Alex has a good post on the Rubio/Crist race. I think that number 2 is an illusion, but number 1 is a reasonable answer. Still, I’d take even money that, by next August, Rubio is polling within 2-3 points of Crist in general election match-ups. Crist does not have a “reasonably strong approval rating”. His approval rating is, at best, unclear. The latest poll, the St. Petersburg Times poll, pegs Crist at a 42% approval rating. It’s hard to know exactly how accurate this pollster is, but they were in line with everyone else in their Florida primary polling (both D and R) so I have to assume they’re not wildly off. Crist’s popularity isn’t cratering, by the way, because he’s a terrible Governor; he’s too savvy a politician to see his popularity drop just because he’s doing a terrible job.
No, Charlie Crist is suffering from A.) The anti-incumbent mood and B.) The “this fella ought to be doing his job instead of campaigning” mood. By next August these will have reached a crescendo and it’s increasingly hard to imagine Crist maintaining much above modestly high (+5 to +8) approval ratings through the election. Rubio, on the other hand, doesn’t have to govern in this environment, he isn’t accountable for any of the tough choices, and he gets to define himself in opposition to someone who does and is. If Crist wins the seat by 20 points, it’s because generic Republican is winning it by 15.
So that leaves us with number 1. Is it worth electing Crist because he’s a moderate face in an increasingly ideological GOP? Well, that depends on what that moderate face will look like by next November. Will it be the one with the sunny smile and the unflappable tongue? Or will it look a little haggard; a little less sure of its power? And, of course, this leaves out the fact that the GOP needs more than moderate members if it wants to experience a revival; it needs diverse members. What good is a big tent if everyone looks the same?
Perhaps I’m biased, but I’m more inclined to think I simply have an inside view. And I’ll tell you, it is increasingly hard for minorities to line up behind the Republican colors. My party affiliation is not something I advertise to most people in my acquaintance. I am, to use a metaphor, an in the closet Republican. Are there in the closet moderates? I think not so many. We cannot, simply cannot, continue as a party of old, white men. It is untenable. It will fail and before the next decade is out.
These facts may discomfit Republicans, but a party that has such a failed history of reaching out to minority voters needs to be discomfited. It needs to be woken up with pots and pans, in the middle of its dreamy sleep. If Rubio- a son of Cuban refugees- can just set an alarm we’ll have gotten somewhere. This consideration would be enough, alone, to cancel out the “we need to promote Crist for ideological diversity” argument. And, all else being equal, it’d be enough to push Rubio over the top.
But, all else isn’t equal. Rubio is simply the better candidate. He’s more conservative, though not perfectly conservative and thank God; his politics is more principled, though not rigid, a governer not a shouter; and he is, by some kind of wonder, more charismatic, more polished. If these strengths don’t eliminate Crist from consideration they at least eliminate our need to worry about his fate. When Crist loses, Florida will have lost nothing of consequence and both Florida and the nation will have gained a new public servant from a new generation of Americans- tested by the fire of this century’s conflicts, having escaped from the rubble of the last’s major ideology, and ready to help lead our country in a time of great travail.
-
Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com and at his Pawlentyesque blog
If you need a snapshot of how our political culture has decayed, the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein has accidentally stumbled upon an insight.
Here he is, on the abysmal assessment that the CBO threw back at the Republican minority’s health care proposal:
The Democratic bill…covers 12 times as many people and saves $36 billion more than the Republican plan. And amazingly, the Democratic bill has already been through three committees and a merger process. It’s already been shown to interest groups and advocacy organizations and industry stakeholders. It’s already made its compromises with reality. It’s already been through the legislative sausage grinder. And yet it saves more money and covers more people than the blank-slate alternative proposed by John Boehner and the House Republicans. The Democrats, constrained by reality, produced a far better plan than Boehner, who was constrained solely by his political imagination and legislative skill.
This is a major embarrassment for the Republicans. It’s one thing to keep your cards close to your chest. Republicans are in the minority, after all, and their plan stands no chance of passage. It’s another to lay them out on the table and show everyone that you have no hand, and aren’t even totally sure how to play the game. The Democratic plan isn’t perfect, but in comparison, it’s looking astonishingly good.
This is revealing, but not for the reasons that Mr. Klein thinks it is.
Republicans indeed have no hand, no cards, and no clue. They have accepted all of the premises of the Democrats — that it is the job of the government to reduce health care costs, decrease the number of uninsured, work to increase the collective quality of life, and judge the financial outcome only against the number of people who ostensibly have some kind of “care.” (Call it care, call it insurance, and it is so, after all.)
Accepting these premises, how could it possibly be a surprise to anyone that the Republicans have failed so miserably?
They pretend that there is no alternative to the socialist bromides of the left. But there is. The real alternative is: personal empowerment through individual choice, mutually voluntary action, and a recognition of man’s rights as recognized by our Founders.
The immediate, easy, and obvious incremental solutions have been mentioned numerous times and are twofold: knock down the government-guaranteed monopolies on coverage within the individual states by allowing competition across state lines and enact tort reform, primarily through putting caps on malpractice lawsuits and making it more difficult to bring one before the courts. But this is not enough. The root of the problem is a philosophical one: For what reason does a government exist?
Ronald Reagan understood the paramount importance of this question, and came to prioritize the important stuff. This is why our top tax rate inches near forty percent rather than seventy percent. It is why we no longer are menaced by Communism. He gave in on the right issues — immigration, deficit spending — in order to secure what really mattered.
Today, the important stuff lies in our right to choose our own health care. It is so incredibly fundamental — an issue of our bodies, our lives, our families — and so concrete that we cannot afford to accept the false premises of our enemies. And they are our enemies. They do not intend to do good; they intend to bolster their egos by assuring themselves that they have done good. When the plan is put into law, these so-called men and women will rest easily; people are numbers to women like Pelosi. Like the inner-city mayor who blames urban decay on “structural racism,” throws a few hundred dollars at deteriorating “schools,” and somehow sleeps soundly, the Democratic Congress does not intend to help fix the country’s problems — indeed, it cannot even name them! Our lives do not matter to them. We are abstractions that exist only to form legacies around.
The Republican Party is the sole barrier against Pelosi and her ilk. But it has not a clue how to stop them. Boehner and Pelosi surround a man sinking in quicksand, and Pelosi insists that it is a state of existential despair that the man needs at this point. Boehner says that it’s a preposterous proposition — it’s a state of resignation that is needed.
This sinking man is our country’s philosophical core. Will someone get this poor man a rope?
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
Okay, I’m going to have to be really honest here. My reaction to Kristofer’s hit pieces on Marco Rubio are somewhere in between — in PG-rated terms — what the heck is this nonsense?, and What position on the Crist campaign are you angling for?
As a preface, I should note that there are two reasonably strong cases to be made for supporting Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio (neither of which I am convinced by):
(1) He is a rising moderate in a party that desperately needs public faces that are inviting and proven to be popular. His popularity among the elderly and his proven ability to attract Hispanic votes are especially crucial. Even now, in this brutal political environment, he maintains a reasonably strong approval rating. When someone says, “Where is your Big Tent?,” we can point to a major player in a swing state.
(2) He can coast to the seat, meaning that we can utilize more resources on Kelly Ayotte, Rob Portman, and Roy Blunt — and furthermore, we’ll probably hold the seat forever, barring some awful scandal.
Note that neither number has anything to do with fiscal policy. Also, both are fairly ephemeral, speaking to the now and not the long-term. Even the thought that Crist will hold the seat until he dies sounds like a gag-inducing thought when you consider that we want a working majority, rather than just a majority, one day. And by ‘working majority,’ I don’t mean a godawful Frist-styled one.
I will readily concede that Kristofer is right that Rubio has not been consistent in his rhetoric regarding pork. But this supposedly devastating critique is only so if one’s rationale for supporting Rubio is that he is truly an ideologically pure conservative god. For those of us who just think that he’s better than Crist, a superior explanation will have to be given.
What is the practical implication, here? Read between the lines: “Rubio has been hypocritical when it comes to fiscal policy regarding pork-barrel spending.” Therefore, what? “Therefore, one should vote for Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio.” Why? “Because Rubio is bad on pork spending” No, no, I mean, what about Crist? “Well, let’s stay on subject.” But isn’t the subject which candidate is superior? “Yes, and Rubio is bad on pork.”
And so it goes. Kristofer spends vanishingly little time talking about Charlie Crist, and rightly so: his support of the stimulus breaks the back of what’s tolerable in the party when there’s a viable alternative. (That is: no primarying Snowe, kids.) And Rubio is indeed viable. Crist may win by twenty points against Meek, and Rubio may win by five. But a win is a win. And we don’t need to run a Snowe-type in Florida to win. We can do better in Florida than a stimulus-supporting, on-again-off-again swamp-worshiper. I’m sure, given Kristofer’s assurance, that Senator Crist will never try to bring home the bacon — of course not! — but pork accounts for a shockingly small percentage of federal spending. Pork is a symptom, not a cause. It’s laughable when looked at next to the $800 billion stimulus.
This is a choice between imperfect alternatives, in other words. Both candidates are imperfect. One is a lot more imperfect than the other.
Crist helped to put us and our children into greater debt. Now let’s help Rubio put Crist out of a job.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
Over the course of the last couple of weeks, two very important developments have taken place in American politics that most pundits have missed but that suggest that undercurrents are moving in a direction that will lead to a Republican resurgence and a Democratic downfall in the coming election cycles. The first is that Republicans have gotten serious about governing again, and the second is that Democrats have gotten serious about leftism again. Both of these developments are likely to swing independents and centrists back to the GOP and re-orient a center-right country back around its right-of-center political party.
Because there are more conservatives and moderates than liberals in America, the median American voter — the voter at the fifty yard line of the overall electorate — is a right-leaning centrist. Given that ideological breakdown, there is no good reason for the nation’s left-of-center political party to control both the White House and sixty percent of the national legislative body. A center-right country shouldn’t be electing a center-left government unless something is very wrong on both sides of the aisle. And until recently, something has been very wrong.
On the Republican side, the post-Bush GOP has been divided between big-government conservatives and no-government conservatives. The Bush Establishment’s liberalization of the GOP — turning it into a big-spending, bossy party with a small-l liberal foreign policy — caused conservatives to lose their mojo. Conservatives, convinced that the act of governing was inherently liberal after seeing what Bush had done, have spent the last year or so basically sitting out the debate over the issues, taking shots at anyone trying to tackle the issues that people care about and responding to public problems with slogans, such as “America has the finest health care system in the world,” rather than with solutions. This left those of us interested in actually governing, but opposed to the standard-issue Democratic domestic agenda, looking for allies in liberal Republicans like the Bushies and conservative Democrats like Max Baucus. That’s because they were the only ones offering halfway reasonable, if highly flawed, solutions to America’s problems.
But in the last few weeks, a couple of interesting things happened. The first was the victories in Virginia and New Jersey by conservatives interested in governance, running on conservative solutions to the issues that voters cared about. The second was the release of a GOP health care plan that actually solves most of the nation’s health care problems without breaking the bank or taking away too much freedom.
The Republican health care plan put forth by the GOP congressional caucus would tackle the problem with health care by passing a few small-bore reforms that would gradually bring down the cost of health care and help more people get insured. The plan would institute high-risk pools to ensure that the uninsurable are able to pool risk amongst themselves and thus get insured, all without instituting guaranteed issue or an individual mandate, both of which would raise premiums for everyone. It would also prevent insurance companies from rescinding policies when individuals get sick. It would allow young Americans to stay on their parents’ health plan up until age 25, a smart policy in a society where more and more Americans are choosing to obtain graduate, post-graduate, and professional degrees in order to keep up with the demands of the economy, something that government should encourage in order to ensure that our workforce can continue to compete with the rising economic powers of China and India. And it includes measures like tort reform and the ability to shop for insurance across state lines that will bring down the cost of health care and health insurance over time.
Critics respond that the GOP plan does little for the vast majority of the uninsured, most of whom are uninsured because they are unable to afford to purchase a plan. While it’s true that the GOP plan would take care of this issue over time by lowering the cost of health care, it’s also true that such a policy does little to help working class folks who need health insurance now, and who aren’t content to wait ten years for market forces to take hold. That’s why I would prefer to combine this plan with another Republican plan, the one proposed by John McCain during the 2008 election. McCain’s plan would have extended a refundable tax credit to all individuals towards the purchase of a health plan, which would have been paid for by ending the tax advantage given to employer-based health care. While this isn’t a perfect plan, it is a solid conservative solution that expands individual choice by simply refusing to use the tax code to prefer Americans who receive health insurance through their employer over Americans who purchase health insurance on the market. The current tax code rewards the GM employee at the expense of the entrepreneur who is building the next GM. Ending that tax advantage in order to incentivize entrepreneurship and to make it easier for people to take responsibility for their own lives by purchasing insurance on the market was a good idea in 2008 and is still a good idea, and if McCain had known how to sell it he might be president today.
The current GOP health plan combined with the plan proposed by the last Republican presidential ticket takes care of the vast majority of our nation’s health care problems at a fraction of the cost of any of the Democratic plans being proposed. Unlike BaucusCare, it doesn’t destroy the health insurance market, it doesn’t force anyone to purchase a product, it puts few new regulations on insurance companies, and it doesn’t come with the myriad of unintended consequences that any sort of seismic re-organization of the health care industry is sure to bring about. And the GOP solutions are eons better than PelosiCare, an example of the worst excesses of leftism, which will throw Americans in jail for being unable or unwilling to purchase a product and which will bust the budget and create a new middle class entitlement that will probably work about as well as all of the existing ones.
I’m fairly certain that, given the choice between PelosiCare, BaucusCare, and a comprehensive Republican plan containing all of the good ideas put forth by the GOP over the past year or so on this issue, most Americans would choose the Republican plan. That’s because the GOP plans described above are the least intrusive, the cheapest, and solve the actual problems that exist in our health care system and not the ideological ones, tackling the cost of health care and the uninsured rather than attempting to remake the entire system in a European image. That aforementioned right-leaning centrist voter at the fifty yard line of American politics would certainly prefer these solutions to PelosiCare and probably also to BaucusCare. When that voter has to choose between bad ideas and no ideas, bad ideas will win every time. But when Republicans actually get serious about tackling the issues, and come up with solutions to public problems, they actually do pretty well at it. Maybe they should try to do so more often.
Here are some of the items on the internet that mattered to me…
Marco Rubio Win 13th Straight Straw Poll Yesterday 86 to 4
Charlie Crist NOW Saying that He Opposed the Stimulus (no joke)
Gov. Mike Huckabee Endorses Senator Alan Nunnelee for Mississippi Congress
Mike Huckabee, Chuck Norris, & Michael Farris Discuss US Courts Adopting International Law
I also have launched a new effort to educate the public and stop ObamaCare. I hope you would check out Majority Against ObamaCare at: http://majorityagainstobamacare.com/
New Rasmussen poll shows public opposed to ObamaCare by 52% to 45% margin. This is similar to the CNN poll earlier this month that found 53% to 45% opposition.
There has recently come into existence a new word, paradessence, formed from paradoxical essence. It is used in advertising/marketing to describe a product that manages to contain apparently contradictory attributes:
Many products exhibit a paradoxical essence, or paradessence, in promising to simultaneously satisfy two opposing consumer/buyer desires. ‘Products blessed with paradessence somehow combine two mutually exclusive states and satisfy both simultaneously. Ice cream melds eroticism and innocence. Air travel offers sanitised adventure. Amusement parks provide terror and reassurance. Automobiles render drivers reckless and safe. Sneakers grasp earth and help consumers soar free. Muzak is a hybrid of transience and eternity’.
—Aidan O’Driscoll, “Culture, Contradiction and Marketing Pragmatism,” Irish Marketing Review, September 9, 2009
The political application of this is clear – the best politicians are those who are able to build coaltions by uniting disparate, or even warring, groups. We often express a desire for such politicians by wishing for hybrid candidates (e.g., “We need a conservative with populist appeal.”)
The word blog linked above, though not political, actually cites a reference to Palin (from September 2008) as having paradessence. I’m not so sure about that, but I’d be interested in hearing thoughts on which potential candidates have the ability to tap contradictory needs in the electorate.
Erick:
Which of the following four Marco Rubio actions would you consider the most conservative and anti-establishment?
A) Obtaining tens of millions of dollars of pork barrel grants for his constituency, including 50k for an Orchid convention;
or
B) The decision to block Republican House bills, 73, 159, 571, 577, and 821, that would have prevented the growing rate of illegal immigration in Florida;
or
C) Spending $2 million more on salaries and hiring 20 people more than the previous Speaker of the legislature;
or
D) During the freedom rallies in Iran and upon the murder of young Neda, Rubio’s crafted response on Twitter was; ‘I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours.” ?
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Alex asked; What the Heck Is a Death Panel?
The LHIN is a government appointed panel, tasked with the role of deciding what health services will be rationed in the Province of Ontario, with the goal of reducing public health care costs. The LHIN is appointed by and accountable to senior bureaucrats. For average Ontarians, the decisions made by the panel are life and death, depending on where you reside and what services you require. As government budgets tighten during the economic recession, while private care remains illegal in Ontario, this panel has stepped up efforts to ration additional health services across the Province.
The most frightening moment of the video (2:20 mark) is where one of the panelists suggests that many critical services will only be offered at 1-2 hospitals, province wide. It takes nearly 30 hours to drive from one end of Ontario (pop. 13.5 million) to the other.
The LHIN is expected to close emergency departments and specialized services mostly in rural and suburban communities, only to centralize them in large, urban areas. This will disproportionately impact Seniors, for two reasons. First, seniors make up a larger percentage of Ontario’s rural population. Secondly, many seniors will have to rely on family and charity for transportation to hospitals and clinics.
Note that the anger displayed by the municipal politicians in the video was not over the proposed cuts, but the lack of transparency and accountability of the government health panel.
Currently, the plutocracy in Ontario have the option of visiting the United States for critical care (which they pay out of pocket), but the Obama/Pelosi plan will remove this option and send many of them back into the long waiting lists that existing in Canada’s public health care system.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Kevin Bohn, of CNN, recently conducted an interview with Mitt at the office of the Free and Strong America PAC. The Governor commented on the elections last Tuesday and offered his view on the direction the GOP should take:
“I am just one force among many. But a time like this, I think the party is looking for voices that lay out a positive … vision for the future of this country and for our party. If I can be part of that, so much the better, and there are a lot of good voices out there,” Romney said. “I appreciate the fact that others disagree with me on some issues, but that kind of debate at a critical time like this is good for the country.”
…”From now until November of 2010, I will be working to help conservatives across the country,” the 2008 presidential candidate said. “The country, in my view, is being taken a direction that is very damaging, and I think people want to see a strong return of fundamental American principles.”
As to the current state of the GOP, he maintains that the party is seeing new blood and has been rejuvenated by President Obama.
“I think you are seeing Republicans from both sides of the spectrum becoming more and more enthusiastic, more excited about the future and more anxious to see change in Washington.”
…Although some in the party believe that it should be tilting right in whom to support in future elections, he said, “I will be by and large supporting conservative Republicans” but would not rule out backing some moderates, referencing former President Reagan.
“He was the one who coined the term ‘the big tent.’ He also said that you don’t build something by subtraction. So we welcome people who agree with us on most issues. Some will be very conservative on some issues. Some will be less so on others. We welcome you into the party.”
Romney said those within the party of different ideological stripes can agree on core principles, including strong national security, small government and fiscal responsibility.
“They want to distance themselves from the mistakes [that] were made by certain Republicans in the past,” he said without elaborating.
Whether he is hoping to lead the party into the 2012 presidential race is an open question. He insisted that he would decide whether to make another run only after the midterms.
…The entrepreneur has criticized the $787 billion economic stimulus plan as emphasizing too much spending and not including enough tax cuts.
“Don’t waste any more money. Stop using the stimulus to grow government. Instead, restructure what’s left to encourage the permanent acquisition of jobs,” he said.
Several of his potential challengers in a possible Republican nomination fight, including Huckabee and Pawlenty, have criticized the Massachusetts universal health care plan Romney helped create as governor. Although the state has greatly expanded the number of residents receiving insurance coverage, the costs have exceeded estimates.
…”We have a plan in Massachusetts that is working pretty well. It has flaws. It’s not perfect, but it is making a difference here,” he said. “We found a way to get everybody insured in the state, and we did that without a public option — no government insurance and without the need of raising taxes.”
…Romney called Obama a nice guy and said there are some areas they agree on, such as the president’s trip to Copenhagen, Denmark, to lobby for the Olympics to come to Chicago, Illinois. But “he’s just wrong on most big issues,” the former head of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics said of the president.
Some of Romney’s toughest criticism of the president has come over foreign policy.
“I think he has made America less safe in that our friends are more concerned about the reliability of the United States,” he said.
He pointed to such moves by the administration as pushing Israel to freeze settlements, the redesign of the missile shield program in Europe and the review of the Afghanistan war strategy.
“This president says he needs some time. Four months? Nine months? We have men and women dying in Afghanistan. They need to know if they’re going to get reinforcements and the support they need, or is this president going to take a different course?”
Again, I consider the Governor nearly pitch-perfect in this interview, especially with his promotion of an optimistic party focused on certain core principles – “strong national security, small government and fiscal responsibility” – but flexible on less essential issues. Couple this with proposals for solutions to issues voters consider most pertinent, and I think we have a recipe for electoral and governing success.
Those who know Rubio best, are questioning his new-found commitment to fiscal conservatism and his distrust of the GOP establishment. It appears as if the talking points spouted by the Rubio campaign may not match his legislative record in Florida.
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Marco Rubio is emerging as the champion of activists fed up with Republicans who don’t stay true to conservative principles. But if those turning against Gov. Charlie Crist are looking for a pure, uncompromising conservative, Rubio’s legislative record might give them pause.
“He was a big disappointment to us when he was the speaker,” said NRA lobbyist Marion Hammer, who saw Rubio do little to help pass a bill allowing employees to bring guns to work. “He talked the talk, but he didn’t walk the walk.”
As speaker of the House, Rubio consistently presented smaller budgets than the governor and the Senate. But he also spent eight years casting votes and cutting deals that reflect the reality of the legislative process: hard-line ideology rarely triumphs over compromise.
The 38-year-old campaigning as an authentic, from-the-gut conservative is the same person who spent tens of thousands of dollars to test political messages on focus groups, gave out big staff salaries and, like Crist, favored a $60 million subsidy for a new Florida Marlins stadium.
The fact of the matter is that Rubio is a traditional, Tom DeLay, GOP porker. The rightroots (especially Redstate) are in love with the myth of Rubio, as much as they were in 2000 with ’Dubya’, but as Crist begins to engage Rubio and the media begin to introduce the young Cuban-American to the public at large, candidate Marco will have to explain his not-so responsible spending habits during his career at city council and in the Florida legislature and his willingness to cut deals with liberal legislators to feed the interest groups that fund his political aspirations.
Unlike Democrats, Republicans have never allowed themselves to be easily courted by young, unknown candidates. Republicans rarely fall in love with candidates at first sight, but instead they expect candidates to prove themselves in one or more national campaigns. This has always served the party (and conservative movement) well, but in the case of the rightroots, they are desperate to anoint anyone ‘different’ from the traditional Republican profile, who can articulate conservative talking points.
At first glance, Rubio (bilingual, attractive, with an olive skin tone) represents the image remake the Republican party is desperately seeking, but if he represents nothing more than the tyical pork barrel spending politician that contributed to the public distrust of the Republican party, then I say no thank you.
I am not prepared to go to the dance with Rubio, let alone fall in love with the laissez faire, anti-establishment image his campaign is selling us, until he explains his calculating and bipartisan legislative record.
The goal of the rightroots should be to elect fewer ’yes’ men for John Boehner, not more of them. This objective is our only opportunity to promote change within the GOP leadership.
_____________________________________________
Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and Twitter/Kris_Lorelli
Massive outpouring of adulation for Reagan at the time of his death and funeral shamed most Leftist Democrats and Drive-by media into sharing credit with Reagan for the fall of the Evil Empire. But with President Barack Obama barely noting the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, his fellow ideologues re-write history by lauding the Communist leader whose head Reagan placed on the ash heap of actual history.
When a communist Oswald snuffed out JFK, the anti-anti-communists in the Democratic Party completed their takeover of the party; snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Vietnam; nominated and elected a bemoaner of our “inordinate fear of communism”; appeased communists in Nicaragua; and, publicly and surreptitiously aided and abetted the Soviet-desired nuclear freeze and opposition to intermediate missiles in Europe.
Reagan, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II defeated Mikhail Gorbachev anyway. I do recall that Walter Mondale issued a tough statement and Mickael Dukakis rode in a tank along the way to feign toughness they didn’t believe in.
We saw a repeat of this typical aggression-inviting, weak on defense posture from the Democratic Party over the past decade after their 911-inspired support for the Iraq War didn’t result in a new Connecticut in the Middle East within 72 hours of the Shock and Awe. Democrats celebrated the prevention of homeland attacks after 911 by launching the “Bushlied Era” and feigned toughness on the Afghan theater and finding Osama bin Laden.
I knew the Democrats were faking it all along.
They never met an enemy since November 22, 1963 that they wouldn’t appease and never sought to claim credit for the fall of communism and the Berlin Wall before June 5, 2004, i.e. the day Ronald Wilson Reagan died.
I recall the obvious shock in the press that all their efforts to brand Reagan an affable dunce racist, the Reagan years an orgy of greed and the fall of communism as inevitable had failed when they saw the massive outpouring of love from the overwhelming majority of Americans for their fallen hero.
I’ll never forget that only after Reagan’s funeral did I hear Democrats laud Reagan for his efforts to defeat the Evil Empire and to claim shared credit.
And so, I am not shocked to see the latest Democratic Party President to dither while our troops languish in Afghanistan; refuse an invitation to celebrate the fall of an empire inspired by the same dreams of his own Marxist father; and hold out a standing invitation to meet, without pre-conditions, to a Holocaust-denying, Islamist terrorist evil empire in Iran.
Could it be that this same leftist mentality, enabled by the Democratic Party for so long, is responsible for allowing a subversive terrorist to remain a Major in the U.S. Army for years?
We think so.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
From the official release:
Club for Growth PAC today endorsed Marco Rubio in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Florida.
“Marco Rubio is the real deal, one of the brightest young stars in American politics today, and a proven champion of economic liberty,” said Club President Chris Chocola. “He is a dynamic spokesman for the principles of limited government and economic freedom, and he will make a fantastic Senator.”
Rubio served in the Florida House of Representatives from 2000-2008, and was elected to the Republican leadership as Majority Whip, Majority Leader, and finally, Speaker of the House. Rubio is an advocate of lower federal spending, tax relief and tax reform, union members’ right to a secret ballot, and market-driven energy and environmental solutions.
Rubio’s Republican primary opponent is Florida Governor Charlie Crist, who supported President Obama’s $787 billion stimulus, proposed a state “cap-and-trade” energy program, and this summer broke his pledge not to sign any state tax increases.
“Charlie Crist has repeatedly joined with big government liberals on major economic issues facing America today, from taxes to spending to cap-and-trade,” Chocola said. “He represents the wrong direction for our economy and our nation.”
“The Club for Growth PAC has spent months studying this race, and we have concluded that either Charlie Crist or Marco Rubio would be heavily favored to win next November against likely Democratic nominee Kendrick Meek,” Chocola said. “The only question now is what kind of Republican will Florida send to Washington next year: a pro-growth Republican with a record of fiscal conservatism or a big-government Republican with a record of tax increases?”
Sen. Lieberman reitrerated his commitment to fillibuster any bill which contains the public option in an interview with Chris Wallace (health care enters the conversation a few minutes in):
The money quote:
If the public option plan is in there, as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote, because I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that’s worse than the one we’re fighting our way out of today. I don’t want to do that to our — to our children and grandchildren.
The dynamics are really shaping up for New Hampshire Republicans (see The Hill & the New Hampshire Union Leader.)
Oh, and a plug for a piece I wrote about why we shouldn’t panic quite yet about the disastrous House health care reform plan that passed early Sunday morning.
Today, November 9, 2009, is the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.
It was one of the greatest events of history.
The wall both literally and symbolically marked the division between tyranny and freedom.
It was erected on Sunday, August 13, 1961, to prevent people living under the Soviet-controlled Communist regime in East Germany from fleeing into free West Berlin. About 1500 people a day had been migrating westward.
Within 24 hours West Berlin was sealed off from the so-called Democratic Republic of Germany.
At first it was a fence consisting of barbed wire, spread over some 96 miles.
In 1962 an inner wall was built. The 100 yard gravel area between the fence and the wall was booby-trapped with trip wires, and mined.
In 1975 a stronger, higher, thicker wall made of concrete and reinforced with mesh fencing and barbed wire was constructed. It was known as the ‘Grenzmauer 75’. Soldiers stationed in some 300 watchtowers had a clear view of the space, and orders to shoot down anyone attempting to cross it.
Over 100,000 people tried to escape to freedom. Some 5,000 succeeded, mostly in the early years before the ‘Grenzmauer 75’ was built. Later, successful crossings were made through tunnels. Two families succeeded by hot-air balloon, and one man in a light aircraft. At least 136 people were killed in the attempt, most famously 18-year-old Peter Fechter, shot on August 17, 1962, as he tried to climb the wall. He lay for hours in the space between the wall and the fence, crying out for help while he bled to death. The East German border guards waited for him to die before they carried him away.
Twenty-five years later, on June 12, 1987, President Ronald Reagan of the United States stood on the west side of the Brandenberg Gate beyond which the wall ran, and said to the Russian leader in a famous speech, ‘Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!’
The speech was symptomatic of the firm stand he maintained against the Soviet Union.
Two and a half years later the wall was brought down.
Its fall heralded the collapse of Soviet Russia and its evil empire. It marked the end of the Cold War and the victory of the free world, led by the United States of America.
The conquering hero of that stupendous victory was President Reagan. How he won the Cold War is the subject of volumes, but win it he did.
Of inestimable help to him was Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain.
A few days ago Mikhail Gorbachev, George H. W. Bush who was president of the US when the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, and Helmut Kohl who was Chancellor of West Germany at the time, met on the stage of a Berlin theatre to commemorate the fall of the wall.
Margaret Thatcher, who had not wanted the reunification of Germany but nevertheless played a decisive part in defeating the Communist tyranny over Eastern Europe, was not included.
The president of the United States, Barack Obama, has refused to attend any of the celebratory ceremonies in Germany. His excuse is that he is ‘too busy’.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jillian Becker is editor-in-chief of The Atheist Conservative
Gov. Mike Huckabee writes the following in a new Huck PAC post:
There is no longer any doubt who Democrats in the House answer to—and it’s NOT their constituents back home. They let Nancy Pelosi break their arms and domesticate them so they would ignore unemployment, deficits, and a war and push forward with a 2300 page health care bill that they didn’t read and don’t understand. I hope their real bosses—the voters—will remove them from office and send them the message that they need to take a good look around the Capitol this December and enjoy the Christmas decorations since the voters will make sure that it’s their last Christmas to be seeing them as a Congressman.
Nancy Pelosi and Barak Obama’s Saturday Night Fever is an outrageous betrayal of their promises and the principles of good government. They will only hear one thing—the sound of election returns that send them home. Find out how your member voted and thank them if they remembered to vote for you and let them know that you will dedicate time, money, and energy to their defeat if they voted to give their seat to Pelosi and Obama.
I am personally committed to identifying 3000 conservatives in the month of November that agree with me. If you do I urge you to make a donation of $25 or more towards our efforts to vote these Democrats out of office.
I can’t say whether or not there are death panels in the House bill until someone tells me what they are.
Sarah Palin again intoned gravely about them last night in her Facebook note: “We had been told there were no ‘death panels’ in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.”
Look closely? What am I looking for?
When Harold Ford attended American University two weeks ago, he referenced the death panel claim, stating that it was a myth twisted around from a proposal of Senator Johnny Isakson (R-GA) that would have offered end-of-life care options — including voluntary euthanasia — to suffering seniors.
Is that a death panel? Is that what Palin was talking about?
A woman at the Maryland town hall that I attended shrieked to the attendant news media about how the government was going to kill her off because her liver was thrashed and the Obama administration would deem her ‘unproductive’ and thus not worthy of health care. Or of living. Or something. I don’t really know. I don’t think she did, either.
Others have suggested that ‘death panel’ is simply an inflammatory rhetorical tool meant to draw attention to the inevitable problem of state-run health care rationing. If you look closely at any health care bill that includes government mandates, this will be an issue. Is that what a death panel is? An intentionally provocative piece of rhetoric, and nothing more? No less an authority than the head of the Democratic Leadership Council seems not to have taken it as such.
Think about this dilemma too much and it becomes something of a tragicomedy: our nation’s top political actors are arguing back and forth about something with no coherent definition. Palin and Obama fire barbs back and forth about — what? What are we arguing about? We haven’t even defined our term, and we’ve wasted months of discourse on it.
Is this Rorschach test what Palin wanted? If she’d put forward a concrete definition, the debate surrounding ‘death panels’ would have been over in a week. If this was a purposeful strategy, it reveals her to be a highly Machiavellian player who knows how to change the national discourse. And if not, then she’s got to at least be seen as some kind of idiot savant.
If absolutely nothing else, it’s shown her to be an intensely influential figure — perhaps the most influential — amongst the right, and someone who, from behind her computer chair, can lob missiles at Democratic proposals without breaking a sweat. Everything about her star power, for better or for worse, has been confirmed by this saga.
Influence she’s got. But I can’t say whether or not there are death panels in the House bill until someone tells me what they are.
PS – Read the comments, where multiple people are telling me what death panels are, to see exactly what I’m talking about.
Talk to Alex Knepper at apkkib@aol.com
Administration policies pit America against freedom fighters at home and abroad as President prefers spotlight shining on him, rather than Reagan’s Shining City on a Hill
Five moments define the Reagan Presidency for me, with the greatest of them (1) occurring on November 9, 1989, when freedom-loving East and West Berliners tore down (video of the fall) the symbol of Communist tyrannical oppression, some ten months after the Gipper’s Farewell address.
Yet, twenty years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, that Republican Ronald Reagan challenged Gorbachev to tear down (2), America’s Democrat Chief Executive refused an invitation from Germany’s unified leader to commemorate the moment that ended the mass imprisonment of half the globe by adherents of the socialist ideology of Karl Marx.
President Reagan famously dubbed the prison run by its warden, the Soviet Union warden, an “evil empire” in a 1983 speech to Evangelicals (3) in which he also demanded the Judicial wall of separation be torn down, between We the People and laws protecting innocent life in and out of the womb.
The fourth moment that best defines Reagan’s Morning in America years was the dark cloud of Ted Kennedy-led Democrats trashing Judge Robert Bork, the man Reagan chose to tear down that judicial wall behind which five lawyers still stand behind too often to usurp our right to self government with Politburo-like impositions from “experts” that know best. The Democrats showed how vile they are in that episode. The contrast with Reagan is stark and informative.
Our 40th President also rejected the Marxian, liberal economic view of history by citing Whittaker Chamber’s in the Forward Letter to his Children in “Witness”:
It is not new. It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: “Ye shall be as gods.” It is the great alternative faith of mankind.
Reagan believed that the first step on the F.A. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” is putting one’s faith in Man’s expertise rather than accepting God’s wisdom.
But quite possibly, the moment that best defines Reagan’s Liberty-loving message, was his first (5):
“ In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.”
The crisis present in 1981 at the time of President Reagan’s First Inaugural Address was the, then, worst American economic crisis since the Great Depression. This week we learned that unemployment in the current Great Recession topped 10% for the first time since the Carter Recession that Reagan inherited.
Barack Obama and most of the elected officials and other leaders of the Democratic Party, i.e. ObamaDems, are old enough to remember that the 80s recession ended, followed by a 25-year recovery the likes of which the world had never seen; when Reagan killed inflation and bolstered the dollar with a steady money supply and tore down the tax and government regulatory walls that were preventing the liberty-driven creations of wealth and other happiness pursuits. They know that a Newt “GOP revolution” Gingrich-inspired President Bill Clinton declared the “Era of Big Government” over with capital gains tax cuts, free trade and welfare reform to keep the Reagan Recovery going.
Dems don’t care
Yet, ObamaDems, seemingly an unnatural species of humans not particularly enamored of prosperity (see Dems don’t Care), are about the business of destroying the dollar with deficit spending triple the worst in our history and Federal reserve out of control; and, incredibly, re-building the same high tax and massive regulation walls that led to the present crisis, as well as the one Reagan inherited 29 years ago. (And if you try and scale that wall, Obama sends out the pitchforks!)
As my Boortzian Stone Mountain Conservative non-political observer, best described ObamaDems in July: They want us to surrender!
What led to this housing bubble/credit crunch caused recession if not Democratic Party implemented (and protected by Senate filibusters in the Bush years) market regulations requiring banks to accept mortgages from families that couldn’t afford them, and then guaranteeing them with tax payer funds?
But it appears that Obama and his “never let a crisis go waste” Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acolytes prefer crises that allow them to present government as the “solution”. Because their solution is not economic prosperity for all. rather, it is economic dependency on them, for all. After all, they are the experts.
ObamaDems refuse to let We the People bail ourselves out!
So, it shouldn’t be surprising that Barack Hussein Obama alienates Iran’s freedom-fighters trapped inside the Mullah’s walls of religious oppression; or Jews having to wall themselves away from Islamists and the Palestinian death cult, featuring adolescent suicide bombers of proud parents. It shouldn’t be surprising that Obama wants judges that have “empathy” rather than respect for Constitutions.
ObamaDems crave power and craven power requires walls to repel the non-acquiescence of Liberty.
The brick and mortar for the building of the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtains are bread-driven crises. Just ask Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Then read the Dreams of Obama’s father.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
1) Mitt Romney – Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination, though his potential rivals have taken several strides to catch up with the frontrunner. Many of his future and past opponents have taken aim at his healthcare reform plan, dubbed Romneycare, and have used the national debate on healthcare reform to pound the former Massachusetts Governor. Finding a clear message on Romneycare is Gov. Romney’s first tough task of the 2012 cycle. Still, with a book on the way in early 2010, as well as courting 2008 nominee John McCain for fundraisers will continue to give the impression of Romney as inevitable establishment favorite. Romney, as well as former and current rival Mike Huckabee, proved to have far better political instincts then their potential rivals by staying out of the NY-23 race. The Florida Senate primary, however, may prove to be tougher to avoid.
2) Mike Huckabee – Huckabee continues to poll well while struggling to match his rivals in fundraising. This is Huckabee’s greatest problem; no matter how likable or how well he polls, his inability to raise money when hypothetically matched up against a billion-dollar Obama Machine will make Huck a tough sell for a party that will be desperate to win in 2012. Huckabee’s chances could hinge on whether or not he can find a way to raise money like a candidate at this level should. Still, the charming former Arkansas Governor has shown tougher lines of attacks both on Obama and on his favorite target, Mitt Romney, and their healthcare reforms. A big win at this year’s Values Voters Summit reminded everyone, however, that if Huck runs he will remain a favorite of the evangelical base, perhaps far more so then in 2008. Huckabee, like Romney, showed far better political instincts then other potential rivals in avoiding the NY-23 debacle. But unlike Mitt, Huck has already endorsed Marco Rubio in Florida’s Senate Primary, returning the favor for Rubio’s endorsement in 2008.
3) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has made some significant moves in his pursuit of the 2012 nomination. He has created a PAC, Freedom First, and announced several major hires from previous campaigns. He has also taken direct aim at both Barack Obama’s and Mitt Romney’s healthcare plan, likely to be a favorite line of attack as Pawlenty sets out to overtake 2012 frontrunner Mitt Romney. With two terms as a conservative governor of a blue state, an inspiring life story, a finalist for Vice President in 2008, and a slew of positions on issues that line up with all corners of the GOP base, Pawlenty is fast becoming the alternative to Mitt Romney among the establishment. His virtual tie with Governor Romney at the Values Voters Summit, a poll Romney won the last several years, shows just how fast Pawlenty is rising. T-Paw’s endorsement of Hoffman in NY-23 continues a pattern of the governor tacking to the right, gearing up for a fight in 2012. Hoffman’s loss does not hurt Pawlenty as much as others, such as Palin and Gingrich, due to Pawlenty’s low name recognition. Still, T-Paw did not gain much from the special election, and will need to continue to find new ways to stay relevant in the national discussion. Opting out of the Obamacare public option might be next on the to-do-list.
4) Sarah Palin - After taking a hit due to her sloppy resignation, former Governor Sarah Palin has built considerable momentum, using a new media strategy that surpasses anything else other potential candidates have at their disposal. She has hammered the President on healthcare and cap and trade, using op-eds, twitter, and facebook to consistently hammer a message across. With the announcement that her book release will be moved up, ‘Going Rogue: An American Life’ is set to shatter all sorts of records for non-fiction books. Palin is establishing herself as easily the GOP’s biggest media star, but it has yet to be seen if she can channel that into an effective campaign organization. Her endorsement of Doug Hoffman set off a nationalizing of NY-23′s special election, and was seemingly headed towards a big success for her. However, with Hoffman’s loss, Palin has taken a hit, unable to get a conservative over the finish line in a solid GOP district. This failure will only further alienate her from top activists, and make a 2012 run less likely then a few weeks ago.
5) John Thune - Senator Thune is the most likely member of the Senate to get the GOP nod in 2012. He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years. Senator Thune could emerge as a unifying figure in a field with a number of candidates who have difficulty winning over certain parts of the party; Romney with evangelicals, Huckabee with fiscal cons, Palin with moderates. He has the potential to be the compromise candidate, bringing the Romney and Palin wings of the party together behind a consensus choice, but he will have to start moving before Tim Pawlenty beats him to it.
6) Haley Barbour - Governor Barbour is perhaps the greatest strategist in the party. He showed off that talent earlier this month, helping to lead two GOP candidates to victory in Virginia and NJ, a great start for the head of the RGA. With his sights set on major races all over the country in 2010, from California, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Florida, and Texas, Gov. Barbour could not only continue to help revive the party but could also collect enough chits along the way to make himself a strong contender in 2012. With Speaker Gingrich’s mishap in NY-23, it could be Gov. Barbour who emerges as the ’94er to lead a new generation of Republicans back to power, and himself to the White House.
7) Mitch Daniels - A very successful Rust Belt governor, Mitch Daniels proved himself by running what many call the best governor’s campaign of 2008 despite the dreadful climate for republicans. He is a graduate of Princeton and Georgetown, and served as Director of the OMB, while also sitting on the National Security Council and Homeland Security Council. Oh and he’s Arab-American(Syrian to be exact), proving once again that the GOP is far more inclusive then advertised. Recently Daniels has stepped up not only his criticism of Obama’s policies, but of the GOP’s current standing too, sounding a lot like someone who wants to lead the party out of the wilderness. The Blade’s continued economic success during a period of recession continues to earn him praise, and despite his denials, inspires hope that the Governor will consider running for higher office in 2012.
8 ) Newt Gingrich – It’s hard to believe the leader of a Conservative Revolution could ever lose credibility with the party, but former Speaker Newt Gingrich’s endorsement of Dede Scozzafava in the special election in NY-23 may have wrecked any chance the former congressman had at a comeback. Gingrich still runs a powerful 527, American Solutions, and still commands the issues like few others. But this glimpse of Newt backing a liberal republican paints the Speaker more as party hack then party visionary. This latest strike may be the one that finally knocks the 1994 reverence off of the former Speaker, making a run in 2012 more unlikely.
9) Rick Perry – The long serving Texas Governor has bounced back from poor early polls to take a solid lead in the GOP primary against Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. A successful primary followed by likely reelection will help raise Gov. Perry’s profile further in the national party. He is already winning populist support for his anti-Washington screed, and won the endorsement of Gov. Palin. But it’s his state’s strong economy that just might push the Texas Governor into contention. As blue states like California and New Jersey head into spiraling fiscal crisis, Texas stands as a strong example of successful conservative economics in the face of a President pushing tax-and-spend liberalism. This factor, combined with a long, experienced career can put Perry in a very strong position. The uniting of the Tea Party base and his large, deep-pocketed Texas donors would give him a strong chance in the early states.
10) Rudy Giuliani – America’s Mayor is gearing up for a run against Senator Kirsten Gillibrand in 2010, and if that race happens, a likely victorious Senator Giuliani could instantly be back among the front-runners in 2012. Rudy remains a popular figure in polls both among Republicans and independents, and in an environment of a poor economy that is likely followed by high crime rates, the former mayor and potential senator could find himself in a strong position. Lessons learned from 2008 could serve Rudy well in the early states, and with no McCain to compete with he could become the consensus leader among the GOP’s moderate and national security wing. If another Presidential bid isn’t in the cards, a VP slot may not be far off, helping to balance the ticket with a more conservative nominee.
11) Jeb Bush – The former Florida Governor may be on the verge of reemerging during one of the most pivotal fights for the soul of the GOP. The popular chief executive could play kingmaker in next August’s Florida GOP Senate primary race between current Gov. Charlie Crist and former House Speaker Marco Rubio. Rubio has continued to build momentum while Crist has seen his once inevitable victory fall into doubt. Now, his predecessor has the ability to decide his fate. A Bush endorsement of Rubio could not only end any chance of a Crist nomination, but it could endear Jeb to the conservative grassroots. Already a favorite among establishment Republicans, a boost among the party’s grassroots base could make a Bush comeback more likely. A mentor to the conservative favorite Rubio, Bush is believed to favor the former Speaker and his endorsement could not only impact the Florida Senate race but change the balance of power in the fight for the GOP’s soul.
12) Mike Pence – The Indiana congressman has been drawing some buzz about a potential presidential run. A trip to South Carolina as well as a surprising 5th place finish in the Values Voters straw poll (behind Huckabee, Romney, Pawlenty, and Palin) has boosted speculation about a potential run for the White House. Trips to Iowa and California, as well as a big speech during the 9-12 Tea Party march on D.C. continue to fuel buzz about Rep. Pence’s future plans. Some feel he may be taking steps to run for the senate seat held by Richard Luger, who will turn 80 before his seat is up again in 2012 and is likely to retire, while others think he may have his eyes on succeeding Gov. Mitch Daniels. Then again, some grassroots activists would like to see Rep. Pence aim for an even higher office in 2012.
13) Gary Johnson – The former New Mexico Governor and Libertarian has created a new PAC, Our America, and continues to lay the groundwork for a presidential campaign in 2012. This early start could give Johnson the time to capitalize on both the Ron Paul-ites, who have become a fundraising force online, and the Tea Party Movement, that shares many of Johnson’s anti-tax, anti-government themes. Johnson’s success as Governor in a blue leaning state with his solid conservative record and his outsider appeal could make him stronger then many think. With Mark Sanford disgraced and Ron Paul turning 77 in 2012, Johnson is position to the the true Libertarian heir to Paul’s 2008 bid. The darkest of dark horses, his early organizing shows just how serious he is about becoming a contender.
14) Jim DeMint - DeMint has a rock solid conservative record and is likely to be a visible opponent of Obama these next 4 years on virtually everything the President wants to do. Senator DeMint happily endorsed Club for Growth head and former Congressman Pat Toomey against then-Republican Arlen Spector, followed by an endorsement of Marco Rubio despite establishment support for Charlie Crist, showing just how far DeMint is willing to go for an ideologically pure GOP as well as sending a message to disloyal Republicans. With a record that can win over Iowa’s GOP and a home base in South Carolina, DeMint could emerge as more then a vanity candidate from the Senate, but rather a real dark horse.
15) Rick Santorum – Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum has scheduled a number of appearances in Iowa, and all indicators seem to be pointing to a presidential run. Santorum is a strong neoconservative with very strict social conservative values. While the former Senator may have some strong inroads with values and religious voters, he was also crushed in his 2006 reelection bid, and therefore may find it difficult convincing party activists that he can appeal to the broader electorate.
Tonight the house voted 220-215 for the Health Care Reform, after the pro-life Stupak Amendment was added. One has to thing a long way’s back to think of a more harmful dangerous vote.
June, in fact, when the House voted 219-212 to pass Cap and Trade. The bill has languished in the Senate ever since.
This particular bill will not be the final legislation, but it does suggest some serious problems. With the Stupak Amendment, ensuring that the public option wouldn’t fund abortion, the bill barely passed.
Many conservative bloggers have raised the legitimate concern that the pro-life language could be yanked as a result of a Senate bill. But, what if it is yanked?
The Democrats will lose the support of Joseph Cao. In addition to that, at least three Democrats (Obertar, Mollahan, and Stupak) are actually sincere pro-lifers who have fought actively on the abortion issues and aren’t using it for play back in their districts. A bill that has abortion funding in it will lose several votes.
However, it’s not as simple as the Senate passing a bill with the Stupak Amendment in it. Pelosi’s bill was very precisely balanced to make it through the House. Not too expensive that the Blue Dogs would say no to it, not too small or without a public option that the “Progressive Caucus” would bolt.
The type of bill that could clear the Senate could lose members of the House Progressive Caucus and could lose some pro-life Democrats as well if it didn’t have Stupak-like language in it. The closeness of the House vote really weakens Reid’s hand in terms of trying to shove this through reconciliation. Imagine pushing a bill through only to find you couldn’t get the bill through in the House. San Fran Nan has no margin for error.
Meanwhile, the left wing base of the Democratic Party is not happy about Stupak and will be even less happy if it makes its way into the final bill. Jeralyn at Talk Left calls it the “wire coat hanger amendment.”
However, without Stupak-type language, Obamacare may end up being aborted.
9/11 terrorist-Fort Hood killer tied to same mosque.
White House press doesn’t know about if lawyers have looked into constitutionality of individual mandates.
Obama honors “Congressional Medal of Honor winner” who didn’t win the award.
Taxpayers unlikely to recover $80 billion given to GM.
Obama Administration fudging stimulus job numbers. (Hat Tip: The Corner.)’
And in Wisconsin, too. (Hat Tip: Hot Air.)
Public schools across America sing the praise of Obama.
Democrats hire gang bangers to get out the vote.
Obama Administration warns Democrat Consultant to stay off Fox News. (Hat Tip: Newsbusters.)
Planned Parenthood director quits after seeing ultrasound, and as a result of 40 days for life campaign.
1,561 abortions stopped as a result of 40 days for life.
Federal court strikes down bubble zone around abortion clinic. (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)
Delay of enforcing Illinois parental notification law: 14 years. (Hat Tip: Jill Stanek.)
City tries to regulate crisis pregnancy center.
Romney changes tune on the goal of Romney Care.
Nice friends you got. Barney Frank present during pot bust. (Hat Tip: Talk Left.)
California takes interest free loan from taxpayers. (Hat Tip: Red State.)
California isn’t worth it. (Hat Tip: Wizbang Blog.)
Homosexual actor defaces the Bible. (Hat Tip: World Magazine.)
Obama copyright treaty bad news for the Internet.
Yankees skipper helps woman in distress.
Click here to listen, click here to download.
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
From the AP:
The 220-215 vote cleared the way for the Senate to begin debate on the issue that has come to overshadow all others in Congress.
…In the run-up to a final vote, conservatives from the two political parties joined forces to impose tough new restrictions on abortion coverage in insurance policies to be sold to many individuals and small groups. They prevailed on a roll call of 240-194.
Ironically, that only solidified support for the legislation, clearing the way for conservative Democrats to vote for it.
The legislation would require most Americans to carry insurance and provide federal subsidies to those who otherwise could not afford it. Large companies would have to offer coverage to their employees. Both consumers and companies would be slapped with penalties if they defied the government’s mandates.
Insurance industry practices such as denying coverage on the basis of pre-existing medical conditions would be banned, and insurers would no longer be able to charge higher premiums on the basis of gender or medical history. In a further slap, the industry would lose its exemption from federal antitrust restrictions on price gouging, bid rigging and market allocation.
…The bill drew the votes of 219 Democrats and Rep. Joseph Cao, a first-term Republican who holds an overwhelmingly Democratic seat in New Orleans. Opposed were 176 Republicans and 39 Democrats.
Thankfully for the nation, the bill stands a tougher chance of passing through the Senate.
Has political correctness turned U.S. military bases into free speech, gun-free zones?
Before we address why an apparent anti-American subversive who frequently spoke in support of Muslim solidarity in jihad against the U.S. in Afghanistan and Iraq and, yet, was allowed to remain an officer in the U.S. military, DeVine Law Layman has a question for those with experience on military bases and any JAG officers within hearing of this rooster and Michael Ledeen’s voice:
Gun Control on Military Bases (?)
Lots of folks have wondered why there weren’t more soldiers with guns at Ft. Hood, and I’m one of them. Our younger Marine is home for the weekend from The Basic School at Quantico, and Barbara and I asked him if there were Marines with guns on the base. There are. Lots of them. And they move around all the time, checking places where Marines congregate, from classrooms to outdoor obstacle courses and parade fields and barracks. Apparently it occurred to the base commander some time ago that it was a bad idea to leave his men and women unprotected. (emphasis added?
Why would it take four long minutes to take down a mass murderer surrounded by hundreds of military officers on a U.S. military base? This is not the kind of competence and efficiency we are used to witnessing when our armed forces face the enemy off base? A spokesman for Fort Hood kept repeating that “they don’t carry guns in their home neighborhood”. What did he mean?
This incident reminds me of the Massacre in Blacksburg, made possible by Virginia Tech’s gun-free zone invitation to killers. What gives at Fort Hood? I’m asking.
So traumatized by racial epithets that he remains for eight long years?
DeVine Law sees the formation of a not guilty by reason of insanity or “fighting words” defense for Nidal Malik Hasan emerging with family members’ and others’ alleged recollections of complaints from the killer about his traumatizing endurance of racial epithets beginning soon after September 11, 2009.
This reminds of Anita Hill’s last hour allegations of actionable ”sexual harassment” against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomasduring his nomination hearing. Ms. Hill was so traumatized by a supposed “pubic hair Coke can” joke that she followed him from job to job for as many years as Hasan kept drawing a check from a U.S. Army he loathed.
DeVine Law has another question for those with experience in the Armed Forces of the United States:
Is it hard to remove obviously dangerous, subversive members of the military from the non-subversive members? Are brigs still in use?
On the same day of the Fort Hood Massacre, Democrats in the U.S. Senate voted down a Republican proposal to include the following question on Census forms: Are you a U.S. citizen?
Has the same kind of political correctness that controls the ObamaDems of the Democratic Party, now disarm our Armed Forces from protecting themselves?
Serious questions.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer and Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson
Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all verification links may be accessed.
Well, it’s been only five short days since the off-off year elections. While Tuesday night was big news, other things are going on that also need attention. As such, here’s a few topics to get you started:
Anyway, you’re in charge of the topics, so don’t feel tied to just these!
UPDATE: How could I forget that the official unemployment numbers hit 10.2%? That should be big news! Will we hear anything more about it? I can guarantee we’d be hearing about it if we’d elected Sen McCain!
I love Paul Ryan. He is brilliant. Here he is on The Kudlow Report today talking about the 2,032 page health care bill:
Congressman Mike Pence released the following video, urging all Americans to rise up and let their voices be heard in regard to the Pelosi health care plan.
