Erick Erickson's Blog, page 206

Dear John Boehner and Eric Cantor

Hi guys,

Just a short note. If either of you support as Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee any of the damn fools who supported killing the incandescent lightbulb we're going to have problems.

That rules out Fred Upton. Sorry guys. I'm told you've been leaning toward him. But sorry. That may rule out some of the others too. But still — how many people have been put on the unemployment line in Pennsylvania alone because of that decision? More than a few hundred.

Oh, and Jerry Lewis and Hal Rogers? I know you guys are thinking of leaving Jerry in place, but he has been part of the problem. Just because he's suddenly whistling a different tune, doesn't change that. And Rogers will start a fight with the tea party movement you don't want to have because you'll wind up like the guys in the Senate.

Just saying . . .

Thanks,

Erick

More Than One 'I' In Coalition

"It is … ridiculous for any group …to tell social conservatives to shut up when ultimately social conservatives have been, by black robed tyrants, forced … to fight at the federal level instead of the state level."

There has been much ink spilled and bytes consumed in the past week over that tea party letter asking Republicans to, in effect, shut up about social issues. This is a problem that both sides have had in the past.

And let's be clear here, it is not that these groups wants social issues ignored. They just want socially conservative issues ignored. They're cool with repealing don't ask, don't tell — just ignore the judiciary usurping the role of the people or their legislatures dealing with gay marriage.

Some social conservatives have wanted federal government involvement in their issues at the expense of fiscal integrity and some fiscal guys have wanted government involvement in their issues while ignoring life, gay marriage, etc.

As Baseball Crank noted the other day, there is more than one "I" in coalition. Both sides must work together as best they can and it is inappropriate for either side to want to shut up the other side.

The fact is I completely agree with Jim DeMint. You cannot be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative and vice versa. The libertine sensibilities of many a fiscal libertarian will lead the country to social ruin causing government spending to bail out society and the spend-thrift nature of many Republican pro-life statists will lead the country to bankruptcy.

As a Christian, I recognize that the smallest possible government is in my best interest because all men are sinners and the less of them in charge of me the better off I will be. I just wish the secularists would understand that no society can survive undermining the traditional several thousand year old preference for the heterosexual nuclear family and life.

Now, I know many of you disagree with that and I cannot persuade you otherwise, but I do think there is common ground in this disagreement. It goes back to the idea of federalism, recognizing it no longer exists, and committing to restore it.

Our founders did not intend, nor did any governing coalition or black robed master at the Supreme Court intend, for this nation to have a national common morality. Unfortunately, in the twentieth-century our black robed masters decided over time that we must.

Ideally in this country, if you want gay marriage and abortion in California you should be able to have it. If I want real marriage and no abortion in Georgia I should be able to have it. And ultimately when California collapses in on itself those of us who upheld the nuclear family can fight over the leftover land.

That is the way the country was designed and intended. The thugocrats at the Supreme Court decided they had a better idea and now you and I must both adhere to a common morality, which over time has favored a secular society of libertine morality, which many of us believe will ultimately cause the destruction of our society. But that's neither here nor there.

What is here is that whether you are for fiscal or social issues, neither side can afford to shut up when the folks in Washington insist that federalism is out and black robed thuggery and bureaucratic fiat are in.

it is both naive and ridiculous for any group on the right — and by the way more and more surveys are showing that tea party members are rather socially conservative — to tell social conservatives to shut up when ultimately social conservatives have been, by black robed tyrants, forced against their will to fight at the federal level instead of the state level.

Certainly, given the times we are in, fiscal issues are of paramount importance. But many of us remain concerned about the daily slaughter of children in this country as well as the constant undermining of real marriage and the nuclear family. And just as you and I both know that the nation cannot survive our profligate spending, I also know our national cannot survive the destruction over a few decades of the social structure put in place over several thousand years, ordained in the sacred texts of major religions, and shown throughout history to provide the most stability in society.

So we're forced to work together as a coalition with a large swath of common ground. But for those of you who ultimately care not one whit about social issues, you are going to need to join those of us who do and fight like hell to restore federalism instead of just saying let's have it without any recognition of the fact that we no longer do have it.

————————–

UPDATE: I have to say, having posted this now a couple of hours ago, there is a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the libertarian set. Let me put this another way, saying "no taxpayer funded abortion and weed for everyone" is all well and good until it happens. Then the rest of society is forced to pay to pick up the pieces of the potheads. Therefore, you have much more government in the end.

Likewise, saying "no taxpayer funding of abortion, but hands off my uterus" sounds terrific (for some), but for the fact that the issue should be handled at the state level and we are forced to deal with it at a national level. So yeah, I guess you can be a social liberal at the state level, but it seems pretty damn hard at the federal level to take that position with all of the implications therein.

And that leads me to the final point — in elected politics the "fiscally conservative social liberal" is as real as a unicorn.

Republican Does Not Equal Conservative. Even in Texas.

It is nauseating to hear people tell me over the past 48 hours that Joe Straus, the Democrat backed Speaker of the Texas House, is a "conservative." With redistricting at stake in a state the size of Texas, we need to come to terms with why Straus is not a conservative and should be defeated. Likewise, Republicans who vote for him will all need to be challenged in primaries.

Yes this is that big of an issue. And yes it is worth taking to the front page of a national political blog to focus on this one man in one state.

The people saying Joe Straus is conservative are the same people who've spent the past year trying repeatedly to shut out conservatives in the election and dress up moderates and liberals as conservatives.

It is not going to work.

Anyone who says Joe Straus is a conservative is either a fool or a liar.

I hate to be that blunt, but the truth sometimes must be.

Joe Straus has a 100% rating from NARAL, but the same people saying Straus is conservative also say he is pro-life. I'm sorry, but pro-lifers do not get 100% ratings from NARAL nor do their spouses sit on the boards of abortion organizations.

Pro-lifers are not honored by Planned Parenthood, but Joe Straus was.

Conservatives do not block laws to provide business tax exemptions to small businesses. But Joe Straus did.

Conservatives do not support McCain-Feingold style election laws. Joe Straus did.

Conservatives do not kill voter integrity laws requiring photo identification for voting. Joe Straus did.

Conservatives do not campaign for left-wing propagandists. Joe Straus did.

Joe Straus is not a conservative. He became Speaker of the Texas House by getting Democrats to support him. He has rewarded them thoroughly. It is now time Republicans punish Joe Straus and remove him from the Speaker's position in Texas.

Below are the office numbers of key Texas House Republicans. Call them and politely ask them not just to oppose Joe Straus, but to support Ken Paxton. Let us know what they say. We will post the names of the undecideds and concentrate our efforts on them. Conservatives must defeat Joe Straus.

Kenneth Sheets — member elect of Dallas

214-887-1978

Stefani Carter — member elect of Dallas

(972) 385-3313

Charles Schwertner — member elect of Georgetown

(512) 863-4563

John Frullo — member elect of Lubbock

806-853-8275

Larry Gonzales — member elect of Round Rock

512-244-1280

Sarah Davis — member elect of Houston

713-320-2077

Van Taylor — incumbent (special election this year) of Plano

972-398-9416

Linda Harper-Brown — incumbent of Irving

(972) 717-2871

Kelly Hancock (HD-91):

(512) 463-0599, (817) 590-9280

Larry Taylor (HD-24):

(512) 463-0729, (281) 338-0924

Jerry Madden (HD-67):

(512) 463-0544, (972) 424-2235

Morning Briefing for November 17, 2010

RedState Morning Briefing

For November 17, 2010

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Republican Does Not Equal Conservative. Even in Texas.

2. Did You Know Your Airport Can Opt Out of TSA Molestations?

3. Donald Berwick - Rationer-In-Chief of ObamaCare

4. Napolitano's Police State: TSA Retaliates Against Tyner for Asserting His Rights

———————————————————————-

1. Republican Does Not Equal Conservative. Even in Texas.

It is nauseating to hear people tell me over the past 48 hours that Joe Straus, the Democrat backed Speaker of the Texas House, is a "conservative." With redistricting at stake in a state the size of Texas, we need to come to terms with why Straus is not a conservative and should be defeated. Likewise, Republicans who vote for him will all need to be challenged in primaries.

Yes this is that big of an issue. And yes it is worth taking to the front page of a national political blog to focus on this one man in one state.

The people saying Joe Straus is conservative are the same people who've spent the past year trying repeatedly to shut out conservatives in the election and dress up moderates and liberals as conservatives.

It is not going to work.

Anyone who says Joe Straus is a conservative is either a fool or a liar.

I hate to be that blunt, but the truth sometimes must be.

Joe Straus has a 100% rating from NARAL, but the same people saying Straus is conservative also say he is pro-life. . . .Pro-lifers are not honored by Planned Parenthood, but Joe Straus was.

Conservatives do not block laws to provide business tax exemptions to small businesses. But Joe Straus did.

Conservatives do not support McCain-Feingold style election laws. Joe Straus did.

Conservatives do not kill voter integrity laws requiring photo identification for voting. Joe Straus did.

Conservatives do not campaign for left-wing propagandists. Joe Straus did.

. . . .

Below are the office numbers of key Texas House Republicans. Call them and politely ask them not just to oppose Joe Straus, but to support Ken Paxton. Let us know what they say. We will post the names of the undecideds and concentrate our efforts on them. Conservatives must defeat Joe Straus.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Did You Know Your Airport Can Opt Out of TSA Molestations?

Byron York has good news for people around the country.

Your local airport can opt out of having the Transportation Safety Administration handle security at your local airport. Instead, you can contract out to the private sector. It was one of the ingenious and little noticed provisions the Republicans dropped in the post-9/11 legislation creating the TSA.

With a move to unionize the TSA and the TSA groping 3 year olds and nuns in nutty security theater, opt-ing out in favor of free market competence sounds like a great idea. Oh, and Congress will cover the payments to the TSA replacement.

Practicing what I preach, I am the Chairman of the Public Properties Committee of the City of Macon, Georgia. As such, I chair the committee that oversees the Middle Georgia Regional Airport. I will be drafting legislation to have my local airport opt-out of having the TSA grope passengers.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Donald Berwick - Rationer-In-Chief of ObamaCare

Donald Berwick, temporary Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), will testify tomorrow before the Senate Finance Committee. This will be the first opportunity for Senators to question this controversial figure. President Obama used his power of the recess appointment to place Berwick into the CMS position without action by the United States Senate. This will be a great opportunity for members of the committee to ask Berwick whether breast and colon cancer patients should be denied critical care because of the cost of treatment.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Napolitano's Police State: TSA Retaliates Against Tyner for Asserting His Rights

So, let's get this straight:

It's okay for the TSA to grope nuns, but Muslim women are exempt (nothing beyond the head and neck). We cannot profile potential terrorists, but it's okay to molest three-year olds (except we won't call it molest because it's the government doing it). Muslim men won't go through body imaging machines, but it's okay to grope non-Muslims' genitals.

And, just to be clear, when one guy expresses his displeasure about his "junk" being touched, the TSA wants to make an example out of him by retaliating and launching an investigation into the guy who resisted the TSA's overtures.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Did You Know Your Airport Can Opt Out of TSA Molestations?

Byron York has good news for people around the country.

Your local airport can opt out of having the Transportation Safety Administration handle security at your local airport. Instead, you can contract out to the private sector. It was one of the ingenious and little noticed provisions the Republicans dropped in the post-9/11 legislation creating the TSA.

With a move to unionize the TSA and the TSA groping 3 year olds and nuns in nutty security theater, opt-ing out in favor of free market competence sounds like a great idea. Oh, and Congress will cover the payments to the TSA replacement.

Practicing what I preach, I am the Chairman of the Public Properties Committee of the City of Macon, Georgia. As such, I chair the committee that oversees the Middle Georgia Regional Airport. I will be drafting legislation to have my local airport opt-out of having the TSA grope passengers.

You Texans Need to Call Cindy Burkett

I received this email earlier today from Matt Brownfield:

I served as Cindy Burkett's campaign manager for the 2010 election and am currently helping with her transition to Austin. You incorrectly posted yesterday that Representative Elect Burkett has endorsed Joe Straus for speaker. She has yet to back any candidate in the Speaker's race and has signed no pledge cards. I respectfully request that you retract that statement from your post entitled "Ken Paxton Should be Speaker of Texas's House."

I am also interested to know what you used as the basis for your claim that Burkett had endorsed Straus, since she has issued no statements to that effect herself and is not listed on any of the pledge lists.

As I told Matt, before delving into state matters, I rely heavily on our readership in those states to give me the necessary information. More than one of them pointed out Burett is support Strauss, though she is denying it as we can see from this email. I have updated the original post to reflect that she is taking no position.

Consequently, it appears Rep.-Elect Burkett is taking the position of having no position on this and I suggest each and every one of you in Texas call her and encourage her to support Ken Paxton. (Her facebook page is here)

Taking no position at this critical time is certainly a close equivalent to embracing the unacceptable status quo of Joe Straus.

Morning Briefing for November 16, 2010

RedState Morning Briefing

For November 16, 2010

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Pass your own line-item veto, Axelrod.

2. Ken Paxton Should Be the Speaker of Texas's House

3. Government At Work: Groping Children Is Preferable to Perceived Profiling

———————————————————————-

1. Pass your own line-item veto, Axelrod.

Oh, Davey. I know that it's all mean and stuff that his man-god is going to have to run as a mere mortal in '12, but that doesn't excuse amateur tactics on David Axelrod's part, right? If he wants the line-item veto so badly in order to combat all that nasty pork that the President supposedly doesn't want to approve, then Obama should dust off H.R.4890, have it resubmitted to the House, and tell the Senate to pass it this time. The Democrats have huge majorities in Congress -

- at least, for the next two months -

…so they'd have plenty of time to get the bill passed.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Ken Paxton Should Be the Speaker of Texas's House

It has always bothered me when conservatives win elections but "moderate" Republicans end up running the leadership. In case you haven't noticed, it happens all the time – once behind closed doors, the leadership does not reflect the elected Members nor the people who elected them. It is time for that to change and one place to start is Texas.

For those of you unfamiliar with what's going on, there is a fight going on over the next Speaker of the Texas House. It really boils down to two choices: the current Speaker, moderate and Democrat supported Joe Straus, and conservative Ken Paxton.

As arguably the most powerful figure in Texas politics during the legislative session, the Speaker appoints Committee Chairs and those chairs set the agenda. As a result, liberal chairmen can keep conservative reforms from being voted on. This is exactly what happened the last legislative session when Speaker of the House Joe Straus swept into the Speaker slot on the backs of 65 Democrats and 11 Republicans (infamously known as the "Straus Eleven"). Yes, you read that correctly. A Republican Speaker that only had 11 Republicans vote for him. The reward for the Democrats loyalty was handing 14 committee chairmanships to liberal Democrats out of the 32.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Government At Work: Groping Children Is Preferable to Perceived Profiling

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) recently implemented new supposed security measures, which include a mandated trip through a full body scanner that shows you in all your naked glory, or lack thereof. It's all cool, though, because if you don't wish to have your naked body ogled, you can always get felt up instead via the new "enhanced pat-down" option. It's all about choice, baby! Whichever you prefer: leering or groping.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Ken Paxton Should Be the Speaker of Texas's House

It has always bothered me when conservatives win elections but "moderate" Republicans end up running the leadership. In case you haven't noticed, it happens all the time – once behind closed doors, the leadership does not reflect the elected Members nor the people who elected them. It is time for that to change and one place to start is Texas.

For those of you unfamiliar with what's going on, there is a fight going on over the next Speaker of the Texas House. It really boils down to two choices: the current Speaker, moderate and Democrat supported Joe Straus, and conservative Ken Paxton.

As arguably the most powerful figure in Texas politics during the legislative session, the Speaker appoints Committee Chairs and those chairs set the agenda. As a result, liberal chairmen can keep conservative reforms from being voted on. This is exactly what happened the last legislative session when Speaker of the House Joe Straus swept into the Speaker slot on the backs of 65 Democrats and 11 Republicans (infamously known as the "Straus Eleven"). Yes, you read that correctly. A Republican Speaker that only had 11 Republicans vote for him. The reward for the Democrats loyalty was handing 14 committee chairmanships to liberal Democrats out of the 32.

These weren't just any committees either. Democrat Rene Oliveira chaired the Texas House Ways and Means Committee in the 81st Texas legislature. On top of that, Straus handed the Chair of Calendars to Brian McCall - one of the most liberal Republicans in the Texas House, having received a rating of 27% from the Young Conservatives of Texas. The Chair of Calendars is the second most powerful leadership position in the Texas House because he sets the legislative calendar. If you want to kill conservative legislation, put a liberal in as the Chair of Calendars.

But it gets worse. During the 81st legislative session, Straus and his lieutenants burned conservative Texans over and over again.

Straus lieutenant, Vicki Truitt, lead a push to increase Texas' gas tax.
Straus' Elections Chair Todd Smith killed Voter ID in committee.
Todd Smith authored and passed McCain Feingold type election law, only to have it vetoed.
No hearings were allowed on spending limits
Legislation to provide business tax exemptions to small businesses wasn't allowed

Straus was recently given a 100% rating from NARAL in Texas and was honored by Planned Parenthood (where his wife sits on the board). He stumped for the poster child of the Left in Texas, Democrat Patrick Rose, this fall while not giving one dime to Republican challengers across the state. The ironic twist in all that is 22 Republican challengers won, including Jason Isaac, Patrick Rose's opponent.

Possibly one of the most damning pieces of information against Straus is the percentage of Republican bills that were killed under his "leadership"-32%. 32% of Republican bills killed under a Republican Speaker while only 3% of the Democrat bills were killed. Elections have consequences. At least they should. Under former Republican Speaker, Tom Craddick, almost 50% of Democrat bills were defeated in final votes compared to 4% of Republican bills.

On Empower Texans Fiscal Index, the committee chairmen Straus appointed had an average rating on the Fiscal Index of 54%, abysmal by any standard.

Ken Paxton, on the other hand, received a 100% rating from Empower Texans. In contrast to Straus, he received a 0% rating from NARAL, a 97% rating from the Young Conservatives of Texas and an A+ from the NRA. Rock solid, you say? It gets better. Paxton sponsored legislation that would create stronger spending limits in Texas government in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and was lead author on cutting-edge transparency legislation in 2007.

What is troubling to me, though, is to see newly elected Republicans like Stef Carter and Cindy Burkett and a rock solid conservative like Sid Miller amongst others endorse Straus right out of the gate and now that Paxton is in the race for Speaker, refuse to withdraw their endorsements.

This race already has some controversy. Last week Bryan Hughes (R) of Mineola voiced his opposition to Straus after he was threatened by an unnamed member of the Speaker's leadership team. Representative Leo Berman filed an ethics complaint, tainting Straus pledge cards with the specter of bribery.

The Texas Speaker Race will provide an early preview of the consequences for betraying the conservative grassroots coalition that rocked the November 2nd vote. The 2012 primary season is not that far away.

With a host of issue before the next legislative session, with redistricting taking place and Texas in line to get another 4 seats in the United States House of Representatives, the question must be asked: who should be in charge of this process? Straus? Or Paxton?

The answer is clear.

Morning Briefing for November 15, 2010

RedState Morning Briefing

For November 15, 2010

Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.

1. Liz Cheney for National Security Advisor!

2. Lobbyists Upset About Demint Earmark Ban

3. Rangel stole $400K for legal defense.

4. Public Protests as TSA Torpedoes Constitution

5. Armageddon Averted: Democrats & Unions Get Temporary Reprieve from Reality

———————————————————————-

1. Liz Cheney for National Security Advisor!

…No, I'm perfectly serious. We have had to deal with two [expletive deleted] years of this administration's clueless posturing on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: more, if you count the clueless posturing that took place before the election. And after those two-plus years we are now being told that the plan for KSM is that he… be detained indefinitely. No civilian trial. No military commission. Just keep him imprisoned until he drops dead of old age, apparently.

Gee, kids: are we finding out that national security is HARD?

Please click here for the rest of the post.

2. Lobbyists Upset About Demint Earmark Ban

One interest group is very upset about Senator Jim DeMint's (R-SC) plan to force a vote in the Senate Republican Conference for a two year earmark moratorium — Lobbyists. According to The Hill, the lobbying group that represents lobbyists are very angry and worried that the easy money days of earmarking for dollars is over. Yes, even lobbyists have lobbyist in Washington, D.C.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

3. Rangel stole $400K for legal defense.

Yes, "steal." Rep. Charles Rangel was not allowed to use money from his leadership PAC to pay his legal bills, it beggars belief that he did not know that he was not allowed to use money from his leadership PAC to pay his legal bills, and yet he did it anyway. If we can't call the deliberate diversion of money that was raised and allocated for other people's use 'theft' then we might as well give up the entire civilization thing now and go back to living in caves.

It doesn't really matter anyway, of course. The Democratic panelists on the ethics trial that's supposed to start tomorrow will not sign off on any sort of meaningful punishment for the Congressman: he'll be slapped on the wrist in any Democratic-controlled Congress, and everybody knows it. That's why current Speaker Pelosi delayed these proceedings in the first place, after all. On the (marginally) bright side, at least Rangel's been drained personally dry by these proceedings, to the point where he'll be representing himself because he can't afford a new legal team. It's hardly justice, but then, again: it's still a Democratic-controlled Congress. You work with what you have.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

4. Public Protests as TSA Torpedoes Constitution

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's Let's Make a Deal approach to keeping America's airports secure isn't generating too many fans. Perhaps it's because the choices given are so insulting to the rights enjoyed by a free people:

Door #1: Have nude pictures of yourself beamed to some video monitor to be viewed by a total stranger where it may or may not be stored; or,

Door #2: Allow yourself to be groped, poked, patted down, felt up, frisked, and squeezed at the hands of some police academy reject in a Smurf-blue uniform [Photo: Kim Kardashian at LAX]; or…

Door #3: Don't travel.

Worse is the fact that, if you have children, you have the same choices to make on their behalf.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

5. Armageddon Averted: Democrats & Unions Get Temporary Reprieve from Reality

Union bosses and their Democrat cronies are breathing a collective sigh of relief. On Wednesday, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) gave them something to be thankful for this Thanksgiving and they must be positively giddy. As opposed to reality biting on December 15th, as was originally scheduled, FASB just threw a temporary lifeline to companies with union multi-employer pension fund liabilities.

Last month, we told you about the financial Armageddon that is looming for unions, unionized companies and Democrats. The date was set as December 15th for a new accounting rule that requires companies to more accurately account for the pension liabilities owed to union multi-employer pension. On Wednesday, FASB punted, giving those companies more time to keep their pension liabilities hidden, while allotting unions, as well as Democrats, more time to come up with some other solution to deal with their pension ponzi scheme.

Please click here for the rest of the post.

Here it comes

Saul Anuzis has announced he is going to run for RNC Chairman, challenging Michael Steele.

"We cannot be misled by our victories this year," Anuzis wrote in an announcement posted on his blog. "Chairman Steele's record speaks for itself. He has his way of doing things. I have mine."

Anuzis, clearly hoping to emerge as the choice of the anti-Steele forces within the 168 member Republican National Committee added that "I will NOT strive to be the voice or the face of our party" — seeking to draw a direct contrast with high profile (and gaffe prone) current chairman.

I'm sure we will hear more official announcements. There are lots of rumblings of other challengers. One name I'm hearing that I dismiss is Nick Ayers, head of the Republican Governors Association. I suspect you'll see him running a Presidential campaign, not the RNC.