Erick Erickson's Blog, page 65
February 28, 2012
Santorum and the Democrats. Outrage! Outrage, I Tell You!!
The latest outrage pushed by Team Romney is that Rick Santorum is running auto-calls asking Democrats in Michigan to support him. How dare he!
Of course, Romney will do the same in the general election. It's what we're supposed to do. But right now it is somehow dirty — unless Romney had to do it, then it'd be a-okay with Romney supporters. Look at all those independent and moderate voters he got in New Hampshire and Florida. Those cross overs were just fine because they were Romney.
The fact is, Mitt Romney went after Rick Perry for Perry rightly calling social security a ponzi scheme and many Romney supporters suddenly thought social security was pure as the driven snow. How dare Milton Friedman, Mitch Daniels, Rick Perry, and so many others call social security what it definitionally is.
Then Mitt Romney started praising Arne Duncan and Race to the Top as a way to claim Rick Perry had destroyed Texas schools. And the Romney fans piled on too in praise of Race to the Top.
Then, of course, Mitt Romney unveiled a tax plan that only gave the middle class capital gains tax breaks, supported automatic adjustments of the minimum wage, and recently praised the progressive nature of the tax code while adopting Obama's class warfare rhetoric to make sure people knew he still wanted the rich to pay their fair share.
But God help us, Rick Santorum wants Democrats in Michigan to vote for him.
Spare me the outrage.
Is David Brooks Comparing the Tea Party to Nazis?
David Brooks seems to forget it was the tea party movement that handed the Republicans control of the House in 2010. Today he laments the rise, again, of conservatives and views his ideological drift to the left as standing still with conservatism moving away from him. He really does lack serious self-awareness.
How silly.
In a column titled The Possum Republicans poor David Brooks laments
All across the nation, there are mainstream Republicans lamenting how the party has grown more and more insular, more and more rigid. This year, they have an excellent chance to defeat President Obama, yet the wingers have trashed the party's reputation by swinging from one embarrassing and unelectable option to the next: Bachmann, Trump, Cain, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum.
Similar statements were made about Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, and John McCain. Today, Democrats praise each of them as more reasonable than the current crop of candidates. When they die, the Democrats and people like David Brooks will herald them as saints of conservatism whose legacies are polluted by the present crop of conservatives.
David Brooks is a man who liked the crease of Barack Obama's pants after years of flirting with John McCain. You'll excuse me if his lament falls flat with me. But the most striking thing is his last line after spending a few hundred words lamenting the resurgence of across the board conservatives. He ends with
First they went after the Rockefeller Republicans, but I was not a Rockefeller Republican. Then they went after the compassionate conservatives, but I was not a compassionate conservative. Then they went after the mainstream conservatives, and there was no one left to speak for me.
Does he really intend to compare the tea party to Nazis?
He is playing off German preacher Martin Niemöller's statement regarding German intellectuals and how they sat quietly by as the Nazis rose to power.
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
I know many people who use paraphrases of Miemoller's line as jokes to highlight the absurdity of various absurd situations, but I don't get the sense David Brooks is joking. I assume he is finally comfortable sharing ink with the intellectual heavyweights at the New York Times who, through Walter Duranty, gave cover to Stalin's purges and apologized to the world for Reagan beating evil.
I would also point out that the Rockefeller Republicans were losers and compassionate conservatism put us on the brink of financial ruin. As for being a "mainstream conservative," David Brooks writes at Walter Duranty's paper in New York City.
Oh, and David Brooks, please look up Godwin's Law.
The Ryun Boys Approach 40
One of my favorite organizations in the conservative movement is American Majority. In fact, I'm pleased that American Majority is going to partner with us for the RedState Gathering this year instead of just being a sponsor. They'll be with us in Jacksonville, FL the whole time helping with registration, providing extended training sessions, etc.
The grassroots training the group offers up is second to none — and I say that having been to lots of training sessions from lots of groups designed for grassroots activists.
American Majority has a companion political action organization called American Majority Action. While American Majority trains conservatives to run for office and trains grassroots activists to get their candidates elected, American Majority Action actually puts its money into the game to get good conservatives elected.
American Majority is run by Ned Ryun and American Majority Action by Drew Ryun. Ned, I believe, is the oldest of the twins, but Drew for sure acts the oldest.
In any event, I occasionally wish good conservative fighters happy birthday on the front page and today the Ryun boys turn 39. Happy birthday to both. Keep up the fight.
Deja Vu All Over Again
I have, for the longest time, been convinced that the Republican candidates have a very slim chance of beating Barack Obama without a struggling economy. And while I still think it is true, I think the Democrats have handed the GOP a gift that could be turned into victory if the GOP plays its cards well.
We are entering deja vu all over again.
On September 12, 2009, Janet Hook wrote in the Los Angeles Times that "[s]ome Republicans worry that the healthcare debate is reinforcing an unflattering image of them as the 'Party of No.'" Bob Inglis (R-SC), who would go down to defeat in a primary at the hands of the tea party in 2010, gave voice to many Republican leaders at the time when he said, "People are upset, but they expect leaders to remain calm and find solutions. . . . If you don't have a plan about how to lead, why would anyone give you the majority?"
By the end of the year it was taken as objective fact. Being the "Party of No" would kill the GOP in 2010.
On television objective analysts, Democratic partisans, reporters, and "Republican leaders on background" all spoke of pending disaster for a Republican Party that refused to work with Barack Obama and said "no" to everything.
On February 15, 2010, Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post wrote of Fred Malek, an aide to President Nixon and big Republican donor starting a group called "American Action." In an interview with the Washington Post, Malek openly fretted, "We are a center-right-majority nation, but we are not getting through to the American public and we are becoming increasingly defined as a party of 'no'."
About this time, the full chorus of Republican operatives tied to the establishment, Democratic partisans, and objective analysts were all in a bubble predicting doom for the Party of No.
On July 15, 2010, giving voice to many inside the beltway, columnist Doyle McManus wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "Without that kind of clear, near-unanimous statement, Cantor and his allies argue, Republicans leave themselves vulnerable to being painted by Democrats as the "party of no" — and, worse, as the party that voters rejected in 2008."
Democrats went so far as to turn out polls showing voters really, actually did approve of Obamacare and would punish Republicans for voting against it. Republican leaders chewed their fingernails on background in the Washington Post, which over the campaign season ran 82 stories about the dreaded "Party of No." The New York Times ran even more.
We know how 2010 turned out. It turned out the voters wanted a party of no. The Democratic losses in November of 2010, down to the municipal level across the country, were the most devastating since the late 1800′s.
Fast forward to the present. Objective analysts, Democratic partisans, and "Republican leaders on background" are worried about the GOP defending religious organizations against the Health and Human Services mandate to provide contraception and abortifacient drugs for free for female employees. According to those in the know, 99% of women (a statistic from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute treated as gospel by every right thinking person) use birth control and this is a "women's health issue." Those women are trending against the social conservative constraints of the GOP. This is going to be bad.
Oh, and there is even polling — just like with Obamacare. This is the Party of No all over again.
The Gang of 500 and Republican Leaders who openly pondered the disaster that awaited in 2010 because of the Party of No label are openly pondering the fate of the GOP now for siding with the all male bishops.
Except outside the beltway and away from the spin of women predisposed anyway to vote for Barack Obama, it is not as clear cut. Most employees at these institutions recognize they are there by choice. Many share the values of the organization. Other Christians, already convinced Barack Obama is at war with their faith, are speaking up for Catholics in venues and ways rarely seen in this country. A weird alliance of Orthodox Jews and Christians, Muslims, Catholics, Lutherans, and Southern Baptists have condemned the President's regulation and rebuffed his "compromise" as semantics.
But the Beltway Crowd knows it is a women's issue, not a religious liberty issue. They know it is harmful to the GOP. But it might soon become a jobs issue — a jobs issue that hurts the Democrats, though everyone in Washington will, I suspect, still see it as a women's health issue.
This past weekend, Cardinal George of Chicago announced the Catholic Church would be shutting down its charities, adoption agencies, and hospitals rather than sell out or give in.
What will happen if the HHS regulations are not rescinded? A Catholic institution, so far as I can see right now, will have one of four choices: 1) secularize itself, breaking its connection to the church, her moral and social teachings and the oversight of its ministry by the local bishop. This is a form of theft. It means the church will not be permitted to have an institutional voice in public life. 2) Pay exorbitant annual fines to avoid paying for insurance policies that cover abortifacient drugs, artificial contraception and sterilization. This is not economically sustainable. 3) Sell the institution to a non-Catholic group or to a local government. 4) Close down. . . .
If you haven't already purchased the Archdiocesan Directory for 2012, I would suggest you get one as a souvenir. On page L-3, there is a complete list of Catholic hospitals and health care institutions in Cook and Lake counties. Each entry represents much sacrifice on the part of medical personnel, administrators and religious sponsors. Each name signifies the love of Christ to people of all classes and races and religions. Two Lents from now, unless something changes, that page will be blank.
Archbishop Chaput of Philadelphia likewise hints at the same in strong terms about good versus evil.
The American Jesuit scholar Father John Courtney Murray once said that "Anyone who really believes in God must set God, and the truth of God, above all other considerations."
Here's what that means. Catholic public officials who take God seriously cannot support laws that attack human dignity without lying to themselves, misleading others and abusing the faith of their fellow Catholics. God will demand an accounting. Catholic doctors who take God seriously cannot do procedures, prescribe drugs or support health policies that attack the sanctity of unborn children or the elderly; or that undermine the dignity of human sexuality and the family. God will demand an accounting. And Catholic citizens who take God seriously cannot claim to love their Church, and then ignore her counsel on vital public issues that shape our nation's life. God will demand an accounting. As individuals, we can claim to believe whatever we want. We can posture, and rationalize our choices, and make alibis with each other all day long — but no excuse for our lack of honesty and zeal will work with the God who made us. God knows our hearts better than we do. If we don't conform our hearts and actions to the faith we claim to believe, we're only fooling ourselves. . . .
Catholics need to wake up from the illusion that the America we now live in – not the America of our nostalgia or imagination or best ideals, but the real America we live in here and now – is somehow friendly to our faith. What we're watching emerge in this country is a new kind of paganism, an atheism with air-conditioning and digital TV. And it is neither tolerant nor morally neutral.
As the historian Gertrude Himmelfarb observed more than a decade ago, "What was once stigmatized as deviant behavior is now tolerated and even sanctioned; what was once regarded as abnormal has been normalized." But even more importantly, she added, "As deviancy is normalized, so what was once normal becomes deviant. The kind of family that has been regarded for centuries as natural and moral – the 'bourgeois' family as it is invidiously called – is now seen as pathological" and exclusionary, concealing the worst forms of psychic and physical oppression.
My point is this: Evil talks about tolerance only when it's weak. When it gains the upper hand, its vanity always requires the destruction of the good and the innocent, because the example of good and innocent lives is an ongoing witness against it. So it always has been. So it always will be. And America has no special immunity to becoming an enemy of its own founding beliefs about human freedom, human dignity, the limited power of the state, and the sovereignty of God.
At Democratic Representative Kathy Hochul's town hall meeting in New York State, the Congresswoman informed her constituents that "we're not looking to the Constitution" regarding the HHS regulation. She was confronted by angry male and female constituents livid over what they see as an attack on religious liberty in the country.
But reporters, analysts, most pundits, and even some Republican Leaders, trapped in the hyper educated bubble of D.C., are ignoring it all, just as they did what was really happening with the "Party of No."
Now today, just as many Christians are locking in that Barack Obama is at war with their faith, Senator Dick Durbin is accusing the GOP of being at war with Islam. Couple Democratic attacks on religious organizations and accusations that the GOP is at war with Islam and I suspect we're seeing a strategic opening for the GOP to win the White House back on, of all things, the culture issue.
But they'll have to play their cards right and not shy away from attacking President Obama and the Democrats on these issues. I do really wonder if we might yet see a silent majority rear its head again in 2012 reaffirming the center-right nature of the United States.
Morning Briefing for February 28, 2012
RedState Morning Briefing
February 28, 2012
Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
1. Deja Vu All Over Again
2. What's At Stake in Michigan
3. Using .Gov Domain & Obama's Mother, DNC Propaganda Targets Women
4. Iran Executing Man for Converting to Christianity
5. Femi-regulars for Rick Santorum
———————————————————————-
1. Deja Vu All Over Again
I have, for the longest time, been convinced that the Republican candidates have a very slim chance of beating Barack Obama without a struggling economy. And while I still think it is true, I think the Democrats have handed the GOP a gift that could be turned into victory if the GOP plays its cards well.
We are entering deja vu all over again.
On September 12, 2009, Janet Hook wrote in the Los Angeles Times that "[s]ome Republicans worry that the healthcare debate is reinforcing an unflattering image of them as the 'Party of No.'" BoB Inglis (R-SC), who would go down to defeat in a primary at the hands of the tea party in 2010, gave voice to many Republican leaders at the time when he said, "People are upset, but they expect leaders to remain calm and find solutions. . . . If you don't have a plan about how to lead, why would anyone give you the majority?"
By the end of the year it was taken as objective fact. Being the "Party of No" would kill the GOP in 2010.
On television, objective analysts, Democratic partisans, reporters, and "Republican leaders on background" all spoke of pending disaster for a Republican Party that refused to work with Barack Obama and said "no" to everything.
On February 15, 2010, Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post wrote of Fred Malek, an aide to President Nixon and big Republican donor starting a group called "American Action." In an interview with the Washington Post, Malek openly fretted, "We are a center-right-majority nation, but we are not getting through to the American public and we are becoming increasingly defined as a party of 'no'."
About this time, the full chorus of Republican operatives tied to the establishment, Democratic partisans, and objective analysts were all in a bubble predicting doom for the Party of No.
On July 15, 2010, giving voice to many inside the beltway, columnist Doly McManus wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "Without that kind of clear, near-unanimous statement, Cantor and his allies argue, Republicans leave themselves vulnerable to being painted by Democrats as the "party of no" — and, worse, as the party that voters rejected in 2008."
Democrats went so far as to turn out polls showing voters really, actually did approve of Obamacare and would punish Republicans for voting against it. Republican leaders chewed their fingernails on background in the Washington Post, which over the campaign season ran 82 stories about the dreaded "Party of No." The New York Times ran even more.
We know how 2010 turned out. It turned out the voters wanted a party of no. The Democratic losses in November of 2010, down to the municipal level across the country, were the most devastating since the late 1800?s.
Fast forward to the present. Objective analysts, Democratic partisans, and "Republican leaders on background" are worried about the GOP defending religious organizations against the Health and Human Services mandate to provide contraception and abortifacient drugs for free for female employees.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. What's At Stake in Michigan
Here's why today's Michigan primary is so important: it's about establishment confidence in Mitt Romney and the last outside chance of getting another entrant in the race.
There are, as I've noted previously, a number of different types of "establishment" vs "grassroots" divides in the GOP, but you don't have to have any particular definition of 'establishment' to recognize that Romney's candidacy leans heavily on the support he draws from traditional 'establishment' or 'insider' sources: money from big-dollar fundraisers, endorsements from big-name elected officials, and covering fire from right-leaning journalists at major mainstream publications and conservative journals. Romney has depended, time and again, on his ability to get out of trouble by having the resources to go more negative than whatever opponent he's targeting: more money to dump on negative ads and a bigger chorus of voices amplifying those attacks.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. Using .Gov Domain & Obama's Mother, DNC Propaganda Targets Women
A reader sent the following mailer (see below) from the Democratic National Committee targeting Florida's female population.
The DNC's large, two-sided mailer reads like an Obama campaign piece (because it is one) and refers readers to a federal government website healthcare.gov.
Interestingly, on one side of the mailer, the DNC tells the story of how Barack Obama was motivated to pass Obamacare by the passing of his mother who, living in Jakarta, suffered from violent abdominal pain and was misdiagnosed with appendicitis.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. Iran Executing Man for Converting to Christianity
Fox News reports Iran has not yet executed Youcef Nadarkhani yet for the crime of converting Moslems in Iran to Christianity:
"The Christian pastor sentenced to death in Iran last week for leaving Islam and converting to Christianity was confirmed alive as of early Sunday, sources close to his attorneys told Fox News."
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. Femi-regulars for Rick Santorum
Left-leaning elitist pundits are scratching their heads. After two weeks of liberals trying to convince women that Rick Santorum wants to rip the birth control out of their hands and put them in the kitchen, more and more women are supporting Rick Santorum. "How could this be?" they ask. Answer: We are smarter than you think.
Let me offer a little primer on American women to the liberal elitist folks who spend too much time in New York and Washington DC and not enough time where Femi-regulars live. "Femi-regulars" is a term I coined during the 2008 election when leftists just couldn't grasp the appeal of gun-toting Sarah Palin. Palin, I explained, like most women, was a femi-regular, not a femi-nazi (a tag coined by Rush Limbaugh to label rabid, man- hating feminists).
February 27, 2012
Morning Briefing for February 27, 2012
RedState Morning Briefing
February 27, 2012
Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
I'm filling in for Neal Boortz today on the radio. You can listen live on the WSB live stream from 8:30 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. and call in at 1-877-310-2100.
1. 10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gasoline Prices Now
2. Obama Campaign Declares the GOP 'Obsessed,' then Goes on to Rant Obsessively about the Koch Bros
3. FROM SEN. RICK SANTORUM: For Religious Minorities in the Middle East – With Friends Like Obama, Who Needs Enemies?!
4. NJ Teachers' Union Thugs Protest At Student's Home To Send Father A Message
5. Time to end caucuses for President
———————————————————————-
1. 10 Ways Obama Could Reduce Gasoline Prices Now
Tulsa World headline:
Obama: No magic bullet to lower gas prices
Speaking of bumper stickers, remember "Yes We Can", Mr. President? No one understands the concept better than the oil and gas industry. The main thing holding domestic energy companies back from making a stronger commitment to future domestic supplies is uncertainty. Capital hates uncertainty, avoids it like the plague. Your rhetoric may appease your doctrinaire base, but it makes domestic energy producers hold back, fearful that you will punish their success, or that you will change the rules on them in the middle of the game.
Erasing uncertainty is the #1 thing you can do as a national leader if you truly desire to lower gasoline prices. Not only could it change the psychology of energy investing, there is still time for companies to change their 2012 investment plans.
Below the fold is my humble 10-point plan: Things President Obama could (but won't) do to reduce domestic gasoline prices by November 2012.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. Obama Campaign Declares the GOP 'Obsessed,' then Goes on to Rant Obsessively about the Koch Bros
In an epic self-awareness fail, the Obama campaign sent an email this afternoon from campaign manager Jim Messina which bore the subject line "They're Obsessed," and which mentioned the left's current bogeymen, the Koch Brothers, in the first line and in five of the email's eight total sentences.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. FROM SEN. RICK SANTORUM: For Religious Minorities in the Middle East – With Friends Like Obama, Who Needs Enemies?!
President Obama has an amazing ability to make Jimmy Carter's foreign policies look good.
Opposition to imperfect allies and support of radical Islamists has resulted in the almost-extinction of religious freedom for religious minorities – from the Copts in Egypt to the defenseless women and children who were slaughtered in Homs, Syria – in the Middle East.
Another example is the devolving situation in Iraq. President Obama was so committed to fulfilling an arbitrary campaign promise to get our troops out of Iraq that he ignored the advice of his senior military officials about the consequences of establishing a firm withdrawal date and about how long it might take before Iraq was ready to manage the situation on their own. As a result, Al-Qa'ida is resurgent, Iran's influence is greater than ever, religious tensions between Sunni and Shi'a are increasing, the existential threat facing Iraq's indigenous minority communities has never been greater, and our ability to affect the situation there is weaker now. Recent coordinated car bomb attacks are just the latest in a string of such events since the start of the new year, and they portend many more violent assaults to come.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. NJ Teachers' Union Thugs Protest At Student's Home To Send Father A Message
In Delsea, New Jersey, the teachers' union (a sub-chapter of the NEA) has been fighting over the amount of their pay increases (not decreases) since 2010.
On Valentine's Day, according to NJ.com, the union teachers decided to make their grievance personal by protesting in front of the Delsea school board president's home.
Unfortunately, the school board president was not home—but his children were, including his daughter whose teachers were among those protesting outside her home.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
5. Time to end caucuses for President
The discussion of Republican Party rules reform is beginning in the aftermath of the catastrophe of the new rules that were created by the RNC leadership in 2010. Many people attribute the lengthening process to just the new rules, but I would argue that there are several other factors. Some of the obvious ones are the weakness of the candidate field and new campaign finance structures. It is hard to imagine how Newt Gingrich would have been able to compete in South Carolina or Rick Santorum pretty much anywhere without SuperPAC support. Their campaigns would have run out of money in previous years, and their shows would have been up. Blaming the "proportional" rules misses the point somewhat, as none of the states that have gone yet other than Florida previously operated under proportional rules.
The real disaster of this cycle has been the presidential preference caucus. In Iowa, Nevada, and Maine, we have had disastrous voting procedures, with results unknown or in flux for days. In Iowa, this led to the resignation of the state party chair Matt Strawn. In Nevada, the state party's failed efforts to run a caucus have been widely panned, although the state party chair had already announced that she was stepping down, so there hasn't been the same kind of accountability. In Maine, I am hearing that state party Chairman Charlie Webster, who I quite like personally, is coming under tremendous pressure from county party chairs, elected officials and the party executive committee to step down.
February 24, 2012
The Hemy Neuman Trial & Clark Howard on an Open Container Friday #EERS
I'm going to take a respite from Presidential politics tonight on the Erick Erickson Show. The Hemy Neuman murder trial is an Atlanta area sensation and is making national news. In the 6 o'clock hour, I'm going to spend time talking to the reporters and legal experts on the WSB News Team about the trial.
At 7 o'clock, Clark Howard is going to join me for the hour to talk about energy legislation in the state of Georgia affecting solar power and the power companies.
At 8 o'clock we'll get into national news. By then, I'll need a drink. So you have one too. We'll make it an open container Friday.
You can listen live tonight on the WSB live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK.
Consider this an open thread.
National Journal's Self-Beclowning: Their Ideological Rankings of Congress Are Embarrassing.
I think National Journal must hand over its rating of the most conservative and liberal members of congress to an outsourced shop in Mumbai filled with mental midgets. There can really be no other explanation for this year's embarrassing list of the most conservative members of Congress.
What is so stunning about it is that if you go to outside actual conservative organizations like the Club For Growth or the Heritage Foundation, etc. and see how conservatives define conservatives, the list won't line up the way the mainstream left-of-center oriented biases of National Journal have lined up the list. One of the issues is how National Journal cherry picks its legislation. Even more embarrassing, National Journal appears more interested in using "conservative" for "Republican" and "liberal" for "Democrat." In other words, these rankings tend to draw out partisans more than ideologies, while bastardizing the language of ideology to conform the rankings to partisanship.
I assume the liberal list is as stupid as the conservative list.
The National Journal list, for example, would have you believe that Orrin Hatch is more conservative than Mike Lee in Utah.
According to National Journal, James Inhofe is more conservative than Jim DeMint by 2.3 points, but Jim DeMint is only 0.5 points more conservative than Mitch McConnell who is 11.4 points more conservative than Senator Rand Paul and also 2.4 points more conservative than Marco Rubio.
In other words, National Journal is full of it in a way that I think it should be hard for such a respectable organization to be. I cannot believe some editor did not have the good sense to sit down, look at the rankings, and think, "My God, we will turn into a joke if we put this out." Because guess what? They are a joke today in my inbox. I cannot believe any conservative or liberal will take the rankings seriously. The humorous emails I'm getting from Hill staffers and even a few reporters confirm just how laughable it all is. And every single email expresses the same sense of disappointment that National Journal, of all organizations, would get it so badly wrong.
What is so troubling though, and what explains just how dumbed down and mentally deficient so much political coverage in Washington has become, is that National Journal is an extremely respected organization. Even I rely on their reporting as close to fair. I have a stack of stuff from National Journal just for today's radio show.
So when a respected organization like National Journal produces a ratings chart of conservatism that so misses the mark and deviates so far from what conservatives themselves would produce, it not only will lead reporters in Washington astray who will see the National Journal imprimatur and not realize just how off the mark the ratings are, but it will also shape coverage of candidates in a way that fails the capture the nuance of what is actually happening within both the conservative and liberal wings of the parties in Washington today.
Republican does not mean conservative. Democrat does not mean liberal. But you'd be hard pressed to get this in these rankings. In post Tea Party Washington, D.C., National Journal is signaling it wants to be an un-evolved troglodyte when it comes to the ideological prisms of Washington power. Because I respect the organization so much, I am so much more disappointed it can't evolve past the nineties in how it covers ideology and party.
The Elephant in the Room
He was the elephant in the room, so to speak, at the CNN Debate in Mesa, AZ. And this issue is why Campaign 2012 on the Republican side is so depressing.
The he is George W. Bush. And the issue is that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney spent most of the debate campaigning against George W. Bush without using his name.
They went after each other on earmarks, spending, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the debt ceiling, and on and on. Santorum apologized for some votes. He defended some votes. Mitt Romney had the temerity to suggest he would have opposed some or all of that legislation even though, at the time, he was quite supportive of it all — including raising the debt ceiling. All of these were George W. Bush approved, adding also TARP and the auto bailout. They are also issues about which many conservatives and conservative organizations sold their souls to the Republican Party in the name of team work, damn the principles at stake.
Relatedly, it was entirely laughable for Rick Santorum to claim courage as the word that describes him best when he then went on to say he cast his votes against his principles because he was a team player. Just listen to the audio right here. At least he did not do what Romney did and try to claim himself an advocate of school choice, which Mitt Romney did not support as Governor of Massachusetts. Santorum, at least, is willing to recount his political sins honestly.
And that is what is so awful about this election season for so many conservatives. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich are campaigning against major accomplishments of the Bush Administration that they, at the time, supported, and now have the audacity to lie to us — yes they are lying — and have us believe they would never have supported such big government programs.
For his part, Gingrich at least offered up a balanced budget when he was Speaker and real entitlement reform. Mitt Romney is out championing the progress nature of the American tax code. For that alone he should be driven from the race defeated. Santorum hides behind Jim DeMint to defend his fiscal sins on earmarks and has driven a mass of people who once opposed earmarks to claim that maybe they are not so bad because St. Santorum likes them. Note to this particular cult of personality: No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, and Obamacare would not have passed if earmarks had been banned.
Here's the long and the short of it — Super Tuesday approaches. I live in Georgia. And I am pretty sure I am voting for either Herman Cain or Rick Perry because I am just not sold on the final four.
Morning Briefing for February 24, 2012
RedState Morning Briefing
February 24, 2012
Go to www.RedStateMB.com to get
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge.
1. The Elephant in the Room
2. Picking Back up on House and Senate Races
3. Politico proves Gingrich's point for him on Obama and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
4. The Right Answer on Birth Control
———————————————————————-
1. The Elephant in the Room
He was the elephant in the room, so to speak, at the CNN Debate in Mesa, AZ. And this issue is why Campaign 2012 on the Republican side is so depressing.
The he is George W. Bush. And the issue is that Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney spent most of the debate campaigning against George W. Bush without using his name.
They went after each other on earmarks, spending, No Child Left Behind, Medicare Part D, the debt ceiling, and on and on. Santorum apologized for some votes. He defended some votes. Mitt Romney had the temerity to suggest he would have opposed some or all of that legislation even though, at the time, he was quite supportive of it all — including raising the debt ceiling. All of these were George W. Bush approved, adding also TARP and the auto bailout. They are also issues about which many conservatives and conservative organizations sold their souls to the Republican Party in the name of team work, damn the principles at stake.
Relatedly, it was entirely laughable for Rick Santorum to claim courage as the word that describes him best when he then went on to say he cast his votes against his principles because he was a team player. Just listen to the audio right here. At least he did not do what Romney did and try to claim himself an advocate of school choice, which Mitt Romney did not support as Governor of Massachusetts. Santorum, at least, is willing to recount his political sins honestly.
And that is what is so awful about this election season for so many conservatives. Santorum, Romney, and Gingrich are campaigning against major accomplishments of the Bush Administration that they, at the time, supported, and now have the audacity to lie to us — yes they are lying — and have us believe they would never have supported such big government programs.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
2. Picking Back up on House and Senate Races
It is time for me to get focused again on House and Senate races. With redistricting, we've got to make some tough decisions in races where two incumbents are situated. Likewise, we've got new people running. It is time. Here's my initial list of support and focus. I'll add to it over time.
One of the big races up front is going to be Manzullo vs. Kinzinger in Illinois. We supported Adam Kinzinger in 2010. He ran as a tea party candidate. In his term so far, however, he has done nothing to distinguish himself as someone willing to stand up to House leaders. A simple review of his and Manzullo's Heritage scores make it no contest. In fact, if you have a tough time deciding who to pick in these sorts of races, the Heritage Action for America score card should be the default tool to break a tie. In the Manzullo v. Kinzinger race, there really is no contest on who is more conservative — Manzullo has an 84% score and Adam Kinzinger has a 63% score.
And if you have doubts about the Heritage Action scorecard as an arbiter for who is the better candidate, consider that Fred Barnes of the Weekly Standard was reflecting the concerns of congressional Republicans as recently as December that the Heritage Action scorecard is a bad idea. But just recently even Fred Barnes admitted they were doing it the right way.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
3. Politico proves Gingrich's point for him on Obama and the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.
OK, if you followed the debate in Arizona last night then you got to see Newt Gingrich consume a moderator's liver for what may be the last time. The topic? Double standards in the media, particularly when it comes to 'extremist' positions. The transcript is as follows:
GINGRICH: But I just want to point out, you did not once in the 2008 campaign, not once did anybody in the elite media ask why Barack Obama voted in favor of legalizing infanticide. OK? So let's be clear here.
(APPLAUSE)
GINGRICH: If we're going to have a debate about who the extremist is on these issues, it is President Obama who, as a state senator, voted to protect doctors who killed babies who survived the abortion. It is not the Republicans.
Note the (APPLAUSE). That's because the audience of Arizona Republicans and conservatives knew exactly what Newt Gingrich was talking about; he was talking about Obama's voting record against the Illinois version of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA) – which, by the way, was and is appalling of the President. As those voters know quite well, as a state senator Barack Obama voted against an Illinois state bill that would have extended legal protections to children who survived a botched abortion. An almost-identical version of the same bill passed on the federal level in 2002, and not even "FactCheck.org" can quite take seriously Obama's claim that he would have supported that bill because it was significantly different*.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
4. The Right Answer on Birth Control
At the CNN GOP debate in Arizona, the candidates were asked this question:
"Since birth control is the latest hot topic, which candidate believes in birth control, and if not, why?"
The question was roundly booed by the audience. Republicans hated this line of questioning when it was aired in a debate a few weeks back by former Democratic White House Communications Director George Stephanopoulos, at a time when it seemed to have nothing at all to do with the issues in the campaign. Since then, President Obama has forced the issue into the public debate with the HHS mandate that all employers, even those with religious objections, include contraceptive coverage in employer-provided health care plans, so the subject can't be avoided entirely. And in fact, for various good reasons, Republicans will probably be talking a good deal about the assault on religious liberty in general and the Catholic Church in particular in the months to come. But there's a simpler way of framing the right answer to this in a debate.
Please click here for the rest of the post.
Erick Erickson's Blog
- Erick Erickson's profile
- 12 followers
