strong a symbol of the past for a new generation of voters.
6) Bobby Jindal - His SOTU response wasn’t great, but those speeches never are. His subsequent appearances have been flawless. Bad speech aside, Jindal still managed to finish second at CPAC without even showing up. At this point, however, he seems focused on reelection, and that will almost certainly take him out of the race. His recent rough patch (designed by a MSM fearful of a diverse GOP rival to Obama) may force Jindal to target reelection and then 2016 instead. However, a VP nomination remains a strong possibility.
7) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message. I imagine T-Paw’s Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters. I can see T-Paw being a suitable hybrid/compromise candidate between the Romney and Palin wings of the party.
Schneider: Spring training for the next presidential race
Is it the policy of CNN to use only the most unflattering photographs of leading Republicans? Ugh!
Romney’s all over television, and this week he’s addressing a national Republican fundraising dinner. His interest in the next race?
“That is too far to speculate on,” Romney told CNN”s John Roberts on American Morning.
That’s the political equivalent of, `”Aw, shucks.”
Sarah Palin got a late season call up last year. She recently urged a dinner of Alaska Republicans to keep the conservative faith.
“Sometimes, the middle of the fence is really the most uncomfortable place to be,” John McCain’s 2008 running mate told Republicans at the Anchorage Lincoln Day Dinner.
Palin has declined an invitation to address a national Republican dinner in June. She’ll be replaced by the party’s leading pinch hitter, Newt Gingrich. Is the old timer looking to make a comeback?
“I am not undertaking any steps at the present time to do anything about a presidential campaign,” the former House Speaker said last month after an appearance on the Sunday talk shows.
Try taking that to the bank.
Mike Huckabee’s the Republicans’ position player. He ran last time and got most of his support from southern Republicans and religious voters.
“My conservatism is rooted in my understanding of the scriptures,” the former Arkansas governor told CPAC last year.
The leading rookie prospect? Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, who created a stir when he spoke to a Republican dinner last month here in the nation’s capital.
“Do you want the president to fail?” Jindal asked himself. His answer: “It depends on what he is trying to do.”
–
Talk about stumping for a candidate. Governor Huckabee campaigned for Bob Mcdonnell in Virginia. Like him or not, Huckabee was made specifically for the blogosphere. He is the most quotable candidate we have.
“You come to places like Virginia and you see that with Bob McDonnell, we’ve got a very strong pulse,” … “Cancel the memorial”
Mcdonnell on the drums, Huck on the bass.
Not allowing the surgery for her breast cancer to slow her down, Carly Fiorina is considering a run for the United States Senate.
Carly Fiorina said she is “seriously considering” running for public office in California next year.
Fiorina made the comments Tuesday to reporters in Washington, D.C., at the Technology Policy Institute, a conservative think-tank that recently named Fiorina as its chairwoman.
The San Jose Mercury News said Fiorina indicated she was considering a contest against Democratic U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer.
The headline at Drudge is that the president gave the Queen of England an iPod as a gift.
Oh my God. I just — please, someone wake me up.
OK, you bunch of Brits — here’s some DVDs for you, an iPod for you…
Next up: a cellphone for Sarkozy? A new laptop for Merkel? A Kindle for Putin?
Rep. Paul Ryan lays out a true alternative to President Obama’s disastrous budget. Obama’s minions were already out in force to attack Ryan ‘Alinsky style‘, making April Fools jokes rather then discussing how Ryan’s budget actually makes the tough choices Obama is afraid to make. Making cuts in Medicare is a tough choice; deciding whether to triple or quadruple the deficit is not. The OMB should abandon their demogaugery and listen to Paul Ryan before they damage our country any further.
![[Review & Outlook]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AJ259A_ryan_NS_20090331212427.gif)
From the AP:
Republicans in the House Wednesday pressed a budget plan that would cut taxes and radically overhaul Medicare, offering a stark alternative to blueprints offered by President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies.
The plan, drafted by Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, the top Republican on the Budget Committee, also freezes overall spending on domestic programs passed by Congress each year and repeals most of the spending in Obama’s recently passed economic stimulus bill.
Despite spending reductions, the plan projects permanent deficits exceeding $500 billion into the future, fueled largely by big tax cuts.
The GOP plan would offer a dramatically simplified tax code in which couples would have the option of a 10 percent rate on the first $100,000 of income, with a 25 percent rate thereafter, with the first $25,000 of income exempt from taxation. Single could get a $12,500 exemption and a 10 percent rate on income up to $50,000.
Taxpayers could also opt to remain in the current system.
On Medicare, workers under the age of 55 would enroll in private plans and receive premium subsidies equal to the average Medicare benefit when they retire. Benefits would not be changed for people in the program or people 55 or older.
After months and months of denying it, it has dawned upon me that the only person out there that can stop the GOP from becoming the Stupid Party, the only person who can break the Religious Right’s chokehold on power, the only person whose economics expertise is more important than his social qualifications…is Mittens.
I’ve dreaded coming to this conclusion. But a Northeastern Mormon businessman would do wonders for the GOP’s image. And it’s looking more and more like there’s going to be no other alternative. Romney is out there fighting the Obama plans one by one on the talk show circuit, and doing a damn good job at it. He’s baggage-free, smooth, and articulate.
I’ll have to trust him to be consistent over the next few years — and trust me, he’s on a short leash — but it’s looking more and more like he’s the only alternative to Palin and Huckabee. Especially now that Newt has decided that he’d like to take a Religious Right tack.
The US media would have you believe President Obama is loved by the Europeans. Now that President Obama has arrived in Europe, we can focus on European sentiment towards the Obama administrations handling of the economic crisis. What are European leaders saying about Obama’s socialist economic policy, their perception of the American attitude towards this global recession and declining American power and influence? Race’s Brick-man had an excellent post on Angela Merkel’s opposition to the Brown-Obama plan, but the anger and opposition is more wide-spread than what the media is filtering to the US public.
1) This conservative MEP is speaking to Obama’s bail-out buddy, UK P.M. Gordon Brown, on his policies of spending and regulation. www.hannan.co.uk
2) As Anderson Cooper continues to report on ”The Obama’s Royal Debut”, China and Russia are proposing to replace the US dollar with a new global currency. Many of you may have discarded this proposal or not heard about it at all, but we must understand how serious of a threat this is to our economic interests. The collapse of the US economy, devaluing of the US dollar and the fact that the Chinese are holding nearly $1 trillion of the US debt, mean that our government may not be able to prevent the G20 from pushing forward with this initiative.
Literally and symbolically, the US will begin on a path away from superpower status. The EU will support the new currency agenda because it will be structured around the Euro, not the Yen, as the Chinese continue to artificially support its value. Beginning in late 2010, expect the US dollar to slide as government spending is restrained to counter growing inflation. The Obama administration is achieving short-term success in propping up the US dollar with unsustainable levels of spending, but the rapidly rising debt, expected Republican gains in the 2010 elections and global opposition to our economic policies will force our government to capitulate to the demands of the Chinese and Russians.
3) I would have loved to see the reactions of the White House press when they landed in London and learned that nearly all of Europe’s leaders believe that President Obama is forcing the industrialized nations towards a second great depression. Props to Jake Tapper for telling the truth.
4) Just in case anyone was wondering who convinced President Obama to adopt Governor Romney’s position on auto industry loans and restructuring, have no doubt it was Canadian P.M. Stephen Harper. Restructuring benchmarks/deadlines and government loans tied to significant cost reductions in labor have been non-negotiable with the Canadian government. Canada is contributing 20% of the loans to the auto-industry, but these loans have never been a blank cheque.
Conclusion: We have written about the growing credibility gap of President Obama and his policies on the world stage. Even though we are being proven correct, this is not the time to gloat as our families and communities suffer from the deepening recession. Yesterday, several of our commenters outlined the Republican parties path to success; the GOP must once again become the party of pro-growth policies and pro-growth politicians. It must be our label and our reputation, not just a line in our policy platform. We must identify in the minds of voters once again, that we are the articulate, grumpy old sods who protect their employment, investments and low tax rates.
Because of the deepening economic crisis and growing public anger at President Obama’s failed policies, electoral opportunities will be handed to Republicans in 2010 and 2012, so let us recruit articulate, pro-growth candidates, change the parties image and focus on what we naturally do best. If socialist Europe can do this, while standing up to President Obama, certainly, ‘yes we can‘ as a party.
Yes, the announcer of dawns has left the country, but will continue his eight year old streak of filing a column on, and related to, all holidays and other notable days.
The Sun rises three hours sooner here in the Azores, than in Dixie, so this will be a concise, yet informative post.
Despite the fact that I feel a bit foolish for risking bureaucratic snafus that could deny my re-entry into the Shining City on a Hill, I will deign to inform the anticipators of eastern sunrises of all things April foolish.
Who was the first April Fool?:
Eve
When was April Fools’ Day first celebrated?:
One year after Eve bit the apple
By Whom?:
Lucifer
Who will be the last April Fool?:
Lucifer
Largest group of April Fools in America today:
Tied: Prior Bush voters that stayed home or voted for Obama in 2008 and useful idiot pro-life democrats
What color should one wear on this day to capture the spirit of the occasion?:
Whatever color Al Gore wears
What is the official symbol of the day?:
a jackass
How can you know if someone is lying to you on April Fools’ Day?:
When the lips of lawyers not in the Azores, elected democrats in DC, Teleprompters of the United States, and cabinet members of TOTUS speaking about taxes owed, are moving
Enjoy the day, despite its extended suspense, and take comfort that from April 2, 2009 through March 31, 2010, only democrats will continue to celebrate foolishness.
Small comfort, but that’s all we got.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report
