Meet the Candidate:

watch?v=droDXGJ7Dz8

As White House Dossier correctly points out, the RNC should look at the potential here, particularly against the (apparently) non-insane Wolfe.  The challenge comes at an awkward time for the Obama campaign, on the heels of last week’s West Virginia fiasco in which The One was unable to break 60 percent against a federal inmate.  I see enormous potential for mayhem here, especially after the awesome clowning that was Juddmentum.

There’s little to no risk, now that the rest of the GOP field has tapped out.  Think about it, Arkansas Republicans…it’s like a hashtag hijack, only funner!

Crossposted at El Tercer Riel.  Tweeting out of @BonillaJL.

I answer this question multiple times a day. The people who ask this are referring to the fact that my Dad won eleven states, over 900 counties, with over three million votes cast for him. He was Mitt Romney’s primary competition for the GOP nomination. There is often a certain sense of bewilderment when they ask this, but also of respect or even admiration. And don’t worry. I get why this amazes them. Our campaign was overwhelmingly outspent in most states (sometimes more than 10 to 1), we didn’t have the organizational machine of the Romney camp, and we spent months of the race not getting any attention from the national media. In the fall, we were sitting at two percent in the polls and running a presidential campaign with a handful of incredible, dedicated staff and volunteers.  So, is it shocking that we did what we did? Absolutely. Did I believe if anyone could make this happen, it would be my Dad? Yep. We overcame the odds in this race, which is similar to every race he’s won, beating democratic incumbents in the blue state of Pennsylvania.

“But how did you do it this time? What was your secret?”

I hear ya. I could talk about how we strategized about this or that, how we worked tirelessly, or how we stretched every dollar. Fundamentally, our success came down to three things: message, messenger and movement. These aspects are essential to every race that starts at the grassroots level.

A campaign is not simply platforms and policy; it needs a message that inspires people to act. My Dad traveled the country talking about a manufacturing plan to create jobs, a fiscal policy that would lead America to prosperity, ways to make us energy independent, the looming threat of a nuclear Iran, and the importance of the family. He also talked about the importance of our founding documents, that the loss of liberty was the fundamental issue of this race.

My Dad’s message excited the base of the party and spoke to a middle America that was hungry for, well, a kid from a steel town who knows how to work hard. He visited every county in Iowa before the caucus, worked nearly 24/7 with only five days off throughout the entire campaign, and held over 800 town hall meetings nation wide. Americans still value hard work and a real person who is courageous and honest.

With that type of a messenger, we began painting our vision for America. And as any good teacher will tell you, when you begin anything, you talk about what you know. So, we started our campaign out talking about our stories – our immigrant family, our vision for the country, how we got conservative things done in DC, and how we believe in the founding principles that made America great. Then something wonderful began to happen. Our supporters and volunteers believed in the message and that belief turned into action. Money can’t buy that type of genuine enthusiasm. The campaign became about the stories of all the people who came into our lives on this journey. A movement began.

In Iowa, a guy named Chuck volunteered to drive my Dad around to all of his events in a Dodge Ram pickup truck. Chuck is a straight shooting, salt of the earth guy who loves Iowa and its caucus. Even though he’s a top politico in the state, as he’s the former director of the state party, he put the rest of his life on hold to drive the Chuck Truck for our campaign. He believed we could pull off the impossible: a win in Iowa. Hundreds of miles later, his faith was rewarded.

Wendy Jensen was the smallest wisp of a woman with one of the biggest hearts I’ve ever known. In spite of her disability, she made over 5,000 phone calls for the campaign in Iowa and passed away right before caucus night. I know she’d be proud of what we all did, together, in Iowa. That night was for Wendy.

In Oklahoma, we met our best volunteer whose name was Nathanial. He had spina bifida. Nathanial made thousands of phone calls from home for the campaign. Yet as we thanked him for his huge contribution, he thanked us for representing his voice.

While in Missouri, a woman came up to my Dad after an event and handed him eight dollars. These were her daily tips from her job as a pet groomer. She told him this was her contribution to protect freedom.

For each of these stories there’s a thousand more. People all across the nation rose up and made big things happen. We even had a song written for us, called “Game On.”

I remember several months ago when a Romney surrogate claimed that all the significant Republicans in the country had spoken about who should be the GOP nominee. There was outrage among Republicans across America, especially among the half of the country who had not voted yet. A trend started on twitter, a hashtag that said #IAmSignificant. This went viral as everyday Americans “endorsed” my Dad for president because, after all, they were significant too. When I heard the comment myself, I couldn’t help but think of Chuck, Wendy, and Nathanial. To us, these everyday Americans were significant. In fact, they were invaluable.

So when people ask me how we ran a grassroots campaign for president and re-wrote the history books on how presidential races are run, well, the answer is simple: we did it together, against all the odds. But, who doesn’t like a good underdog story? Thank goodness for the Ricks, Rockys and Rudys of this world who remind us of what’s really significant and that all things are possible.

Via RCP:

Chris Matthews: Let me ask you about something which is not in the polling, but I want you as experts — Barack Obama is the first African-American president, okay. Is there going to be a reluctance on the part of the voters and the political community that talks politics as we get into November about dumping the first African-American president? Is there going to be something that just wretches people? ‘Wait a minute here, this guy is going to knock out the first guy who got aboard?

Follow the link, where you’ll see Howard Fineman arguing that Obama is held to a higher standard because of his skin color, and you’ll watch as Chuck Todd posits that a Republican To Be Named Later backed out of the race for that very reason.

I respectfully submit that we witness, yet again, the absolute validation of Andrew Breitbart’s final thesis, to wit: that the ambiguous themes of “Hope” and “Change” were really nothing more than ideological beards for the class warfare and racial strife at the heart of Obama’s ideology and subsequent governance.  May I remind you that John McCain run the kind of “submission to history” campaign that Obama so easily crushed in 2008, and which Matthews seems to evoke.

Given the self-evident lack of accomplishment of this regime, there is nothing more left to offer or sell to the American electorate.  There is nothing left but guilt projection.  Whether it’s the fake #WarOnWomen or the economically risible Buffett Rule, the intended result is the same…to shame us into submission.  And now this.  Having abandoned all hope, the leg thrill has now yielded to the guilt trip.

Not only is this tactic useless, but it lacks any factual or historical basis.  May I remind you that after an equally disastrous term, New York City passed judgement on its first African-American mayor.

Bear in mind that New York’s electorate is much more forgiving (and progreeeeesiiiive) than that of the nation as a whole.  Given those realities, I don’t see too many people buying into this phony race guilt meme.  If this is what the media is going with at this juncture, I’m liking our chances.

A Spanish-language version of this post is available at El Tercer Riel (The Third Rail).

Rick Santorum’s withdrawal was supposed to have signaled the beginning of the general election, and the end of this cycle’s silly season.  However, there is still an open spot on the Republican ticket, still news cycle to be filled with speculation, and still deadlines to be met…come rain, hail, sleet, or snow.

Until now, I had seen no need to address this fantasy indulged by the D.C.-and-New York-bassed kommentariat, which seems intent on pushing the Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuño, for the Vice Presidential nod.  Despite this insistence, I don’t think Fortuño so much as cracks the short list.  Such pieces as these, most recently from The Hill, are not just purely speculative media mind-dealing, they also serve to expose the ignorance of those who are supposed to deliver fact-based analysis.

There is no doubt, given Fortuño’s track record, that Gov. Mitt Romney is right to call him “a solid conservative and a firm leader.” However, I don’t think that neccesarily builds Fortuño’s case for running mate.

The end of any seriousness in The Hill’s piece begins with the notion that Fortuño’s presence would help the party’s Hispanic outreach efforts.  As I’ve noted previously, the coveted “Hispanic vote” is not a monoblock that can be reached with a single message.  Those who think so are usually the ones that have been clamoring for Marco Rubio’s addition to the ticket, as well (despite his continual rejections of the VP nod).  In theory, Fortuño’s impact would likely limit itself to the I-4 corridor, which would be redundant given John Quiñones’ run in FL-9 (and, to a lesser extent, Col. E.J. Otero’s run in Tampa).  In the Northeast, Hispanic voters are used to (and used to voting against) Hispanic candidates.  In the West, there is no factual basis with which to assume that a Hispanic conservative would necessarily bring substantial votes, especially now that Gov. Susana Martínez has tapped out from VP consideration (other than maybe Rubio, I can’t see it).

Fortuño’s executive and Congressional experience best qualifies him to lead Puerto Rico through its particular self-inflicted fiscal challenges, but isn’t a good fit for the Vice Presidency at this crucial historical juncture.  Romney’s running mate is going to have to be able to hit the lame-duck session on the run, and this lame-duck is big enough to choke a horse.  There will be ObamaCare SCOTUS fallout, regardless of the ruling.  In addition, there is a transition whichc hands off the winding-down of two wars…and oh, by the way, Taxmageddon is looming.  This particular transition requires a mastery of the tax and budgeting process that I’m not sure whether Fortuño has attained as Resident Commissioner in Washington, and Tourism Secretary and Governor of Puerto Rico.

Any other election cycle, and Fortuño is definitely on the short list.  But not this one.  Given the magnitude of the mess that is going to need cleaning up, and the need for a clean vetting, I think Romney will play it safe and go with three budget nerds on his short list.  Of these, I expect Jindal to show, Ryan to place, and Portman to win.

A Spanish-language version of this post is available at El Tercer Riel (The Third Rail).

Alan Grayson is the only candidate to announce for the Democrats.  His national fame (or infamy) has given him a natural fundraising advantage, which translates to about $2 million to date according to Sunshine State News.  His finances, the 9^th District’s demographics, and his access to the Obama machine would make him a nigh-unstoppable candidate in any other cycle, and against any other opponent.  But, perhaps, not this one.

FL-9 covers southeasternOrangeCounty, all of Osceola county, and a sliver of Polk County known as Poinciana.  Those who know Central Florida know that this part of town is heavily Hispanic, and that half of that Hispanic population is of Puerto Rican origin.  This is where Democrat math begins to crack up.

 About 40% of FL-9’s voting-age residents are Hispanic, and it’s no secret that Hispanic voters tend to favor Democrats, more so, Puerto Rican voters.  However, most ofCentral Florida’s Hispanics are registered independents, and tend to swing-vote.  Quiñones has a proven track record of appealing to these voters, and has won multiple elections on what is otherwise hostile ground for Republicans.  With a Puerto Rican on the ballot (especially one with Quiñones’ profile), I am hard-pressed to believe that Grayson (who does not currently live in FL-9 but owns a home there) can get the overwhelming majority of Hispanic votes that he’d need in order to return to Congress.  

 The mere possibility of a fifth Puerto Rican in Congress (along with Serrano, Velázquez, Gutiérrez, and Labrador) would potentially dry up any fundraising on the island, and would spook any local politicians looking to come over and stump for Grayson (as did Resident Commissioner Pedro Pierluisi last cycle).  For many Puerto Ricans, ethnic identity trumps political affiliation (Exhibit A: Sonia Sotomayor), and they tend to coalesce around “one of their own”, right or wrong.

 A Quiñones run in FL-9 could throw a wrench into national electoral calculations, as well.  Quiñones would likely affect Hispanic outreach and turnout all along the vaunted I-4 corridor, and could well help oust both President Barack Obama and Senator Bill Nelson.

Marco Rubio’s rise to the Senate proved that (A) Florida is a unique electoral market, and (B) that its Hispanics do not readily respond to Democrat national messaging.  Quiñones’ candidacy would necessarily focus the debate on Grayson, and hog-tie his record to Obama’s, and would rob Democrats of the opportunity to raise the specter of Hispanic racial grievance within the I-4 corridor.

For generations, Democrats have lived by the sword of racial polarization and grievance, and I am thrilled at the prospect that they may now die by it.  If I’m either the RNC, the RNCC, the Florida GOP, or Mitt Romney’s people…I’d look into wrapping my arms (and checkbook) around this guy yesterday.

A key feature 1996 and 2012 have in common is that, as of today’s date (4 March), the primary elections have delivered one outright win (50% or more of the vote) to any candidate.  In 1996, Bob Dole won Puerto Rico with 98% of the vote before Super Tuesday.  In 2012, Mitt Romney has won Nevada with 50% of the vote.

Otherwise, the assumed frontrunners in both elections remained in the 30-40% region throughout the early primaries.  Bob Dole faced Pat Buchanan, Steve Forbes, and Lamar Alexander, whose combined “not-Dole” popular-vote total up through 4 March 1996 was 593,472 to Dole’s 443,381.

Assumed frontrunners are, of course, commonly beaten by the combined “not-frontrunner” vote total in the early primaries of a competitive year (i.e., when a party’s sitting president is not running).  That is the case this year, with Romney at a vote total of 1,812,418 so far, and the combined total of Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul at 2,049,303.

In 1980, Reagan’s early vote total through 4 March – there was no “Super Tuesday” then – was at least 1,240,068, while his competitors combined had racked up 1,528,937.  (The 1980 vote total for Alabama is unavailable at this writing, due to a server problem at the state government website.)  In 1988 – a slower-starting primary year – Bush Sr.’s 4 March vote total was 224,871 to his opponents’ combined 401,377.  In 2000, George W. Bush was sitting on 1,614,355 votes by 4 March, while John McCain had gotten 1,712,991.

But by 4 March, in each of those years, there had been more outright primary victories (by any candidate) than in 1996 or 2012.  The following table covers Republican primaries in competitive, non-incumbent years back to 1980:

Elec. Yr         No. Voting Primaries/             No. Primaries won by 50%

                        Binding Caucuses                   or more (any candidate)

1980                       5                                             2

1988                     12                                             5

1996                      11                                             1

2000                     11                                             8

2008*                  40                                          20

2012                     12                                             1

* Super Tuesday was 5 February in 2008; entire primary schedule was heavily front-loaded

(All primary/caucus totals include District of Columbia and trust territories; totals do not include non-binding primary/caucus votes)

Obviously, there are multiple dimensions for comparison between years, and on other scores we may distinguish 2012 from 1996.  The sitting president in each year is a Democrat who is popular with the media and gets good press, but in 1996 the US economy was in better shape and President Clinton was getting comparatively high marks for his handling of it.

In 2012, the economy is in unusually bad shape, with one key indicator – labor force participation – at its worst reading since the recession of 1982, and another – the price of gas at the pump – at its highest level ever.  Meanwhile, President Obama’s handling of national security gets lower marks from poll respondents as the months go by.  Bill Clinton famously tacked toward the center for the 1996 election; Barack Obama has tacked leftward, with socially divisive rhetoric and socialist talking points, and thus has major negatives that Clinton did not have.

So it is entirely possible that Obama will beat himself in November; we should not despair over the parallels between 2012 and previous years.  That said, the quality of the assumed GOP frontrunner and the relative lack of enthusiasm for any of the candidates may give us pause.  On reviewing this table of popular vote tallies for the presidential elections of the last 40 years, we must hope that the fear of Obama is greater than anything else, for GOP voters and GOP-leaning independents:

1972                29,173,222                  47,168,710

1976                40,831,881                  39,148,634

1980                35,480,115                  43,903,230                     5,719,850 (Anderson)

1984                37,577,352                   54,455,472

1988                41,809,074                  48,886,097

1992                44,909,806                  39,104,550                   19,743,821 (Perot)

1996                47,401,185                    39,197,469                     8,085,294 (Perot)

2000                50,999,897                  50,456,002

2004                59,028,444                  62,040,610

2008                69,456,897                  59,934,814

Naturally, one of the key factors in 2012 is likely to be whether there is a third-party candidate with significant vote-getting power.  At the moment, there doesn’t seem to be one on the horizon, which is good news for Mitt Romney and the fortunes of the GOP in the general election.

But the decline in enthusiasm for the GOP candidate from 2004 to 2008 was marked, if not as precipitous as the decline between 1988 and 1992, or 1972 and 1976.  There is reason for concern as to whether a candidate with Romney’s record of comfort with big government is the man to lead a GOP resurgence.  The drawbacks of his limited appeal suggest that a Republican victory in November is likely to be a narrow one, perhaps on the order of Jimmy Carter’s victory in 1976 or even Bush 43’s in 2000.

One additional factor has to be considered.  Pundits speak with absolute certainly today about the economy being the main – possibly even the sole – driver of the voters’ decision in November 2012.  And it may be, but there are 8 months to the general election, and a big world out there.  Whatever drives the election will almost certainly be related to the economy in some way – but it won’t necessarily be what we can see or imagine on 4 March.

Note:  Primary election/caucus information from Wikipedia, Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, and selected state government websites.  General election vote totals from Wikipedia and Dave Leip’s site.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Who is to be congratulated for the elimination of Cain, Perry, Bachmann, and Huntsman?  The voters.  That’s right.  Sure, the candidates made some mistakes.  The media did everything possible to prejudice voters against them, and that was a crying shame.  But voters didn’t have to let the media or the contrived, somewhat artificial debate process make their decisions for them.

There is good news in all this.  First, the voters really are making the decision.  Second, the voters are starting to think for themselves.  It would have been nice for that to happen earlier, but there’s no time like the present.

Third, with the voters thinking for themselves, candidates who are focused on liberty issues are still on the ballot, and the party dialogue on those issues continues.  I know a lot of people don’t see it this way, but they’re wrong:  the most important thing the GOP can possibly do in 2012 is decide what it is and what it wants.  Self-identified “conservative” voters may be in a national majority according to the surveys, but it has been more than 20 years since we were all pulling together.

The bottom line is that the GOP is not agreed on what the problem is. We’re fighting that out right now – and it’s healthy, if annoying.  One faction says the problem is Obama; the other faction says it’s the way we now govern ourselves, which – no matter who is in charge – cannot avoid oppressing the people with regulation, debt, and crony-enrichment schemes at the people’s expense.  The latter faction is divided between those who see enough prospect for change with one of the candidates still in the race, and those who don’t.  Those who see even Gingrich and Santorum as too reflexively “big government” in their thinking are a growing voice.

The good news is that we are having the debate in a way that matters.  That is very good news.  Never underestimate the power of ideas.  They stick with people, even when it seems they haven’t, and they are the only thing that can motivate people to unite and make positive changes.

The mainstream media don’t depict it that way, of course.  They labor to depict the GOP primary season as a turkey shoot run by Keystone Kops.  But Americans have a choice as to whether they let the mainstream media distribute their opinions to them, like thematic gift baskets, and more and more Americans are choosing to just say no.

I wrote last year about Rick Perry as a candidate of the “old consensus” – my term for the modus vivendi adopted over the last 60 years by Democrats, who were increasingly taken over by progressive statists, and Republicans, who fought a rear-guard action to keep statism from getting too big and expensive.  Under the old consensus, Republicans were largely focused on the monetary and economic expense of statism, and the tacit agreement was that the right would accept as much statism as we could “afford.”  As long as we were growing economically – so this consensus went – we could afford a fairly heavy burden of statism.  Perry, I thought (and still do think), was on the Reagan end of the consensus rather than the Rockefeller end.

But what I see happening in the Republican primaries is an awakening of conservative voters to the disasters invited by the old consensus.  The loss of fiscal integrity and loss of liberty for America are products of the old consensus, and they have proceeded in lockstep: we are losing as much of the latter as we are of the former.  I believe 2012 is the year in which a critical mass of GOP voters has awoken to the reality that the old consensus is a destructive path and is in any case unsustainable.  Voting to continue down it on any basis is voting to remain on course for destruction.

I urge GOP voters not to be discouraged about this.  Ideas outlast everything else.  The idea of individual liberty and limited government cannot be killed.  America has not had a fundamental dispute over basic ideas for a very long time; we have become conditioned to the foggy stasis of bumper-sticker slogans and complacent, rarely-visited idea-sets.  It feels unsettled and strange to truly be debating the relationship of man and the state: to be breaking up those idea-sets and repudiating things supposedly bought into decades ago.  But a movement of ideas is a force of remarkable power, and one that no state power arrangement has ever ultimately withstood.  America’s burgeoning movement of ideas will not expire ignominiously.

The future of liberty on earth depends on what happens in America in the next decade.  If there is any nation on earth that can navigate peacefully back from the brink of statist implosion and loss of liberty, it is the United States. In 2012, GOP voters can rejoice in having alternatives, imperfect as they are, to a big-government statist candidate.  Voters can choose to affect the political process – and possibly the outcome in November – by casting their votes on principle.

Some words to live by as we go forward.  The president doesn’t make us, we make him.  The integrity and character of the people are paramount.  The only sure way to lose a battle is to stop fighting.  America has beaten the odds every time.  We will beat them again.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

So, is Adelson’s money buying Newt’s support of Israel?

Not hardly. One of my readers did a little research and sent me a few helpful links. (Thanks!)

Look at this article from 1998 in the San Francisco Jewish Weekly, titled Resignation of Newt Gingrich means Israel is losing a friend. For those of you readers who can’t do difficult math, that article was written more than 13 years ago, which means Sheldon Adelson’s money played no part in Newt’s opinion on Israel. So far, the best the Forward can come up with is Adelson’s money contributed to Gingrich’s group in 2006. Whoops. That’s eight whole years after we read this:

A Jewish Democratic politico said of Gingrich’s pro-Israel credentials, “I don’t think Newt is acting. I’d like to say he’s full of it, but he isn’t. Yes, he was trying to out right-wing the right-wing Jews, but he’s a true believer. Livingston may say what AIPAC wants to hear, but it’s not in his kishkes. He’s not a true believer.”

Really? A Democrat called Gingrich a right-wing Israel supporter in 1998?

But wait. There’s more! In 1998, Gingrich also called Jerusalem “the united and eternal capital of Israel”

Oh, pshaw. There must be some way Adelson’s money influenced Gingrich’s opinion. Maybe he’s so rich, he has a secret time machine and he went back in time to convince Newt to support Israel?

Or maybe Newt’s been a supporter of Israel for decades. (Also, Newt is pretty damned close to getting the Yourish.com cherished Master of Juvenile Scorn™ designation.)

Speaker Newt Gingrich said today that the White House was trying to blackmail Israel by pushing it toward the negotiating table, but President Clinton said he was only trying to bring about fruitful talks on Mideast peace.

”It’s become the Clinton Administration and Arafat against Israel,” Mr. Gingrich said at a news conference. ”The Clinton Administration says: ‘Happy birthday. Let us blackmail you on behalf of Arafat.’ ”

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The Forward itself discussed Gingrich’s ties to Israel in the 1990s (buried, of course, in page two of an article using the Gloom-and-Doom Machine profiling his ties to Adelson). On the first page, they date the Adelson-Gingrich relationship back to 2007. This, kiddies, is how you get away with saying that your article is objective because it mentioned the recent and more distant relationships. It is also what is known as “slanting.” But the most important takeaway here is just what I wrote the other day: The only reason the liberal media is jumping all over the Gingrich-Adelson relationship is because Adelson is a Jew who is supporting a conservative Republican, rather than the liberal media-slash-Jewish establishment’s approved causes–which would be liberal Democrats.

Haim Saban influencing Bill Clinton? Not a problem. Sheldon Adelson is contributing to Newt Gingrich’s campaign? OMG, he’s a conservative, somebody stop him!1!!

Your objective media, exposed.

Cross-posted.

Will Weatherford, Florida state representative and spokesman for the Romney campaign in Florida, confirmed this weekend that the Republican-controlled Florida legislature is about to approve a redistricting proposal that will make it much harder for Allen West to be reelected.  Legal Insurrection points out the obvious:

Weatherford tried to hide behind a need to comply with [state and] federal law, but that’s obviously a dodge since there could have been many ways to comply yet not sacrifice West.

To point out some more “obvious,” this is a Republican-controlled legislature.  Did the Republicans allow other GOP-held Congressional seats to be severely jeopardized by the new district lines?  Apparently, only one.  An analysis done for the Washington Post last week indicates that Allen West’s and Tom Rooney’s seats are the ones in the most danger.  Getting positive help from the redistricting are Republicans Dan Webster, Sandy Adams, Mario Diaz-Balart, and John Mica.

Redistricting isn’t as easy as it looks, of course.  But it is not believable that it is either a fully non-partisan process – when anyone is doing it – or that the Florida GOP leadership was neutral as to which seats were jeopardized by their plan.

One possibility is that Republican leaders thought West and Rooney were the most likely to achieve reelection in newly hostile districts.  They haven’t said that, so that’s pure speculation based on trying to put this in a positive light.

Meanwhile, who are Florida’s arguably most outspoken, conservative Republican Congressmen?  West and Rooney.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

I admit to being entertained by the Gingrich candidacy.  I was intrigued by the notion that this Clinton-era throwback could somehow reinvent himself to the point of becoming the Great Conservative Hope that could vanquish the Obama Menace once and for all.  His grandiloquence and idearrhea are not congruent with a candidacy that did not, until recently, exceed single digits.  I thought that the end had come when his top staff defected to the Perry camp.  But Newt did what Newt does, namely, to hold fast to the belief that technology and mad debate skillz would eventually win the day.

And Newt was right.  He gained strength as Romney remained static and the also-rans faltered.  The Not-romneys dropped one by one, and Newt eventually went on to win the South Carolina primary, which brings us to where we are today.

The base seems to have largely forgiven the serial adulteries, his fondness for the individual mandate (which has brought Romney so much heat), and his flirtation with the cult of AGW.  None of that seemed to really bother the base, so long as he articulated a passionate case for conservatism.  I was put off the Bain attacks, because capitalism suffered collaterally, but I am just as guilty of being entertained by all the journo-punching (as would any conservative in search of a champion).  However, his statements at today’s Univision forum disqualify him, in my opinion, from further consideration among those of us who respect the Rule of Law.

Breaking the Republican boycott of Univision (at least, among Presidential candidates) was in bad form.  This boycott came about as a result of Univision’s attempts to coerce Senator Marco Rubio into an interview.  Gingrich was the first to announce that he’d break the line in order to sit down with Jorge Ramos.  What’s worse, he did so in order to attack Mitt Romney’s immigration positions.  In so doing, he smeared Romney as an “anti-immigrant”, which is what Univision and the Hispanic Left label anything that is not an unprotected, wide open border.

Such demagoguery is an insult to those of us that are of Hispanic origin and support fair immigration reform.  There are a great many of us who silently support immigration reform which is respectoful to those who paid the price and played by the rules.  We get smeared enough in the Hispanic media, without having to hear such pap fly from the mouth of someone who aspires to challenge our Demagogue-in-Chief.  Such language is acceptable if you are currying the favor of the Jorge Ramoses and Ruben Navarretes of the world, but is well beneath someone who aspires to the Presidency of the United States.  It is particularly troubling that Gingrich seems to readily reach for the language of the Left when attacking his primary opponents.

History will note that the end of Rick Perry’s campaign was neither his “oops” moment, nor his “third agency” faux pas.  Perry’s goose was cooked the minute he smeared opponents of the DREAM Act as “heartless”.  As far as I’m concerned, Heartless 2.0 is also the end of the Gingrich campaign.

A Spanish-language version of this post is available at El Tercer Riel (The Third Rail).

If the voters weren’t silly, they would understand that it has to be Mitt Romney, because, well, primary voters were silly and picked Christine “I am not a witch” O’Donnell over Mike Castle in Delaware, not to mention running with that goofy Sharron Angle in Nevada, and look how that turned out.  You can’t get California and you probably can’t get New York, if you’re the GOP nominee.  But you have a good shot at Pennsylvania and Ohio, Michigan and maybe even Illinois, if you’re Mitt Romney.  Newt Gingrich?  Forget it.  Gingrich can’t even win Georgia.

And the truth is, this analysis isn’t necessarily wrong.  If I had to make a bet, I’d bet that a Newt Gingrich nominated to run for the GOP in November would implode on the campaign trail.  He’d still make a better president than Obama, but his “sticking it to the media” shtick in the debates would lose its luster when he faced Obama.  He comes across as easily annoyed; the feistiness that resonates with voter sentiment in the primaries would weather time and tides poorly.  As between an irritable Gingrich and a cool, scripted Obama, I would predict without hesitation that the latter’s jokes during a debate would come off better.  All things being equal, that is.

As with the O’Donnell-Castle primary outcome in 2010, however, it’s not the voters who are silly.  They know that all things aren’t equal in 2012.  The voters who put Gingrich over the top yesterday believe that we can’t keep going down the same political path in the United States – and that that holds for Republicans at least as much as for Democrats, if not more.  Their perception is that the GOP leadership is invested in the current path of government: that it doesn’t want change; it is not committed to restoring liberty and limited government, but instead is comfortable with the growth of regulatory intrusiveness, and seeks merely to broker pragmatic accommodations to leftist activism as a sort of rear-guard action.

Considering that the GOP has been doing this for most of the last 80 years, the voters aren’t wrong.  They aren’t wrong about Mitt Romney: his record of enthusiastic accommodations to the left is a set of rusty, clanking weights tethered to the back of the Mitt-mobile.  Gingrich and Santorum both have some ‘splainin’ to do as well, but Gingrich has specifically repudiated some of his earlier faux pas (such as the snuggle-up with Nancy Pelosi on combating “global warming”).  He also speaks trenchantly on the issues that exercise the most voters:  federal debt, health care regulation, regulation in general, government intervention in the economy, illegal immigration.

It does matter to primary voters, moreover, that Gingrich “takes it to” the media by rhetorically denouncing the questions posed in the GOP debates.  Voters on the right perceive the one-sided political attitude of the media to be a significant problem for American politics.  And while I don’t get as excited as others do about Gingrich’s little rhetorical broadsides in the debates –responding with broadsides isn’t, per se, a component of leadership – this is another thing the voters aren’t wrong about.  Media bias is a problem, not only in politics but for our public life in general.  People believe a lot of things that aren’t so today because of the particular narratives favored by the major media.  The perception of public assent generated by the media’s formulations produces an environment for government taking actions that jeopardize our liberties.

Many voters are determined not to be ruled by federal executive agencies whose agendas are approved by MSNBC and the New York Times.  These voters are voting for the candidate they deem most likely to reverse America’s slide into precisely that method of government.  That they see such a candidate in Newt Gingrich speaks more loudly about the general state of the GOP than about anything else.  Voters are seeking to break the inertia and conventionalism of the Republican Party; this is, in fact, a power struggle, and one in which I would not bet against the voters.

The famous salvo from South Carolina in April 1861 precipitated a shooting war under old conditions that no longer prevail.  The Union had all the material advantage in that war, as it had the moral advantage in being determined to preserve the national union while ending slavery.

But today’s South is no longer under such a disadvantage.  A political salvo from the South is a different portent now.  Likewise, the Republican Party doesn’t hold a Union-like advantage over its members, nor is there any valid reason for our federal government to hold such an advantage over a law-abiding people.  Today’s “rebel” GOP voters in South Carolina aren’t the slave-regime old guard, they’re the abolitionists.  We need not be deceived that wanting to reverse the encroachments of the federal government, and defeat the plantation mentality in Washington, is evidence of irresponsibility or lawlessness.  The truth is closer to the opposite.

The people have one tool – the vote – by which to express the sentiment that things have to change.  In 2008, Mitt Romney didn’t look all that different from George W. Bush.  The Obama tenure has been a wake-up call that has put Romney in a new perspective: in 2012, he doesn’t look as different from Barack Obama as conservative voters would prefer.  Obama is less an outlier than the end-gamer of the same big-government principles embraced by both major parties over the past 80 years.  We have now seen with our own eyes where those principles lead, and the voters don’t want to go there.  It’s not the voters who need to wise up; it’s the Republican Party.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Vivian: So you don’t actually have a billion dollars, huh?

Edward:  No, I get some of it from banks, investors…

Vivian: And you don’t make anything and you don’t build anything.

Edward: No. No.

Vivian: So what do you do with the companies once you buy them?

Edward: I sell them.

Vivian: … You sell them.

Edward: Well, l… don’t sell the whole company; I break it up into pieces… and then I sell that off; it’s worth more than the whole.

Vivian: So it’s sort of like, um, stealing cars and selling ‘em for the parts, right?

Edward: [ Exhales ] Yeah, sort of. But legal.

Edward Lewis could have added:  “… and I love being able to FIRE PEOPLE!!”  Or so the soundbite-driven understanding of all this would have it.

You’d think Romney’s opponents would know that much of the base they’re trying to appeal to hates demagoguery against business.  When a business isn’t profitable, there are good reasons why it’s better to repackage and repurpose its assets for more profitable use.  Unprofitable businesses aren’t made profitable by political bailouts; they are made dependent and unsustainable.  Businesses like Bain Capital ensure that resources are being put to the most profitable, job-creating uses, given the environment of regulation and taxes that businesses have to operate in.  There’s nothing wrong with the existence of such companies; indeed, they are a positive factor in a dynamic business climate.

But then, Romney is tin-eared himself on some significant things.  He did, in fact, say that he likes to be able to fire people if they’re not performing.  That is a stupid, politically insensitive way to word a valid requirement of a healthy economy.  People sometimes have to be fired, but it’s suspicious for someone to “like” being able to do it.  There is nothing more gratifying than an employee who does well, and in particular one who improves over time, while there is nothing that makes the average boss feel as terrible as having to fire one who simply can’t seem to measure up.

Why couldn’t Romney have said instead that businesses need to be able to fire non-performing employees, even though it’s never any fun to do that?  Apparently because that’s not the way he sees it.  His phrase about liking to be able to fire people is the one that came naturally to him.  It doesn’t mean he’s a cold-hearted jerk who loves to give people bad news, but it is a personality problem for him in political leadership.  ‘80s-era pop psychologists would have said that he is very “objective-oriented”: he resonates to the idea of the goal and the achievement, and gives short shrift to the people.

Republicans do want a better climate for business, but the more abstract, data-focused perspective of a Bain Capital graduate is not necessarily what they are looking for.  I don’t actually want a president who imagines he can boost the bottom line of US companies.  I want one who understands that government policies affect people, largely through the constraints they put on business.  And I want him to respect the rights and dignity of individual people, neither trying to bribe them with goodies nor trying to herd them into programs that he sees as financially smart.  I’m not looking for a president with an opinion on whether a whole bunch of things he isn’t in charge of can be profitable.

Bringing up Bain as an issue has also turned up the fact that Bain profited from a deal in the early 1990s involving a steel company that received a $44 million federal bailout for its pension plan.  While it is demagoguery to equate this with Bain itself receiving a federal bailout, it is still a problem for Romney.  Companies like Bain have been operating in the environment of government incentives, regulations, and bailouts for quite a while now, and Romney’s record is one of being comfortable with that.  (He endorsed the TARP bailout in 2008.)

More and more of the people are not comfortable with it.  It is well and good that Romney wants the government to get off business’s back, but it’s not OK to remove only some constraints while leaving others, and continuing to bail the whole mess out.

Sadly, Romney’s opponents have wasted a superb opportunity to talk about what they think is the proper relationship between business and government.  They have simply jumped on the demagoguery bandwagon, which frankly is cheap and annoying.  If I were crafting talking points, I would address the “liking to fire people” comment graciously – something along the lines of “I’m sure this is what Governor Romney meant to say” – and focus more on Romney’s comfort with the extent to which government regulates business, profits from regulating business, and bails business out so it can keep regulating and profiting.

One last thought.  In contrast to the bloviation-fest precipitated by the Bain Eruption, consider the cool dispatch and intelligence with which the candidates knocked down the idiotic social-issue questions posed by Stephanopoulos and Sawyer in the debate on Saturday night.  The candidates were ready to talk about those issues – irrelevant as they were – with principled specifics.

On the matter of business and government, however, it’s been all big-government complacency on one side, and all mindless demagoguery on the other.  Not a hint of a principled argument about the free market and the appropriate role of government, from the perspective of either a man-and-the-state theory, or a regulation-vs.-the-market theory.

Nothing has made clear like the last 40 months that there is no longer an American consensus on these matters.  The Obama camp knows exactly where it stands.  But the GOP candidates aren’t internally motivated and prepared to make specific cases about it, as they are about social issues.  Yet that’s what the voters are waiting to hear.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

McCaskill still blasted the GOP for including the provision in the bill, but said she’d be “gosh darn if I think it’s a good idea to raise taxes on people working as hard as they know how right now.” In other words, Republicans put Senate moderates like McCaskill and Ben Nelson over a barrel, and they’re going to have to give the GOP something in order to produce an extension of a payroll tax holiday that was a bad idea when it was first implemented and hasn’t done anything to boost the economy anyway, but now it will look like a tax hike if it goes away. The Senate, which hasn’t produced a budget on its own in almost 1000 days now, couldn’t have botched policy any worse than this. McCaskill’s basically looking for a way out.

This brings up a problem I’ve been trying to highlight here for the last month. When Republicans begin talking about tax hikes, extending tax cuts and the related effect of each on the economy, there is a big trap waiting which the Democrats would love to see us spring. Let’s examine the emphasized portion above. So there is currently a “tax holiday” in effect which has effectively lowered the tax rate being paid by workers across the country. What that means, by definition, is that it is the current tax rate. But it was only intended to be temporary and it produces a negative effect on the Social Security trust fund, right? So we should oppose extending it on that basis… right?

(We’ll pause here for a moment so everyone can nod their heads solemnly in agreement.)

Now let’s take a look at the famous “Bush tax cuts.” We all know the story there. Something has to be done to keep the Democrats in check or they’re going to let them expire, which will result in – and I’m using the same language you can find on any conservative site around the web here – a massive tax hike, particularly on the rich job creators.

See anything fishy yet?

Those tax cuts were also written into legislation as being “temporary” in nature because they were designed with an end date specified, unless they were extended. (Or “made permanent” which is a complete joke because nothing of that nature is permanent and the next Congress is never bound by the decisions of the last one.) And allowing such a “tax hike” to take place would be disastrous for the economy, right? Right? Because you can’t have the government sucking more money out of the economy. It hurts job creation and etc. etc. etc.

The tax code is constantly in flux. (Mostly because the tax code itself is a destructive disaster to begin with, but that’s a story for another day.) Any time the tax code today changes tomorrow, it’s either a tax hike or a tax cut. You can’t make it one or the other based on your whims without being subject to charges of hypocrisy. If you fight against keeping the current payroll tax holiday in place saying it “will look like a tax hike,” you’d best not have a history of saying that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would be a tax hike. Otherwise you’ve load up the opposition with ammo.

And if lower tax rates enacted by a Republican “helped the economy,” then you’d best be ready with an awful lot of data to show the massive majority of middle class workers that lower taxes which put more money in their pockets “hasn’t done anything to boost the economy anyway.” Otherwise you’re only making the fondest dreams of Democratic strategists come true.

Now some of you will be quick like a bunny to jump to the barricades and say, “No, no! There’s a difference between the marginal tax rates and payroll tax deductions!” To a certain extent you may be correct in theory, but we’re not talking about reality here. We’re talking about politics and talking points and thirty second sound bites which are easily digested by the masses in headlines. Who do you think the target audience here is… the OMB? Any outcome which results in more money being withheld from workers’ paychecks tomorrow will carry the only lasting image which counts.

You really can’t have it both ways.

Sen. Isakson wrote about this in a recent op-ed.

On August 26, 2011, the NLRB decided to recklessly abandon this longstanding precedent. In its Specialty Healthcare decision, the NLRB decided that unions can now target a small group of employees doing the same job in the same location for organization purposes. For example, in one grocery store, the cashiers could form one “mini union,” the baggers could form another, the produce stockers could form yet another, and so on. This could potentially create several different unions within the same store location, making it easier for unions to gain access to employees and nearly impossible for employers to manage such fragmentation of the workforce.

Union forces are already up in arms over these proposals, as it would cut the legs out from under a scheme where as few as two or three cashiers in a single grocery store could wind up creating their own “micro-union” even if the store employed hundreds of cashiers across many locations.

It’s worth pointing out that it is certainly not unheard for more than one union to exist in a large workplace. One example which comes to mind is naval re-fitters working in and around the many shipyards in the nation. In those types of shops you’ll find the IBEW representing all of the electricians while the structural and plumbing guys might be in the pipefitters. But in each of these cases you’re talking about a majority of all of the workers engaged in the same type of work joining up.

The challenges which employers would face should be obvious if any three people in any occupation decided to declare themselves a union one day and demand negotiations. Assuming this comes to a vote in both chambers, it will be interesting to see how successful Congress can be in taming the power of the NLRB and other executive branch agencies. So far S. 1843 is heading into committee while H.R. 3094 has cleared the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, but has not yet been presented for a vote on the floor.

20111114KMC – Radio Podcast
20111114KMCVid – TV Podcast

*Find The Kevin McCullough Show on our newest affiliate of the month: WGCF-FM – Paducah, KY
(including the ciities of: Paducah, KY., Cape Girardeau, MO., Paris, TN., Carbondale, IL.)

ON THE KEVIN McCULLOUGH SHOW:

1. THE HEADLINE ITEMS:
Well, based on Saturday night’s debate–won by either Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, or Ron Paul depending on who you like, the polling has improved for the former speaker putting him ahead in at least one poll of both Mitt Romney and Herman Cain. Also many are crediting Rick Perry with the best idea from the debate, and showing that he’s the best sport of all the candidates. Ron Paul won in not getting that much time to filet himself. kmcradio@gmail.com

2. THE PRACTICAL DILEMMA:
So are we missing something when thinking and talking about the Penn State scandal. Several pro-family groups are making a big deal about the homosexual element to the sodomy performed on the victims in the matter. But wouldn’t it be just as insidious if it were done to girls as well? PLUS there are much bigger reasons being missed all together by those highlighting the link to homosexuality. Our culture isn’t merely on homosexual-overload, it’s on rampant-unimpeded-sex-in-your-face-all-the-time overload, as the Sasha-visits-the-kiddies issue highlights. Your replies: kmcradio@gmail.com.

3. THE GOD THOUGHT:
“As we seek first the kingdom of God, we will discover that through the good times and the bad, in days of pleasure and days of pain, through our laughter and through our tears, God is at work in us!” CONTINUE: “God Thought” on facebook!

Also able to be heard via a snappy smart phone listening app for the AFR Radio Network at that same time each night 8pm EST. Download Apple’s iTunes AFR’s app here. Android and other smart phones may download here.

“If President Obama and the Democrats repeat the mistake of the health insurance reform here in Massachusetts on a national level, they will threaten to wipe out the American economy within four years,” Cahill said in a press conference in his office.

…[T]he state’s health insurance law…Cahill said, “has nearly bankrupted the state.”

Cahill said the law is being sustained only with the help of federal aid, which he suggested that the Obama administration is funneling to Massachusetts to help the president make the case for a similar plan in Congress… “…I would argue that we’re being propped up so that the federal government and the Obama administration can drive it through” Congress.

Commonwealth Connector, the independent state agency established to help residents find the health insurance, has “totally failed,” to create competition and connect people with affordable insurance, Cahill said, pointing out that 68 percent of the residents it serves receive subsidized care.

“We haven’t done anything about driving down costs,” Cahill said. “We haven’t helped small business. We haven’t changed the way we pay for health care and the way we deliver it.”…

Look, if Romney somehow wins the nomination, I’ll support him without question against Barack Obama.

But we need to elect a conservative in 2012 who is 100% committed to the eradication of Obamacare. For if it isn’t wiped from the books, I fear this country may not survive.

Related: Oh, Super: Romney Consulted With Obama Mass Sterilization Expert and Science Czar John Holdren

*Catch the next episode at 8pm EST on radio stations across America or by way of podcast:
20111012KMC – Radio Podcast
20111012KMCVid – Video Podcast

*Find The Kevin McCullough Show on our newest affiliate of the month:
WGCF-FM – Paducah, KY
(including the ciities of: Paducah, KY., Cape Girardeau, MO., Paris, TN., Carbondale, IL.)

ON THE KEVIN McCULLOUGH SHOW:

1. THE HEADLINE ITEMS:
The “Occupy” movement steps forward the next level. In demonstrations on Tuesday going so far as to claim that violence was necessary for genuine economic help to come about. ALSO: The latest excuse for a debate was held by Bloomberg last night, yikes. The swords were out for Cain, we’ll hear from Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum. kmcradio@gmail.com

2. THE PRACTICAL DILEMMA:
A piece in the Atlanta predicts the “End of Men.” A female friend from Washington DC pointed this article out to me yesterday and today we begin a very important discussion of what the essence of this column would end up looking like. Sick of men? Think everybody else is? Your replies: kmcradio@gmail.com.

3. THE GOD THOUGHT:
“There is no second blessing or spiritual experience that can magically propel us to a state where we no longer struggle with sin. That won’t happen until we finally get to heaven. Between now and then we walk the hard road to glory.” CONTINUE: “God Thought” on facebook!

Also able to be heard via a snappy smart phone listening app for the AFR Radio Network at that same time each night 8pm EST. Download Apple’s iTunes AFR’s app here. Android and other smart phones may download here.

The long-simmering feud between Univision News and Senator Marco Rubio is about much, much more than a decades-ancient drug story.  Like the network’s telenovelas, this saga has many chapters and different plot twists.  However, there is only one overarching story line…one which we’ve seen before, and which conservatives should monitor very carefully.

Fox News reports that four GOP Presidential candidates (Huntsman, Perry, Bachmann, Romney) have announced they will boycott Univision’s debate, scheduled for January 29th.  This boycott stems from allegations that Univision attempted to extort an appearance from Senator Rubio on Al Punto (Univision’s Sunday equivalent to Meet The Press, et.al), in exchange for “softening or spiking” a story about a 1987 case involving his brother-in-law.  The Miami Herald broke the story on Monday.

This attempted coercion of Rubio and intimidation of his family is something I’d expect from The Mob, not from an allegedly respectable news organization.

On the night of July 5, Rubio received a call from his sister, Barbara Cicilia. She was distraught. A Univision reporter had called her about the arrest and incarceration of her husband, Orlando Cicilia, in the 1987 federal bust called “Operation Cobra.” Rubio was 16 at the time. Before Rubio was elected to his first legislative seat, in 2000, Cicilia was cleared for early release.

Mrs. Cicilia refused comment. Univision then sent a news truck to sit outside their West Miami home.

On July 7, Alex Burgos, Rubio’s communications director, and Rubio’s political advisor, Todd Harris, held a 45-minute conference call with a handful of top Univision editorial staffers, including Lee, the news chief who handled most of the discussions for Univision. Harris represented Rubio as Burgos took notes. Rubio was not on the call.

Toward the end of the conversation, Lee brought up Ramos’ show and suggested the drug-bust story could change — or not run at all, according to Harris and Burgos’ notes.

Said Harris: “You’re saying that if Marco does an interview with Ramos, that you will drop this investigation into his family and the story will never air?”

Lee, they say, responded with this statement: “While there are no guarantees, your understanding of the proposal is fair.”

Yet, Univision did not risk journalistic suicide just to get Rubio to step into the immigration cage with Jorge Ramos.  These acts can only be viewed within the context of the ongoing Estradization of Marco Rubio; that is, the overt or covert act of racial borking designed to suppress “minority” conservatives at any cost.

Let us never forget Miguel Estrada, whose nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals was torpedoed by Democrats terrified at the thought that he could become the first Hispanic nominee to the Supreme Court.  Estrada was (and is) not beholden to Hispanic grievance groups such as La Raza, MALDEF, or LatinoJustice PRLDEF.  Thus, he could not be counted as a reliable vote for affirmative action, amnesty, redistributive justice, or any of the other causes near and dear to these organizations…causes also near and dear to the Democratic Party.

Let us remember their smearing of Estrada as “extreme”, “outside of the mainstream”, and “radical”.  Let us never forget the effort, led by Chuck Schumer and Patrick Leahy, to deny an otherwise highly qualified candidate (as stated by current Justice Elena Kagan) an up-or-down vote.  Furthermore, let us remember their vicious smearing of Justice Clarence Thomas (which continues to this day) as proof of their intolerance of anyone who comes from a “minority” background and dissents from their worldview, or refuses to know his or her place within the liberal plantation.

There are those who make a handsome living by selling the twisted notion of submission to progressivism as proof of Hispanic authenticity (counter, in many cases, to traditional Hispanic values), and will do anything to keep that gravy train flowing.  Some of these identity merchants (the true sell-outs, if we are to really going to have this conversation) work in grievance organizations, some work in mainstream newsrooms, and others ply their trade on Capitol Hill.  They see Rubio as a threat, as proof positive that someone of Hispanic descent can win elected office without having to kiss La Raza’s ring.

The immigration grievance lobby, the institutional Left, and their media enablers shudder at the notion that a conservative Hispanic could rise to power without submitting to their ideology or otherwise owing them anything.  They are even more afraid of the example that this could set for Hispanic children, and of what this means to the long-term prospects of institutional Hispanic media here in the U.S.

This existential fear is the main driver behind efforts to smear Rubio as “inauthentic” or not sufficiently Hispanic.  It is the fear of irrelevance, and of Oblivion.

 A Spanish-language version of this post is available at El Tercer Riel (The Third Rail).

My colleague Karl writes today about the retirement from the GOP horse race of Tim Pawlenty, and the settling of the race into a “Romney vs. Not Romney” dynamic.  Pawlenty didn’t succeed in being crowned Not Romney in the Iowa straw poll yesterday, but how secure is the tiara on Michelle Bachmann’s head?  Is Rick Perry destined to step into a phone booth and turn into Not Romney?  What will the voters’ judgments be in the bellwether states of South Carolina and Florida?

The whole question is interesting, and begs in turn the question whether the 2012 campaign will be the clear-the-decks, all-bets-off political turning point that many are hoping for.  I think, to begin with, that a lot of people would find the “Not Romney” category an incomplete formulation.  It’s not so much “Not Romney” as “the category voters are looking for that Romney doesn’t fit into.”  Which, granted, has no future as a bumper sticker – but the point is that the thinking of non-Romney voters isn’t “anyone but Romney,” it’s “where’s the candidate who reflects what I want and believe in?”

Rick Perry may fill that bill for an electorally useful number of voters.  I don’t think he’ll have much trouble with Romney in South Carolina, and I’d call it even-Steven for the two candidates in Florida.  There are a lot of retired Northeasterners there to whom Romney appeals, but Perry can expect to do well with Florida’s Cuban-American Republicans, small business owners, and military.  Jeb Bush’s and Marco Rubio’s endorsements will carry weight.  I think I know which way Rubio will go, but I’m not sure what Bush will do.

I’m also not sure Florida will be a make-or-break state.  Assuming its primary is in January (as proposed), the early vote and the likelihood of a close split will mitigate the impact of a loss for either Romney or Perry.  Other states are likely to be more significant tests of the dynamic Karl outlines; the primary schedule has Missouri probably voting in early February, and the very interesting states of Illinois, Tennessee, and Virginia voting in March, along with the Colorado precinct caucuses.  Those states may well be a better test of the electorate’s mood.  Will Romney win where we would expect him to?

The campaign may well come down to the convention vote, as it did in 1976.  It’s very possible Romney and Perry will both have good reason to consider themselves “still alive” when Pennsylvania votes in April, and Indiana and Ohio in May.  (I’m using the proposed primary schedule; not all dates may come off as currently envisioned by the states.)  If Bachmann stays in the race, racking up strong third-place finishes, the likelihood of the decision being delayed to the convention goes up.

It’s tempting to say that the question in 2012 is whether there will be a single Republican brand the voters will line up behind.  I think a more basic question is whether we have reached a tipping point in the popular sentiment that things not only have got to change, but that they already have.  We saw some evidence of that in the primary nod to Christine O’Donnell in Delaware last year, as well as in Florida’s revolt against the national GOP establishment in picking Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist, Nevada’s choice of Sharron Angle to face off against Harry Reid, etc.  There are multiple factors at work in the ongoing saga of Wisconsin, but one of them is the major shift in voter sentiment:  voters are willing to endure civil unrest, and the unhappiness of taxpayer-dependent constituencies, and continue to endorse the political leaders who are standing against those eruptions and doing what the voters asked them to do.

Have we reached the tipping point?  Are voters ready to buck conventional expectations and do things differently?  If they aren’t, and they hand the nomination to Romney, even a GOP win in 2012 will be taken as evidence that politics as usual is what people really want.  Opinions will differ on whether endorsing Rick Perry instead is a signal that voters seek real change.  It’s possible that he will function as a sort of operational pause for GOP voters and the republic:  conservative enough that he’ll get a lot of Bachmann and Palin supporters, but with a standard political resume of reassuring length and girth.  A Perry candidacy could well serve to postpone the kind of transformative reckoning the GOP had between 1976 and 1980.

The coming primary season is likely to be the most significant, informative one the GOP has had in decades.  We will know some things at the end of it that we don’t know today.  The biggest thing, I think, will be whether voters are still hoping to identify a standard-bearer for the “Reagan consensus,” or whether they see a need to rewrite the consensus.  If it’s the latter, my money is on an updated “Coolidge consensus”:  something starker, simpler, and purer than the Reagan consensus.

Are we ready for that consensus to emerge yet?  That is the question.  We’re closer than we were four years ago.  Because words matter, I don’t even want to hazard a guess about 2012.  But I do think there will be a sign one way or the other: whether Sarah Palin gets into the race, and what happens if she does.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,” Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

Under a premium support system, the government would pay a percentage toward the insurance premium for each individual; there would likely be more help for low-income and sicker people. And enrollees could (not required) kick in more money to get better coverage.

Henry Aaron, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Robert Reischauer, president of the Urban Institute and former head of the Congressional Budget Office, in 1995 were among the first to explore alternatives to Medicare’s system of paying for individual services. And in 1998, President Bill Clinton’s National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare, chaired by then-Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif., and then-Sen. John B. Breaux, D-La., developed a “premium support” idea, but it never became a formal recommendation. Breaux and then-Sen. Bill Frist, R-Tenn., tried unsuccessfully to advance the plan as separate legislation.

Let’s take a look at her ‘confuzzled’ look as she was clearly caught off-guard by Congressman Michael Burgess (R-TX and a physician) as seen here at the July 13 subcommittee hearings (skip to .59 to 2:16):

The Weekly Standard also  reiterates and shreds her original comment:

This, of course, is as ludicrous as it is uncouth. First, the Ryan plan (which wouldn’t affect anyone who is not yet 55 years old) would not give seniors a voucher, as Sebelius well knows. Instead, the government would provide premium support to help seniors purchase private health insurance. Seniors would pick the insurance plan of their choice, and the government would funnel the premium support directly to the insurer — just as it does for Medicare Advantage, the Medicare prescription drug benefit, and the health care system for members of Congress.   

The Ryan plan would require insurers to cover any and all seniors as the condition of their being allowed to compete for seniors’ business. It would provide higher levels of premium support for less healthy and less wealthy seniors, and poor seniors would have every dollar of their care provided at taxpayer expense. The premium support would start at the average level of funding for traditional Medicare ($15,000 a year) and would rise with inflation from there. 

In truth, seniors would likely have better catastrophic coverage under Ryan’s plan than under traditional Medicare. There’s a reason why the vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries buy private Medigap coverage: There’s a whole lot of care that Medicare currently doesn’t cover. Despite that fact, Medicare is going bankrupt, and it desperately needs an infusion of private competition and choice to make it more efficient, cost effective, and affordable.

In short, seniors wouldn’t “die sooner” under Ryan’s plan. But Medicare would die sooner without it.

This is just more proof that Sebelius is nothing more than a partisan mouthpiece.  Her ideology gives away her game with her wanting to insert government into the playing field, and further evidenced the day before by none other than Paul Ryan who grills Sebelius on whether seniors should have control of their own health care and choices for their drug coverage.  Sebelius stumbles at the basic principle of allowing seniors to choose their own plan, but knows that choice is good for competition, and would gladly put the government at the top of that competitive scale.  Watch to the end.

Update: This is not the first time Sebelius has been clueless.

Going to into some random musings about the differences between Gov. Perry and former President Bush when he was Governor of the Lone Star State, the writers try to frame the debate as though:

1. Political rivalries in primary election years are new… (which they aren’t!)
2. Act as though this will make some sort of difference come general election season… (which it won’t!)

The paragraphs pit Gov. Perry, who was coaxed into Republicanism by none other than Karl Rove, against President Bush, who was a less than perfect conservative–by his own admission–during his time of public service.

The TIMES writers act as though this means somehow that Perry will be limited in his ability to garner large numbers of “Bush-like” republicans to be supportive of his cause.

The only problem is, this battle has already been fought and the grouchy Bush aides that don’t like Perry already got their clocks cleaned. (It’s called, “How Governor Perry got his third term, and became the longest serving Governor in the history of the state of Texas.)

Ask Senator Kay Baily Hutchison.

The Times’ piece gives passing reference that the rift between Perry/Bush is more likely a reality amongst slighted staff members of past campaigns… (which it is.) And as such has almost no impact on whether or not Bush and Perry could shake hands, enjoy a baseball game, or even go out and campaign together against Barack Obama.

The NYTimes authors of this piece are smoking sheen-style seven-gram-rocks if they think that President Bush will be anything other than enthusiastic and helpful should the race for 2012 come down to Perry v. Obama.

Also… they are helping Perry shore up credentials in places where Bush is/was less popular.

The fact that the “NYTimes” has made a big deal about “broken ties” between the two Texans will make folks like my recent sparring partner on FoxNews, Leslie Marshall think actually more highly of Perry.

The mischief that the NYTimes and the rest of the old media will be up to come 2012–none can truly measure, but if they wish it to be effective, they had best not be so delusional in picking the topics they think might actually work, because the way this Texan sees it, they just a big dose of help on the yet-to-be-declared-candidacy of Rick Perry.

And the former President and the Governor are most likely having a big giggle about it right now over some left over July 4th brisket.

“Yankees… and their funny ways…”

I’m Kevin McCullough and that’s how I “Binge Think”
And I also believe that he absolutely can not!

This isn’t really a surprise is it?

Well, maybe Harvard doing a study that came to some relevantly accurate conclusions is a surprise. But the outcome of the study itself?

And when you think about it, exactly why does it happen?

Very simply put. It’s all about the freedom, money, and reliance…

If what America stands for on “Independence Day” is being independent of other power’s oppression, tyranny, and control of the lives of the individual then July 4th is about the most Republican or Free Market holiday ever to come along.

Democrats on my show this morning took great exception to me implying that Democrats don’t wrap themselves in the flag (or show other forms of patriotism) because they don’t really like the ideals of the original concepts of America’s founders. If the progressives that are led by President Barack Obama are any indication, then what he sees America as is far different than a rebel republic throwing off dependency.

In Obama’s world – it’s more like a great big hug of uber-Government wet kisses. I detail much of this in my new book: “No He Can’t: How Barack Obama is dismantling Hope and Change.”

In Obama’s world – the best America can be, is apologized for, overseas, for months on end, as he began his term. (Is that patriotic?)

Is it a sign of “love for one’s country” to far more often than not see the worst in her?

July 4th parades – of which I’ve normally missed most of my 40-something years on this planet – are filled with red, white and blue, fire trucks, first responders (which here in the NYC can be very moving).

They also include that one moment, where a flat bed truck will be carrying several men (fewer each year) who are aged, some unable to stand who charged Normandy, survived Guadal Canal, or chased Nazi’s out of France.

When that truck appears all the pomp turns into cheers of respect, long loud seasons of applause, and usually with me nary a dry eye.

Then behind them are the Korean, Vietnam, Gulf War and War on Terror vets that fall in, usually walking behind the vehicle carrying the WWII’ers.

Never has any nation on earth spent more resources to bring freedom to more people than all of the rest of the world’s historic militaries combined.

If kids going to July 4th parades tend to come away from them resonating with more original ideas of the founders, if they walk away with a deeper appreciation of the sacrifice it has required to keep us free, and those ideas, and that appreciation are by extension more championed by Republicans, then the study got it dead on.

I wonder if the fact that this study was produced by Harvard would have any impact on the President’s willingness to lend any credence to it?

Heh… who am I kidding, whoops… almost forgot – time to go pick up my welfare check.

I’m Kevin McCullough and that’s how I “Binge Think”
Peddler of Compassion: “Cares Project 2011″
Author: No He Can’t

Is Ohio becoming the most pro-life state in the union?

According to this report it seems darned certain to be trying. Reuters reports that the ban goes into place once a fetal heartbeat is detectable.

Fetal heartbeats have been detected as early as five weeks into a pregnancy, though most are consistently screened for at six weeks. In essence this ban eliminates any partial birth abortions, and of course that Satanic practice that President Obama voted in favor of FOUR TIMES in his home state called “Born Alive Abortions.” (In essence infanticide caused by neglect. You know babies dying in soiled utility closets and all…)

Compare the pro-life environment (all stemming from Ohio’s legislature actions) as opposed to the Planned Parenthood issues of Indiana and it might just be the new mid-west capital and champion for the lives of unborn children.

Critics point out that the Ohio legislation doesn’t include exceptions for rape, incest, or life of the mother.

And why should they?

Is it the child’s fault that he/she was created out of such horrific circumstances?

The bottom line is always about the HUMANNESS of the child, which always seem to somehow go unnoticed. We’re pretty good at understanding or stressing the “rights of the mother.”

And that always leaves me scratching my head wondering, who does protect the most innocent and vulnerable amongst us?

And as a conservative it pains me to admit that in this instance, it appears to be, the government… in the state of Ohio at least.

I’m Kevin McCullough, and that’s how I “Binge Think.”

I think it would make no sense for her to run. I think her chances of winning the nomination are small. The chances of winning the general election are probably nil. I think, for the same reasons you articulated, 60 percent negatives. That’s almost impossible to overcome. And it isn’t as if that is forever. Hillary Clinton had very high negatives at many points in her career. But over time, they tend to soften.

…The problem with her, I think, is that she is not schooled. I don’t mean she didn’t go to the right schools… But when it comes to policies, she’s had two and a half years to school herself, and she hasn’t. And that’s a problem. You want a president who will be able to not have to learn on the job. We’ve already had that… …with President Obama and with others… It’s the lack of effort to school herself and the lack of insight to see that she needs it…

…I think if you’re going to master policy, especially world affairs, you’ve got to know history. As you said, you have to know how things evolved, and she is weak on that. It’s not as if she can’t learn. The fact is it doesn’t appear as if she wants to sort of sit down, spend some months schooling herself, as many people have done in preparing for the presidency. If you’re a governor of any state, you face a narrow range of issues, and you don’t have to deal with the world. It’s incumbent on you to actually learn about it.

So, just to recap, Sarah Palin can’t win against Barack Obama because she has high negatives, she hasn’t “school[ed] herself”, and she’s weak on history. But an incompetent community agitator with no executive experience, no private sector experience and who is an acolyte of Alinsky is qualified because he has a beautiful, cultured speaking voice.

George Will‘s substantive reasons that Sarah Palin can’t win in 2012:

The independent voters have made up their minds about her, and it is a negative judgment they’ve made… After the 2008 campaign she had two things she had to do: she had to go home to Alaska and study, and she had to govern Alaska well. Instead she quit halfway through her first term and shows up in the audience of ‘Dancing with the Stars’ and other distinctly non-presidential venues…

Just to recap: independent voters have a negative opinion of Palin. And the fact that Democrat operatives had filed 18 frivolous lawsuits — all later dismissed — against her (source: Associated Press), which were bankrupting her family, had nothing at all to do with it. That, plus appearing in the audience of Dancing with the Stars, disqualifies her.

Is this really what passes for informed commentary inside the Beltway?

Remember: Krauthammer worked for Walter-Freaking-Mondale in 1980. George Will endorsed Howard Baker in 1980. Both of these guys completely missed the Reagan revolution.

Krauthammer and Will are certainly smart dudes, but their political instincts appear to be for s***.

Palin can win. Bachmann can win. Cain can win. Ryan can win. Santorum can win. Obama is a sitting duck if confronted with a true, articulate Constitutional conservative.

He’s a walking, talking disaster as President. And everyone knows it.

By the way, I’ve been out of town for a while. How are those Stimulus, HAMP, Cash-for-Clunkers, Weatherization, Green Jobs, Obamacare, “Banking Reform”, drilling moratorium, First-Time Home-Buyer Credit, auto company takeovers and QE2 programs working out?

 
Hat tips: Mark Levin and Gateway Pundit.
Cross-posted at: Doug Ross @ Journal.

Mr. Obama said that the typical political proposal to rationalize Medicare’s gargantuan liabilities is that it is “just a matter of eliminating waste and abuse.” His own plan is to double down on the program’s price controls and central planning. All Medicare decisions will be turned over to and routed through an unelected commission created by ObamaCare—which will supposedly ferret out “unnecessary spending.” Is that the same as “waste and abuse”?

Fifteen members will serve on the Independent Payment Advisory Board, all appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. If per capita costs grow by more than GDP plus 0.5%, this board would get more power, including an automatic budget sequester to enforce its rulings. So 15 sages sitting in a room with the power of the purse will evidently find ways to control Medicare spending that no one has ever thought of before and that supposedly won’t harm seniors’ care, even as the largest cohort of the baby boom generation retires and starts to collect benefits.

I’d like to take you back in time to highlight some important pieces including this one I broke at Big Government where I warned this was being crafted by the Democrats:

The deliberate setup for the White House power grab is built into the each of the health care bills and, if they fail, little-known twin bills called “MedPAC Reform of 2009” are waiting in the wings.  The bills, S.B. 1110 and H.R. 2718, craftily amend the Social Security Act and transfer the Medicare guideline and rule setting processes, from the legislative branch to the executive branch.  These bills offer cover to one another in case one doesn’t pass the House or Senate, respectively.  Remember, Democrats need to gain executive branch authority by amending the Social Security Act over Medicare regulations and physician fee schedules to transform the health care system in a single-payer, socialized system.

More importantly, Medicare’s regulations and physician fee schedules are the keystone to developing payer systems and reimbursement models across the entire health care industry.  And where Medicare goes, insurers follow.

To further reinforce my analysis, former OMB director, Peter Orszag, stated:

The Medicare Commission, or Independent Payment Advisory Board, would have the power to override Congress if it rejected cuts to the entitlements programme for seniors, said Mr Orszag, a key architect of the reforms signed into law this week.

“This could well turn out to be as consequential for health policy as Federal Reserve policy was for monetary policy,” he said in an FT View from DC video interview. “The commission will put its proposals forward and if Congress does not act on them, or if it votes them down and the president then vetoes that bill, they will automatically take effect. Huge change.”

Enter H.R 452.  With 81 Republican and Democrat co-sponsors to date, this bill would repeal the IPAB and give Congress the oversight it had before the lawmakers stupidly inadvently stripped themselves.  And now they want it back.  Now, if you remember there was a story that circulated in December 2009 that bears more coverage when discussing repealing the IPAB. The catch is the language  found in the law where it stipulates:

“It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection.”

Additionally, back in January 2010, Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) explained that the Senate:

Would effectively be passing health-care legislation that includes a series of rules on how Congress would handle IMAB recommendations, and simultaneously will be keeping future lawmakers from changing it as they desire.
 
“We will be passing a new law,” he said, “and at the same time creating a Senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.
 
“I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a Senate rule (and not a law). I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force to – for — future Senates,” DeMint added.
 
“(T)his goes to the fundamental purpose of Senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority — or of future congresses.”
 
The subsection that cannot be repealed or changed contains a number of other stipulations on how Congress will handle the IMAB recommendations, even setting deadlines for specific committees to consider them, which DeMint said were also new rules. “These provisions not only amend certain rules, they waive certain rules and create entirely new rules out of whole cloth,” DeMint alleged.

The CNS article goes on to document an exchange between DeMint and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and is a must read; Brian Darling of Heritage also provides terrific analysis.

The money question is:  Will the Democrats enforce this section with regards to H.R. 452 or will they let this come to the floor for a vote?  Because while the whole argument went down and the Republicans warned, the Democrats basically said–hey, forget about it.

• 1/7/2011: Boehner Doubles Down On Promise To Cut $100 Billion: “Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) yesterday doubled down on $100 billion in cuts. ‘No ifs, ands or buts about it,’ he said.”

• 2/20/2011: House Approves $61 Billion Spending Cuts, Raising Risk of Federal Shutdown: “Senate Democrats already have said they won’t accept the cuts in the $1.2 trillion spending bill, and Obama’s budget office has threatened a presidential veto. ”

• 3/2/2011: Boehner: Compromise Will Trim GOP’s $61 Billion Budget Cuts: “Responding to a question Tuesday about whether he foresees the House ultimately budging from the $61 billion figure, the Ohio Republican did not say that the chamber would hold firm when the Senate returns their proposal, which will likely include less than a $61 billion reduction in spending levels.”

• 3/10/2011: Tea Party pressures Boehner in budget battle: “Complaints by Tea Party Republicans have already forced Boehner to almost double the amount of spending cuts proposed this year from $32 billion.”

• 4/4/2011: Boehner says $33 billion in cuts is not enough: “I’ve made clear that their $33 billion is not enough and many of the cuts that the White House and Senate Democrats are talking about are full of smoke and mirrors. That’s unacceptable,” the Speaker said.

• 4/7/2011: Interviewed on ABC News, Speaker Boehner vows not to shut down the government over a 2011 “continuing resolution” budget impasse: “I’ve said that 1,000 times since the first of the year. I do not want to shut the government down. I think that is irresponsible.” [Ed: As an aside, the government has been shut down numerous times in recent years including a 21-day impasse during the Clinton administration.]

• 4/12/2011: Boehner touts fact that ”Budget Agreement Eliminates Funding for Obama Czars’ as a reason to support the continuing resolution budget deal.

• 4/14/2011: Boehner: I’m standing by the $38 billion number: Boehner stands by the $38 billion in cuts, saying that this was really “$78.5 billion less than what the president wanted to spend… [and that he was] very disappointed in [Obama’s] speech yesterday,”

• 4/15/2011: CBO Says Spending Cuts Aren’t As Advertised: “The Congressional Budget Office reports that the $38 billion in cuts to the budget for the current fiscal year will actually reduce this year’s deficit by only about $352 million.”

• 4/16/2011: Boehner’s office is not surprised Obama found a way to circumvent Congress, according to a staffer. A spokesman for Boehner said that the Speaker was not surprised that Obama has chosen to ignore the budget rider eliminating funding for the “Czars”.

In other words, Boehner held the trump card — a partial shutdown of the government — in his hands and threw it away. Without leverage, he was unable to live up to anything resembling his promises. Promises that the American people support and demand.

As Paul Ryan put it after witnessing the president’s hyper-partisan campaign speech on Wednesday, “the gauntlet has been thrown down” by Obama. He’s gone all in. The big entitlement programs and the American economic system itself are headed for collapse. That’s not what I say. That’s what Peter Orszag, Obama’s former economic adviser, says: ‘If policymakers will not act before we have a fiscal crisis at the federal level, a fiscal crisis we will ultimately have.’

We need a new Speaker of the House. Someone who understands that we’re up against true sixties radicals. These are people who want to see the whole society burn down. Because that’s where we’re headed without a major course correction.

We need a fighter and a competent negotiator. Boehner has proven that he ain’t it.

How does Speaker of the House Allen West sound?

Related: “Obama: Yeah, I know Democrats Agreed to the 2011 Spending Deal, But the Speaker’s an Idiot for Believing We’d Abide By It”

 

A hundred and twenty years ago, the greatest of all our Presidents delivered his second State of the Union message in this Chamber. “We cannot escape history,” Abraham Lincoln warned. “We of this Congress and this administration will be remembered in spite of ourselves.” The “trial through which we pass will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest [last] generation.”

Well, that President and that Congress did not fail the American people. Together they weathered the storm and preserved the Union. Let it be said of us that we, too, did not fail; that we, too, worked together to bring America through difficult times.

Let us so conduct ourselves that two centuries from now, another Congress and another President, meeting in this Chamber as we are meeting, will speak of us with pride, saying that we met the test and preserved for them in their day the sacred flame of liberty—this last, best hope of man on Earth.
God bless you, and thank you.

words to ponder in the days to come.

Not so fast.  The post-election tea party has now evolved into the watchdogs of the state and federal politicians that they gave victories to.  The tea party now expects this new breed of politicians to adhere to their campaign promises (yes, I know) as well as tackle the real problems and actually do something about them.  Actions indeed speak louder than words, and in this case they directly affect our nation’s fiscal future–among other things.

Watch.  And listen.  H/T Caleb Howe

“They cannot agree with themselves,” said Hoyer. He called for Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) to distance himself from Tea Party conservatives and forge a compromise between centrist Republicans and Democrats.

Hoyer said Boehner should abandon the additional cuts conservatives muscled into the bill introduced by GOP leaders that would have cut $35 billion in spending this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. After an uproar from conservatives, GOP leaders rallied around a bill that would cut spending by $61 billion. 

Of course he would say that.

This is not 1995 though and the game has changed, and frankly so have the rules.  The differences between 1995 and now is the fact that President Clinton used his veto power coupled with spot-on messaging:

On November 13, 1995, President Clinton vetoed a continuing resolution that would have kept the government running amid a budget impasse. The result was a partial shutdown. A few days later, he signed another continuing resolution providing funds for the government until mid-December. After that measure expired, he vetoed three appropriations bills, and another partial shutdown ensued. This one lasted until early January 1996.

Yes, Clinton called the GOP’s bluff and triggered a government shut down.  The blame supposedly fell at the Republican’s feet.  However, the GOP remained the majority party in the 1998 elections only losing five seats in the House, largely due to the fact that the GOP-led Congress passed popular legislation approval ratings remained consistent.  Furthermore, President Obama is signing the CRs–he has no option–as the Democrats control the Senate.  He couldn’t possibly risk the blame to lie with his party.

The Democrat’s political strategy, setup, and sting on the Republicans is as directed at the tea party as it is to fragmenting and alienating the GOP leadership with the freshmen members.  This attempt to weaken Boehner as a leader and cause voters to become disenfranchised with the GOP sets up the 2012 election.  

The GOP must remember that every time a Republican has the fortitude to stand up and call out the Democrats and the left, the people are behind them.  They crave someone with that leadership quality and fearlessness.  And this is why there is no front-runner in the GOP race to the White House.

Speaker Boehner must lead and unify the Republicans, stay on message, and obey the will of the American people.  If he doesn’t, the GOP will suffer serious consequences and the mantra of “not only conservative, but Republican” will vanish–setting up third party races in 2012, GOP incumbent losses, and Democrat wins.  However, if Boehner stands firm there will be no way the MSM machine will be able to beat back the sentiments and will of the American people for the results will be self-evident.

Crossposted at TMR

An anti-tax advocate, Mr. Braman began the petition drive soon after Mr. Alvarez proposed raising property taxes for 40 percent of Miami-Dade homeowners last summer to plug a large budget deficit, a result of plunging property values. The Miami-Dade County Commission approved the budget. At the same time, unionized county employees whose wages had been frozen were due for a raise under a prior agreement and to have some of their benefits reinstated.

But the criticism reached beyond agreements with unions and property tax increases. The once-popular mayor, who was first elected in 2004, gave hefty raises to top aides in 2009, at the height of the recession, and also used a government car allowance to help pay for a BMW.

This anti-tax sentiment is echoed by this report:

On Tuesday, Cuban-Americans will decide the fate of two Cuban-American Miami-Dade County politicians. Once, being Cuban American was good enough for Cuban-Americans to come out and vote for a candidate. That is no longer true.

As early voting took place, it appears that Alvarez and Miami-Dade Commissioner Natacha Seijas will be ousted:

As of Friday, nearly 55 thousand people had already cast their ballots at the polls; more than 67 thousand voted by absentee ballot.

A recent Miami Herald-CBS4-Univision 23 public opinion poll showed that Alvarez and Seijas will likely be turned out of office.

When a politician such as Alvarez reaches into the taxpayers’ pockets to “fix” the budget, can recall be expected as the new normal and will it apply to both parties who dare betray the people?

Update:  The largest polling precinct in Miami Beach is closed to voters.  Reports cite schedule conflicts:

But tell that to voters who went to cast their ballots at the Miami Beach Botanical Garden and found the city’s largest polling place was closed because clients in town for the Cruise show at the Miami Beach Convention Center had booked the garden for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

Howard Srebnick, a Miami Beach resident and prominent criminal defense lawyer, said the Botanical Garden at 2000 Convention Center Dr. was shut down “without notice.”

Complying with the records request from the House Energy and Commerce Committee “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking” and could “implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests,” White House lawyer Robert Bauer wrote the committee. Translation: Nice try.

Before the Democrats rammed through the Obamacare bill (and don’t think for one little ol’ minute that our narcissistic President doesn’t love that branding), Obama and WH officials met with several high-profile insurance executives as the WaPo lists:

The list included George Halvorson, chairman and CEO of Kaiser Health Plans; Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association; Kenneth Kies, a Washington lobbyist representing Blue Cross/Blue Shield, among other clients; Billy Tauzin, then head of PhRMA, the drug industry lobby; Richard Umbdenstock, chief of the American Hospital Association; and numerous others.

The most concerning is George Halvorson as he was the only executive to meet with Obama.  And here is why:

“There really are two Americas when it comes to health care — the fully insured, primarily white America and the disproportionately uninsured minority America,” Halvorson wrote. “More than half of the total uninsured people in this country are minority. That fact alone should make the need to cover everyone in America a pure ethical imperative. This issue is not about economics — it is about equality. Universal coverage should be the next major civil rights issue for this country to face.

Halvorson also wrote an article in 2007 equating health reform to the “unfinished business of the Civil Rights agenda.” Halvorson discusses the disparities between the races and health care coverage and states:

If we considered no other issue than racial and ethnic disparities, this nation’s leadership — like the leadership of a number of states — should be moving this country down the path to an American form of universal coverage as quickly as possible. There is no more vital or meaningful way for us to honor and extend the great legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

Again, Halvorson was also the only insurance executive to meet with Obama at that time.  Why?  Is it because Obama wants a single-payer system and sees himself as finishing the Civil Rights Movement, and Halvorson has the same viewpoint and the most to gain via Kaiser Permanente?  But, hey, there’s nothing to see here, right?  Or, is it that those meetings were, as Halvorson stated:

“The real discussion this time, behind those closed doors, is about changing the way care is delivered. Not about the cost.” 

Now, that is confusing.  According to former WH Budget Director, Peter Orszag, I thought that we were on an unsustainable path, so how could costs not come up in these meetings?  So, if we now know that those meetings were about how our healthcare is to be delivered, wouldn’t that be cause enough for alarm?  Some questions that pop into my mind are: how are those changes going to be implemented, what type of practitioner has direct access to patients, who has the ability to refer to specialists, who orders advanced tests/images, who makes the medical decisions, what protocols are being set/followed and who sets them, and do patients have access to all available treatment options.

Additionally, the Washington Times article cites that the Clinton and Bush administrations thwarted such calls:

President George W. Bush’s administration beat back efforts to reveal the dealings between Vice President Dick Cheney’s energy task force and industry. President Bill Clinton’s administration successfully resisted demands for records of its failed push to remake the health care system, which was overseen by then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

However, unlike the previous scenarios, this is now the law of the land, American taxpayers will be footing the entire bill, and will potentially ultimately have their healthcare decisions placed in the government’s control.  Doesn’t that give us the right to that information trumping the “implicate longstanding executive branch confidentiality interests” excuse.  And since when does this administration give a hoot about costs, nullifying the argument that the compliance with the records request “would constitute a vast and expensive undertaking.”

To quote NRO’s Jim Geraghty, did the Obama administration just administer the Cee-Lo Green option on Americans?

Typo correction: I’ve corrected the WaPo citation as it should have been Washington Times.

Hintz touches on so many topics in his 3-minute rant–from transparency, public debate, having to read a piddly 144-page bill, to the 35,000 people outside clammoring to have their voices heard.

Really?

Where was he when the more than one million Americans gathered at the Capitol and were ignored by the Democrats?  Was Hintz outraged when Republicans said they needed time to read the 2,000+ page Obamacare bill?  Where was his outrage when Harry Reid slipped in his manager’s amendment replacing the entire Obamacare bill and then voted on it?  Was he outraged when Nancy Pelosi met with Obama and other Democrat leaders behind closed doors locking out Republicans during the so-called ‘conference’?  Was he outraged when debate was cut off on Obamacare by the Democrats in Congress?  I could go on and on (and wrote extensively about it) as this type “professionalism” was on display for two years with Pelosi and Reid at the helm.

But, at least Hintz gets why the Democrats are in the minority…and in Wisconsin.

For the record, this video was extremely difficult to find as it has continually been scrubbed by the compliant lefty media.

Senate Rule 23
   Senate Rule 23. Committee not to be absent. Members of a committee, except a conference committee, may not be absent by reason of their appointment during the sitting of the senate, without special leave.
[am. 2001 S.Res. 2] emphasis mine

I’m a literal type of gal, and “may not” means you absolutely, positively cannot be absent–without taking special leave (maybe they could get a doctor’s note).  Here are the past and future committee schedules for February and March 2011.

Will tone-deaf, taxpayer-betraying Democrats Tim Carpenter, Spencer Coggs, Tomothy Cullen, Jon Erpenbach, Dave Hansen, Jim Holperin, Robert Jauch, Chris Larson, Julie Lassa, Mark Miller, Fred Risser, Lena Taylor, Kathleen Vinehout, and Robert Wirch abide by the Senate rules that they adopted in January 2011.  Or will they continue to hold their positions in contempt and be cowards?

Will the Wisconsin Republicans hold the Democrat fleebaggers to the Wisconsin Constitution and flex their majority authority…kinda like the Democrats in the US House did with Rep. Joe Wilson?

These fleebagging Democrats not only took an oath to uphold the Wisconsin Constitution, but also the United States Constitution and could, if they really had serious moxie, enforce what is stated in both Constitutions:

Article IV, §7 (of WI document)
   Organization of legislature; quorum; compulsory attendance. Section 7. Each house shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members; and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may compel the attendance of absent members in such manner and under such penalties as each house may provide. (emphasis mine)

It would be a great day for Wisconsin taxpayers if that “may compel” became a “did compel,” because as I have stated before “working families” is code for “union families” and what have the Democrats done for private-sector families, except regulate and tax their businesses it into oblivion.

Yes, indeed, elections have consequences.  And the GOP is only getting started; it’s only been two months.

The Republican National Committee raised $5.7 million in January, and new Chairman Reince Priebus said Sunday that $3.5 million of the total came in after his election Jan. 14.

“We owe a lot of our success to major donors who helped us reach 180 percent of our monthly major donor goal, and we were able to accomplish that in the last two weeks of January,” Priebus said in a statement. “I am thankful for the outpouring of support I’ve seen over the past month, from both long-time and first-time donors, but we have a lot of work to do.”

Priebus has been working to restore confidence among major donors and dig out from under the debt created during the 2010 election cycle. The RNC had $21.4 million in debt and only $2.1 million on hand by the end of the month, according to disclosure forms filed Sunday to the Federal Election Commission.

Yes, the total numbers on the balance sheet still look bad, but they’re a whole lot better than they were at New Years, and they’re heading in the correct direction. But what of the new chairman? Why isn’t he in the news? Why isn’t he making the rounds of every political hack with a camera? Is the man invisible?

Yes. Well… very nearly. And if you think that’s a bad thing, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. Priebus is doing precisely what an RNC chair is supposed to be doing. He’s mending fences, bringing the big dollar donors back to the fold, raising money and quietly organizing his forces for the next cycle.

The media is left with little to chew on. Even Jon Stewart of The Daily Show has only managed to do one segment on him since he took office, and that was just to complain that they had nothing to make fun of except his name. (A joke which even Stewart admitted had worn thin after one session.)

An ideal RNC chair is one who you rarely hear of, with most of the country barely remembering his name, who does precisely what Priebus is doing. Is he “in hiding?” If you choose to think of it that way, fine. But it’s a damn fine job of hiding and working efficiently. I think this guy gets it.

Now you can yell at Jazz for being a stupid, wrong-headed RINO even faster than by leaving a comment. Follow him on Twitter! @JazzShaw

Cuomo announces plan for independent redistricting

ALBANY — Gov. Andrew Cuomo introduced legislation Thursday to establish an independent redistricting commission to overhaul how congressional and state legislative districts lines are drawn in New York.

Independent redistricting has been the top reform urged by good-government groups for decades because New York leaders have drawn districts that are advantageous for the parties in power, limiting competitive elections.

But Cuomo is vowing to make good on a campaign pledge last year to change the system and install an independent body to oversee the reshaping of district lines this year in advance of the 2012 elections.

Yes, I heard him say that on the campaign trail too, but honestly, none of us actually thought he would do it.

I spent most of the last year grappling with the results of the Empire State’s obscenely gerrymandered districting scheme. The one where our race took place looks like something out of a sketch done by M.C. Escher on a bad brown acid trip. The rest of the state isn’t much better, with both the congressional and state legislative districts carved up in impossible ways to give Democrats every chance of holding on to as much power as possible.

If a truly independent board is put in place, as has been previously suggested, and they actually do draw up regularly shaped, axis-contiguous districts based solely on population distribution, the upstate region could suddenly become a lot more competitive than it has been for the last two decades.

This comes on the heels of his previous stances in getting tougher on not only spending, but on the public sector unions. Once the current drama in Wisconsin finishes playing out, let’s see if he and Governor Christie decide to adopt a few new pages for their playbooks.

It didn’t take long for the loons at ThinkRegress to begin attacking the memory of the 20th century’s greatest president. The culmination of their effort — ‘10 Things Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know About Ronald Reagan‘ — is a list of Reagan’s policies that conservatives supposedly want to hide from the general public.

Reagan was not the man conservatives claim he was. This image of Reagan as a conservative superhero is myth, created to untie the various factions of the right behind a common leader. In reality, Reagan was no conservative ideologue or flawless commander-in-chief. Reagan regularly strayed from conservative dogma — he raised taxes eleven times as president while tripling the deficit — and he often ended up on the wrong side of history, like when he vetoed an Anti-Apartheid bill.

ThinkProgress’ “top 10 things conservatives rarely mention when talking about President Reagan” are as follows:

“ 1. Reagan was a serial tax raiser” – Reagan suffered from overwhelming Democrat majorities in Congress when he took office. While he desperately wanted to strip away huge swaths of government (including eliminating the then newly created Department of Education), he had no choice but to compromise with the Democrats who controlled the budgetary purse-strings. When Reagan left office, the top marginal tax rate was 28% (today’s it’s 35% and under Bill Clinton it was nearly 40%).

“2. Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit by enacting a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously” – Another flat-out lie. Before his 25 percent across-the-board cut in individual income-tax rates went into effect, government receipts from individual income taxes trickled in at $244.1 billion. The year Reagan left office, they totaled $445.7 billion — an 82 percent jump. As for the deficits, Democrats outspent every one of the nine budgets Reagan proposed but one. Further, Democrats refused to make corresponding cuts in wasteful domestic programs to offset the defense appropriations Reagan needed to combat the Soviet Union after the Carter administration’s foreign policy disasters (e.g., Iran, Afghanistan, et. al.).

“3. Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts” – Before the full tax-relief package was passed — against the wishes of many Democrats, by the way — the jobless rate hit 9.6 percent. But as the cuts rippled through the economy, unemployment dropped every year after 1983, reaching a low of 5.3 percent in 1989. And tax cuts benefited minorities, too. The jobless rate among blacks plunged from 19.5 percent in 1983 to 11.4 percent in 1989.

“4. Reagan grew the size of the federal government tremendously” – this again omits the role of Congressional Democrats who controlled the purse-strings and refused to axe the programs and agencies that Reagan requested. In fact, the media portrayed Reagan as “heartless” and depicted him as “laughable and malevolent” for his attempts to strip away the federal bureaucracy. But the only way the Democrat Congress would accept a defense buildup and tax cuts was for Reagan to agree to their domestic spending agenda. In fact, the budget deficits of the 1980s made the surpluses in the 1990s possible; the balanced budget was aided by surging tax revenues from a healthy, low-tax economy and immense defense savings made possible by the fall of the Soviet Union.

“5. Reagan did little to fight a woman’s right to chose [sic]” – Reagan was adamant about ending the practice of ‘abortion on demand’ and proposed that legislation be drafted to do so (you can hear Reagan’s 1983 address on this subject); but he “had little success in gaining its acceptance by Congress.”

“ 6. Reagan was a “bellicose peacenik.”” – this is sheer revisionist idiocy; Reagan believed, first and foremost, in peace through strength. He gave dozens of speeches on this topic, rebuilt the U.S. military after Carter had stripped it bare, and created the impetus for the oft-derided SDI (“Star Wars”) program that has since become an essential part of U.S. national security strategy. His famous slogans on this topic were “peace through strength” and “trust but verify”.

“ 7. Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants” – The Democrat leadership in Congress promised to enact strict enforcement measures as a trade for a one-time amnesty deal. In an effort to control the border, Reagan went along with the deal. At the time (1986), the measures were marketed by Democrats as as being able to stop illegal immigration. Ted Kennedy himself sold the enforcement clauses of the law as strong enough to ensure that only a one-time amnesty would be needed. But, as is their standard practice, Democrats lied about sealing the border.

Reagan himself said, “This country has lost control of its borders. And no country can sustain that kind of position.”

“ 8. Reagan illegally funneled weapons to Iran” -Democrats launched a six-year, $40 million investigation of Reagan in a politically inspired witch-hunt. Reagan was, in fact, found guilty of absolutely nothing. Furthermore, indictments were intentionally handed down mere days before the 1992 election that pitted George H. W. Bush against Bill Clinton — presumably to levy the maximum amount of political damage on the GOP candidate. Near the end of the investigations, The Baltimore Sun reported that a “federal trial judge in Washington dismissed Oliver North’s conviction” and that “[c]riticism of Mr. Walsh’s prosecution and of the law that authorized it will become more intense [because the] public has gotten precious little from his [at the time] $30 million, four-year effort”.

“9. Reagan vetoed a comprehensive anti-Apartheid act” – Reagan vehemently opposed apartheid (“Apartheid is morally wrong and politically unacceptable [... the] United States cannot maintain cordial relations with [such] a government“) but he did not support the approach advocated by Congress. He issued an executive order restricting trade with the Pretoria government and virtually ended inter-bank dealings. But he believed that Congress’ unilateral sanctions would harm blacks most of all and eradicate all of the leverage he wanted to bring to bear on South Africa. He wanted a timetable for the elimination of apartheid laws, the release of all political prisoners (especially Nelson Mandela) and a removal of the ban on black political movements. He felt he could not negotiate with the South African government if he had nothing to trade. His 1986 speech — “Ending Apartheid in South Africa” — comprehensively described his plans and approach.

“ 10. Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden” – Gee, next they’ll be complaining that we had to side with the Soviets to defeat the Nazis. This sort of leftist lunacy simply rewrites history. We needed to sabotage the Soviets’ efforts in Afghanistan to prevent a dramatic power-shift in the Middle East. Blaming Reagan for the Taliban and Bin Laden is like blaming Henry Ford for the problem of too many scrap tires.

The speaker, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., on Wednesday plans to introduce legislation to revive a controversial program that provides private-school vouchers for kids of low-income parents in Washington, D.C. Boehner has long been a supporter of that program, which started to wind down in 2009, but is devoting some serious political capital to the cause this week.

[snip]

The D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, as it is known, was launched in 2004 as the first federally funded program providing K-12 education grants. Though supporters say it gives poor students an alternative to the city’s underperforming public school system, teachers unions and other opponents say it draws sorely needed money away from the public system. 

Lawmakers opposed to the program succeeded in eliminating it after Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. — who could not be reached for comment Tuesday — attached an amendment to a 2009 spending bill. President Obama stepped in and agreed to allow students currently enrolled to graduate. But the program is no longer accepting new applicants.

To recap, the Omnibus appropriations act of 2009 defunded (roll call vote here) the successful program–effectively eliminating any opportunity for poor DC schoolchildren to escape the horrid DC public schools.  The Democrats, namely Dick Durbin, claimed that the program funding would take away from the money the DC public schools needed.

Speaker Boehner and Senator Lieberman put out this video statement:

This move to reinstate this program is a bold one for Boehner–especially when calls for spending decreases are deafening and we are broke (H/T Allah for the video).   However, when the Obama administration spent more than all previous administrations in his first 19 months in office, it’s hard to say that this wasn’t a deliberate cut on the part of the Democrats–especially after 3 months in office.

Furthermore, this is going to be a tricky issue for Obama and the Democrats–one that will further define the Democrats as bought-off, public-sector union hacks and self-serving politicians who continually oppress and exploit others for their own political gain.  Some of you may think, yeah, those Republicans, but I will remind you–it was the Republicans who originally started the DC scholarship program and the Democrats (and a few of the usual RINOs) who filibustered it.  Kinda like the 1964 Civil Rights Act–Democrats filibustered that one, too.  Look it up.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

In the mean time, Ken Buck lost by a tiny margin in Colorado; Nevada’s Sharron Angle lost by a similar narrow vote total, Dino Rossi was edged by Patty Murray in Washington, 27,000 votes swung the election against Christine O’Donnell in Delaware and and Joe Miller is hanging by a thread in Alaska.

In Alaska, the final results may not be known for some time, but the NRSC’s final ads actually ended up helping Lisa Murkowski in her write-in campaign against GOP nominee Joe Miller. Instead of attacking Murkowski — the candidate who most threatened the party’s nominee — the NRSC instead took aim at Democrat Scott McAdams, who had no chance of winning. Any support they drove from McAdams was far more likely to go to Murkowski than to Miller — meaning the NRSC effort probably did more harm than good for Miller’s campaign.

In other words, the NRSC’s idiocy — combined with outrageous remarks by Karl Rove on national television — likely doomed four or five true conservative candidates to extinction.

In the post-election debrief, the Nixonian RINO contingent of Whimsy Graham, John Cornyn and the rest of the NRSC’s ludicrous cadre of losers blamed… staunch conservative Jim DeMint, who had funded a handful of Tea Party-backed Senatorial winners like Pat Toomey (PA), Marco Rubio (FL), Rand Paul (KY), Mike Lee (UT) and Ron Johnson (WI).

Oh, but that $8 million spent on Fiorina’s campaign didn’t hurt at all — right, boys?

I know one thing: that $3 million spent in the final weeks on those five campaigns could have swung four or five seats to the GOP. But the idiots at the NRSC are selfish, insular Beltway Republicans who are wedded to the status quo.

News flash, boys: we just stamped expiration dates on your foreheads.

Lessons learned

Give directly to conservative candidates — and don’t send even a dime to the NRSC or any of Karl Rove’s pathetic groups (e.g., “American Crossroads” — or, as I like to call it, “American Double-Crossers”).

You can and should support the PACs of true conservatives like Jim DeMint, such as The Senate Conservatives Fund.

As for you, Whimsy Graham — I can’t wait until 2014. I will come to South Carolina, I will do whatever it takes to help defeat you in the primary.

Erick must have blocked out DC’s distinguished Mayor Marion Berry.

But his point — that the GOP’s effort is mostly “dreck” — is valid. Washington’s so freaking broken that the usual platitudes and rhetoric can’t and won’t suffice.

21 pages? How about starting with two words: THE CONSTITUTION?

To be sure, the Constitution is paid lip service in the GOP’s pledge. And a few (unfortunately, too few) stats are powerful. For example: did you know that there are 2,050 federal assistance programs?

And consider this sentence, notwithstanding the “sic”:

Despite having the largest Democratic majority since 1993, the current Congress marked the first time in the history [sic] that not a single spending bill was considered under an ‘open’ amendment process.

But there’s also plenty of fluff, with anecdotes and quotes and lengthy paragraphs that morph into meaningless mush.

Consider the summary of the GOP pledge:

• We will fight to ensure transparency and accountability in Congress and throughout government. [Platitude]
• We will continue to fight the growth of government and oppose new stimulus spending that only puts our nation further in debt. [Platitude]
• We will fight efforts to fund the costly new health care law. [Feh]
• We will fight to increase access to domestic energy sources and oppose attempts to impose a national “cap and trade” energy tax. [Okay, barely]
• We will fight for the rights of workers and oppose “card check” schemes that put union bosses before individuals’ right to a secret ballot. [Okay, barely]
• We will fight efforts to use a national crisis for political gain. [I have no idea what this means]

Reps. Boehner, Cantor, Ryan and other members of the GOP: you could have come to me for the half-page pledge. It would read as follows:

The GOP Pledge to America
We pledge that every action we take will be gauged by the answer to a single question: Does it show fidelity to the Constitution, our highest law?

With that as our guide, we solemnly pledge the following as our first actions:

• We will repeal the Democrat health care bill and, if vetoed by the President, will de-fund every aspect of that bill until such time as the American people have input into a sensible health care reform process.
• We will slash the size of the federal government bureaucracies (Commerce, Education, Energy, the EPA, Labor, etc.) by 20% in 2011 with a goal of reducing each by 50% over the next three years, thereby saving hundreds of billions of dollars.
• We will secure the border with physical fencing suitable to repel drug smugglers, human smugglers, and terrorists, while encouraging legal immigration and enforcement of the law.
• We will confront the entitlement crisis — Social Security and Medicare — by preserving benefits for those who depend upon them and moving to privatized options for younger workers. Anything less condemns future generations to mountains of debt and economic catastrophe.
• We will strengthen our armed forces, space and missile defense programs to retain our unparalleled superpower status.
• We will begin the process of paying down our debts, spending within our means every year.
• We will ban public sector unions, which exist solely to wage war against the taxpayers who fund their operations.

Put simply: we intend to adhere to a strict interpretation of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Faith, Family, and the Founding. That is our creed.

And for your support and with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

It really is just that simple.

We are fighting to prevent the destruction of the American way — and the remedy is simple. It’s been right in front of our faces the whole time.

Somewhere, James Madison and John Adams are looking down on us with expectant gleams in their eyes.

 
Cross-posted at: Doug Ross @ Journal.

O’Donnell (in rhetoric, anyway) is more staunchly anti-earmark, anti-TARP, anti-Obamacare, and anti-cap-and-trade, all of which she stresses more than her Norman Maileresque views on self-abuse. At every campaign stop she emphasizes being “anti-establishment,” reverent of the Founders, and in tune with Tea Party nation.

Welch illustrates his point with visual reference to a memorable (but not necessarily family-friendly) cinematic encounter between Judge Reinhold and Phoebe Cates, which brings us to the topic at hand . . . err, so to speak.

Noted paragon of moral virtue Rachel Maddow got all snarky about the Delaware Senate nominee’s Bible-based critique of onanism:

Professor William Jacobson accused Maddow of “sexualizing” O’Donnell, but what struck me was that the MSNBC hostess felt it sufficient merely to play the 1996 video and then grin sarcastically, as if:

• No intelligent viewer could possibly consider O’Donnell’s exegesis of Matthew 5:27-28 as a serious argument; and
• This implied criticism of O’Donnell’s view did not require any counter-argument on Maddow’s part.

In other words, those who advocate chastity are presumed to be ridiculous, while their critics — who may or may not be degenerate atheists — need never explain or defend their own perspective on appropriate sexual conduct. I had some jocular fun with this, suggesting that Maddow should do an hour-long MSNBC special about masturbation which “would draw much higher ratings than anything Chris Matthews might say about his Obama-inspired leg thrills.” As with O’Donnell’s views on evolution, many liberals have slid into the self-congratulatory assumption that, because opposing opinions have been excluded from elite circles, those opinions are indefensible. No smart person they know takes the Bible seriously, ergo, only morons accept the Bible as authoritative. And in the context of O’Donnell’s slippery-slope arguments about coed facilities on university campuses, it struck me how successful liberals have been in marginalizing advocates of Judeo-Christian tradition:

Sneering contempt for old-fashioned virtue is a very dangerous thing. It is remarkable how far gone our popular culture is in this regard. All sophisticated people are now supposed to scoff at the notion that young people can refrain from premarital intercourse, much less be “masters of their domain,” as the Seinfeld show once phrased it. 
So casual is our cultural assumption that “everybody’s doing it” that we are shocked when anyone dares suggest we shouldn’t do it. The only acceptable morality is now amorality — an agnostic indifference to virtue — and our society has become strikingly intolerant toward those who publicly dissent from the New Sexual Orthodoxy.

You can read the whole thing, or perhaps you would like to consider how hypocritical liberals are to accuse Christine O’Donnell of being a conspiracy theorist. I think they’re talking about The Other O’Donnell:

“I do believe that it’s the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel. . . . Miraculously, the first time in history, steel was melted by fire. It is physically impossible.”
– Rosie O’Donnell, 2007

You can’t accuse liberals of not having standards. They’ve got exactly two: One for them, and one for everybody else.