Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category
Meg Whitman Weirdness
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010What in the heck?
I wasn’t impressed with Meg Whitman at Western CPAC. Her delivery was flat. She seemed disinterested and bored and it was at the beginning of the campaign to a friendly audience. I don’t think she likes politics very much, but likes ruling things a lot.
P.S. I’m only interested in California because it’s so big and has so much impact on the rest of the country.
No, Republicans Wouldn’t Repeal Health Care Reform
Wednesday, March 10th, 2010
One of the most maddening arguments from overly-optimistic friends of mine goes like this: Even if the Democrats pass health care reform, Republicans can run against it and say they’d repeal it and then look like heroes when they do it.
The only problem with this flawed logic? The veto pen of Barack Obama for two more years. The only other problem with this flawed logic? David Harsanyi captures it:
To begin with, there exists almost no historical evidence to suggest Republicans will possess either the fortitude or the power to undo a massive government entitlement program.
Can we trust them? Most of you will remember it was the Republican Party’s leadership that pressured conservatives to vote for the fiscally irresponsible Medicare Part D program in 2003. (Democrats like to argue that this illustrates GOP hypocrisy. Perhaps. With Obamacare, the GOP has a chance at redemption.)
Then there are conspicuous problems to consider. Republicans do not possess 60 votes in the Senate — and likely won’t for awhile. Best case scenario, they will have to deal with a president who will veto their efforts to undo the sole “accomplishment” of his presidency.
Obama spent last week campaigning for health care reform, at one point getting some college-age fans worked up about all the free stuff — “free” preventive care and “free” checkups, and so forth — they would receive if his version of health care reform passed.
Which brings us to another stumbling block. If health care is now a “right” and “free” to an ever-growing group of Americans — people who believe stuff can be had for “free” — are Republicans really going to snatch it away from them?
You can already picture the hideous debate, as Republicans fold in the face of accusations that they are working for the murderous profit- mongers against the underprivileged victims of a wretched capitalistic system. (Even today, Jim Bunning stood nearly alone.)
What, in all the years of watching Republicans in action gives any conservative, libertarian or even small-government moderate any faith in these people? It suggest a sweet idealism that I find refreshing, but also stupid.
Every shred of energy needs to be expended to prevent this disaster from starting. Those who suggest it can be repealed need to think of a drug user. Heroin is extraordinarily addictive. Stopping a person after the first hit, is nigh to impossible. After the third? Forget it.
Those who suggest repealing this bill, will be asking heroin addicts across the country to take themselves off the drug. That’s what government entitlements are: Societal Drugs. They hook a person, and he doesn’t even know he’s dying until it’s too late and his freedom is gone.
Better to hide the drugs and destroy them forever, than to allow a person one hit. This health care bill MUST be stopped now or there will be no stopping it later.
Why Rick Perry Won: Thoughts From A Texan
Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010Over at the New Ledger, Ben Domenech interviews Rick Perry and muses over Perry’s success. He says:
It’s a funny thing how political predictions work. When Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison declared her candidacy for the governorship of Texas, few would’ve bet against her — popular, moderate, and established, the ex-cheerleader who loves the cameras seemed a perfect fit for the limited authority (and sizable promotional duties) of the Texas governor’s mansion.
Except at some point, when no one outside Texas was paying attention, Rick Perry got good at politics. By understanding the zeitgeist of the 2010 cycle and connecting with a surprising upsurge in populism, Perry somehow managed to make an anti-establishment case to the voters despite serving as governor for a decade — an impressive feat for any incumbent.
Perhaps a small quibble: The problem for politicians is being perceived as voting D.C. interests over voting the voters’ interest. In Kay Bailey Hutchison’s case, she is perceived as D.C.
The other problem for national Republican incumbents is being perceived as standing for big government, big spending, big regulation, and big invasion into Americans’ lives. That will be a problem for state-wide politicians, too…except for maybe California.
Rick Perry was very smart over the last year and half. He had a misstep when he talked about mandating Gardisil vaccinations for all Texas girls. After that “big government intervention” backfire, Perry got the message loud and clear: Bug out.
And so he has.
More than any other politician, he has consistently told Washington, D.C. “no” for the last two years. That has won him big points in Texas and won him envy among citizens unfortunate enough to live anywhere but Texas.
It should not also be ignored that Texas is humming along economically. By Texas standards, the economy isn’t wonderful, but it’s doing so much better than the rest of the nation, citizens are wanting to keep a good thing going. Who can blame them?
Who can blame Perry for paying attention to the feeling of his constituents? Funny thing, that. So many politicians in D.C. still want to do what they want to do, not what their constituents want.
Ben asked Governor Perry about the Tea Party movement and populism. Perry said this:
I think what you’re seeing now is the result of years of people’s frustration with government frittering away their hard earned money. It was fermenting in the mind and soul of the public for years, but I think you started to see a real response to it in mid 2008. They were really frustrated with what they saw, particularly from Republicans, when it came to handling governing.
Now this is self-evident truth, unless you’re a moderate Republican hell-bent on being Porky-the-Pig. It has been utterly astonishing how arrogant and out of touch D.C. Republicans, the ones voters count on to be the grown ups, have been.
As for the populism, Perry says:
I’m not sure I’d put it as just “populist” — I’d say it was common sense. I see regular people who started to look around and see a Congress and a president who are on a path that is very socialistic. They’re seeing things happen in Washington that are way out of their comfort zone. And because of that, they’re afraid for their country.
Again, this will be considered a genius statement only because D.C. Republicans are so out of touch, or have been. And Kay Bailey Hutchison, while living and immersed in D.C. culture, totally misjudged Texas sentiment and culture. She is not alone in her Stockholm-like syndrome. Once inside the D.C. bubble, it seems rational thought and common sense go out the window. That’s why the voters nationally are anti-D.C. anybody–Republican or Democrat.
Rick Perry sums up the national mood:
That’s easy. Any Republican candidate, any Republican activist or consultant or what have you, who is not paying attention will be so much roadkill.
The gravity of this, the weight of it, the momentum — whatever you want to call it, I’m convinced it’s unstoppable. You can join with this movement, and most people who are comfortable in the Republican Party should be very comfortable with what’s being said, or you can find another line of work.
Go read the whole article. It’s not difficult to see why people look to Texas and to Governor Perry.
Health Care Summit Sum Up So Far–UPDATED
Thursday, February 25th, 2010Obama: Whatever you can do, we’ve done better.
Pelosi: People are sad.
Reid: People are sad and Republicans suck.
Alexander: Here are the CBO facts.
Obama to Alexander: You lie.
Coburn, MD: We should cut costs.
Baucus: Mumble, mumble. Incoherent gibberish.
UPDATED:
Obama: I won.
UPDATED AGAIN:
It is my sense that the Democrats want to get across the message that “we mostly agree” so that when the Republicans and Blue Dogs howl at this nonsense, they’ll argue bad faith.
I don’t think that message is working. The Republicans are talking facts, not emotions.
Scott Brown Votes Yes On Jobs Bill: The Sexy Allure Of Bipartisanship
Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010Are Scott Brown voters betrayed with his vote for the Jobs Bill that he helped to get out of cloture yesterday?
Dan Riehl says:
When Scott Brown starts crafting national health care legislation, or sounding like the liberal lion of the Senate, get back to me. Until then, it’s Massachusetts. We’re still a long way ahead on the deal. Winning the seat was more than worth it.
A Twitter friend said that he’s still better than Teddy Kennedy. Well. The only reason for a Republican Senator is to stop any sort of spending bills.
Still, as Allah points out, this isn’t the worst bill in the world. It can also make Republicans look interested in bipartisanship when the legislation is right (even though this bill doesn’t do much of anything). Basically, it’s a purely political vote as the substance isn’t there.
Now, I’m hoping that the next big spending bill that comes along Scott Brown body slams. That’s unlikely to happen before the midterms in November. Even Democrats are worried about big spending bills right now.
Is Fiorina Trying To Piss Everyone Off?
Monday, February 22nd, 2010Carly Fiorina uses Scott Brown’s image in an ad implying that he’s endorsed her. Good grief. If he has, she should use that. If not, she shouldn’t. It’s disingenuous and just irritates people when they find out the truth.
Newsflash Fiorina: The people who vote in primaries pay attention to these things:
It’s another day, another controversial Web ad from California Republican Senate candidate Carly Fiorina.
Fiorina, who hopes to unseat Sen. Barbara Boxer this fall if she can emerge from a tight three-way Republican primary, has started running a new Web ad that uses the face of newly-elected Sen. Scott Brown. In the ad, a caption accompanying Brown’s image reads: “Thank You Massachusetts. Now on to California. Join the Path to Victory.”
But Fiorina’s GOP rivals – former Rep. Tom Campbell and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore – say the ad falsely implies that Brown has endorsed Fiorina.
All the people playing wink wink behind the scenes in California need to show themselves. Otherwise, just be for something solid and fiscally conservative.
Newt Might Try To Co-Opt The Tea Party Movement But It Won’t Work
Monday, February 22nd, 2010Donald Douglas has an excellent take-down of the LA Time’s perspective on the Contract FROM America verses Newt Gingrich’s Contract For America back in 1994. Go read the whole thing.
It is clear to me that Newt very badly wants to harness the energy of the Tea Party movement but be let off the hook for his calls for bi-partisanship and his endorsement of DeDe Scozzafava. Not going to happen.
It’s also not going to go over well that he’s trying to co-opt a document put forth by the American people. And what is the not-so-subtle diminishing of the document that has been a work in progress? Is the openly transparent steps going to be held against people? A rough draft of a document is rough because it has flaws to fix. This process has been open to the people every step of the way.
Donald Douglas says of the LA Times and Newt:
See how clever that is? Dick Armey was House Majority Leader under the Newt Gingrich speakership. Since Armey has indeed been one of the original backers of the tea party movement, the Times can piggyback Gingrich into the story to make this link between the GOP takeover in 1994 and the tea parties today. Problem is, the “Contract with America” was a campaign vehicle rather than a real reform manifesto with teeth. By 2000, according to Edward Crane at Cato, “the combined budgets of the 95 major programs that the Contract with America promised to eliminate have increased by 13%. ” And Crane adds something important: “For all of his talent in generating the “revolution,” Newt was never the conservative ideologue the media painted him to be.”
Yeah. Hello.
Remember last October and Newt’s endorsement of Dede Scozzafava over Doug Hoffman in NY-23? See Michelle’s piece on that, “An ACORN-Friendly, Big Labor-Backing, Tax-and-Spend Radical in GOP Clothing.”
Some “establishment” guys, like Dick Armey, have proven themselves to be able servants along side the grassroots. They haven’t taken over, they’ve facilitated.
Some other politicians establishment or newbie seem to want to use the Tea Party movement for personal gain. The problem is that the Tea Party participants know who was there from the beginning. They know who tried to take over. They know who has their best interests at heart.
Newt is making things worse for himself. He needs to stop.
Why Sarah Palin Should Have Been At CPAC; Ditto Huckabee
Monday, February 22nd, 2010If there are over 10,000 of the most dedicated grassroots activists for the conservative cause in one place, why would you miss it? That’s a rhetorical question. You wouldn’t miss it.
CPAC was lit up with the energy not of old establishment types but the young, the restless and the politically active. You know those people who knock on doors and persuade? Yeah, that’s who was at CPAC.
The establishment folks were out in force, too, but I haven’t seen so much enthusiasm and unabashed love for conservative values, well, in a decade. The tide has turned and some notable politicians missed out.
Where was Sarah Palin? She is staking her ground on the Tea Party movement. That’s fine. But you know what? In the poll of about 500 attendees of the panel I moderated (a good sampling of CPAC attendees), probably 90% attended a Tea Party. Nearly every hand went up.
I knew that would be the case beforehand. Tea Partiers are conservatives and libertarians and they want to network and meet and hear the new leaders and start making early choices about who they’ll support. When Palin and Huck and others don’t show up, they suffer in comparison because they’re just not there.
On Twitter Matt Lewis says, “Huck’s criticism of CPAC reminds me of his feud with Club for Growth & his book. Failure to swallow pride is career-limiting for pols…”
Outsized pride is career limiting and character-reavealing all at the same time.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney was introduced by the adored Scott Brown.
The leaders of the Tea Party movement were at CPAC, Sarah Palin would have received a hero’s welcome. She could have talked about the Contract From America. She could have talked about all the people she connected with across the country.
There is another chance for these leaders to meet and influence voters.
Americans for Prosperity has a RightOnline conference coming up in Las Vegas, Nevada at the Venetian July 23 – 24. People from all over America–dedicated activists–who use modern technology to spread the word will be there.
I suggest that Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee and the other big-name politicians who want to influence the influencers make a point of showing up….and not for pay. Just show up and talk to the people who will influence the grassroots.
The groundwork is being laid now and the people who care enough to fly to DC to pay for a conference to hear all these great, new, fresh faces are very motivated. It isn’t about the established DC insiders who put together these sorts of things, it’s about the people who attend them.
So, there are some key moments when a movement shifts and changes. CPAC was one such time. The RightOnline conference opposite Netroots will be another.
Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee need to be at these events if they hope to win the hearts and minds of those who influence the perspective of others. They should have been at CPAC. It was a golden opportunity.
Uh Oh, Bayh To Go Bye-Bye
Monday, February 15th, 2010Another moderate Democrat in what is going to end up being a very Red State in November goes down in a ball of flames. Phillip Klein says:
A popular former governor in Indiana with a long family history in the state, he would have been the strongest possible candidate. This is further indication that moderate Democrats running in red states are eager to jump ship in what they expect to be a rough November.
And here are my words to the wise in the Republican party: Don’t put up moderates in these races. The American people are going to be inclined to go Republican on principle. So, do NOT dilute strength by putting up a moderate candidate that begs for a Tea Party contender. Just don’t.
Americans are hungering for fiscal restraint. Give them what they want.
Decadent Democrats And Republican Bums
Friday, February 12th, 2010
This photo [Link here] is sure to cause controversy, but nicely encapsulates the perception of the Left these days.
Did the American people really forget how vile this bunch can be when in power? I’ve considered this quite a bit. Maybe. Really, I think they remembered, hated the Republicans more for their betrayal of principles they claim to hold, and threw the bums out.
The bums didn’t listen in 2004, 2006 and 2008. Are the Republican bums listening now?
Some are.
Some Republicans still act like they’d like to be on the stage you see in that photo, there’s just not enough room right now. That’s a problem.
If and when the Republican party gets back in control, and there’s more Gang of 7 activity that slowly, but inextricably grows the government, makes D.C. more powerful, etc., there will be a bad scene.
The American people, actually the tax payers–which are only about 50% of the population, are fed up with our leaders profligate ways. Any concessions, any fat cat behavior will cause mutiny, I fear.
So yes, the Democrat party is decadent. That’s why I call them the party of “yes, yes, yes!” Still, the Republicans have been the party of maybe. That has to change.
2010 is going to be a big year. Hopefully, fiscal responsibility will be the new order of the day and we won’t see the fall of America.
