Focus RomneyCare: Not the General Election Albatross Some Claim

Posted on by
Reply

For months, through debates, TV commercials, and stump speeches, we’ve heard about Romney’s greatest vulnerability; the one glaring reason why his candidacy cannot hope to prevail against Obama: “RomneyCare.” The argument has been that Romney’s Massachusetts health care plan was the forerunner to ObamaCare, the model that paved the way for the federal takeover of our nation’s health system. Due to this similarity, Romney will “give away” the issue and be unable to make the repeal of the unpopular federal plan a theme of his campaign. Romney, so the argument goes, will be unable to pivot against Obama in a debate on this issue, and his similarity to Obama will make him a weak challenger to a president who retains an astonishingly high degree of personal popularity.

The argument may be plausible, especially in a Republican primary contest, but it’s largely wrong.

Republicans, especially conservative Republicans can be wonderful, passionate people about their country, but too often they mistake policy, philsophy and governance with electoral politics. For conservatives, there is only one way to win an election – run a hardline, uncompromising, candidate – the so-called “full-blooded conservative” that takes no prisoners as he rides a wave of pent-up conservative frustration into the White House, a la Ronald Reagan in 1980. How we wish it were always so. Yet, for all the endless talk about Reagan, we have yet to see another individual that possesses that rare mix of conservative bona fides, big-state executive experience and astonishing charisma that made Reagan, truly, an historic figure. Too often conservatives happily overlook the disaster of Goldwater’s similarly uncompromising campaign; the one that gave us President Johnson and the Great Society. Reagan was the perfect storm.

It is often said the country remains “center-right,” and that may still be true, but if recent past elections are any guide, then more likely than not, this presidential campaign will be won in exactly the same manner – by garnering the critical swing vote of moderates and independents who occupy the center of the American political spectrum. One of Romney’s strongest attributes has long been his “electability;” the sense that the former Massachusetts governor, with the “moderate” background could appeal to that center in a way that the radical Obama could never match. The argument is sound, which is why the issue of RomneyCare is so curiously viewed as an albatross. Indeed, it’s not a liability at all.

In passing a health care initiative for his state, Governor Romney is the one Republican able to take the stage and tear into a federal government plan without risk of being labeled a “heartless” conservative. It’s an especially key attribute given the role that women, for whom health care remains a priority, played in Obama’s election. Romney can attack ObamaCare for what it is – a massive, unwanted, unconstitutional federal power grab that delivers a lower standard of health care to the nation. And he can do so while becoming a champion of federalism. Far from being a liability, RomneyCare provides Governor Romney with the perfect opportunity to make the authentic conservative case on grounds that appeal not only to conservatives, but to libertarians and moderates alike – the Constitution.

The Constitution, and the 10th Amendment specifically, ensure that the states retain their general legislative authority; a policy prerogative that is not enjoyed by the federal government, which must operate within the confines of specifically enumerated powers. Surely there is a powerful argument against mandates and big government on the state level, but Governor Romney isn’t running for governor again, nor is President Obama. The issues at stake are entirely ones of federal policy and for conservatives to blur the distinction between states and the federal government is the worst possible surrender. In claiming that federal action is the same as state action, merely because the policy subject is similar, conservatives are unwittingly “giving away” the heart of the very conservatism they claim to foster. By equating the general authority of state governments to legislate as per their constitutions with the extremely limited authority granted by those states to the federal government, they undermine the entire foundation of the modern conservative cause: federalism.

Governor Romney has been seemingly unable to find his voice in defending RomneyCare, but it’s staring him in the face. By taking up the cause of federalism, Romney can provide a spirited defense of his initiative that places challengers like Senator Santorum in the difficult position of having to explain why he believes there is no difference between what a state can do and what the federal government is allowed to do. Romney can not only defend his initiative, but should go on the offensive against Santorum on this very issue. Santorum, happily passed the largest health care entitlement expansion in 40 years – Medicare Part D! Where is the federal constitutional authority for that program? Why is Santorum’s support of unconstitutional federal health care entitlements not an even greater and more threatening attempt to interject the government – the federal government – into our lives? Moreover, is D.O.M.A., which Santorum earnestly supported not a federal mandate on same-sex marriage? Would Santorum not support a federal mandate that made abortion illegal? Or is it that Santorum likes some federal mandates, but not others?

Governor Romney’s plan is unpopular in Republican circles (though it remains popular in Massachusetts), but it wasn’t always so. It’s important to remember that Romney’s plan was crafted in partnership with the foremost conservative political think-tank in the country – The Heritage Foundation – that it was widely supported at the time by conservatives across the country as a way to deliver private insurance, and to prevent the federal takeover of health care under the plans put forth by Hillary Clinton during her husband’s administration. Gingrich supported it, and there’s some evidence to suggest that Santorum supported it as well.

Romney can make a spirited defense of his program on the hinted-at-notion, of reforming government and encouraging personal responsibility. Romney’s program, it can be argued, is a form of medical welfare reform – preserving private insurance for all, while stopping the abusive practice of unscrupulous individuals getting free health care by refusing to buy insurance and utilizing the emergency room to obtain care – an obligation forced upon the states by, you guessed it, the federal government. Romney should remind conservatives at this most opportune moment, that his plan stopped the abuse of taxpayers being forced to subsidize (read: mandated) the health care of the wantonly reckless, and he would be wise to remind social conservatives that his plan perhaps provided another firewall against state-funded abortion by encouraging private insurance coverage that doesn’t force taxpayers to directly subside emergency room abortions and other controversial procedures.

Romney and the Heritage Foundation’s plan has flaws, both philosophical and practical, which have been well discussed, and we don’t seek to minimize those flaws. Yet, in passing a health care plan that delivered coverage to everyone in his state, Romney has shown the kind of compassion in dealing with health care that will inoculate him, politically, against attacks from the left in the General Election. Far from being a liability, Romney’s state health care plan can be wielded as both a weapon and a shield in the primary and General Elections.

When criticized on it, Romney can and should make a defense of the conservative elements of his plan, hammer those who attack him from shaky ground (Santorum), and find his voice on federalism and constitutional conservatism that will resonate across the political spectrum and breathe new life into a campaign still searching for a core conservative identity beyond mere electability.

Romney or Obama: Another Time for Choosing

Posted on by
Reply

As the merry-go-round of the GOP primary continues, the present darling of fickle voters is Newt Gingrich, Like a phoenix he’s risen from the ashes to claim, with typical humility, “I’m going to be the nominee,” dismissing all other candidates as a trifling irrelevancy. Unfortunately the belated choice of Gingrich is no choice at all, for there can be little doubt how the questionably conservative and enormously polarizing Gingrich would fare against a personally popular Obama in the General Election.

There is, at present only one real choice to make regarding the next president. It’s either Romney or Obama.

A vote for any other Republican candidate is, to varying degrees, a decision to keep Obama in the White House for four more years. Deep down inside, Republican voters must know that Gingrich, 68, despite his many attributes, simply cannot beat Obama in the General Election. Neither can any of the other Republican contenders, most of whom don’t even excite Republicans beyond single digits. Only Romney has what it takes to go the distance.

Mitt Romney burst onto the political stage in 1994 with a Senate run against liberal lion Ted Kennedy. He did so in the most hostile political atmosphere possible – Massachusetts – a Kennedy in Massachusetts! It’s perhaps true that Romney worked hard to appear as a social moderate in order to short-circuit the hot button social issues that normally prevent any Republican from garnering a second look from notoriously liberal Bay State voters. His moderate appearance allowed him to attack Kennedy on policy grounds, and he gave Kennedy – all tolled a 46 year incumbent – perhaps the biggest scare of his career. Some would simply call this an intelligent election strategy. For others, it’s proof positive that he’s a perpetual “RINO;” a Nelson Rockefeller in conservative clothing (though we seem to recall that it was Gingrich who served as a southern state chairman for the Rockefeller campaign).

In reality, businessman Romney was simply a pragmatist. Romney’s pragmatism was a hallmark of his stint as Massachusetts governor, but his biggest failing, according to conservatives was his state health care plan. The plan contained a mandate that all citizens purchase private health insurance. In retrospect, it is a thoroughly un-Republican viewpoint, but at the time, the plan, which was conceived by the Heritage Foundation (the nation’s foremost conservative policy institute), seemed like a practical answer to the state’s health care problem. The plan was supported by Heritage and endorsed by conservative leaders including Newt Gingrich. Romney’s true intention was to force the roughly 8% of individuals who refused to purchase health insurance, and who were freeloading off the system by utilizing public (often emergency) services at taxpayer expense as their primary health care, to take responsibility for themselves. The results-oriented Romney probably never conceived that his über-conservative-endorsed plan, would come back to haunt him, or that it differed in some material way from the other mandates that states impose on their citizens all the time, like, for instance, mandatory auto insurance. But that’s just what happened.

But Romney is no secret liberal. In looking at the Mitt Romney of 2011, it’s hard to find a position he supports that is in any way outside the conservative mainstream. Indeed, Romney differs little from even Santorum or Bachmann on the major issues, but unlike the others, he has both executive experience, as well as exactly the right kind of private sector leadership skill. But voters, particularly tea party voters, are simply reluctant to trust Romney because of his past campaign messaging and his conservative evolution. But isn’t that evolution a good thing? Indeed, when someone moves your way politically, like Reagan did, it’s typically seen as progress, not a perpetual source of inconsistency and mistrust. Still, some conservatives are completely foreclosed to the idea of Romney. They would much prefer to go down fighting with a ‘true conservative;’ they would rather knowingly elect Obama again than ‘compromise’ in any way on the GOP nominee. This philosophy, while exceedingly foolish, certainly flies in the face of the advice put forth by President Reagan, who said, “I would much prefer to get 80 percent of what I want than to go off the cliff with the flag flying.” Of course, again, it’s hard to see how conservatives are getting any less than 95% or more of what they want from Romney, based on his platform.

As of late, these same voters, so reluctant to trust Romney, have landed on Gingrich to be their man. It’s a curious choice. If being a reliable, unimpeachable conservative is the standard for securing the nomination (or at least garnering heavy primary support), it is nearly impossible to see how Gingrich measures up. It was Gingrich that worked for Nelson Rockefeller, and voted as a Congressman in 1979, to establish the hated Department of Education. He supported the individual mandate that makes Romney anathema to so many conservatives. He did television spots with Pelosi to raise awareness about global warming. He ripped into rising GOP star Paul Ryan’s budget plan as “right wing social engineering,” he supported TARP, the very bailout legislation that gave rise to the tea party movement, and Gingrich even co-sponsored a bill to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine; a clear threat to the First Amendment. Gingrich has supported cap-n-trade, believes in ethanol subsidies, supported the enormous Medicare Part D entitlement, consulted for Freddie Mac, and is a proponent of a form of amnesty for illegal immigrants. Newt Gingrich isn’t a bad person, indeed there’s much about him to like and admire, but if an unblemished conservative record is required to be the GOP nominee, Gingrich doesn’t make the cut, not by a long shot.

Similarly, Romney isn’t a bad person. Indeed, by all accounts he’s an exceedingly decent person, a family man with a strong marriage of 42 years, and has been a success at both business and governance. At present, given Gingrich’s stance on amnesty, subsidies and others, Romney is arguably more conservative than Gingrich. Given his reputation as a dynamite businessman and a respected ‘fixer’ of failing companies and bankrupt organizations (like the 2002 Winter Olympics), Romney seems like exactly the right man at exactly the right time.

If electability, rather than an unbroken chain of conservative purity is your standard, there is no Republican even remotely as electable as Romney. It is an inescapable reality, and the sooner that Republican primary voters wake up from the delusion that there is a perfect conservative to run against Obama, or that trying to shove the round peg of a Gingrich into the conservative square hole won’t work, the sooner we can all prepare for the titanic billion+ dollar fight ahead with Obama.

There is every expectation that as the Gingrich balloon grows, it will also eventually burst; brought down by a salivating mainstream media and a trainload of personal and political adversaries spanning decades of public life. Gingrich, if given enough room, will self-destruct or be destroyed as he always does. For their part, team Romney should avoid panicking (as the media suggests they’re doing), regain their steady General Election-oriented footing, and work on the critical organization that will deliver Romney votes.

For team Romney, easy does it. Or that’s what they should remember. Having watched challenger after challenger rise and fall this primary season, while Romney has remained consistent, the Romney team should be careful not to overreact. Yes, Gingrich unexpectedly poses the most serious threat to Romney, and time is running out before Iowa, and more importantly New Hampshire, but the decision to go on the attack is not entirely a wise one – and certainly not for the candidate himself. Romney’s team should work through surrogates to help differentiate the two and cast doubt on Gingrich’s leadership quality, temperment, conservative bona fides and electability (all fair game), but Romney himself must remain the happy warrior. Romney must focus narrowly on turning around the economy and building a better America, while keeping his fire trained on Obama. A nasty Romney is a loser (that goes for debates as well).

For Romney himself, it’s time to speak to the American people. The real bar to Romney’s rise isn’t so much a problem with his record, but the perception of it, and him. It’s an emotional response by voters, and it requires an emotional remedy. It is time to accelerate the roll-out of Romney that is undoubtedly planned for the General Election, and which has been wisely contained for fears of over-exposure. Romney can and must begin speaking to our gut; to appear to be a reliable agent of prudent conservative reform, displaying a Reaganesque optimism and a positive, pro-growth vision for the country. This is even more true given what we know about his rivals. Gingrich is constitutionally incapable of being the sunny optimist – his will be a wonkish, scoffing campaign characterized by impatient outbursts of ‘father knows best’ rhetoric. It may play to the fire in conservative bellies at present, but it won’t go over in the general. Similarly, Obama cannot now run as the sanguine agent of change. We know his only chance, given his paltry record, is to keep on doing exactly what he’s been doing – sow class discord and hyperbolic fear about his GOP opposition. His will be a negative campaign, despite the veneer of ‘hope and change’ they attempt to cover it with. This leaves the door wide open for the kind of candidate the American people like – the ‘get-er-done’ optimist. Romney is capable of fulfilling that role, and doing so in a way that takes advantage of the glaring character flaw possessed by both his opponents – vanity. A humble, optimistic Romney committed to achieving a bright new future based on conservative principles, and operating above the fray, can be a potent weapon.

Now is the time for Romney to begin communicating at greater length and depth to people’s values, their hopes, and the future they face, absent reform. Now is the time when Romney must connect with people, help them feel good about supporting him, and build a level of trust that can translate into GOP votes. Romney must stand for real reform and convince voters that he’ll deliver it. He must paint for voters a vision of a renewed America versus the ceaseless road to decline under Obama, and all along voters must be reminded that he’s the only guy that can win.

Talk to us Mitt.

The Republican Primary is Over

Posted on by
9

The Republican presidential primary contest is over. Yes, you heard us right.

Despite the months of campaigning ahead; the speeches, fundraising, media proxy wars, endorsements, gaffes and dark horse speculation, there is increasingly little doubt about the Republican presidential nominee for 2012.

His name is Mitt Romney.

From the beginning the contest has been Romney’s to lose, and not merely because of a party predilection toward nominating the last runner up. It’s been Romney’s to lose because of a combination of his own qualities, and those of his competition.

Were he in a position to be truly candid, like any politician, he would likely tell you that he’s taken plenty of policy decisions based on both evolving values and political expedience; a penchant that has earned him mistrust among social conservatives in particular. Romney has also disappointed limited government conservatives with his Massachusetts health care mandate. But to be successful, Romney doesn’t need to convince you that he’s a rock-ribbed conservative, he only needs to remain the safest and most electable of the Republican candidates. So far, he’s doing just that.

Romney’s strategy is born of his 2007-2008 presidential experience, in which despite early setbacks, he managed, over the long course of the campaign, to amass a sufficient number of delegates to repeatedly be within striking distance of the nomination. Once again, Romney will take the long view on the primaries, quietly building his organization and war chest, while collecting delegates here and there. Despite what are likely to be some early and periodic losses in southern states, that will create a false sense of unpredictability, Romney simply needs to hold on long enough to reach the large, delegate rich states on the coasts to clench the title.

Were it simply Bachmann, Gingrich and the others, Romney would be in cruise control. While the steadfast Bachmann may speak to the heart of the tea party movement, and Gingrich may paint a picture of the kind of real systemic reform that is needed in this country, Republican primary voters frequently prove to be creatures of convention. Barring the arrival of a dark horse candidate like Chris Christie, who despite heavy lobbying, is still unlikely to step in (and whose blunt, bombastic style would wear quickly with the public if he did), the nominee can only be one of two men.

The only real threat to Romney is Texas’ Rick Perry. Or at least he was. In just a few short weeks, Perry rocketed to the top spot because he was an empty vessel into which voters familiar with their other options could place their hopes. Still searching for that Reagan figure in this Carter redux campaign, and thinking Perry might be the closest, they happily switched their enthusiastic allegiance from the inevitable Romney, to the bright new star. But Perry is already proving to be insufficient. Unfortunately for Perry, entering the race late means jumping straight into the fire; the invaluable practice that comes with weeks of stump speeches and policy arguments out of the spotlight is lost, and the candidate is forced to make his debut in the glaring lights of a nationally televised debate scenario. As it turns out, it’s a forum that plays to Romney’s advantage. His fluid, polished, and eloquent style, stands in sharp contrast to the unpracticed, meandering Perry, who had trouble making a simple distinction on the seeming duality of Romney’s past positions – something most grassroots social conservatives do with alacrity.

For all his personal appeal, Perry is George W. Bush, 2.0, and if the similarity between the two (even if only on style) aren’t striking to you, then you need only wait for the General Election, in which the Democrats will paint a picture of Bush’s reemergence in the guise of Perry with all the warmth one might anticipate from a town crier heralding the return of the Black Death. The inevitability of such a campaign, and the energy it could potentially create among Obama’s disaffected base are worrisome to Republican primary voters. They understand, instinctively, that with a miserable and paltry record of achievement, Obama’s only play is to run against a GOP boogey man. Obama must convince voters that despite it all, he’s the safe choice; that the Republican nominee is simply unacceptable. Thus, the campaign will be one of vitriol, demagoguery and fear mongering from everything from social security to bigotry to class warfare. You can expect to hear much about Republicans being outside the ‘mainstream,’ promoting risky ‘schemes’ and wanting to protect the ‘rich.’ Obama can only win if we fear the other guy.

Perry’s performances have called into question his ability to communicate effectively, and having been burned by George W. Bush’s own inability to adequately defend his policies, they’re looking for a communicator that can match Obama’s rhetorical (if scripted) style. Moreover, Perry’s performances have not only called into question his speaking ability, but candidly, have left many wondering about his intellectual capacity; a devastating manifestation of doubt for any candidate.

By contrast, no one doubts the communicative ability of Mitt Romney, nor do they doubt the intelligence of the Harvard trained JD/MBA; a factor which should not be underestimated in the calculus of many Republicans and independents. Romney has long held a reputation for being a shrewd businessman and a results-oriented problem solver who was able to turn around a company, or an Olympics, or anything else he applied himself to, and if the public is still unfamiliar with his accomplishments in Massachusetts outside of the heath care context, that fact may be, given the legendary bureaucracy and anti-capitalist inertia of the Bay State, more of an opportunity for his campaign than a drawback.

In terms of style, Romney is manifestly the best candidate. Yes, he has been known to be rigid, and his team has been busy mussing his hair and hiding the neckties in order to humanize the former governor, but his rigidity is offset by a certain adult dignity, which is completely lacking in the current president. Romney exudes confidence, not in an arrogant fashion, but in a manner suggestive of competence; you simply know Romney is capable of handling whatever is thrown at him, including the presidency, and his unflappable style and generally positive ‘happy-warrior’ attitude must keep Obama’s debate team up at night. It certainly gets the best of his Republican rivals.

Despite what Axelrod and his astroturfers might claim, they fear to run against Mitt Romney more than any other candidate. Romney simply isn’t scarry to most Americans. While his lack of conservative bona fides may be a liability for him now, his moderation will be an asset to him with critical independent voters in the General Election. His Mormon faith will be an issue for some, and we should expect Hollywood – ceaselessly willing to promote the notion of Republicans as representing a backwards Christian fundamentalist cabal – to step in with exposés on the unconventional nature of Mormon orthodoxy and curiously timed movies about eccentric polygamist figures like Warren Jeffs, it will however, be impossible for Obama or his campaign to directly challenge Romney’s faith (isn’t liberal diversity grand?). They must instead run a campaign that merely hints at the tee totaling Romney being outside the mainstream, while allowing their proxies to do the real damage. Even so, at this juncture, most Americans will likely trade the silly beer summit and the 9.2% unemployment for a straight-laced turnaround artist with a record of success.

Romney’s campaign will plow ahead week after week, gaining delegates and eventually the mantle of inevitability, until the numbers make it so. In the 2007-2008 campaign, Romney won caucuses or primaries in Wyoming, Michigan, Alaska, Colorado, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Utah. It’s a safe bet that Romney will win those states again. Moreover he’s currently well ahead in New Hampshire and expected to win in that key first in the nation primary. While Perry may prove strong in the south, Romney has a good shot at culturally different Florida, which he very nearly won against McCain. Given his rivals, it is also likely that he’ll succeed in big states like California and New York, and across the northeast, when the time comes. In terms of delegates, it easily adds up for Romney.

The challenge for Romney is the primary schedule, which is frontloaded with many states that favor his rivals. With all the primary shuffling, the precise order is still unclear, but Romney can expect to win on friendly territory like New Hampshire, though he is almost certain to lose in states like South Carolina. Spotty victories, even if they’re predictable, give the impression of a lack of consensus. That lack of consensus gives second tier candidates an opening, and the longer the inevitable is delayed, the more intense the fervor for that second tier candidate will become; hope begets votes. Thus like Mike Huckabee’s campaign, it is easy to see the candidacy of someone like the enormously likeable Herman Cain becoming a long term thorn in Romney’s side. The task for Romney is to prevent the unexpected rise of a Cinderella candidate, while enduring the slings and arrows for long enough to garner the necessary votes, without the kind of damage that long campaigns inflict – both on his political stock and his fundraising. A nominee, who has been relentlessly criticized, overexposed and who has depleted his fundraising reserves, enters the General Election at an obvious disadvantage to Barack Obama.

Barring the unforeseen, a terrible personal blunder or fatal campaign error – the kind that Romney and team usually don’t make – Mitt Romney will be the 2012 Republican nominee. The road may be long, and bumpy, but the path for Romney is clear. The only question is how much damage will have been done to the Republican nominee in the process and how many conservatives will stay home the following November.

The president will be more difficult to defeat than many on the right assume, but if, as we predict, Romney takes the helm for the GOP in 2012, and does so without serious damage to his political stock, many if not most conservatives will vote against Obama. Romney may not excite them the way Reagan did, but with a little help, he will surely beat the President in November, and with so much riding on critical fiscal reforms and a growing economy, that’s welcome news.

Whitman versus Poizner in the California Governor’s Race: It’s all about Brown

Posted on by
9

It’s hard to image that the state that gave us Governor Ronald Reagan could put up two candidates as thoroughly “RINO” as those now vying for the Golden State’s governor’s chair. But alas, that was a different California. On the hand one we have Meg Whitman, a woman so concerned with the political well-being of her state and country that she didn’t bother to vote for 20 years. She’s endorsed and contributed to Barbara Boxer, and gave a whopping $20,000 to Democrat Steve Westley’s statewide bids, and became a “huge fan” of former Obama Administration “Green Jobs Czar” and avowed 9/11 conspiracy theorist Van Jones on her global warming cruise. Her campaign is a top-down corporate entity that grinds out endless commercials and robocalls and produces fluffy radio spots about fixing California that makes her sound like the cookie-pushing Oracle from The Matrix. All fluff, all meaningless window-dressing to cover the naked ambition of a billionaire who figured: if Arnold can do it, why can’t I?

On the other hand, there’s Steve Poizner, who donated (in his wife’s name) $10,000 to Al Gore’s Florida recall effort, and the maximum contribution to John Kerry, whom Poizner supported over George W. Bush. Poizner is an opportunist pure and simple who in the past has trained his sights on California’s sacrosanct Prop. 13 – the property tax measure that keeps half the state from losing their homes. He was initially against Arizona’s new illegal immigration bill, then flipped like a flapjack when the polling numbers showed it to be a winning issue. Poizner is all opportunistic ambition too – one gets the sense that Poizner would rat on his mother if it would win him political points – he’s the Silicon Valley version of Joe Isuzu.

Under these circumstances one could envision themselves voting for one of the other Republicans on the ballot like railroad switchman Bill Chambers, not voting, or writing in any other candidate – living or otherwise. Still, not making a choice between Whitman and Poizner is just letting others make it for you – one of those two will be the GOP nominee. In times like these, when there’s no one to vote for, just remember that there’s some to vote against – the detestable leftist slug Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown. Jerry’s all grown up now, and rather than spending his days in a daze on the floor of his Spartan apartment, this time Jerry means business. Like all those aging hippies looking for one more chance to live the 60s again, Brown will take his job seriously this time and that means trouble for everyone who lives and somehow works in California. When coupled with the commies in California’s legislature Brown will be downright dangerous.

We know what you’re thinking – you’d rather be stabbed in the front by Brown than in the back by a RINO. Maybe it’s time to drive a stake into the heart of California – elect Brown, let the Democrats destroy it and hope for a Phoenix to emerge from the ashes. The problem is this – the RINOs will wound you, but the leftists will slit your throat, and if California goes down in flames, it isn’t coming back – ever. Better to stand and fight every step of the way; the liberals may take California, but we’ll make them pay for every inch of scorched ground.

Thus the calculus this year must be this – whoever can defeat Jerry Brown gets our vote. Unfortunately for Poizner, it’s a relatively easy equation, and most of it points to Meg Whitman. Although Poizner is doing his best to pander to conservatives here in the 11th hour, he hasn’t the conviction, the money, the organization, the political backing or even (sadly) the appeal that Meg Whitman is able to muster. In the end Whitman seems to have more personal political ability, more resources, and (hopefully) enough toughness to mount a winning campaign against Brown. In any event she’s got a better shot than Poizner. For those purely strategic reasons, if you can stomach it, Whitman’s our choice (yikes!).

Nevada GOP Senate Race: It’s got to be Tarkanian

Posted on by
2


As the Nevada GOP Senate primary approaches its unpredictable conclusion, there is a potential disaster brewing for Silver State Republicans come fall. Sue Lowden, once the clear leader in the race has imploded thanks to politically asinine comments about bartering with chickens for health care. Never mind that bartering does continue to take place, when it comes to politics, such an unforced error is devastating. Moreover, Lowden’s questionable partial ownership and nondisclosure of her campaign bus has given her campaign an air of underhandedness. Add to Lowden’s woes her insider’s-insider status as the former Nevada GOP Party Chair and her past support and endorsement for Harry Reid and her veneer of formidability evaporates. As the latest polls indicate, Nevadans are walking away from Sue Lowden in droves, and Fox News reports she’s now third behind Angle and Tarkanian. Despite the backing of heavyweight GOP establishment figures, in the final analysis, Lowden is a falling star.

The bigger problem for Nevada Republicans is the possibility that many are leaving Sue’s campaign for Sharron Angle. Sure, Angle’s conservative, and she’s got the backing of both grassroots groups and political machines like the Tea Party Express, but Angle remains for many a fringe candidate with tenuous ties to Scientology and some questionable votes on spending. Her opponents, most notably Lowden, have pointed out her authorship of a bill which included the hair-brained scheme of providing massages to prison inmates. Can anyone see a Reid campaign commercial there? While Angle’s record does include some bright spots as well, the mere fact that Angle has a record at all is cause for concern in this anti-incumbency year. A four-term record in the Nevada State Assembly is sure to provide ample fodder for Reid and Democratic operatives, and Angle’s fringy style will likely prove an easy target for Reid’s well-oiled machine; a machine that’s managed to keep the sullen, liberal Majority Leader – by any measure an unappealing candidate – in office for more than 20 years. As the final vote draws near it’s clear that going with Angle is huge gamble.

The sleeper candidate in the race remains Danny Tarkanian. While Tarkanian hasn’t exactly caught fire, his quiet, consistent message and famous Nevada name have kept him in the running and amidst the unpredictability of Lowden and the quirkiness of Angle, Tarkanian looks more and more like the safe conservative choice. Tarkanian is just as conservative as Angle, he’s pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, opposed the Wall Street bailouts and focused on bringing the federal government to heel. He’s endorsed by Chuck Heath – Sarah Palin’s father and the grassroots Minuteman Project – but as an attorney and small businessman who’s never held public office before, Tarkanian comes without the baggage of a legislative record. He’s the outsider in an outsider’s year – something he grasped early as the first candidate to jump in against Reid last August when the Democrats were riding high. Going with Tarkanian has its disadvantages – Danny’s run for statewide office before, unsuccessfully – but on the other hand in doing so he’s boosted his statewide name recognition to a degree that Angle never has; most Nevada Republicans have a memory of casting their ballot for Danny Tarkanian. It helps also that every living room in the state has fond memories of watching his father, the legendary UNLV basketball coach, take the NCAA title.

Can Danny Tarkanian beat Harry Reid? If polls are any indication, yes. Tarkanian’s campaign boasts an impressive list of some 16 polls in which Tarkanian beats Reid – every poll, save one, since August 2009. While most Republicans are confident that a ham sandwich could beat Harry Reid in November, their overconfidence is just that – overconfident. Reid’s machine should not be underestimated – nor the millions upon millions of dollars in negative advertising and get out the vote efforts that will pour into Nevada to prop up the ailing Majority Leader. Reid will not go quietly, and while Angle’s upstart campaign seems to have the energy now to take on Reid, like Kentucky’s Rand Paul, personality along with her record, will likely prove far too easy to marginalize come June 9th; in the words of one respected Republican strategist, “Harry Reid will eat Sharron Angle for breakfast.”

Tarkanian may not be a dream candidate, but his quiet demeanor, constitutional focus, and stubborn determination are a good match for Reid’s own workmanlike approach to politics and the anti-government mood of the electorate. Over the course of nine months, Tarkanian has proven to be the only reliable candidate in Nevada’s GOP field, and he’s done so without the big dollars or the machine backing that has propelled his rivals. Ultimately Tarkanian is the safest option and the best candidate to take on Harry Reid this November, and should be the choice of Nevada Republicans.

Panties for Nelson

Posted on by
2

During his presidential campaign, Barack Obama repeatedly promised a new tone in Washington, an open, fair, and purpose-driven agenda with a bipartisan spirit. Instead, the tone is Washington has not only reached its lowest partisan ebb, perhaps ever, but the ‘legislative process’ under Harry Reid has deteriorated into naked bribery and ideological prostitution. While Mary Landreiu and Blanche Lincoln have showed themselves to be up for purchase, no member of the U.S. Senate has so drastically sold his soul and abandoned his principles as has Nebraska’s Ben Nelson.

Throughout the’ health care reform’ process, Nelson had been relatively up-front in voicing his objections to the bill, not merely because of his pro-life convictions, but because of the bill’s very nature. The most important insight into Nelson’s thinking emerged last week, following the effective failure of the so-called ‘public option’ along with the proposed Medicare buy-in for people as young as 55. In voicing his remaining concerns, Nelson put his finger not only on the great unknown – the ultimate cost of the program, but more fundamentally, the ultimate aim of the legislation:

“We don’t know what it’s going to cost. The second thing is I’m concerned that it’s– it’s the forerunner of single-payer, the ultimate singer single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option.”

Nelson had repeatedly made clear his opposition to a single-payer system; one that would radically and fundamentally alter the relationship between the American people and their federal government. Far from unfounded, Nelson’s fears were right on target, for the proposed legislation is nothing short of the foundation upon which the greatest power-grab in American history will be built. President Barack Obama has spoken of his ultimate desire to bring about ‘redistributive change’ and has repeatedly voiced his support for a ‘single-payer system,’ and every Washington observer over the age of ten understands that once in place this legislation will be difficult to reverse and subject to alterations and expansion at the political whims of future Congresses – especially ones adept at never wasting a ‘good crisis’ in pushing through sweeping reform – perhaps something like the impending insolvency of Medicare in 2017.

Given these realities, and Nelson’s own adroit observation, his decision to reverse course and embrace this single-payer in sheep’s clothing for a price that Harry Reid was willing to pay is astonishing. Far from a new means of doing business in Washington, we have seen the convergence of the oldest and second oldest professions in ways impossible before the modern death of concepts like shame. Nelson knows his head won’t be on the platter in next year’s massacre of the Democrats at the polls – he’s not up for reelection until 2012 – while the honorable Blanche Lincoln will get hers, Nelson figures he’ll be off the hook thanks to American’s notoriously short attention span and a sweetheart deal for his own constituents.

He couldn’t be more wrong. Nelson will get his too.

Before that time comes however, there is a token of appreciation that all Americans can send Senator Nelson to remind him of how much we appreciate the federal takeover of our health care system that he allowed, despite his own convictions, and for a price. If Senator Nelson wishes to act the part of a prostitute, we encourage our fellow Americans to take a few moments out of their busy schedule to give him the chance by sending Senator Nelson a token of our appreciation for his newfound role: we recommend fishnet stockings, pantyhose and ladies panties, which can be sent to the senator at his D.C. office:

Senator Ben Nelson
720 Hart Senate Office Building
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510

Enjoy the panties and fishnets senator, you’ve earned them. See you in 2012.

A Stimulus Bill for Constitutional Lawyers

Posted on by
Reply

Amidst backslapping, vote tallying and questionable deal-making on Capitol Hill regarding the imminent passage of what is being called health care reform, few people, including constitutional scholars have weighed in. On the one hand, their reluctance to voice an opinion is understandable considering that the bill is something of an esoteric document. To date, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has yet to unveil this massive bill, that is, even if he’s finished writing it, in a process that all objective observers agree has been byzantine at best. Still, we can gather enough information from the broad outlines of the legislation to take a crack at its constitutionality.

As reported in the press, the bill will utilize the Commerce Clause in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to provide the legal basis for regulation in this area. This is hardly surprising since this grossly misconstrued provision is used to regulate almost every aspect of American life that is otherwise off limits to federal authority – the 10th Amendment notwithstanding. It is unclear precisely what approach will be taken here, but at a fundamental level it appears that the bill will require every American (and possibly non-citizen residents) to purchase, with their own money, a commodity (health insurance) from a private company, and penalize them with a tax if they do not. If this is indeed the bill’s basic structure, and that still remains a significant question, there can be little doubt that the product of what President Obama has called a “century-long struggle” is profoundly unconstitutional.

There is simply no basis in the United States Constitution that would provide the federal government with the power to force individuals to purchase commodities. While states have sufficient authority to mandate insurance based on their general legislative power, the federal government’s defined powers don’t provide for any legitimate mechanism to impose this burden. Moreover, the provision meant to enforce so-called universal coverage is being called a tax, but in reality only falls on those individuals who don’t purchase health insurance. Thus, what is deemed a tax is in fact a penalty, which runs directly afoul of the Bill of Attainder prohibition located in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

Thus, the basic provisions of this bill don’t seem to pass constitutional muster on their face. While many liberals are rejoicing, and conservatives fretting about this massive government reordering or nearly 1/6 of the American economy, the only true accomplishment of this legislation may be as a jobs stimulus for constitutional lawyers who are sure to spend months and years fighting over its legality – a period in which Congressional majorities and even White House occupants may well change.

Health Care: Our Own Choices

Posted on by
3

Every now and then you come across an opinion piece written by someone on the Left that opens your eyes. Such was the case for a recent tome written for the Huffington Post by a gentleman named Evan Handler. Written in response to comments to an earlier essay, and in obvious haste and frustration, and so with considerable passion, his piece is an unvarnished look at the true thinking of the modern American Left, the so-called ‘progressives.’ Their vision of America is nothing short of radical and fundamental social and economic revolution – the total remaking of America – wrapped in a self-righteous package and delivered via government coercion. I encourage all of your to read it.
Handler’s article is entitled “America, I Love You. Americans, On the Other Hand…,” which is a sentiment that is both revealing and commonplace on the Left. Leftists like Handler love America, but as the title makes clear, he doesn’t love its people, we Americans. As the article further demonstrates, Leftists like Handler don’t much love its history, which they view mostly in terms of missed opportunities -the ugly realities being merely a train of quasi-imperialist human rights abuses driven by capitalist avarice. Handler, like most Leftists, doesn’t regard the present America with anything other than disdain – referring to our country as a racist, uncaring, international embarrassment.

Maybe Handler does love America, but if he doesn’t love its people, much of its past or its present, one has to wonder what part of America he and his Leftists do love? It is here I am reminded of a comment by a prominent American Leftist, who when asked what he loved about America, paused thoughtfully, and remarked revealingly, on his admiration for the American continent…as a land mass. Yes, the Leftists love America’s lakes, mountains, and rivers…it’s the rest of America they can’t stand.

The point isn’t to demonize Handler, but rather to demonstrate how much Handler and his allies daily demonize you; how much they regard you and the country you love as fundamentally misguided and in need of desperate and radical change based on their judgments about how the world “should be.” Thus we arrive at the formulaic heart of all progressive thinking: modern America is a nasty place, it needs to be changed by progressives into something they like better, and the government is the coercive means to that end. There is one more piece to the formula too, and it’s important when considering Handler’s profanity-laden article. Remember that the progressives see themselves as morally correct in their judgments, and that sense of self-righteousness must be fostered in order to motivate them to tackle the difficult task of radically reforming a change-resistant society. Thus, their viewpoint requires them both to believe in the righteousness of their cause and in the pure malevolence of those who oppose them. The result is that every effort is made at every opportunity to demonize those who stand in their way, hence his branding of all of us who don’t agree with him as ‘idiots’ and the introduction to the body of his article:
“First, to those opposed to any European-styled government subsidized health insurance option: I found every one of your arguments to be small-minded, selfish, fear-driven, ill-informed, self-serving, and — most crucially — detrimental to the long-term interests of the United States of America.”

As if someone so evidentially disdainful of everything uniquely American would somehow be an adequate or appropriate judge of what is in America’s best long-term interests.

Handler’s argument for why federally mandated and run health insurance is now essential, is contained in his earlier article, entitled, “Have You No Decency, Sir? At Long Last, Have You No Sense of Decency?” It is instructive to note that the title is a reference to Senator Joe McCarthy, a man the liberals love to hate, even 50 years after his death, and while they condemn his tactics, they employ them without hypocrisy at every step, in what columnist George Will has called ‘liberal McCarthyism,” – hence the notion that all those who disagree with President Obama must be motivated by racism.

With that basis in mind, let’s take a look at the substance of Handler’s arguments about why America requires a federal health insurance program, and here it is:

“…giving health care insurance to the most people possible is a very good thing to do. That’s why every other advanced nation on planet Earth does it — and most of them have far greater health than we enjoy, and spend much less on keeping it that way.”

That’s it folks. I’m afraid there’s not much more to it than that. Handler and his progressives think it’s ”a very good thing to do,” and that in the land of milk and honey – socialized Europe – it works just great…all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

How persuasive.

The rest of Handler’s article is devoted to excoriating Rep. Joe Wilson who (accurately) called attention to President Obama’s misleading assertions about health care benefits going to illegal aliens. As we now know, in addition to telling a whopper of a false anecdote about Otto Radditz, the man Obama claimed died as a result of being denied coverage by his evil insurer (he didn’t die, and his private insurance prolonged his life for 3 years), Obama claimed that the bill wouldn’t benefit non-citizen illegal aliens. We now know of course that like all government programs, enforcement is where the rubber meets the road; without an enforcement mechanism, limitations on beneficiaries are totally meaningless. It’s rather like saying that because robbery has been made illegal, it will never happen. Republicans in Congress tried to add amendments to the bill that would have provided for an enforcement mechanism (a requirement to show proof of U.S. citizenship), but the Democrats refused to include it knowing full-well that it would result in illegal aliens (an important future, and many say current voting block for the Democrats), being given access to health care that you and I pay for. In other words, break our laws by coming here illegally, stay as long as you like, don’t pay any income taxes, and get free education and health care on us as a reward. In the mind of the progressive, this is the world as it should be.

Of course, there we go being uncharitable again just like they say, but then it isn’t really charity were talking about is it? What Handler and his friends seek is not charitable giving – a voluntary act of compassion – it’s the government being empowered to take money you’ve earned and give it to someone Handler and his friends feel is more worthy – from each according to his ability, to each according to his need(citizen or not). It’s always easy to be “charitable” with someone else’s money isn’t it?

Unfortunately for Handler and his progressives, that inexplicable resistance they’re encountering on the part of the American people, belies an ideology grounded in a concept they cannot understand or accept – the American concept of a limited government. Handler implores his readers to have faith in the government: “I just encourage you all to look at it another way. Not how the government has failed you to this point, but at what the government might be offering now to improve upon the past.” It’s rather like hearing a recidivist wife-beater tell his spouse to have faith in his proposed pacifism. Handler’s naïve notion of government suddenly becoming responsible, efficient and self-limiting ignores 5,000 years of recorded human history with government, and is directly opposed both in spirit and substance to that pesky little document, the U.S. Constitution.

This of course is at the heart of the debate. For progressives, the Constitution is like a salad bar, a body of rules that you can pick and choose from, and even change as you like. Fundamental rights can be curtailed, interpreted, even abolished as long as it fits their concept of evolving standards of progressivism. For the rest of us, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, the guarantor of our sacred liberties, and a document with actual meaning. The Constitution is not some aspirational mission statement, it’s a contract between the people about what their government can and cannot do. If it’s anything else, it’s totally meaningless. What the Leftists can’t understand, or don’t want you to recognize, is that our limited form of government is the essence of America; it is a government of laws, not men, and it exists for a very limited purpose – to do those things a government must do, and nothing more.

Handler likes to point out that we are all immigrants to this land, but seems to decry the very American-ness that drove millions upon millions of us to come here. A land of unlimited opportunity thanks to a people who pride themselves on hard work and personal responsibility and a system of limited government that allows each man and woman to live his or her life as he or she sees fit; free to make the choices best for themselves and their families. Handler’s America is just the opposite. It is a land of government bureaucracy making choices for you with your money, and forcing you to conform to a lifestyle Handler approves of – it is the essence of the tyranny America was founded in opposition to. For Handler, government, big government, is absolutely essential – we are not only dependent upon it, but we are beholden to it. In his own words, “As corrupt and inefficient as your government is (and it clearly is), it’s the only thing keeping you alive moment to moment.”

One can imagine the likes of Kim Jong Il agreeing wholeheartedly.

Handler’s passion is to be admired, his motivations perhaps understood, but Handler’s methods, like those of so many zealous reformers before him, is not the road to a better society, but a path to bondage. No doubt like his political heroes, Handler makes the crucial error of prizing an elusive equality over an imperfect liberty. Handler would do well to remember the words of that famous European observer Alexis de Toqueville who wrote: “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Despite his contentions to the contrary, at some level Handler must know this. Thus, while he speaks glowingly of European progressivism, he and his European wife make their home here in America, and he makes his living writing and speaking his mind freely – a right still not wholly enjoyed by the people of modern, progressive, Europe.

To those who have considered whether federal health care is worth the risks, consider the essence of the argument being put before you: A political minority in the country, which currently holds a political majority in the government, wants to impose, through a party-line legislative procedure never before used, a mandate upon you to purchase health insurance from their government program, whether or not you want to…and will penalize you if you do not. The ask you to take this step willingly, despite the fact that our constitution does not authorize it, and despite the fact that it will place them in effective control of 13% of our entire economy. They ask you to do so on the strength of their assurances that this program will work well, despite the legendary inefficiency and profligate wastefulness of a government that they concede is corrupt. They ask you to believe that it will somehow cost us all far less than we’re paying now, while preserving the quality of health care that our free market gave to us – a quality not enjoyed by any nation with the kind of system they wish to adopt. Oh, and one more thing, they haven’t yet figured out how they’re going to pay for it, but this ruling elite knows it will somehow not add to the nearly insurmountable debt which they have already piled upon us.

The argument in favor of federal health care is more than preposterous, it’s a duplicitous fantasy. It is perpetrated by those who dislike the America we love, and it is designed to replace a system of liberty with one of equality – a system where the government is, quite literally, the only thing keeping you alive, moment to moment. We would do well to remember our obligation to those who went before us and who bequeathed to us the liberties we enjoy, as well as to those who will follow us, those who depend upon our courage, our intelligence and our love of liberty to provide them with theirs. We would do well to remember the words of Thomas Jefferson who declared, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”


So what are we to do? Surely there must be some answer to making our excellent health care a little more affordable? There is, and instinctively, every common-sense, liberty-loving American knows the answer. It’s the answer we have relied upon time and again, the answer that has transformed a frontier nation of destitute immigrants into the wealthiest, strongest, and most free nation ever to grace our world – let us each make our own choices! If you don’t want to buy health insurance, the federal government of the United States should not make you. If you live in California and want to buy insurance from a company in Florida, the federal government of the United States should not prevent you. If you and your neighbor want to pool your resources to gain greater bargaining power, Congress shouldn’t stop you. If your doctor doesn’t feel you need superfluous tests, he should be forced to administer them out of fear of lawsuits.

The answers to our health care dilemma are out there, and they don’t need more than 50 new government bureaucracies and nine hundred billion dollars of your money to be discovered. It merely requires each of us to remember our history as Americans, our obligations as citizens, and our God-given right to make our own choices as free people.

Where is the change?

Posted on by
3

Barack the RedeemerDuring the election we were force fed the idea that Obama would take office and things would change. We were told that the change would be important, it would not be granular changes, but large philosophical changes. The left bought this hook line and sinker.

Let’s look at the broad picture.

The left hated Geo. W Bush because he used the events of 9/11 as pre-text to further a neo-conservative foreign policy.

So what does Obama do do in his first month in office? He uses the economic crisis as pre-text to roll out a leftist economic agenda and democratic spending package.

It was this “false” pre-text of 9/11 that caused the left to latch onto Obama for he was going to light the way and steer us clear of typical Washington politics. No, God forbid anyone question the President or any democrat about this double standard

What is amazing is that the left did not have buy into this charade. Many rational Americans saw through Obama’s thin veneer. The left had an option: Hillary. As much as I dislike her, I don’t think she is a wolf in sheeps clothing, she is just a wolf. In this administration she and Geithner are about the only rational people in the WHite House. In any event, regardless of who would have won the democratic ticket we would have had the same economic policies as it was Pelosi and Reid who developed the recovery package, not the savior Obama. He was just too weak willed to come out against the plastic usrgery machine that is Nancy Pelosi.

Oops, I guess Bush got it right.

Posted on by
4

CNN is reporting that the Obama adminstration will maintain the Bush administrations policies regarding detainees in Afghanistan. Wait … what?

I guess Bush got something right:

“WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Obama administration told a federal court late Friday it will maintain the Bush administration’s position that battlefield detainees held without charges by the United States in Afghanistan are not entitled to constitutional rights to challenge their detention.”

Source

Its the change the left has been looking for.