Conservatives must learn from the shutdown

Speaker Boehner: ‘’We just didn’t win’’

16 days overdue, thus ends an American take on Monty Python. Without the satire.

The White House has preserved ObamaCare, Democrats have won clean resolutions and the GOP has been humbled into a very public and very bloody retreat.

For Republicans, there are only two positives.

First, with this deal, the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell, has probably saved the GOP from being vanquished in next year’s Mid-Terms. Second, McConnell has challenged the President to live up to his word and engage in serious negotiations (my take on 'serious') before next January. In short, McConnell has given CPR to a party drowning in emotion.

For leading the GOP off its Maginot Line, McConnell deserves the gratitude of all conservatives.

Unfortunately, he won’t get it. 

Instead, the very opposite is likely to occur. Conservative firebrands will rage against his ‘betrayal of conservative values’. McConnell’s primary challenger, Matt Bevin, can expect his campaign coffers to brim. After all, for a loud but vocal conservative minority, compromise is treason. A capital crime. 

This insipid absolutism can’t continue. It’s time for us, the majority of conservatives; the ‘quiet conservatives’, to bring reason back to Republican politics.

For a start, we need to recognize what we’re up against - that there are those in our movement who see ‘purity’ as their defining cause. That for these conservatives, politics isn’t about asserting an agenda, it’s about purging the ‘ideologically impure’. We need to recognize that these partisans see themselves as the modern incarnations of John Stark’s heroic toast, - ‘’Live free or die; death is not the worst of evils.’’ That for these men and women, political death is preferable to compromise.

Next, we need to point out the fallacy of their argument.

Let’s cut the faux patriotism, ObamaCare is not the British Army and this isn’t the Revolutionary War. In their struggle, Stark and his comrades were fighting for an ideal that was both pure and possible – freedom and independence.

Neither was true with regards to the GOP strategy on ObamaCare. As I argued earlier this week, demanding that Obama sacrifice his landmark law was always implausible. Democrats control the Senate and the Executive. The Judiciary has rendered its decision- the law conforms with the Constitution. The polls were also clear- Americans might dislike ObamaCare, but they disliked the GOP’s brinkmanship even more. On top of it all, Obama had a post-Syria necessity to project clear leadership.

Unsurprisingly, the news coverage has reflected this understanding. Instead of focusing on the absurd incompetence of the ObamaCare rollout, the media set up camp on a different story – one centered in a Republican celebration of rudderless obstructionism. A political opposition marching in perfect step with Democratic propaganda. A modern tea party… without the tea.

For conservatives, this strategic delusion speaks to our burgeoning fetish - self-immolation at the shrine of partisan resistance.

Over the last two weeks, the House GOP has rendered itself the governing equivalent of a skydiving team without parachutes- for two minutes, soaring ecstasy as the jumpers sail through the clouds. Until terminal velocity meets certain gravity. Then truth renders its judgment – the illusion of omnipotence at an awful price. Self-destruction is the nemesis of political reason.

If we’re serious about preventing an American welfare state, we conservatives need to get serious.

We need to grasp the virtuous truth- that Political leadership demands both courage and rationality. That in a democracy, believing alone isn’t enough. In the end as with all arguments, political success requires presenting a case, persuading voters and pursuing change.

The alternative is what we’ve seen today. A gleeful Democratic party, a preaching President and a Republican brand that’s bobbing in the sewer.

Please watch video below for my thoughts on broader issues involved.

In Defense of the South

So, we have the latest liberal craze - telling southern/conservative states how to run their elections. If you're able to bear the sanctimony, see EJ Dionne.

Look, I get that southern states have a less than stellar record on the pursuit of participatory democracy. I get that racism remains a real problem. But I also (unlike many liberals) get that we live in the 21st century. We have an African-American President. We have minority representatives, both Democrat and Republican, serving southern states. We have come a long, long way. In this sense, subverting state rights is just another example of the arrogant condescension that typifies much left wing sentiment towards the south. In DC, I hear it all the time; it's rarely pleasant and it's never profound. I've been told that ''people in the south are stupid'', or ''inherently racist'', or... you get the point. Yet, aside from the self-evident idiocy of these statements, this abuse carries destructive consequences. 

For one, the hate helps to foster a northern elite v redneck cultural divide. Also, albeit slightly, it weakens the common understanding of an American national identity. By effectively telling Americans who live in the south that they lack the mental faculties or moral character to develop their own laws, liberals are pushing the worst instincts of a governing paternalism. And when, for example, liberals argue that requiring IDs at a polling station is the equivalent to a war on democracy, they're embracing utter absurdity. Are we really to believe that the acts of drawing money at a bank or flying on a plane, are more sanctified than voting? It's nuts.

           There's also a pretty simple way through here. If a voter lacks the financial ability to procure an ID - the state can provide one for him/her free of charge. To pursue such a course would be to avoid the risk of a voting nobility (IE - those who can afford an ID card), whilst at the same time ensuring integrity in elections.

But let's be clear. Ultimately, this liberal interference isn't about protecting minority rights. Rather, it's about restricting state democracy when that democracy separates from liberal ideology. It's the flowing result of a dynamic of authoritarianism evident in a multitude of areas - see criminal justice and gun laws for two such examples. Yet, this dynamic also occurs at the Federal level - where liberals seem to believe that balanced power need only apply to conservatives (who tend to be more heavily represented in southern states). An understanding to which the President also unashamedly subscribes.

We need to challenge this arrogance. After all, when it comes to the facts, liberal interferers are left with very little ground to stand on. For a start, voting right protections are still rightly enshrined in Federal law. But what about the record of southern states in other areas? For example, on the economy. Here, as Democratic states and cities wallow in black holes of debt, many conservative states are flourishing. 

On a more serious final note, with southern states continuing to provide the core of American military recruitment, perhaps northern liberals should pause before they claim that those same citizens cannot be trusted with democratic protection?

Senate Democrats and the politics of Clownsville

In a vote late last night, Senate Democrats passed their first budget for four years. Reading the details, it's become abundantly clear that they're living in Clownsville.

 

You might think that the word budget suggests at least some degree of consideration for fiscal reality. An expectation many Americans would probably share. Unfortunately, when it comes to this budget, fiscal reality is nowhere to be found.

Let's consider the details. The Democratic budget increases taxes by $1 trillion - and does so by reinforcing the Democrats deluded and mathematically unsustainable obsession with taxing the rich. Further, the budget does so little to restrain the growth of entitlements that it's truly laughable. Instead, it plays around the edges of Federal spending and finds a pathetic $900 billion in discretionary cuts - primarily by allowing 50% of the DoD sequester to go into effect. Thus we see it's essence. A hyper-partisan morass of mathematically absurd and strategically defective political delusions. It would gut the military in order to continue our national zombie walk into the fiscal abyss. This budget represents not just the willful ignorance of fiscal reality, but the absolute rejection of any semblance of fiscal reality. In short, it's a joke.

It's true, the GOP budget which passed the House last week is also highly partisan. But there's one major, foundational difference between the Democratic and Republican budgets. The GOP budget actually addresses our national deficit and our debt. And it does so in a trend stable way. For me, those two factors are the crucial litmus test for any budget. At a basic level, they illustrate a serious acceptance of fiscal reality. In terms of specific savings - where the Democrats find about $2 trillion in 10yr savings, Ryan's GOP budget finds $4.3 trillion. And for all the liberal whining that Republicans won't negotiate - Ryan has stood alone in his evident willingness to entertain serious compromise. (Beyond Congress, the President deserves some credit for his recent outreach to Senate Republicans. We'll see if he's serious or if he's playing more games). 

 

For my personal budget plan - Go here.

 Video which illustrates scale of debt crisis. Strangely, the production of a left wing group.

The Democratic Party's Constitutional Ambivalence

The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. July 28, 1795.

From the standpoint of his above quote, George Washington would not be happy with today’s Democratic Party. It’s hardly difficult to understand why. Following his revolutionary victory, in order to establish an American government checked by balanced of power, Washington turned down the opportunity for absolute personal power. Washington understood that in order for American democracy to survive the ages, the various mechanisms of our government would have to operate in respectful equilibrium. In response, the founding fathers gave us the Constitution. 

Unfortunately, today’s Democratic Party has become the standard bearer of Constitutional absurdity.

First, let's look at the Judicial component.

Taking Democrats at their word, you’d believe that their judicial philosophy has an overarching, unifying objective- the pursuit of core public interests and the protection of individual freedom. But this isn’t the case. Instead, for many Democrats, Constitutional interpretation has become a fundamentally subjective venture. Just check the record.

This Supreme Court session, considering two relevant cases, the Justices will decide on a major Democratic priority- 1) whether gay couples have a Constitutional right to marriage and/or 2) whether they have a right to the same benefits that are available to heterosexual couples. Generally, Democrats believe that the government has no right to grant or deny rights on the basis of moral judgments concerning intimate, adult relationships. Recognizing the Constitutional right to equal protection under law, I support this understanding (at least as it relates to the second case).  However, Democrats are far from consistent when offering their legal support for individual freedom. For one example, consider gun rights. As decided by the Supreme Court in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010), the Second Amendment grants an incorporated right to all Americans, to possess handguns in their homes. Unfortunately, in their present pursuit of bans on all semi-automatic weapons (including handguns), imposing stringent magazine capacity limits (ten rounds or less) and requiring prospective handgun purchasers to submit fingerprints, many Democrats are actively challenging established Constitutional rights. While many conservatives (myself included) recognize that gun rights are not absolute, the boundaries of the law are clear: American citizens have the right to possess (at least some) semi-automatic weapons, without suffering excessive government obstruction.

It isn't just guns though. Consider the Democratic Party position on government power re- private conduct. When, in 2012, the Supreme Court upheld the Federal Government’s right to impose taxes on individuals who fail to buy health insurance, Democrats were overjoyed. Yet, as exemplified by their infinite outrage over the 2010 Citizens United ruling, Democrats also apparently believe that the government has the right to gag political speech. Under this  warped Constitutional theory, government can seemingly compel both consumer purchases and political silence. 

This is a legal framework without credibility.

 Ultimately, there is no Constitutional logic to a judicial interpretation which resides upon inconsistent, subjective whims of the moment. This is anathema to the Constitution’s existential purpose. The Constitution doesn’t exist as a kind of political ‘phone a friend’- a tool for difficult situations, but one to be ignored when so desired. It requires lasting respect.

Sadly, it’s not simply case law where Democrats are ridiculing the Constitution. 

Consider the on-going interactions between the Executive and Legislative branches of government. Before he entered the Oval Office, Senator Obama railed against President Bush for putting ‘more and more power in the executive branch’. However, since then, he's had a change of mind. Whether concerning Libya, executive privilege, energy policy, immigration, or now guns, on various critical issues, this President has no qualms ignoring congressional authority when he so desires. Not a great record for a former Constitutional law professor.

In the context of their previous complaints about Bush's executive, you might have expected at least a little hesitation from congressional Democrats over Obama’s executive reach. Conversely, congressional Democrats have become subservient allies to Obama’s expansive executive. A good example? The evolving battle over the March debt limit. Faced with congressional Republicans who understandably want entitlement reform in return for debt limit increases (without reform, we will continue our proud, national dive into the fiscal abyss), Democrats have offered a unique three-part alternative to honest negotiation.

 First, to demagogue against Republicans for not capitulating to the President’s demands. This first element is particularly bold, considering that former House Speaker Pelosi felt entitled to her own abysmal (really worth checking this link!) foreign policy during the Bush Presidency.

Second, change the rules.

Finally, if all else fails, ignore the Congress and its Constitutionally granted power of the purse.

Sidestepping Congress, what do Democrats suggest in return? Proposals, which are so utterly ludicrous, they appear to be the product of Monty Python movies. Suggestions of $1 trillion coins and intoxicated readings of the 14th Amendment are not acts of proud Democratic legislators; they are the product of a delusional deference to executive power. This is the obsessive pursuit of power as an end in itself.

Liberals like to claim that conservatives are to blame for our national political dysfunction and I’ll admit, we have to share some blame. However, in substituting cartoonish surrealism for the Constitution, Democrats are attacking the basic essence of American democracy.

Our country faces profound national challenges. It's understandable that difficult political dynamics will burden our efforts to find solutions. However, the Constitution should never be treated as a casual partisan tool. Over hundreds of years, our balanced system of government has guided us through the pain of civil and foreign wars, the misery of economic depression and the strife of great social upheaval. While Democrats played a crucial part in this national journey, the journey isn’t yet over. We still need the Constitution and it continues to deserve the Democratic Party's respect.

 

Thoughts on CBS/NYTimes Polls

CBS/NYT have just released their latest polling data. From an objective standpoint, I don't believe that the data is accurately reflective of the race as it stands at the moment. These new poll results show Obama leading in Florida by 48-47%, in Ohio by 50-45% and in Virginia by 49-47%.

My issues with the results are as follows.

1) The polls also suggest that Romney is leading with Independent voters. The Virginia poll indicates Romney's lead with this voting block is significant. If this is the case, Obama cannot be ahead. Voter affiliation is broadly split about 30-35%/total affiliation- for both the Democratic Party and the GOP. Independent affiliation is estimated at around 35%/total affiliation. So... it doesn't take a genius to work out that the support of a credible majority of independent voters will lead to an overall poll majority. For me, this issue alone renders these latest polls as weak data sets.

2) Obama leading in Florida? The trends in Florida poll data over the last three weeks have shown systematic and robust movement in Romney's favor. For Obama to have retaken a lead seems to me a highly unlikely prospect. I am highly confident that Florida will go Republican on November 6th. The significant amount of time that Obama has spent in Florida recently provides a clear indication of his campaign's concern over the state.

3) The Ohio data is broadly reflective of poll data over the past few weeks. This data has indicated Obama holding a confident base margin of 3-5% points advantage over Romney. My personal belief is that Obama currently has a 1-2% point lead with likely voters who have not yet voted, but a 2-3% lead when early voters are included in a grand tally. I believe that many Ohio voters have given up answering the phone seriously when the pollsters call. It gets tedious when you get 3-4 calls a day.

CONCLUSION- Speaking to friends (both Democrat and Republican) who are engaged with ground level politics, the feeling remains that Romney has the momentum but that Obama retains a lead in Ohio. My personal belief is that Romney has a reasonable opportunity to win Ohio- but that this outcome will require the few remaining as yet undecided likely voters to join his camp. However, I also believe that Romney has a good chance at winning Wisconsin (where the GOP ground game is formidable) and Iowa (which is rural conservative). In addition, I think that Romney will win Colorado, Virginia and Florida. Having considered the polling trends over the last few weeks and having spoken to a lot of skilled politicos, I now genuinely believe that Romney has a route to the White House that does not involve Ohio. Is this route tough? Yes. Does it afford Romney room for error? No. But... is it possible? Yes.

UPDATE 11/04 - Wisconsin and Iowa look to be consolidated behind the President now. I was too optimistic about trend data vs union capacity to GOTV.

Democratic campaign lies continued

Re- my piece yesterday (see below). See Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC Chair, speaking to CNN's Anderson Cooper yesterday. Pure lies.

In the aftermath of Akin, the Democrats have embraced dirty campaign tactics.

Todd Akin’s comments were profoundly moronic. They were also unbecoming of a serious Republican candidate running for political office in the 21^st century.

While Akin’s interview should have been expected to spark a broader national debate on social issues, instead, Democrats and left wing bloggers across America have elected to pursue a strategy of false demagoguery. While Republicans have reacted to Akin’s words (and his half-hearted apology) with anger and disappointment, Democrats have reacted gleefully, sensing a new opportunity for partisan battle. As a result, Republican candidates are now facing a systematic and deceptive Democratic effort to tar them with the Akin brush.

A striking component of this Democratic attack campaign is the manner in which it is being employed against Republicans from across the spectrum of GOP ideology.

As the VP nominee, Paul Ryan was always going to be a target. Even though Ryan has issued a concrete rejection of Akin’s words, he is still being labelled by the left as an Akin aficionado. Regardless of the fact that Ryan has asserted that his personal beliefs on abortion are private and not ideals for future policy, according to Democrats, as Romney’s VP, Ryan’s beliefs still raise legitimate policy concerns. Assuming they hold their own VP nominee by the same standards, this line of attack is probably not the most logical approach for Democrats. Take Iraq. Here, Biden first proposed a wacky 2006 idea to break up Iraq and then later started claiming credit for the surge which he had opposed. Put simply, on this crucial issue of national security, Biden’s record is a poster for consistent farcicality.  

Alongside Ryan, moderate Massachusetts Republican, Scott Brown, has been another notable target for Democratic post-Akin misrepresentation. While Brown was among the earliest Republicans to condemn Akin, his Democratic opponent, Elizabeth Warren, has happily tried to tie Brown to the scandal. As Warren put it, “he [Brown] stood up and said, ‘Yay, Mitt Romney,’ who said he was going to get rid of Planned Parenthood, and, ‘Yay, Paul Ryan,’ who’s out there on a bill wanting to redefine rape. Scott Brown is in this one up to his neck.” Even the New York Times was uncomfortable with these blatant lies – stating immediately below Warren’s quote that her words were simply not true. For Warren the Harvard Law Professor, truth is an obstacle not a virtue.

Having attempted to tar Republicans in the East (Brown) and Mid-West (Ryan), Democrats have also launched attacks on Republicans in the West. The experience of Michael Baumgartner, the Republican Senate candidate for Washington, provides perhaps the best example here. While Baumgartner has focused his campaign on the most serious of issues – our current effort in Afghanistan, left wing bloggers have attempted to paint him as an Akin accessory. They are doing so even though Baumgartner holds a clear record showing that his personal faith does not determine his policy judgement and even though Baumgartner condemned Akin before his Democratic opponent, Maria Cantwell. As a patriot who has spent time in both Iraq and Afghanistan seeking to advance freedom in those states, – Baumgartner reacted strongly to the pathetic attempt to stain his candidacy. In communications with me yesterday, Baumgartner expressed his disappointment that most media coverage has focused on the Akin issue while neglecting more important concerns which have real and lasting importance for our country. I agree with him. While I differ with Baumgartner on what our Afghanistan policy should be, I find it disgusting that his opponent lacks the decency to engage with him in debating such a crucial moral and strategic issue.

This week brought a solemn timeline – the two thousandth American military fatality in Afghanistan. Sadly, rather than taking stock of this moment, the party of ‘hope and change’ has been more interested in misrepresentation and distraction. Offers of honest debate by Republican candidates, whether by Paul Ryan on the debt or Michael Baumgartner on foreign policy, have all been rejected by the vast majority of Democrats. Instead, these partisans favor a continuing storm of unjustified and deceitful attacks. This dynamic should concern us all. This week, thanks to one idiotic Republican and the Democratic Party, our national political dialogue evaporated into a mist of polluted partisan absurdity.

Certainly, Akin should be ashamed of himself. But, in their reaction, so should a great many Democrats. Amidst the record of their disastrous economic management, the Democratic Party now seemingly has nothing to offer but spin.

‘Hope and Change’ has never sounded so ridiculous.

Obama v Romney - Latest polling analysis

The NYTimes is carrying an interesting story examining demographic polling for the presidential election. The polls conclude that Obama continues to have strong support among women, while Romney has a consolidated base of support among white families earning less than $100,000 a year. As a Republican, I draw positive conclusions from this story. The polls illustrate that Obama's anti-Romney business narrative has pretty much failed. The President has been spending ludicrous amounts of money on pathetic adverts that represent the height of hypocrisy for a man who said he would 'change' Washington for the better. Many voters have not been persuaded by these ads. I believe that the voters in Romney's camp understand that it is in fact Obama who has failed on the economy. These voters want real change and Obama is incapable of offering it. I also believe that when Romney really starts running (which he hasn't yet) and spending money on ad campaigns in key swing states, Obama's lead among women voters will deteriorate. The Democratic spin story about the 'war on women' is a bunch of bs. Contraception is cheap, I don't want to subsidize someone else's sex life. That isn't a war on women, it's common sense. Obama's slight overall polling advantage resides on the negative attack ads that he has brought to bear against Romney. When Romney responds to these ads with facts, Obama will lose support and I expect that Romney will pull ahead in the polls. 

Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin and Ted Cruz

I am happy that Dick Cheney called out Sarah Palin. Palin is simply not Presidential material. She is rude, arrogant, anti-intellectual and thinks being folksy constitutes the supreme value of leadership. The Republican Party can do far, far better than her. Luckily, it seems that the election of Ted Cruz as the Republican nominee for the 2012 Senate race in Texas might lead to his replacing of Palin as the 'face' of the Tea Party. He is intelligent, charismatic and has a compelling life story. He would make an impressive and certainly far superior Republican leader than Palin. If Republicans are going to take back the White House and succeed in advancing our agenda, then we will need candidates who can articulate compelling ideals for Americans to unite behind. Simply hating Obama is stupid and insufficient. People want honest, persuasive alternatives.