REPUBLICANS
IT'S NOT ABOUT NEWT
By Joseph M. Koenig, January 28, 2012
GOP voters are sending a
clarion call to the party establishment, but it seems GOP leaders are not
getting the message. The statement being sent to the GOP elite isn't about Newt,
and it goes beyond even Romney. It is about a deep dissatisfaction that has been
building for years within the Republican rank and file.
With the proclamations of Bob Dole and others against Newt Gingrich recently, it is clear the GOP establishment fears a Gingrich nomination. In truth, however, it is the GOP establishment's own ineffectual leadership that led to the recent surge of the former Speaker of the House.
The prevailing wisdom in Washington and the media is that Newt's re-birth in South Carolina is due to his fiery debate performances, which is true, but what happened in the polls goes far beyond clear articulation of conservative principles and debate prowess. Yes, the Republican voters want a fighter, someone who will take on President Obama, but Newt's boldness and passion resonated so well with the disaffected party base, they were willing to overlook his huge political and personal shortcomings. There is a larger lesson here.
According to Rasmussen Reports, just five days before the South Carolina vote, Mitt Romney held a 14 point lead over Gingrich. After two debate performances, the final primary results showed a nearly 27 percentage point swing in Newt's favor, with the Speaker finishing almost 13 points ahead of Romney. A shift that large, that fast, reveals a weakness not just in Romney's support, but in the establishment GOP's support as well.
Political debate-goers are not prone to giving standing ovations. Jumping to your feet and cheering is something enthusiastic fans watching a Super Bowl do, not conservative GOP loyalists watching their candidates in an intraparty debate. The fact that such an audience, and surely millions of viewers at home, felt such elation, such euphoric relief, that they were prompted to offer not one, but multiple standing ovations to a political candidate, demonstrates the utter paucity of spirit and lack of understanding so glaringly obvious in the GOP political elite.
Unfortunately, the GOP elite's failure to understand exactly why Gingrich did so well portends the sad prospect that Republican leadership isn't going to improve anytime soon. In election after election, and on issue after issue, the Republican base has felt increasingly frustrated and disappointed by their party's leadership, who have consistently underperformed, buckled under media and opposition pressure, and squandered any mandate provided them by the American people.
With a candidate like Newt, who brings with him loads of personal and political baggage, such reactions as those seen in the debates reveal sentiments that run much deeper, and that have been building far longer than any one campaign season. The Republican rank and file have been sending messages to their party leaders for years, but without avail. The GOP has touted itself as the party of fiscal responsibility and smaller government, but for too many years, their supporters have seen government and spending continue to spiral out of control, even when they put Republicans in charge.
In 2006, Republicans were sent a resounding rebuke, losing both the Senate and the House after 12 years of controlling majorities. After defeating an uninspiring establishment GOP candidate in the 2008 election, President Obama promptly showed the disaffected Republican voters what real spending was like, making the ousted Republicans look downright miserly.
Realizing just how much worse things could be under liberal Democrat control, the American people rose up. The Tea Party was born. In 2010, frustrated Tea Partiers sent Republicans back to congress in an attempt to stop the profligate spending. The mandate could hardly have been clearer. Even Obama admitted to taking a shellacking.
While it is true Republicans control only one chamber of one branch of the federal government, the change the American people sent them to Washington to effect has not happened. The frustration that led Tea Partiers to demonstrate in public squares and dominate town halls around the country has not been alleviated. The debt limit battle was lost, the economy continues to stagnate, and the GOP establishment is once again pushing a candidate that fails to inspire hope that he can actually make real change happen in Washington.
Unlike many of the Occupy Wall Street movement protestors, the Tea Party conservatives had businesses to run, and jobs to return to, but the frustration and anger they felt is still very real. They are tired of sending people to Washington, Republicans claiming to be the party of fiscal responsibility, only to see things continue to get worse.
Romney lost big in South Carolina against split opposition support. However, Mitt shouldn't take it personally. The "Anybody but Romney" vote, could well be renamed the "Anybody but What We've Already Tried" vote. The Republican voters have already tried the next-in-line, safe, establishment candidate, and lost--to Obama no less. As heroic as they have been in wars past, there are no more perfect examples of this kind of unexciting candidate as John McCain and Bob Dole, both of whom have now publicly endorsed Romney.
If they had a real understanding of why Newt surged, and why their preferred candidate has failed to connect with voters, they would have kept McCain and Dole as far from cameras and microphones as possible. To many, Romney is the best Republicans have in their current field of candidates, but to openly associate him with the same tired, uninspiring cast of characters of elections past is more than just bad political strategy. The tone-deafness of the Republican establishment could not be more astounding.
The voters want someone who understands their frustration, anger, and concern for the future of the country. They are tired of candidates too timid to say it like it is, candidates so afraid to offend the smallest of minorities with uncomfortable truths they instead exasperate the majority through monotonous political-speak, media-safe answers, and unfulfilled promises.
The stakes are higher than ever. The Republican base is ready. Their message is loud and clear. If the Republican establishment had the willingness to hear, and the courage to tap into and focus the dissatisfaction and passion so evident in the party base, the change we all would like to see would be possible. Until they get that message, however, it looks like it is going to be business as usual.
Contact Joseph M. Koenig
Page reprinted with permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/01/its_not_about_newt.html
"CLOSED" PRIMARY CHOSEN
The Republican State Committee released this announcement on the presidential primary.
LANSING – Michigan Republicans will participate in a closed primary next year to select the GOP Presidential nominee, state party chairman Bobby Schostak said, following the party’s vote at its State Committee meeting on Saturday.
“Saturday’s vote by our State Committee was the culmination of months of communication between our grassroots, activists, policy committee members, statewide GOP supporters, and everyone with an interest in ensuring that Michigan sends a Republican president to the White House in 2012,” Schostak said.
In May, the policy committee was tasked with researching facts and gathering opinions about which process Republicans should use to choose the nominee. On July 12, the policy committee recommended that the State Committee adopt a closed primary.
“President Barack Obama’s policies have done tremendous harm to the economy,” Schostak said. “Michigan voters have painfully endured the results of a federal government that tries to be all things to all people. We need jobs, not empty, feel-good rhetoric. And today’s vote finally gives Michigan voters the chance to send a Republican to the White House.”
Many of the grassroots activists were not happy with the choice since there is absolutely nothing to prevent Democrats from choosing our nominee by simply asking for a Republican ballot. The primary will be moved to later in the calendar year, not be held in early February as it was in 2008.
NOT A GOOD BEGINNING FOR THE REPUBLICAN HOUSE
Limiting Term Limits
House plan would extend careers of most Lansing politicians from 6 to 14 years
By Tom Gantert, Jan. 17, 2011
The new
Michigan Legislature was sworn into office Jan. 12. The next day, they were at
work on a proposal that could greatly extend the years that most of them are
able to spend in Lansing.
On Jan. 13, state Rep. Sharon Tyler, R-Niles, introduced House Joint Resolution C, a proposed amendment to the state constitution aimed at changing the term limits imposed on state officeholders.
It would benefit most those politicians who get elected to the House of Representatives, according to Jack McHugh, the Mackinac Center’s senior legislative analyst.
In 1992, Proposal B was passed by 58.7 percent of the voters. It stated that no person could be elected as a state representative more than three times (each term is two years) and that no person could be elected as a state senator more than two times (each term is four years). So under current constitutional law, a lawmaker elected to the Michigan House can serve six years and then be eligible to run for the Michigan Senate and add two more 4-year terms.
However, as McHugh points out, there are 110 seats in the House and just 38 seats in the Senate. Not enough offices to go around, so the majority of state representatives never get to extend their political careers beyond six years. For most of them, that would more than double if HJR-C becomes part of the constitution.
“You got a musical chairs going on but not everyone gets in,” McHugh said.
The proposed revision would allow politicians to “mix and match” their terms in both chambers, with a maximum limit of 14 years total. That means a state representative would be able to serve 14 years in the House, not the six that is term-limited under current law, but then would be ineligible to ever run for the Senate.
The advantages of incumbency mean that the vast majority of lawmakers are re-elected when able to run for the same office again. Stretching the maximum House terms from three to seven will mean that most state representatives will stay more than twice as long – 14 years rather than six.
“A lot of people would just spend 14 years in the House. It would totally change the whole idea of term limits,” McHugh said.
HJR C must be approved by two-thirds of the lawmakers serving in each chamber before it can be submitted to the voters for their approval. All changes to the state constitution must ultimately be ratified by a popular referendum.
The following state representatives have co-sponsored HJR-C. They are all Republicans:
Greg MacMaster, Peter MacGregor, Al Pscholka, Matt Lori, Kevin Cotter, Kenneth Kurtz, Mike Shirkey, Mike Callton, Ken Yonker, Gail Haines, Hugh D. Crawford, Kurt Damrow, Wayne A. Schmidt
Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited. http://www.mackinac.org
OH THOSE FECKLESS
REPUBLICANS
January 21, 2010
I was watching Neil Cavuto for a couple of minutes the day after Scott
Brown was elected a Senator for Massachusetts, and he had Tim Pawlenty on as a
guest. Mr. Pawlenty is the Republican Governor of Minnesota, and touted by some
on Fox and elsewhere as an attractive 2012 Republican Presidential candidate.
During his conversation with Cavuto, Pawlenty made it clear that he thinks the American "health care system is broken." He didn't say why he came to that radical conclusion, opining merely that health care is too expensive, and that Republicans and Democrats should work together to fix it.
No doubt there are some reforms that Congress can make affecting the cost of health care in America, like tort reform and competitive bidding across state lines. But the American health care system, as such, is the best in the world, and it is very far from broken.
I wonder when Republicans like Pawlenty are going to acquire sufficient discernment to realize that their conclusions are more in the nature of left-wing talking points than thoughtful social analysis. Adopting left-wing Democrat verbiage leads inevitably to being co-opted by left-wing Democrat policies.
The dictionary defines feckless as "incompetent, useless, spineless, feeble, weak and ineffective" - and that just about sums up the gutless Republican establishment's "let's all join hands and work together" attitude toward the Democrat tyrants in government.
Most of the American people don't want to "work together" with so-called progressives, whose real agenda is to deconstruct America and reconstruct it according to the dictates of cultural Marxism. They want the crypto-Marxists sidelined in America, and it is time that feckless Republicans shook off their bi-partisan stupor and came to that realization.
Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/01/oh_those_feckless_republicans.html
NEWS FROM THE CHAIR, ADAM HUME
Larry Boyce, a
Republican from Ogemaw county has joined the race to represent the 103rd
District. We have added a 2010 Candidate list to our Links page, which
will include Larry and the other candidates who are contending for the various
offices up for election this November.
Sandy Hollabaugh, the Sunrise Side Republican Women's Club President, suggested that those people who get their newsletter in hard copy send us some postage stamps, our largest newsletter expense, if they do not have e-mail. Thanks Sandy, for the stamps and the idea.
Haiti
As many of you know, Adam Hume's
mother has been associated with a mission in Haiti for many years. It is
called Bon Samaritan/Haiti Mission and Orphanage. Please see more
about the Mission and Orphanage at
http://www.bonsamaritan.org.
Ann Hume just found out the
earthquake did effect Montrouis. (Montrouis is south of Saint-Marc on the
map of left.) We do not know how the Orphanage is, but we do know one
person was killed that we know. The hospital/clinic where Ann works in Pierre Payean (which is north of Montrouis) was not harmed. Ann booked the earliest
flight to Haiti for January 20, 2010, and her Husband Mark and Son Adam will be
joining her February 1, 2010. Ann will be working at the hospital. We will be
hand carrying all donations to Haiti since the banks are closed. Anyone who
would like to donate, please send donations to the following address.
Bon Samaritan / Save Haiti Mission Orphanage
PO BOX 662
Oscoda, Michigan 48750
100% of donations will be hand carried to Haiti and used for Earthquake relief.
For more information, contact Adam at adamhume84@gmail.com, (989)305-0889
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS AFTER THE REAGAN LANDSLIDE
By Bruce Walker, November 03, 2009
Election Day, 1984 -- twenty five
years ago -- many thought that the ideological battle of America was won.
President Reagan, the disciple of "Mr. Conservative" Barry Goldwater ran against
Walter Mondale, the disciple of "Mr. Liberal" Hubert Humphrey. Reagan got into
politics with "The Speech" endorsing Barry Goldwater. Here is what Reagan said
in 1964:
This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There's only an up or down -- [up] man's old -- old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.
Reagan stayed with that theme, regardless of whether it cost him primary victories or elections. When America had the chance to vote for the conservative Reagan or the liberal Humphrey in 1984, Reagan won every state except Mondale's Minnesota, which Reagan almost won. In many states across the nation, Reagan carried every county in the state. Twenty-five years ago, the ideological war seemed clearly won.
What has happened in the last quarter century? The conservative ideal still overwhelmingly prevails in America: the 59% percent of the vote which Reagan got in 1984 is exactly the percentage of the American people who have defined themselves in "very conservative" or "somewhat conservative" in the last fifteen consecutive Battleground Polls. (The respondents in these polls can also choose "moderate," "undecided," "somewhat liberal," or "very liberal.")
Too many Republicans since Reagan presumed that the party, not conservatism, mattered. They saw the two political parties, not the ideology of freedom, as the crux of politics. The Republican bureaucrats believed pragmatism and compromise were what made America great. They were wrong. Goldwater nailed the matter when he said in 1964: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." That short phrase summed up the greatness of America. That was the message of Goldwater and Reagan in 1964 and the foundation of the Reagan Landslide in 1984.
Republicans before Goldwater and Reagan and Republicans after Goldwater and Reagan did all they could to purge the clarion call of liberty from the business of partisan politics. The party should care about winning, and if it won power, then a set of "core values" could be constructed after the fact.
Republican presidents after Reagan could break "no tax pledges," pick ideologically indifferent judges to the Supreme Court, dismiss Reagan's legacy in pursuit of a "kinder, gentler America" or "compassionate conservatism" (as if conservatism itself -- the celebratory defense of liberty -- was not the essence of political compassion) and create "practical" government solutions to problems, rather than embrace the truth that government itself is usually the problem.
The result was as predictable as the dreary study of all rulers: it is not that power corrupts -- power derived from free market competition purifies and liberates -- it is that power derived from the state corrupts the greater it grows. Republicans, in power and unconnected to principles, began acting like Democrats, then a criminal class of Republicans like Bob Taft, Duke Cunningham, and Bob Ney began a corruption of partisan power which had long been the hallmark of Democrat one-party rule.
It is not odd that the rebirth of political opposition has come less from the Republican Party than from citizens acting in the spirit of Reagan and Goldwater. The revolt last May in California was one such example (as was the earlier recall of Gray Davis, however poorly his replacement performed.) The sprouting of tea party demonstrations spontaneously throughout the nation is another example. And, of course, the success of citizen candidates like Doug Hoffman, whose political party is the Party of Reagan, personifies that spirit.
It is not odd that the rhetorical opposition to growing statist power and its close sibling partisan dominance has come from people disconnected with the Republican Party or from people like Sarah Palin, Republicans treated disdainfully because of their principled commitment to limited government and Judeo-Christian morality by Republican "regulars," who actually represent that much greater part of America than the Republican Party.
Twenty-five years after Reagan almost swept every state in the nation, his guiding ideals, so clearly captured in his speeches, his manuscripts, and his books, burn just as fiercely in the hearts of most Americans as ever. That is why Rasmussen polls show that Americans today are turned off by every political figure today...except Reagan. The principles he championed are the same that Washington, Madison, and Henry defended. It is not a question of "right" or "left." Reread what Reagan said in "The Speech" about this myth:
You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I'd like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right.
Once all Americans understood that the greatness of our land was simply liberty. The vast majority of Americans now, as in 1984, still know this truth in their hearts. The Founding Fathers, rightly, loathed political parties. The last twenty-five years have reminded us why they felt that way. But one quarter of a century after the political landslide of liberty, the mandate for liberty still remains.
Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie and The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.
Page Reprinted by permission from the American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/twentyfive_years_after_the_rea_1.html
SARAH PALIN, THE 21st CENTURY 'IT GIRL'
By Jay Valentine, June 15, 2009
The best and the
brightest on the left go into politics. The best on the right run their own
businesses. So it is no surprise that the left is far more adept, even expert at
the art of hardball politics. And they are telling us something profound.
The left is telling us something many feel, many find as a hunch, that Sarah Palin is the most dangerous threat to the Obama administration with no close second. The left is telling us this by their "over the top" attacks. Not just the Letterman assaults, but the constant barrage of grievances filed against her in Alaska. The attacks every day on Palin for no apparent reason -- except that the left seems to see her quite differently from any Republican candidate. A difference of kind, not of degree.
They would never do this to Romney, Huckabee or Newt, at least not to this level. There is a clear reason -- these guys couldn't fill up a high school stadium unless they were giving out free beer.
What is the Sarah difference? Well, it's not the issues, at least that is not all of it. It is the charisma factor. Charisma is not learned, it is innate. One is born with it and no amount of training can inject it. Jack Kennedy had it. So did Reagan. Now Obama. Out of the thousands of politicians who have come and gone over the last generation, not one other person has shown "it."
Money is no longer the life blood of politics. Charisma is. Charisma can
raise money overnight; money far beyond what a tired, inarticulate incumbent can
raise from rich donors.
When you have "it," the conventional rules no longer apply. Reagan was vilified in 1976 and few thought he could ever be president. No matter how the liberals berated him as a "dumb actor" who made chimp movies and the actor who never got the girl, he just looked the American people in the eye, gave them a dose of common sense and it was over. Carter went on to build low income houses and a life of obscurity punctuated by mischief.
The street fighting, world class, lifelong political experts of the left see "it" and it makes them crazy. They went crazy for Obama; they are going crazy for Palin, although in the other direction.
Palin could fill a stadium if she were reciting a cookbook. But she isn't. She is delivering common sense to an electorate that is becoming ever more jaded every day with the Obama nonsense. Miranda rights for terrorists? $4 trillion deficit?
Look at the blow she delivered with one phrase about "styrofoam columns" and imagine what she can do with the material Obama has recently given her.
Opposing Palin's values has no payoff for the left. They oppose those values for any conservative. They have to destroy her. And that is her power because they can't destroy her.
Whenever she chooses, she will take her first trip to Iowa to campaign for
some obscure congressional candidate, and when she does, the liberal media
cannot ignore the screaming crowds. And they will not be crowds manufactured by
an advance team. They will be fired up mothers, working people who do not want
to pay for deadbeats' mortgages, people who are now going to grass roots tea
parties.
The television age gives "it," charisma, more power than ever before. Charisma is magnified through television. How else to explain how a 2 year senator few knew could derail Hillary in a few months. How else to explain how an anti-charisma John McCain, someone television does not flatter or magnify, saw his crowds surge when Palin was next to him. Palin, an obscure, unknown governor of our most distant and most unknown state, walked onto the national stage and ignited a burst of energy that may well have taken McCain over the top, until his Queeg-like pausing of his campaign to work on a financial crisis and then vote for a bailout.
The landscape is now quite different. There are tens of millions of people who never voted for Obama, telling their friends "don't blame me." There is a growing number who did vote for Obama who have lost their jobs at car dealerships, who have not found work yet even after the massive spending, and there are those who just say "...this is not the change I had in mind."
Some thought McCain would be the anti-charisma candidate against the charisma candidate and that would work. Now we may be lining up for the common sense charisma campaign against the nonsense charisma.
The left is telling us something and they are the experts. They are telling us not to make Palin the conservative candidate because if we do, it will be humiliating. I agree with them and I take them at their word.
It will be the undoing of Obama, and it may be overwhelming.
Jay Valentine blogs at jayvalentine.com. Page reprinted by permission from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/sarah_palin_the_21st_century_i.html
THE ONE-TWO PUNCH AIMED AT
GOP CONSERVATIVES
By James Lewis, January 08, 2008
John McCain has had a hate-hate relationship with GOP conservatives for years, and has locked himself into that position with the McCain-Feingold assault on the First Amendment. The establishment media loved McCain-Feingold, because it made them the biggest power in the land in the weeks before Federal elections when candidate commercials are supposed to stop.
Mike Huckabee is a Southern populist, which means a socialist with a
strong social conservative message, like Jimmy Carter. The media have been on
the side of both Huckabee and McCain. Just think of what that means. Think.
The one-two punch of McCain and Huckabee is aimed at the
conservative base of the GOP. It is designed to wrest party leadership away from
the conservative coalition that has more-or-less controlled it since Ronald
Reagan: vigilant on defense, strong on social issues, free market-oriented in
economics. The Huckabee-McCain gambit is calculated to drive the party
leadership to the Left. It will divide the head of the party from the body.
Huckabee won the Iowa caucuses, and McCain may win New Hampshire. Those are
significant wins, but they are peanuts in delegate votes for the GOP nomination.
The big states are coming up fast, with the five-week rush to the nomination. So
the liberal media are going to parlay largely symbolic victories in Iowa and New
Hampshire to a major push for McCain and/or Huckabee in the big states.
Conservatives who resist the Huckabee-McCain-Leftist assault are left with
only two realistic choices: Romney and Giuliani. Fred Thompson is a fine man,
but he is not fighting hard enough.
Romney has strong conservative values in his personal life, understands
the economy, and understands this dangerous world. His strong executive
experience may give him better control over the huge obstacle of a liberal and
at times anti-American Washington bureaucracy. Just look at yesterday's New York
Times headline about a Pentagon plan to penetrate Pakistan. It is designed to
sabotage and even kill Americans who participate in it. Remember that leak to
see how far the Left will go to sabotage the war effort. Simultaneously the NYT
published an article celebrating its new relationship with the Pentagon. Chances
are that leak came from SecDef Robert Gates or others. That is why the
bureaucracy needs to be tamed.
Rudy Giuliani is much like Romney in his strengths and weaknesses, without the all-American family. I like Rudy, but GOP conservatives may have to choose between Rudy and Mitt, to fend off the Huckabee-McCain assault. Romney is playing a long, steady game. Giuliani made a rational bet that he could make up for early losses with later gains. Now he may be losing that bet.
That may be why the editors of National Review chose to endorse Romney
early. None of this is in the bag; politics springs constant surprises. But
backing Romney early in the game makes sense for conservatives.
There are no solid all-round conservatives in this line-up. But even
Ronald Reagan endorsed a liberal abortion policy at one time in his career. His
change of heart appeared to be sincere. The anguished abortion issue can only be
dealt with incrementally, step by gradual step. An all-or-none reversal of Roe v
Wade is not likely. We can discourage abortions, make aborting viable babies
illegal, and stop celebrating abortion as just another "choice." That's what
Giuliani has been saying in legalese. He's not a pro-abortion candidate.
This is going to be a tough campaign, with assaults on conservatives both inside the GOP primaries and during the general election campaign. Republicans have been holding their money until a clear candidate emerges. The crucial time to support candidates is in the next five weeks.
After that we could have a choice between a liberal and a liberal for
president, if Huckabee or McCain are nominated. A lot of conservatives may stay
home on election day if that's the choice, putting Obama or Hillary in the
driver's seat.
Bottom line: For GOP conservatives, it's Romney or Giuliani, with an edge to Romney, because he's fighting every primary.
This will be a crucial, crucial election season.
Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker, www.americanthinker.com See James Lewis blogs at dangeroustimes.wordpress.com/
LET'S TALK
By Christopher Chantrill, October 10, 2007
Long term victory for
conservative ideas means changing the culture. The Democrats will get back into
power sooner or later. We want an America in which Democrats no longer want to
create huge one-size-fits-all government programs that create widespread
dependency on the government. We want an America where no liberal would think of
proposing a nominee like Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the United States Supreme
Court.
In our vision of America, when someone says: "But people have needs," liberal
women like Larry Summers' tormentor Nancy Hopkins will faint away in disbelief
if anyone suggests a government program as a response.
The future is not won by elections and Supreme Court decisions; it is won
by changing the culture. We are talking about a national conversation.
"Let's talk," said Hillary Clinton, among others.
Last week the British Conservative Party decided to start a national
conversation at their annual conference. The result was a sudden 10 point jump
in the opinion polls. The week before all the experts had written Conservative
leader David Cameron off as a light-weight and a loser.
So how did David Cameron and the Conservative Party come back from the dead?
First of all they proposed a little tax relief, raising the exemption on
inheritance tax to one million pounds: no death tax for anyone who isn't a
millionaire. All of a sudden the experts realized that inheritance tax was
deeply unpopular-with women. Wrote Anatole Kaletsky in The Times:
[M]iddle-aged, middle-class women, eager to maximise the legacies that they can leave to their children and grandchildren, will vote for any party promising to relieve them of inheritance tax.
Let's talk.
Then there was David Cameron's speech to the Conservative Party conference. It was a speech that covered a lot of the same ground as any Republican presidential candidate, starting with lower taxes and broken windows policing. Then Cameron called for radical choice in education.
[W]e need to open up the state monopoly and allow new schools... So we
will say to churches, to voluntary bodies, to private companies, to private
schools come into the state sector... [W]e can have those new schools so we can
really drive up standards.
OK, it was not that radical. It was just calling for an education system similar
to Sweden. But try suggesting it to Randi Weingarten of the United Federation of
Teachers in New York City.
It was Cameron's attitude towards the Labour Party and its welfare policy that was truly radical.
Labour's great passion was tackling poverty but in many ways its been one of their greatest areas of failure... They've put the money in... but it hasn't worked. Why?
I believe it's because they relied too much on the state organisations
that can treat people like statistics rather than like human beings.
With this approach he gave credit to the left for its good intentions. But then
he invited his audience to wonder why it didn't work.
Instead of the normal method of the political platform speaker with its
clanging accusations and exhortations to victory Cameron used a more feminine
approach.
He came out from behind his podium and abandoned his prepared speech and
teleprompter.
I've just got a few notes so it might be a bit messy; but it will be me. Instead of indicting the other party he tasked them for not listening. You know how it goes: They meant to end poverty, but they just didn't know what they were doing and they didn't listen, bless their hearts.
"You know the best welfare system of all," Cameron concluded, "It's called
the family."
Political insiders like William Langley report that Cameron's wife, Samantha, is
a prime driver of this woman-friendly conversational format.
What do women want? Do they want a government monopoly education system that
doesn't listen to them and doesn't respond to the special needs of each child?
Do women want a uniform single-payer health care system, designed by Hillary
Clinton and her experts, that is incapable of responding to the specific needs
of each family?
We already have a system that delivers every kind of house that women want. It
delivers every kind of clothing that women want. It delivers every kind of food
that women want, and cars with every kind of cup-holder that women want.
How about a system that delivers every kind of education and health care that
women want?
Let's talk.
Christopher Chantrill is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. See his roadtothemiddleclass.com and usgovernmentspending.com. His Road to the Middle Class is forthcoming.
Reprinted by permission from The American Thinker: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/post_9.html
Things I have noticed while watching media coverage of
the recent hurricanes:
1. Texas: Productive industrious state run by Republicans. Louisiana: Government dependent welfare state run by Democrats.
2. Texas: Residents take responsibility to protect and evacuate themselves. Louisiana: Residents wait for government to protect and evacuate them.
3. Texas: Local and state officials take responsibility for protecting their citizens and property. Louisiana: Local and state officials blame federal government for not protecting their citizens and property.
4. Texas: Command and control remains in place to preserve order. Louisiana: Command and control collapses allowing lawlessness.
5. Texas: Law enforcement officers remain on duty to protect city. Louisiana: Law enforcement officers desert their posts to protect themselves.
6. Texas: Local police watch for looting. Louisiana: Local police participate in looting.
7. Texas: Law and order remains in control, 8 looters tried it, 8 looters arrested. Louisiana: Anarchy and lawlessness breaks out, looters take over city, no arrests, criminals with guns have to be shot by federal troops.
8. Texas: Considerable damage caused by hurricane. Louisiana: Considerable damage caused by looters.
9. Texas: Flood barriers hold preventing cities from flooding. Louisiana: Flood barriers fail due to lack of maintenance allowing city to flood.
10. Texas: Orderly evacuation away from threatened areas, few remain. Louisiana: 25,000 fail to evacuate, are relocated to another flooded area.
11. Texas: Citizens evacuate with personal 3 day supply of food and water. Louisiana: Citizens fail to evacuate with 3 day supply of food and water, do without it for the next 4 days.
12. Texas: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials provide accessible distribution points. Louisiana: FEMA brings in tons of food and water for evacuees. State officials prevent citizens from reaching distribution points and vice versa.
13. Louisiana: Media focuses on poor blacks in need of assistance, blames Bush. Texas: Media can not find poor blacks in need of assistance, looking for something else to blame on Bush.
14. Texas: Coastal cities suffer some infrastructure damage, Mayors tell residents to stay away until ready for repopulation, no interference from federal officials. Louisiana: New Orleans is destroyed, major infrastructure damage in and around city, Mayor asks residents to return home as another hurricane approaches, has to be overruled by federal officials.
15. Louisiana: Over 400 killed by storm, flooding and crime. Texas: 24 killed in bus accident on highway during evacuation, no direct storm related deaths.
16. Texas: Jailed prisoners are relocated to other detention facilities outside the storm area. Louisiana: Jailed prisoners are set free to prey on city shops, residents, and homes.
17. Texas: Local and state officials work with FEMA and Red Cross in recovery operations. Louisiana: Local and state officials obstruct FEMA and Red Cross from aiding in recovery operations.
18. Texas: Local and state officials demonstrate leadership in managing disaster areas. Louisiana: Local and state officials fail to demonstrate leadership, require federal government to manage disaster areas.
19. Texas: Fuel deliveries can not keep up with demand, some run out of gas on highway, need help from fuel tankers before storm arrives. Louisiana: Motorists wait till storm hits and electrical power fails. Cars run out of gas at gas stations that can not pump gas. Gas in underground tanks mixes with flood waters.
20. Texas: Mayors move citizens out of danger. Louisiana: Mayor moves himself and family to Dallas.
21. Texas: Mayors continue public service announcements and updates on television with Governor's backing and support. Louisiana: Mayor cusses, governor cries, senator threatens president with violence on television, none of them have a clue what went wrong or who is responsible.
22. Louisiana: Democratic Senator says FEMA was slow in responding to 911 calls from Louisiana citizens. Texas: Republican Senator says "when you call 911, the phone doesn't ring in Washington, it rings here at the local responders".
What if state and local elected officials were forced to depend on themselves and their own resources instead of calling for help from the federal government?
Conclusion: Texas cities would be back up and running in a few days. Louisiana cities would still be under water next month.
Republicans call for action, Democrats call for help.
What party will you be voting for in the next election?
By "evariste" on Discarded Lies Blog, Oct. 6, 2005.
Republican women offer scholarship
A $500 college scholarship is being offered by Sunrise Side Republican Women. The scholarship will be awarded in the spring to a female graduating senior of a high school in Iosco or Alcona County. Also eligible are female residents of Iosco and Alcona counties who are currently in their first year of college.
Other criteria for eligibility include having a grade point average of 2.5 or better on a 4.0 scale, acceptance for attendance at a public or private college or university, and participation at some level with Sunrise Side Republican Women or the Republican Party of Iosco or Alcona County.
The selection process includes submission of the scholarship application by the last Friday in March 2005, transcripts, college admission test scores, summary of high school achievements and involvements, and two letters of recommendation from other than family members. Also required is a brief essay on “What the Republican principles mean to me.”
Scholarship information and applications are available at each area high school office and web site or by request from Sandy Hollabaugh, 739-4722, who will receive the completed applications next spring.
Members of Sunrise Side Republican Women are from Iosco and Alcona counties. One of their objectives is the promotion of education.
IN MEMORY OF PAT CARPIO
The
Michigan Republican Party has worked with the American Legion to establish a
fund in memory of Pat Carpio. The funds will be used to send young boys
and girls to Boys' State and Girls' State, programs which are designed to help
teach leadership skills to young people. If you wish to make a tax
deductible donation in memory of Pat, send a check made payable to the American
Legion/Pat Carpio Scholarship Fund. Send it in care of Henrietta Tow, 2121
East Grand River Ave., Lansing, MI 48912.
"TAX
ME MORE"
Faced, like many states, with dwindling receipts and a budget squeeze, Arkansas Democrats and media commentators suggested raising taxes to fill the gap. However, Gov. Mike Huckabee dealt with the problem differently.
According to CNSNews.com, on January 7, 2002, Gov. Huckabee created the "Tax Me More Fund" on November 28, 2001, to showcase the hypocrisy of people who support higher taxes but refuse to donate their own money. By the date of the article, 36 donors had come forward with a total of $1,051.91, ranging from a high of $200 to one cent. All funds, even a penny, are deposited in the fund.
In creating the fund, Huckabee said, "There's nothing in the law that prohibits those who believe they aren't paying enough in taxes from writing a check to the state of Arkansas. Maybe this will make them feel better."
Many of the donations come with letters and most are supportive. One non-contributor wrote, "As an Arkansas taxpayer for many years now, I feel I have paid more than my fair share of the state sales taxes, county sales taxes, property taxes, etc. Please let this letter serve as an invoice to the Tax Me More Fund that I am owed $1,144.85 in overpayment of my fair share of taxes for the past year alone. When the fund reaches the amount stated above, please send me my money back."
Huckabee first announced the Tax Me More Fund at a convention of the Arkansas Farm Bureau in Little Rock. According to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he responded to laughter in the audience by saying, "I'm as serious as I can be. It's put up or shut up time. Either put up the money, write the check and let us see you're serious or quit telling me Arkansans want their taxes raised. Because I'm convinced that Arkansans would say, my taxes are high enough."
The fund has a real address of PO Box 8054, Little Rock, AR 72203.
Revised: