I am not of the opinion that it is pro-choice to provide regular, no-questions-asked, large sums of taxpayer money to “non-profit” groups like Planned Parenthood, when these groups have a significant conflict of interest (e.g., profit) with regard to whether or not abortions are performed.
Allow me first to discuss Kansas’ globally-recognized record on abortion:
…………………………………
Kansas is the only state — indeed, the only location that I’m aware of in the entire democratic, Western world — that allows for elective, late-term abortions.
Update: I’m going to briefly expound on the US-to-world comparison, as a result of a fair challenge made in the comments section, with regard to Canadian laws; indeed, after a quick search, one learns that according to Pew Forum, “Since 1988, when the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that existing abortion restrictions were unconstitutional, abortion has been legal for any reason at any stage of pregnancy.” I do not claim to be a final authority on international abortion laws. However, I did help attempt for two years in the Kansas legislature to enforce our state’s elective late-term abortion laws, and it is my strong understanding that, functionally, Kansas is one of the few places world-wide where such procedures are easily and openly available.
Here is a link to the main HTML page for the “World Abortion Laws 2008 Fact Sheet” provided by the Center for Reproductive Rights. According to the PDF that is made available detailing 2008 laws, 56 countries from Albania to Vietnam containing 39% of the world’s population are under the category of “least restrictive” (this includes the US), and note that even in this category, the list assumes prohibition after “12 weeks unless otherwise indicated.” The fine print for Canada states “Law does not indicate gestational limit; regulatory mechanisms vary.”
The bottom line: regardless of nationality, there are few people who, even for a good profit, will perform abortions on a viable fetus. Therefore, in the nations that legally allow elective abortions in the third trimester, it should not surprise us if providers of this “service” are difficult to obtain; this might be the situation in Canada.
We do have a 11-year-old law that prohibits late-term abortions when there is not a permanent threat to the mother’s health. Nearly every honest attorney is convinced that this language is clear enough with regard to the intent, but due to a combination of reasons, the law has never been enforced:
As a result of the unequal application of Kansas laws by various elites, Wichita abortionist George Tiller is very successful. Dr. Tiller charges in the range of $5-10,000 per late-term abortion, he is known to advertise in Europe, he is known not to follow up on whether patients are doing OK post-procedure (remember, these patients supposedly have permanent mental health conditions), and he is known not to inquire as to whether under-18-year-old patients have been raped.
…………………………………
Today, at KansasProgress.com, we publish a letter from Kansas Senator Tim Huelskamp, who is running for Congress in the open First Congressional District. In the letter, Huelskamp asks Kansans to ask now-Governor Mark Parkinson (the 2002 Kansas GOP chairman who in 2006 ran on the Sebelius Democratic ticket) to sign — and not use his line-item-veto authority that he has in spending bills — legislation approved by both houses that will remove the $300,000 annually that Planned Parenthood receives in taxpayer money. In part:
With the state and local governments in Kansas facing a budget crunch, it seemed ridiculous to me for taxpayers to continue funding an organization that is currently facing more than 100 charges of falsifying abortion records and performing illegal late-term abortions – and one that refuses to report multiple cases of sexual abuse.
Of course, the liberals aren’t happy about this. On Tuesday, pro-abortion activists decided to apply pressure on the governor. But asThe Lawrence Journal-World reported, there were only about 25 people who rallied outside the Capitol. However, they delivered a petition signed by about 3,000 people.
Governor Parkinson received the budget bill last Friday and has until this coming Monday, May 20th to act upon it. I urge you to contact his office at (877) 579-6747 and ask him to resist calls to veto what they call the ‘Huelskamp Amendment’. No one – especially an entity like Planned Parenthood – has a right to be subsidized by our tax money.
LifeNews.com reports that there are only six states at the moment that have similar laws in place.
While I already would support such legislation, what adds to the significance of this legislation is the knowledge (as reported here by LifeNews.com, and here by LifeSiteNews.com) that Kansas Planned Parenthood clinics are willing to cover up alleged sexual abuse:
Two Kansas state legislators, Senator Tim Huelskamp and Representative Lance Kinzer, have released new evidence exposing a similar institutional pattern of cover-up of sexual abuse.
Though the other cases occurred with undercover investigations last year, the new recording in Kansas comes this week.
In a recorded telephone conversation between a girl posing as a 14-year-old and a Planned Parenthood employee at its Overland Park, Kansas facility, the employee is informed that the young girl believes she may be pregnant by her 23-year-old boyfriend.
Planned Parenthood invites the young girl to the clinic for a pregnancy test and informs the potential statutory rape victim that her sexual abuser can come to the clinic to pick up the contraceptives.
The lawmakers tell LifeNews.com that, at no point during the recorded conversation, does the employee raise any concerns about sexual abuse, despite the fact that the situation described constitutes Aggravated Indecent Liberties under Kansas law.
A little more than a decade ago, the New York Yankees reeled off an impressive string of championship wins with superstars like….Paul O’Neill, Tino Martinez, and Scott Brosius. Then in 2001, they lost the World Series after a bloop single by Luis Gonzalez. Over the next half dozen years, rather than attempt to rebuild sensibly, the Yankees signed one superstar after another, virtually ignoring their minor league system, in an attempt to win immediately. They added Sheffield, Arod, Matsui, Abreu, Clemens, etc, etc. None of it worked. They have not won a World Series since and, as of now, are looking at the prospect of a second straight lonely October.
The Republican Party, like the circa 2002 Yankees, is a former behemoth looking to immediately bring back its glory days on the backs of overhyped, ill-fitting, hucksters. I’m speaking, in particular, about the NRSC’s frankly insane decision to endorse Charlie Crist for the Florida Senate seat, 17 months before the election. In 2008, Florida was the second reddest Obama state, after North Carolina. It was redder than Virginia, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, and New Hampshire. It was nearly as red as Missouri, and not a whole lot less red than Georgia. After the 2008 elections, Republicans in Florida held a nearly 2 to 1 advantage in both state Houses. As the rest of the country bled Republicans at every level, Florida Republicans lost just 1- yes, ONE- seat in both houses.
As of this writing, the latest poll on the gubernatorial race has a guy who looks like this
beating a strong Democrat by 6 points.
And yet…the NRSC has decided endorse a Republican who, even now, proudly proclaims he would have voted for a stimulus bill that received THREE Republican votes. One of those Republicans has mosied on over to the Democratic caucus and the other two have ACU ratings in the 40′s. Nor is this the Specter situation in the slightest. Specter probably has 1 term left in him and there was a reasonable case that, given Toomey’s poor fit for the state, Specter made more sense. Charlie Crist, in contrast, is in his early 50′s; that seat is his for 30 years if he wins it. And Marco Rubio is no Pat Toomey. He’s a Hispanic is a state with an 18% Hispanic population, who lives in Florida’s biggest Democratic city. He’s a Hispanic in a party that, with the departure of Martinez, and Specter, and Coleman, will not have a single minority of any stripe in the Senate. But, of course we are pretty short on nicely tanned careerists.
This is like a nightmare and if I wasn’t convinced that the GOP establishment was rotten with power hunger to its very core, I’d expect to wake up any moment now. As it is, I’m not even remotely surprised. This is what happens when an entity is filled with people looking out for their own hides, their own legacies, and the glorious and perpetually out of reach NOW. The Yankees found out what happens when you shoot for the moon as the earth goes to rot. A decade later, they’re still recovering from their ill-conceived, one off plots to reach the pinnacle. If the establishment gets it way, we’ll still be recovering when 40 ACU Charlie Crist hobbles off the Senate floor in 2042 to the acclaim of liberals everywhere. And we’ll wonder just what the heck happened to this guy:
Or anytime between now and his promised January 2010 close date.
Is the debate over Congressional approval for funds to close Gitmo merely a cover for a President that doesn’t want to keep another far left war power campaign promise?
Will any potential GOP presidential nominee call out the President on this now?
Funds in the current defense budget provide for the operation of the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay. Detainees at Gitmo have been shuttled back and forth from there to the United States and back during the Bush Administration and Obama can do the same. See pictured the U.S. Naval Brig at Charleston, S.C. where a number of Gitmo detainees have been transferred and continue to be housed.
No current law prevents President Barack Obama from transferring some or all of the prisoners at Gitmo to Naval Brigs or other secure locations within the United States any time the Commander-in-Chief decides.
One does not need funds to “close Gitmo” to transfer the prisoners. Gitmo was a naval base funded by the Defense budget before 911 and will be after the temporary detention facility ceases to operate.
And since when did ceasing to operate cost a dime? Operating is what costs! Ceasing to operate saves money!
President Obama can keep his promise to close the prison at Gitmo by January 2010 without any new act of Congress or any new authorization of funds.
If he has the courage and the will.
And quite frankly, given Supreme Court rulings, the detainees will gain no new civil rights in Kansas that they don’t already have in Cuba. The court has ruled that the length of the 99-year lease from Castro makes it US soil for the purpose of the application of the US Constitution, as distinguished from detention facilities for prisoners of war on the soil of Afghanistan and Iraq.
The court has ruled and Holder has confirmed that the Obama Administration agrees with the holding that POWs may be held indefinitely until the war is over, so that the only way any Gitmo detainee gets an “OJ” trial in civil court is if President Obama chooses to give them one.
So what’s the big whup? Is Obama hiding behind Pelosi’s skirts due to the Dems new found spines on a matter that is a distinction without a difference? The ONLY difference between Gitmo and Leavenworth, is the proximity of an escaped prisoner to Americans available to kill.
But does anyone really fear escape? I don’t.
What I do fear is that the GOP is again letting appeasing Dems off the hook by letting them look tough on a silly issue.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Last week New Hampshire Governor John Lynch (D) said he would only sign same-sex marriage into law if an amendment was made to the bill to clearly state that religious institutions do not have to perform same-sex marriages. Well, his amendment passed the Senate, but today it failed in the House 188-186. This really puts Lynch in the hot seat because he has promised he would veto the bill if the language wasn’t added, but I think he’ll feel guilty about vetoing it because he is socially progressive and probably sees opposition to gay marriage as being on the wrong side of history. This is great news for Republicans though because Lynch is going to offend a lot of people either way this plays out.
Roger Simon, over at the Politico, has written up a hit piece on Dick Cheney and the Republican Party. After going on about how Cheney, being “old and bitter,” perfectly represents today’s GOP, he brings up the old Democrats-as-nurturing-mother/Republicans-as-strict-father paradigm. Cheney’s a tough dad that keeps you safe from terrorists, Simon says, sarcastically:
One of Cheney’s greatest attributes is that he revives the whole “Daddy Party vs. Mommy Party” argument that has bedeviled Democrats for decades.
Republicans say they are the Daddy Party. They are strong and will protect us from communists, terrorists and people who want to take away our guns.
Ah, but I would contend that it’s actually the Democrat Party that’s the Daddy Party.
It’s like an irresponsible, deadbeat dad: it keeps spending money it doesn’t have on things it doesn’t need, and never comes through for you when you need him.
Or maybe it’s like a Sugar Daddy. It keeps handing out lots of goodies as long as we treat it well with votes.
Or perhaps it’s like an abusive father: it keeps beating up America, but half the public keeps coming back to it.
Simon’s screed continues:
After that, Maureen Dowd wrote: “Cheney, who had five deferments himself to get out of going to Vietnam, would rather follow a blowhard entertainer who has had three divorces and a drug problem (who also avoided Vietnam) than a four-star general who spent his life serving his country.”
To which the Republican wing of the Republican Party replies, “Yeah? So who wouldn’t?”
First of all, are we sure Maureen Dowd wrote that?
Regardless, it’s an asinine argument: didn’t Dowd choose to follow a neophyte, undistinguished senator over an accomplished diplomat, Congressman, governor, and energy secretary? (“Yeah, who wouldn’t?”) Moreover, didn’t they spend a lot of time bashing that very same four-star general when he wasn’t on their side? Leftists turn from being military-haters to jingoists as soon as they can use it as a stick to beat Republicans with.
More:
The Republican Party has no serious wing other than the Cheney wing. The moderate wing of the Republican Party is distinguished by the fact that it does not exist, and yet it is still shrinking.
Arlen Specter, senator from Pennsylvania, recently left the Republicans for the Democrats, and Jon Huntsman, the Republican governor of Utah, is joining the Obama administration as its ambassador to China.
I don’t even know what that second sentence means. I don’t think Roger Simon knows what it means, either.
But a few questions come to mind:
1) What’s “the Cheney wing,” anyway? The wing that dislikes President Obama?
2) How is Huntsman’s departure as governor an indication that he represents a “shrinking of the moderate faction”? He’s still a member of the Republican Party!
3) I suppose our lineup of moderate/center-right 2010 candidates — Meg Whitman, Rob Simmons, Charlie Crist, Mike Castle, Mark Kirk, Carly Fiorina, George Pataki — just does not exist?
But back to the Daddy Party crap:
Cheney offers a clear choice. He is for waterboarding to save the United States from terrorism. He is a Daddy Party kind of guy.
True, President Obama gave the go-ahead for the military to shoot three pirates last month. But Cheney actually shot a guy in the head once. How Daddy Party can you get?
Thirty years from now, Democrats will still be laughing at their own Cheney shooting jokes.
While not laughing at Cheney, they’re laughing off the prospect of the United States being hit by Islamic terrorists. It’s ironic that men like Dick Cheney — as opposed to little girls like Roger Simon — can be thanked for creating such a safe domestic environment. One that’s safe enough for “journalists” like Simon to laugh off threats to America.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com.
From a new article on Politico:
“We have another voice in Washington, D.C. — a man who understands what Alaskans believe: less centralized government control, restrained budgets, more opportunity for development and fewer taxes,” Palin said [about RNC Chairman Michael Steele].
This is a woman who truly understands the difference between ‘less’ and ‘fewer’!
EDIT: I’m not being sarcastic! This is a big pet peeve of mine and I’m really glad to see someone getting it right in public!
Hey, this might strike some as completely random, but I was — as I’m prone to do — thinking about politics this evening and something struck me: why do we call certain politicians by their first names? Sarah Palin is “Sarah.” Hillary Clinton is “Hillary.” Condoleezza Rice is “Condi.”
It’s not TeamPalin.org, for instance: it’s TeamSarah.org.
Hillary Clinton’s signs proclaimed “Hillary for President!” rather than “Clinton for President.”
My gosh, those are all women — this is clearly sexist! Nobody dreams of calling Governor Sanford or Senator McCain by their first names!
Woah, woah — slow down there, horsey. Many of us call Rudy Giuliani “Rudy” and Mitt Romney “Mitt.” Nobody would dream of calling Senator McCain by his first name because there are approximately ten billion “Johns” in the world. We call politicians by their first names when their names are distinct. You can’t speak of, for instance, “Michael.” Michael Steele? Michael Bloomberg? Michael, uh, Huckabee?
In contrast, there’s only one Sarah. There’s only one Condi. There’s only one Mitt — thank God. (Sadly, there are two Clintons, so we call her “Hillary” in order to differentiate.) Ike for President! There’s only one “Ike”! (And only one “Eisenhower,” for that matter.) And when it doesn’t work to use a last name — John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy — we’ll even go so far as to abbreviate! JFK and RFK. Phew! The bullet of potential momentary confusion, dodged. [EDIT: Oh my...bullet...Kennedy...wow. Didn't even catch that! And we all know that mentioning bullets in the same sentence as a Kennedy gets you a public whipping, right, Hillary?]
But what of Obama? No one ever calls him “Barack.” Why is that? They always call him “Obama.” But there’s no other Barack out there to confuse him with. Ah, but you forget, dear reader, that “Obama” is such a catchy last name! That’s the science to that.
And that’s my important post for today.
Mark Sanford has made good use of his line-item veto, rejecting nearly all of the budget passed by state legislators:
Sanford did not quite veto the entire $5.7 billion budget, but he came pretty close.
He’s said for weeks he would not approve a spending plan that included stimulus money.
He wanted to use ten percent of the total cash to pay down debt.
Sanford called the budget put forth by state lawmakers “fundamentally flawed” and said that many of them weren’t given enough time to even look at the state budget to properly vote on it.
“They were not really even given time to look at this budget. There was a motion for a 24-hour look and that was denied, so it’s basically just a handful of folks worked out the details on this budget over the weekend,” said Sanford.
Sanford has called upon lawmakers to “start over” on this budget.
“What they really boil down to is this: to ask the legislative branch to go back to the drawing board,” said Sanford.
…The governor said this was the “second lightest list of vetoes” during his time in office.
He also rejects the part of the budget known as 1A, which outlines most state spending.
And he eliminated nearly four dozen provisos which he says represent waste, inefficiency and misplaced priorities.
Kudos to Govs. Sanford and Pawlenty for showing the political courage to reject taking the easy way out and accepting increased spending from their respective state legislatures (and also accepting higher taxes to help compensate).
Noted Republican fundraiser and campaign veteran Fred Malek made an intriguing post on his blog a few days ago, in which he listed the 10 Republicans he predicts can lead the party on its “road to recovery”. Although the entire list is worth a read, here are some of the most noteworthy entries:
1. Mitt Romney — The almost-nominee with the established organization, fundraising network, time, and talent to get the nomination this time. He does retain an image problem with some Republicans, who are not sold on his conservative credentials or upset with him for changing his emphasis of issues from his time as governor to presidential candidate. But he is self-aware and very smart. I believe he will start reintroducing himself early on, and possibly be in the best position when the serious campaigning begins in early 2011.
2. Mark Sanford — Mark is the soft spoken but thoughtful and challenging leader of RGA. He could be a challenger to Mitt or on the ticket if he decides to go that way. His leadership on the stimulus funds was extremely important to the integrity of our small government values by rejecting the federal bailout in the first place and solution-minded innovation by agreeing to accept the money if and only if the South Carolina legislature used it to pay down the state’s debt. At a time when the Republican Party needs to offer creative solutions, Mark is doing exactly that.
…5. Emerging GOP Senate candidates in blue states — Think Charlie Crist, and possibly George Pataki, Mark Kirk, or Mike Castle. Yes, they are moderates and especially a few weeks after Arlen Specter’s opportunistic party switch “moderate” is all but a four-letter word. But can we ever expect to be a majority party without embracing a tent big philosophy that encourages those at the middle of the spectrum to think of themselves as Republicans? We need people like Mark Kirk and people like Mark Sanford both to be proud members of the GOP.
6. Sarah Palin — She is vastly underestimated by the press, has an enormous grasp of issues and a strong devotion to what is important to Alaska, where she will be re-elected easily, and will be the most powerful money and mobilization magnet in GOP for some time.
…9. Paul Ryan — At 39, Ryan is the the go-to budget expert in the House, with a clear and compelling message on economic reform. He is sure to continue prodding others to new policy ideas and proposals with his clear-thinking views. I believe he is sure to emerge as one of the party’s leading voices and one who will be short-listed for VP in 2012. As a protégé of my great friend Jack Kemp, Paul Ryan is the real next coming of Jack.
10. Eric Cantor — Like Ryan a forceful and clear-thinking leader with energy, charm, and smarts. His rise from working in his family’s small business and then the Virginia legislature to a leadership role in the House GOP caucus is a true testament to his talent and dedication. My guess is he has what it takes to become Speaker of the House, and I’d bet that one day he will.
Malek then concludes by citing Mitch Daniels as an honorable mention. He made no mention of Jindal, Huckabee or Pawlenty, who, in my opinion, definitely deserve spots. Also, no Giuliani or Thune. I did find myself pleasantly surprised that Malek placed Sanford so high. Depending on the public’s sentiment toward the Obama administration’s spending, Sanford could do some serious damage in the GOP primary and the general election, should he get the nomination. We saw how much Ron Paul energized young voters. Perhaps Sanford’s near-obsessive focus on liberty could help the party appeal more to youngsters? Regardless, Rombots will love Mitt’s number-one ranking (and the fact that he bested Palin by five spots and Huckabee by more). All in all, an interesting discussion starter.
I made an appearance on PJTV talking about Ronald Reagan and the GOP’s future. Take a watch.
I’m sure some will critique on style points and indeed there’s much to critique but given that I ‘m on a webcam with a very small lense, it’s not that bad.
(Hat Tip: Hot Air.)
It’s too soon to say for sure, whether this is for real, but this is Steele at his best. He sounds a like a party chairman for the first time.
At this point, I’m not too keen on the idea of a Steele resignation. He wasn’t my candidate for chairman, but he is the party’s chairman.
As an aside, yesterday, I received my first fundraising letter of the Steele era. And I have to say that I liked it far better than the Mike Duncan letters. Duncan would always try to make me feel guilty for not giving more. Steele is being positive and complimentary. Yes, he’ll get some dough from me. Not much, but more than Duncan ever did.
As long as I live no matter what Republicans or Democrats do, odds are African Americans will vote as a single unit for Democrats.
A majority of African Americans favor higher taxes (on the wealthy and the middle class), an intrusive government and affirmative action. So we shouldn’t be surprised that 60% – 70% of African Americans loyally vote for liberal candidates. There is plentiful polling to demonstrate on the issues most black voters care about they tend to side with liberals.
However we rarely see only 60% – 70% of African Americans vote for Democrats. Usually we see 85% – 95% of African Americans vote Democrat.
What makes up the difference is largely identity politics that has been forged in our complex history. In the black community being Republican isn’t much more acceptable than being a criminal.
Often criminals receive more favorable attitudes from African Americans than Republicans like Ronald Reagan or John McCain. That is how much we’re hated and distrusted in that community. You don’t overcome political hatred that deep with anything Republicans could do.
If all we cared about was the likelihood of blacks to respond to any Republican outreach we would never reach out to black voters.
However even though African Americans will probably reject our party no matter what we do, there are benefits to reaching out.
If we publicly and strongly reach out to African Americans only to receive the cold shoulder it shows the animosity is one-sided. Blacks hate us, we try to appeal to them.
Many suburban and other minority voters will view us with new respect if we strongly reach out to a community that is rejecting us without a fair hearing.
Among the 10% of African Americans who identify as Republican such an outreach could encourage their greater involvement in the party. This small slice of independent thinkers would appreciate our outreach even if the rest of African Americans didn’t. Perhaps we can even pump our support among African Americans as high as 15%. There may be that many African Americans who would listen to us if we reached out more strongly.
If we double the number of black Republican candidates that does us good with the public even if most blacks still vote Democrat no matter what.
I may not like it but many young and suburban people aren’t colorblind. If they see a party that isn’t “diverse” they recoil whether they like our ideas or not.
So even though we’re unlikely to get a hearing from black voters there are still many reasons to reach out to them. Other people are watching and will appreciate our outreach to a group that will hate us for no good reason.
We will in all likelihood continue to lose black voters as they vote as single bloc. However we can make the most of losing them by reaching out anyway and showing others that we value and respect all Americans even if they have closed themselves off to us.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Forrester can be contacted at starvingecongradstud@hotmail.com or on Facebook.
Mason-Dixon Florida 2010 Gubernatorial/Senatorial Survey
GOP Senatorial Primary
- Charlie Crist 53%
- Marco Rubio 18%
- Undecided 29%
Senatorial General Election
- Charlie Crist 55%
- Kendrick Meek 24%
- Undecided 21%
- Charlie Crist 57%
- Dan Gelber 22%
- Undecided 21%
GOP Gubernatorial Primary
- Bill McCollum 39%
- Charles Bronson 12%
- Undecided 49%
Gubernatorial General Election
- Bill McCollum 40%
- Alex Sink 34%
- Undecided 26%
- Alex Sink 37%
- Charles Bronson 29%
- Undecided 34%
Among Likely Republican Primary Voters
Favorable / Unfavorable (Net)
- Bill McCollum 38% / 6% (+32%)
- Charlie Crist 50% /19% (+31%)
- Charles Bronson 23%/ 0% (+23%)
- Marco Rubio 20% / 2% (+18%)
Survey of 625 registered voters (including 300 likely Republican primary voters) was conducted May 14-18. The margin of error is +/- 4 percentage points. The margin for error for the GOP primaries is +/- 6 percentage points.
H/T: Tommy Boy
… and what would Fred Thompson do?
………………………………
Kavon will be pleased to learn that Alex’s post on Obama yesterday elevated Race42012 to number 18 on a Google search for “Obama is not a socialist”.
This post will serve a continuation of the discussion of the topics discussed yesterday in my post and in one of Alex’s post. There are two questions that I find to be “open for debate:”
I’ll re-print a portion of what I wrote in the comments section of Alex’s post:
I’m not saying he’s wrong on merits of the specific argument. I don’t claim to know enough to be a final authority [on theory or history with regard to economics]. But the reality is that people use words that aren’t technically accurate. I don’t find it significantly IN-accurate enough to warrant us spending time fighting people on their symantics and grammar.
That’s where I remain today. I’m persuadable, but I’m not currently not persuaded against:
Alex also pointed to a recent Rasmussen poll and makes what I believe to be two incorrect conclusions:
I just did a quick search of Race42012 and only found one post covering this Rasmussen poll, so I’m going to quickly summarize the data. I don’t have a premium membership, so I’m relying on the publicly-available data.
I’m encouraged by this Rasmussen poll, not discouraged.
My major concern is with the under-30 vote, and my first thought there is not that we need to be a more hip party, but rather that we to remember that school choice is necessary not merely to win over various segments of voters, and not merely to save taxpayer money (remember, the more-successful DC vouchers cost $7500 compared to $25,000-per student for the government schools), but, most importantly, because government is not effectively (regardless of cost) educating our electorate in a way that will produce a recurring freedom-loving culture.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid appears to be in trouble:
Nearly half of Nevadans have had enough of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid as the powerful Democrat heads into his re-election campaign, a new Las Vegas Review-Journal poll finds.
About a third of the state’s voters would re-elect Reid if the 2010 election were held today, according to the poll, but 45 percent say they would definitely vote to replace him. Seventeen percent would consider another candidate.
Half of Nevada voters had an unfavorable view of Reid, while 38 percent had a favorable view and 11 percent a neutral opinion.
______________________________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.
As a followup to my earlier post, the state GOP Chairs are now considering a new rule limiting the RNC Chair’s ability to spend whatever he/she wants – specifically, to set the salaries for the staff members of the RNC. They’re considering having a comptroller-treasurer assist in those funding areas.
Sounds like a good way to add a level of transparency and accountability, right?
Not for Michael Steele. He is showing an untold depth of immaturity with his reaction to this latest brouhaha:
Steele Threatens to Quit if RNC Undermines Funding Authority
“They can contemplate all they want to, but the reality is if they want a figurehead chairman you can have a figurehead chairman, but it won’t be Michael Steele,” he said.
Wow. I haven’t seen this level of “leadership” since junior high.
May I be one of the first in line to say: Michael, please take your ball and go home.
The newest Fox News issue opinion poll mirrors the movement in the Gallup and the Quinnipiac polls:
The poll finds 49 percent of voters today describe themselves as “pro-life” and 43 percent as “pro-choice” on the issue of abortion. This is the first time more voters have described themselves as pro-life in the poll since April 2004.
Last year, the numbers were essentially the reverse of the current findings — at that time 41 percent said they were pro-life and 49 percent pro-choice (September 2008).
How do we explain this movement? Some people have suggested that the pro-life movement has benefited from having a pro-choicer in office. People are generally ambivalent on abortion, this theory goes, and as a Democratic President loosens restrictions Americans become more uncomfortable and therefore more likely to identity as pro-life. And vice versa. Time magazine has a new story that basically takes this position. And while there does seem to be something to this- the nation became steadily more pro-life during the Clinton years and steadily more pro-choice during the Bush years- I think there’s another possibly. For all his extreme abortion politics, Barack Obama has rarely framed the issue in stark pro-choice terms. Here was his pitch during his Notre Dame commencement address:
“I do not suggest that the debate surrounding abortion can or should go away,” he said. “At some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable. Each side will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.”
You and I know what translates into, policy-wise; it’s considerably less clear how that rhetoric affects the people who like Barack Obama, and who are inclined to take his framing seriously. Decades ago pro-choicers kept their legions intact by dredging up images of women dying tragically in filthy alleyways. That’s mostly gone, outside of the purely activist wing. Now abortion is a tough choice, with unclear and personal moral consequences, but a choice nonetheless. This shift may have brought Democrats short-term electoral gains, but the broader effects are much hazier. If abortion is the sort of issue where both sides get their followers to man the battlements by proclaiming a struggle for life or freedom, what happens when one side abandons explicit crusading and the other side doesn’t? Maybe something like this. Maybe pro-choicers are bleeding followers because without a stark sense of the consequences of a regime of illegal abortion, the pro-life position is easier to accept and embrace.
And there are signs that this may be exactly what’s going on. As the Time magazine article noted and as writers like Ross Douthat have noted, younger voters are more pro-life than their elders. These are the same younger voters who gave Obama his strongest majorities, and who may be experiencing their first political awakening under his Presidency. What does all this mean? Maybe nothing. If the nation becomes more “pro-life”, but pro-choicers become more electable because of their softened rhetoric, then it’s hard to see how the pro-life movement gains. A pro-life nation with pro-choice policies may be Doug Kmiec’s dream universe, but it’s hardly likely to satisfy the National Right to Life movement.
Still, I suspect this phenomenon may end up being significant. Political Science literature is pretty unanimous about the persistence of the ideology you form in your late teens and early twenties. The young voters the pro-life movement has won over- in the absence of stark pro-choice messages from national politicians- are likely to stay pro-life. This means that the Democratic Party may have already set its course on the abortion issue. Back-alley talk may be politically untenable, in a way that it wasn’t 35 years ago. But, these voters are also likely to stay relatively Democratic, barring some sort of election that realigns everyone.
Political parties are, in some respects, bottom-up organizations. If portions of the Democratic electorate become more avowedly pro-life, it’s hard to imagine that rhetorical shifts will be the end of the line. People who believe in something eventually want to fight for it, and it may well be that the Bob Casey’s will be more prominent features of the Democratic universe in 15 years. When that happens, an issue which has haunted our political landscape for 3 and half decades, may become a human problem, not a partisan one. If Barack Obama, whatever his intentions, is the catalyst for that, he’ll have done the pro-life movement an unwitting service.
I was reading some political literature and came across this…
A cattle dealer once drove some bulls to the slaughterhouse, and the butcher came night with his sharp knife.
“Let us close ranks and jack up this executioner on our horns!” suggested one of the bulls.
“If you please, in what way is the butcher any worse than the dealer who drove us hither with his cudgel?” replied the bulls.
“But we shall be able to attend to the dealer as well, afterwards! But we must take care of the butcher first!”
“Nothin’ doin’,” replied the bulls, firm in their principles, to the counselor. “You are trying to shield our enemies. You are nothing but a butcher yourself!”
And they refused to close ranks.
There is no doubt that Obama’s choice to replace David Souter is not going to be anyone that people on this site would like. The only question is how far to the left the person will be. Our favorite Senator, Arlen Specter, said that women are underrepresented on the Supreme Court. That shows Specter is a supporter of affirmative action as opposed to picking the most qualified person.
If Obama wants to make a statement of rejection of identity politics, he should pick the most qualified person he can find for the Supreme Court, and if it happens to be a white man, so be it. Picking a competent white man would be the ultimate repudiation of identity politics and affirmative action and would really get the feminist groups angry.
During the Bush years, Chuck Schumer always said he wished Bush would pick a consensus choice instead of an idealogue. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I hope Obama picks a consensus choice (if there is such a thing) instead of a liberal, but I am skeptical. However, regardless of who he picks, it should be the person he truly wants, whether it’s a white man, a woman, or a minority. It’s time for him to reject affirmative action.
Michale Steele is prepared to tell a meeting of state GOP chairmen today that the GOP has “turned the corner” and the Republican comeback “is well under way” in all the states across the country, just not at a federal level yet.
On top of this being nothing but wishful thinking (especially after losing the only election he has been in charge of winning), his attempt at casting his own leadership in a positive light will likely get lost in the noise of yet another gaffe/scandal at his own hands:
When Michael S. Steele took over as chairman of the Republican National Committee earlier this year, he brought along longtime personal assistant Belinda Cook and gave her a salary nearly three times what her predecessor made.
Mrs. Cook’s son, Lee, also landed an RNC job.
Mr. Steele hired another family friend, Angela Sailor, to be the party’s outreach director at a salary of $180,000, more than double her predecessor’s compensation…
The state GOP chairs are not taking this news lightly, as these comments from the chairman of the Hawaii GOP show:
“These salaries we hear about are way out of line for what staff should be paid for working for a political party, which most of us think of as a cause,” said Hawaii Republican Party Chairman Willis Lee. “And if certain staff at the national committee are making that much, then the public understandably might think they are examples of cronyism.”
Oh, yes. Just the makeover and rebranding that party needs right now: a revived perception of cronyism and inept leadership.
It’s time for the RNC to say thanks but no thanks to Mr. Steele and his idea of “leadership” before the 2010 midterms become a complete disaster.
I don’t vote based strictly on electability, so this should in no way be construed as an endorsement. Furthermore, I don’t put much stock into general election polls taken three and a half years before an election. I do think favorability ratings are relevant however, and they show Romney and Huckabee to be more well-received than Gingrich and Palin. I love Sarah Palin, but if she is in negative territory now, I don’t see how things can get any better for her when going through the scrutiny of a campaign. There is little evidence that Palin or Gingrich can beat Obama in a general election.
There may be candidates stronger than Huckabee. DaveG makes the case that Rudy Giuliani would make a strong general election candidate. You could also make a case for Pawlenty or Crist. However, if the only candidates running were Huckabee, Romney, Palin, and Gingrich, you could make a fairly compelling case that Huckabee, followed by Romney, is the most electable of the four.
The reality is that Huckabee was grossly outspent in Iowa and still won. He nearly won South Carolina with no help from most conservatives, especially on talk radio. He did have the support of the media, but that is often a negative among Republican primary voters, most of whom have nothing but disdain for the mainstream media. He has a likeable personality and has not been the lightning rod that Palin was.
I would have a hard time ever voting for Huckabee in a New Hampshire primary (I’m from NH) because I don’t like his class warfare, the fact that he raised taxes, the fact he supports banning smoking, and the fact he increased spending, but I do think he’d appeal to middle America, especially blue collar voters, in a way that the other three candidates would not. Again, that is not based on polls but based on my own intuition, whatever it is worth.
During this recession 80% of the jobs lost have been held by men. This has occurred as manufacturing, construction and many other heavy industries have suffered.
The jobless rate is 9.4% for men as opposed to 7.1% for women.
Most of the jobs these men have lost are not coming back. These men will continue to lose jobs. It is likely unemployment will be worse for men in 2011 than it is now.
Some of these men will get new jobs making less money and receiving fewer benefits.
We are unlikely to see any sort of strong economic recovery in the next 3 years.
In the Industrial Midwest and Northeast I suspect it will still feel like a recession in 2012.
I expect populism will naturally flow out of the angst of millions of men whose dignity has been lost along with their jobs.
I don’t see Professor Arugula channeling that sort of blue collar angst well.
There are only a few people on our side who I think could give Barack a populist headache.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Forrester can be contacted at starvingecongradstud@hotmail.com or on Facebook.
The word ‘fascism’ has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.” – George Orwell
And alas, the Erick Ericksons, Benjamin Hodges, Glenn Becks, and, uh, the RNC itself are doing their best to drag Orwell’s lovely quote into the 21st century. I’ll cut right to the chase: Barack Obama’s policies are not socialist. Keynesian economics are fallacious, destructive, and counterproductive, but they belong to a different school of thought than socialism.
But don’t take my word for it. Let’s see what the socialists themselves have to say. Here’s the 10 Points of Youth for Socialist Action:
1. We stand for workers’ democracy & socialism. We are active partisans in the class struggle!
2. We fight against racism in all its forms. We are supporters of Black and Chicano liberation, full sovereignty for American Indians, and we defend the right of self-determination of all oppressed nationalities.
3. We are opposed to any and all discrimination based on gender or sexual orientation. We support equal rights for all!
4. We fight to protect the environment from the ravages of capitalism.
5. We fight to empower young people, on campus, in the community, and in the workplace.
6. We fight against police brutality, and any measures by the state to take away or restrict our democratic rights.
7. We stand for free quality education for all, from pre-school to graduate school.
8. We denounce imperialism, and oppose all U.S. foreign interventions, regardless of the given justification.
9. We denounce the U.S. embargo against Cuba, and stand in solidarity with the Cuban people & their revolution.
10. We advocate independent working class political action. Break from pro-business politics!
Yeah, not quite Barack Obama. In fact, actual socialists and leftists have already denounced Barack Obama as an imperialist and a capitalist. Real socialists know he’s not one of them. And he’s not quite “standing with the Cuban people and their revolution.”
Here’s what WorldSocialism.org has to say about socialism:
Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population.
…
It means nobody being able to take personal control of resources, beyond their own personal possessions.
…
This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of “from each according to ability, to each according to needs” would apply.
Hmm…not quite Obama, is it?
The result of the hard right’s stupid rhetoric is that barely half of Americans are confident enough to say that capitalism is better than socialism. Under the New Rules, “Socialism” means “What Barack Obama Is Doing.”
If words have meaning, it’s time to stop the ‘socialist’ nonsense now.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Alex Knepper can be reached at apkkib@aol.com
It will never happen, but with at least one recent poll showing Giuliani in a five-way tie for the Republican nomination in 2012, and actually leading the other candidates among independents (who won’t have anywhere else to go in the primaries this time), I am compelled to make the case for a second Rudy presidential candidacy.
In many ways, Rudy ’12 makes a lot more sense than Rudy ’08. Four years ago, lots of young, ambitious idea guys, including Patrick Ruffini and Kavon Nikrad and myself, tried to fit a square peg into a round hole by attempting to morph the former New York Mayor into a Bush-style Republican, a logical response to the political environment of the time, where the nation seemed to be an ebullient red and where Republicans’ most immediate concern was winning an additional point or two in states like Wisconsin and Michigan, states that Bush probably would have won in 2004 had he been less culturally foreign to voters in those states, i.e., had he been from Ohio instead of Texas. But this strategy was bound to fail because Rudy wasn’t George Bush. And thank goodness for that! Who knew at this time in 2005 when the RudyBots were having their initial conversations that Bush and Co. would hand the country over to the Democrats for possibly a generation?
In any case, turning Rudy into a better-spoken GWB with a cultural appeal to Midwestern ethnic Catholics was an inherently flawed strategy. A far better strategy in the environment of four years ago would have been to field a candidate who actually fit this profile, such as Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. But that was then and this is now, and ironically, while the guy who we wanted Rudy to be in 2008 was never going to win either the nomination or the presidency for a host of reasons that we discussed in detail on this site last year, the guy who Rudy actually is could turn out to be the best possible presidential candidate to bring the Republicans back from the dead in 2012.
In the race for 2012, Rudy can finally be Rudy. In the early stages of Rudy ’08, it made perfect sense for Rudy to try and harness the political leviathan that was the Bush Coalition. When you have a clear majority of the country aligned in a certain manner, you don’t destroy that coalition, you embrace it and try to build on it. Now, the Bush Coalition lies in tatters. Everything that Republicans once owned is gone, from congressional majorities to governorships and legislative seats. There is no Republican majority. There is a one-party Democratic state. The red states aren’t red anymore. In 2006 and 2008 huge chunks of the country became blue. And as a new Gallup Poll demonstrated, the voters Republicans lost over the past eight years are just who you’d expect: moderates, college-educated voters, lower and middle income voters, young people, single voters, and secular Americans.
As such, Rudy doesn’t have to try to change in order to lead the Republican coalition, because there’s no electorally viable Republican coalition to lead. Instead, Rudy is free to form a new Republican coalition, one based on the idea that he so eloquently articulated in the race for 2008 — the notion that America should be a nation premised on the primacy of the individual, and that government exists to let individuals be individuals, live their own lives, and to make their own choices. This is exactly the message that Republicans will need in 2012 in order to present a stark contrast with Obama’s collectivism, and it is the most logical orientation for the next Republican coalition given that Obama, like every president, is re-defining the conversation in American politics. During the Bush years, the conversation was social conservatism and foreign interventionism versus something other than that. If you supported the former you were a Republican, if you supported the latter you could be a Democrat. Under President Obama, the conversation is now one about collectivism versus individualism, and more government and debt versus less of those things. Rudy is an excellent candidate to lead the individualist, fiscally resposible side of that war.
Rudy should’t worry about offending blocs of the GOP coalition with any of his views, because again, the remaining GOP coalition is only slightly more politically relevant than our nation’s many minor parties. Rudy needs to build a new Republican Party, an alternative to Obama-ism. Clearly that coalition will include cultural conservatives since Obama-ism is anathema to them. But so-cons no longer get to frame the debate nor make demands, and neither are they in the position to do so. Instead, so-cons can be included to the extent that Rudy’s GOP promises to defend the freedoms that Obama would deny them. The contrast with President Obama gives Rudy a lot of leeway here. President Obama will force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Rudy and the GOP won’t. The president will allow a situation to develop where churches will lose their tax-exempt status for failing to marry same-sex couples. Rudy and the GOP will never allow that to happen. President Obama’s Supreme Court Justices will have records that speak for themselves by 2012. Rudy’s Justices will be eons better. The thought of Obama replacing Anthony Kennedy will have the so-cons running for the phone banks provided that Rudy simply continues to promise to appoint conservative judges as he did in 2008.
In exchange for that though, the country will get a more modern GOP. Same-sex unions will not be disallowed. The upper echelons of the party will not get into public spats over religion, as Michael Steele and Ken Blackwell did when the latter accused the former of not reading his Bible enough due to Steele’s less than hostile words about gay people. Rudy should run to Obama’s left on Don’t-Ask-Don’t-Tell. There won’t be anymore silliness in the White House with bones being thrown to anti-contraception forces or the sex police in order to milk donations and votes out of people on the margins of political and social thought. This isn’t a party for the margins. It’s a party for the majority.
Given Rudy’s Northeastern cultural identity and familiarity with the North’s politics, not to mention his natural charisma, Rudy would be the ideal candidate to win over the scores of terrified blue state voters who assumed that by voting for Obama they were getting another Bill Clinton. The 10 trillion dollars in new debt that Obama has proposed for the nation will not go over well in the flinty Northeast once the reality of these policies are explained to voters up there by a candidate other than the tattered Newt Gingrich and the insufferable former VPOTUS, Dick Cheney. Need I remind readers once again that even as late as 1992, Northern voters were still very wary of Democratic presidents, giving Bill Clinton basically the same percentage of the vote that the North gave Michael Dukakis four years earlier. The difference was that the disaffected Bush ’88 voters went for Perot, the anti-Obama when it comes to spending, deficits, and debt. Big, frivolous government spending has never been part of the political culture of the Northeast. The problem is that the GOP has no spokesperson who can communicate with these voters, nor does the current iteration of the GOP present these voters with an acceptable alternative to Obama. Rudy does both.
Finally, Rudy will be unlikely to fall into the trap that McCain did last year, where the Arizona senator seemed decidedly disinterested in and downright clueless about domestic issues, including the economy. To the contrary, Rudy will put forth an aggressive domestic policy platform that will address the economy and bread-and-butter issues in a high-tech, free-market, fiscally responsible manner. The theme of Rudy’s campaign can be “You Choose,” where you are liberated and empowered to make your own choices. This will be evident in the alternative health plan, education plan, etc, that Rudy proposes in response to Obama. These policies will be real, well thought out, and easily explained, not like the half-hearted attempts at domestic policy that McCain’s policy shop cranked out, none of which the senator seemed to understand.
As I said before, it will never happen. But given the seeming dearth of a viable political alternative in this country to Obama and the Democrats, maybe Rudy should give a presidential run another shot.
The Salt Lake Tribune reports that Jon Huntsman’s appointment as ambassador to China will attract a diverse field of candidates to replace him in Utah:
Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, who will take over as Utah’s 17th governor when Huntsman resigns, is considered the favorite. But Attorney General Mark Shurtleff could be a strong candidate, despite his intent to challenge Bob Bennett for U.S. Senate. His entry into the race would be buoyed by his hefty campaign chest.
Then, there is Sen. John Valentine — he already has formed a campaign organization — and
On the Democratic side, most point to Rep. Jim Matheson or Salt Lake County Mayor Peter Corroon as Democrats with a realistic shot for what essentially is an open seat. Former lawmakers Karen Shepherd and Patrice Arent along with current Utah Sen. Pat Jones and Rep. David Litvack are named as dark horses.
In contrast to John Cornyn’s endorsement of Charlie Crist in the Crist-Rubio Senate battle, Michael Steele has chosen to remain neutral for the time being.
Steele was on NBC’s “Meet the Press” Sunday. “The Senate committee is in a different business – they’re looking to add numbers to the Senate,” Steele said.
“Our business is staying in touch with state party leaders and following the lead of state party leaders,” Steele added.
Finally, a local Las Vegas news outlet notes that John Ensign’s recent trip to Iowa has led many to discuss Ensign’s plans for 2012:
The Nevada Republican is scheduled not only to speak to a conservative group in Sioux City on June 1, but also to tour a biotech company in Sioux Center and meet and greet locals at an ice cream parlor in Le Mars, according to a schedule distributed last week.
This candidate-type activity is only increasing the buzz about Ensign as a possible national contender, buzz that has been building in direct proportion to his popularity as a spokesman for his party’s positions on cable news channels in recent months.
Rasmussen 2010 New York Gubernatorial Election
- Rudy Giuliani 58%
- David Paterson 30%
- Andrew Cuomo 55%
- Rudy Giuliani 37%
Favorable / Unfavorable [Net]
- Andrew Cuomo 65% / 29% [+36%]
- Rudy Giuliani 57% / 38% [+19%]
Governor Paterson Job Approval
- Approve 31%
- Disapprove 67%
Survey of 500 likely voters was conducted May 14. The margin of error is +/- 4.5 percentage points.
H/T: Tommy Boy
Barack Obama’s slogan during the last election was “Yes We Can”.
It’s become clear his idea of empowering voters is to empower Washington DC.
The immediate answer to any problem is more control based in DC and less of individual control.
As Republicans we face a public that wants and expects government to solve many sorts of unique problems. We face the uncomfortable truth that in many areas government will only make things worse.
Obama was a shrewd politician. When he expressed his faith in the power and wisdom of government he said “Yes We Can”. The message sounded like he had confidence in Americans to take care of their own problems working together and individually.
This just hasn’t been shown in his actions. The public has little role in addressing problems. Our slow, inefficient and foolish government has the whip hand and intends to control us in the name of saving us from the crisis of the moment.
I don’t know how long this can last but as Republicans we need to distinguish ourselves a bit. We aren’t the party that has deep almost religious faith in the wisdom and power of government to fix every problem.
We should say “Yes YOU Can.” And if you can’t maybe you should look somewhere besides our ineffective and bumbling government in DC.
If you think you can’t control your own life, please e-mail Barack Obama for personal advice. I’m sure he’ll tell you exactly what you need to do. Don’t use your vote to elect a nanny-in-chief for the rest of us.
Perhaps the rest of us who want to control our own lives are now a minority. If so we’re in for a repeat of the 1970′s. Buckle up Buttercup we’re in for quite a ride with a President that views you as an irresponsible child and not a responsible citizen.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Doug Forrester can be contacted at starvingecongradstud@hotmail.com or on Facebook.
Many conservatives, notably the Club for Growth, are not fond of Mike Huckabee because they see him as too liberal on economic issues. He did raise taxes and increase spending as Governor. However, a new poll by Public Policy Polling indicates that he, along with Mitt Romney, are more popular with the public than Sarah Palin or Newt Gingrich. Gingrich is no surprise. He was never popular with the general public when he was Speaker except at the very beginning, but he was always popular with the base. Palin seems to have blown her opportunity to develop a good reputation with the public.
Huckabee has a net favorability rating of +8. Romney is not far behind at +5. Palin has a -7, and Gingrich has a -8. Palin only a -10 with women, but she is still in negative territory at a -3 with men. Huckabee also does the best against Obama though all four candidates trail. Obama is more popular than any GOP contender with a +12 favorability. It should be noted that Obama is still in his first year which is typically a honeymoon phase. However, Huckabee manages to keep Obama under the magic 50% mark, trailing him 49-42. Romney trails 50-39. Palin trails 53-41, and Gingrich is behind 52-39. Is a ticket led by Mike Huckabee the key to victory in 2012?
I had written a lengthy reply, in the comments area, to Alex Knepper’s most recent post on the Crist vs. Rubio and Erickson vs. NRSC; my replies are still there, but I decided to focus a new post on it.
Alex writes that Redstate’s Erick Erickson is attacking the center of the Republican party with his Facebook group “Not one penny to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).” At present time, there are 1,085 members, and I’m one of them.
It appears there are two major arguments with regard to primary races: issues, and strategy.
………………………….
I’ll first focus on issues.
The battle for the heart of the Republican Party right now has little to do with “social issues,” at least in the common vernacular. It has everything to do with an issue which some define as a moral issue, and which some do not: socialism.
Under Democrats or Republicans, we’re getting a less and less freedom-based nation. The only difference is the speed of progression of socialism.
Some find the Club for Growth or Erick Erickson or whomever to be “not tolerant enough.” I find this to be somewhat of a pointless argument, similar to calling an anti-abortion person like myself “intolerant.”
Here’s the deal: I don’t want more socialism; I won’t tolerate it. I also won’t tolerate judicial activism. And, fortunately, both of those messages (perhaps stated in a different manner) are messages that at least 65% of America will embrace.
If somebody can provide me convincing evidence that will lead me to be confident that Charlie Crist will courageously defend economic freedom and the rule of law on the Supreme Court, then I will consider re-considering my current support of what Erick Erickson is doing.
Until then — relying either on hope, or on Crist’s limited-but-somewhat-concerning record — I will argue that Alex is relying on faith-based reasoning in his assumption that Charlie Crist will defend those two principles.
Let’s also step back a moment and re-evaluate what we are defining as “center” — whether in the overall electorate, or within the GOP. Fellow Republicans, we must not allow ourselves to believe the left/media when they tell us that the following principles are “controversial”:
Frankly, I found Arlen Specter to be fully acceptable for the party; not ideal, but acceptable. In a mildly Democratic-leaning state, the Republican Specter was strong on judges and national defense, and he even gave mild support to a super-majority constitutional amendment to increase taxes. To be clear, I found it unfortunate that he decided to leave the GOP. That said, the idea that he was “kicked out” by an intolerant conservative base is nonsense. “Fiscal restraint” is not a “controversial” issue for anyone — again, for America, and most certainly not ever for the GOP — and Specter made the voluntary choice of supporting the least acceptable budget in American history.
Back to Crist-Rubio: If those defending the NRSC (by backing Crist) are going to be satisfied long-term if Crist turns out to be a pre-2009 Specter — or a Kit Bond or most of the Senate GOP — then I believe they are too easily satisfied. What we are moving towards is European-style socialism, where most of the positive meaning to the term “American” will be lost. And, again, we will get there with either the current GOP or Democratic Party; it doesn’t matter much in the long run.
We do not need “tolerators of creeping socialism” in the GOP. We need “defenders of freedom.”
………………………….
To the concern about “general election strategy.” A legitimate debate to have, but come on:
………………………….
Bottom line: the current GOP establishment mindset — apparently reliant entirely upon on “luck” with regard to the theme of “oh, things will turn back around” — this mindset is not tolerated by a significant portion of the GOP base. More importantly, the GOP base doesn’t want a majority, if it merely means a repeat of Hastert/McConnell leadership on government spending — they’re nice men and effective leaders, but they do not possess the willingness and/or ability to reign in government spending.
We don’t need fewer of the Club for Growths or the Erick Ericksons. We need more. I find it unfortunate that many GOP establishment-types find their views to be “controversial.”
Governor Pawlenty is in the process of railroading the DFL legislature, slashing spending and fending off tax increases. A few days ago, he vetoed a long-standing program to give “poor” childless adults free health care. Predictably, the state press corps is up in arms. From the Duluth News Tribune:
Money talk became emotional Sunday as Minnesota representatives rejected overriding a veto that ends a state-funded health program for the state’s poorest and sickest residents.
Tears were plentiful in a hushed House chamber during touching stories of near-death and poverty-laced childhood experiences during debate on Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s $381 million veto of the General Assistance Medical Care program. The veto would eliminate the program in 2011, ending state-funded health care for up to 35,000 poor, childless adult Minnesotans.
Touching stories of near-death, poverty-laced childhoods? Pete Sampras would have struggled to handle that spin. From the Minnesota Star Tribune:
Gov. Tim Pawlenty has apparently succeeded in making Minnesota’s decades-long, bipartisan commitment to basic health care for the indigent poor a partisan issue….DFLers warned that depriving the poor of routine medical care would only cost society more, as those now covered by the vetoed program seek medical care at costly emergency rooms. But money was not the focus of the House debate; morality was. This somber, emotion-laden debate seemed to be about Minnesota’s soul. DFLers invoked Scripture and, in some instances, shed tears as they pleaded with Pawlenty’s fellow Republicans to put politics aside and vote to preserve health care for “the least of these.”
Pawlenty’s decision to go over the heads of the legislature, and use his emergency powers to veto spending, has drawn similar ire; the press corps has taken to repeating the DFL line, verbatim. Oddly, there are still some folks wondering if Pawlenty intends to run for a third term, or a woo a more conservative electorate. Pawlenty’s action on the budget, and the response he’s received, should answer that question pretty decisively.
RedState.com’s Erick Erickson has started a Facebook group entitled “Not one penny to the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).” The rationale for witholding donations? “First they supported Chafee. Then they supported Specter. Now they support Crist.”
One might even go so far as to say that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is engaged in the business of electing Republicans to the Senate!
Aside from the fact that the NRSC is also supporting every other incumbent running, a few questions immediately come to mind:
1) Why does John Cornyn, the head of the NRSC in its current incarnation, get the blame (some might say credit) for supporting Lincoln Chafee’s bid? Yes, Elizabeth Dole is gone, but it seems rather imprudent to blame her successor for a policy he had no part in forming, no?
2) Arlen Specter was supported because he is a nearly-thirty-year incumbent and was the top-ranking Republican on the judiciary committee and the GOP’s best chance at holding the Senate seat in Pennsylvania. Does Mr. Erickson think it more prudent for the NRSC to spend its funds on purifying the ranks in Pennsylvania rather than defend seats in Missouri, Kentucky, and Ohio?
3) Given that the NRSC is an organization dedicated to optimally allocating resources toward electing a Republican Senate, why wouldn’t it endorse Charlie Crist, a Republican leader who can get elected to any post in Florida that he wants? (Note that the title of the organization is the Republican Senatorial Committee, not the Conservative Senatorial Committee.)
4) One imagines Erickson’s vision: the NRSC should sit out Florida, letting the good voters, in their infinite wisdom, decide between Crist and Marco Rubio. Fine. So the NRSC shouldn’t be committed to its own vision, then (optimally allocating resources toward electing a Republican Senate)? How obscure need a conservative challenger be before we endorse one of those dreaded centrists? A Congressman many years removed from office makes Erickson’s cut, as does a state-level representative. What about County Commissioner? City councilman? Concerned conservative citizen?
5) Why do all of the Erick Erickson types in the GOP seem more obsessed with defeating the Charlie Crists of the world than the Robin Carnahans and Jennifer Brunners? Can we please shoot the opponents, instead of our own feet? Can we worry about purifying the ranks after we get more than forty senators in Congress? That doesn’t seem unreasonable, does it?
With all of the seats needing defending in 2010 — and the surprising number of pickup opportunities that have arisen (see Carly Fiorina in California and Rob Simmons in Connecticut) — it strikes me as utterly maddening that one could look at all of the politicians across the United States and conclude that the real enemy is Charlie Crist. The enemy is in plain sight, as it ever has been: the Democratic Party. So let’s stop this silly tantrum and keep our eye on the prize, Erick. I’ll even make a donation to the NRSC in your name when you recant, if you’d like.
