Friday, March 23rd, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections, Family Values, Issues
Is it too much to ask for Republicans to be somewhat ..er Republican? Excuse us for trying to be “purist” and for “purging” anyone who fails to agree with us 100000% of the time, but isn’t this a bit much?
As the only Republican Congressman at a rally for the Equal Rights Amendment on Thursday, Rep. Richard Hanna (R-N.Y.) gave women an unexpected piece of advice: Give your money to Democrats.
“I think these are very precarious times for women, it seems. So many of your rights are under assault,” he told the crowd of mostly women. “I’ll tell you this: Contribute your money to people who speak out on your behalf, because the other side — my side — has a lot of it. And you need to send your own message. You need to remind people that you vote, you matter, and that they can’t succeed without your help.”
Now, let’s come out with the disclaimer up front. We understand that this is a swing district and we will not elect a Jim DeMint here. But is it too much to ask for our party that we elect a guy who supports Republicans? Moreover, this is not exactly Nancy Pelosi’s district. In fact, this upstate New York district (NY-24) is rated as R+2 by Charlie Cook. To view that in its proper context, take a look at the neighboring 24th district. It’s rated D+3, yet the incumbent, Ann Marie Buerkle, is staunchly pro-life.
Folks, we’ve got a lot of work to do.
Friday, March 23rd, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections
If we ever desire to win a conservative majority even within the Republican conference, we must elect unvarnished conservatives in solid red states like Nebraska. That’s why we are supporting Don Stenberg, a man who has held consistent conservative views, for Senate.
Unfortunately, Jon Bruning is spending a lot of money convincing people that he is something that he never was before he decided to run for Senate. As Erick Erickson pointed out, not only did Bruning lobby for the confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General and Tom Perez as Assistant Attorney General and head of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, he refuses to admit it was a mistake, even after Holder has proven himself to be the worst man to ever hold that office.
Yesterday, Bruning doubled down on his support for Holder during an interview with a local radio station in Omaha. What was even more appalling was his attempt to rationalize that support by suggesting that Holder was going to be confirmed anyway so he felt that it was prudent to be “reasonable” and “supportive” of guy who they’d have to work with. Towards the end of the clip, he went on to assert that he definitely opposes some of the things Holder and Tom Perez have done in the Justice Department.
Folks, this statement exemplifies to the nth degree what is wrong with the current crop of GOP leaders in the Senate. That is exactly what they believe; when you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. A true statesman leads from the front and stands on principle even against the odds. In this instance, he was urging sitting senators, not just state attorneys general, to support Holder.
It is simply astounding that somebody would so brazenly stand by their support for Eric Holder after his calamitous three years in office. It is unconscionable that we would nominate this guy from a state like Nebraska. I’ll say it again, and will keep repeating it throughout the campaign season: if we can’t elect reasonably consistent conservatives from states like this, then we should pack up our bags and forget about winning in politics.
We don’t have to settle for a ‘when you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em’ Republican. Let’s help elect Don Stenberg, a man who will vote and advocate against radical nominees, irrespective of how likely they are to succeed.
Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under News
I’m sure you won’t see Dick Lugar touting this endorsement wherever he goes.
Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Debt
Here is a debt milestone that we surpassed this week, yet you won’t read about it anywhere in the media. The gross federal debt has increased more under Obama in just 3.2 years than it did during Bush’s entire 8-year tenure. And Bush was no limited government conservative either.
When President Bush was sworn in on January 20, 2001, the total federal debt stood at $5.728 trillion. On January 20, 2009, the day he left office, the debt had increased to $10.629 trillion, a jump of $4.9 trillion. Just 38 months later, the debt has increased another $4.954 trillion to a grand total of $15.583 trillion! Amazingly, $4.514 trillion, or 91% of the debt increase comes from the public share of the debt, which now stands at $10.8 trillion.
We should also keep in mind that we are on pace to breach the $16.394 trillion debt limit before the November elections, even with the uptick in revenue. That means that he will have amassed almost $6 billion in debt by the time he, God willing, leaves office next January. And it’s not just the $6 billion. He has set us on such an unsustainable trajectory that we will never achieve a balanced budget without massive restructuring of government. If Obama’s proposed budget blueprint was allowed to come to fruition, the federal debt would reach $26 trillion in 10 years assuming rosy revenue predictions.
As Obama runs around the country advocating tax hikes for the rich, the media will conceal Obama’s biggest milestone – one that no degree of tax increases could ever countermand.
Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under News
Is there a single issue where Romney has been consistent, even one has basic as energy policy? No. The New Republic has the goods on Romney’s support for conservation and less driving as governor of Massachusetts:
At moments, Romney went so far as to make high gas prices out to be a welcome reality for the foreseeable future, one that people needed to learn to live with. When lieutenant governor Kerry Healey, a fellow Republican, called for suspending the state’s 23.5 cent gas tax during a price spike in May 2006, Romney rejected the idea, saying it would only further drive up gasoline consumption. “I don’t think that now is the time, and I’m not sure there will be the right time, for us to encourage the use of more gasoline,” Romney said, according to the Quincy Patriot Ledger’s report at the time. “I’m very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay.” [...]
But at other times, he was fearless about pushing policies that would increase prices at the pump. Just a few months into his first term in 2003, his administration pushed for expanding a fee on wholesale fuel deliveries that resulted in a two-cent per-gallon price increase at the pump. The fee went toward a state fund that paid for cleaning spills and leaks at gas stations and had been running low.
Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Elections
It appears that the grandfather of Obamacare is slated to become the Republican nominee for president. There’s not much we can do in the realm of presidential politics except hope that the new page on the Etch A Sketch will be better than the old one. At present, the most consequential thing we can do as conservatives is to follow the congressional elections in every state, and advocate, campaign, and donate to the most conservative candidates in each district. In the plethora of open districts, that means sorting through a bunch of new candidates; in a district with a milquetoast incumbent, that means supporting the best viable challenger.
If the spiritless Republican members in Democrat and swing districts were the sum of our problems, we would be in good shape. The appalling thing is that there are numerous red states and districts that are represented, at best, by members who vote in line with leadership, and at worst, by members who are big-government statists. If we continue to elect big-government statists from red districts, including some of the most conservative ones in the country, then we will be consigned to permanent minority status, even within the Republican conference. Do we really desire for our most promising result in the November elections to be a moderate president with a Congress controlled by the same leadership? If the answer is no, we better get to work on congressional elections. A good place to start is with the mediocre red state incumbents.
It is clear from this week’s defeat of Don Manzullo that we will have an uphill task in replacing entrenched statist Republicans. On Tuesday night, we lost a conservative, even with the benefit of seniority. It will be even harder when we are challenging veterans with newcomers that have little or no name ID. Members of the media are constantly publishing polls showing how congressional approval is in the single digits, yet voters in individual districts keep returning their incumbent to office.
We need to get moving on some of these races. Here is a list of Republicans that clearly underperform based upon the demographics of their district, and have either attracted opponents or could still get a challenger before the state’s filing deadline. In other words, these are the districts where we can actually affect change. Many of these challengers won’t be viable, but that is not an excuse for automatically rubber stamping every incumbent with another term in office without a second look.
Let’s start with the incumbents. We’ll also need to deal with the open seats in the coming days.
Thursday, March 22nd, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Family Values, News
According to Survey USA, North Carolina residents support the proposed ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage by a margin of 58-36%. The amendment has 2:1 support in Charlotte and Western NC and in Southern and Coastal NC; 4:1 support among Republicans, 7:1 support among Tea Party members, and 8:1 support among those who call themselves “very conservative.” Even Democrats are evenly split. This should help Republicans in numerous congressional races this fall.
Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog
Throughout the presidential campaign, we have been lampooned by the pale-pastel wing of the party for not coalescing around the Romney campaign with alacrity. Our detractors have been stupefied by our stubborn opposition to “the only candidate who can beat Obama;” the man with the requisite resume, funding, organization, intelligence, and persona.
We’ve been at a loss to encapsulate our opposition into a one-liner; a bumper sticker. After all, it takes copious pages of ink to explain the extent of Romney’s hypocrisy on the issue of healthcare alone. Yet, late in the 11th hour of the campaign, when it’s probably too late to make a difference, we have finally discovered our symbol that exemplifies Romney. Ironically, it came from his own campaign.
Romney’s communication director, Eric Fehrnstrom, had the following exchange with a CNN host:
Host: Is there a concern that Santorum and Gingrich might force the governor to tack so far to the right it would hurt him with moderate voters in the general election?
Fehrnstrom: Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch A Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.
Aha! That’s exactly what we were looking for! There is no symbol that emblematizes Mitt Romney more than an Etch A Sketch.
Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Debt
As we approach the March 31 expiration date for surface transportation projects, we can take solace in the fact that the House will not vote on two bad bills; Boehner’s original 5-year $260 billion reauthorization and the Senate’s 2-year $109 billion bill. While we push for a more prudent long-term solution, the House will pass a 90-day stopgap bill to continue spending at current levels until the end of July.
While funding transportation projects with short-term bills is not ideal, it is better than passing a lousy long-term bill that cannot be altered for several years. Democrats are already launching their cantankerous assaults on the “irresponsible” stopgap bill, but we must remind them of two points that are overlooked in this debate.
First, since when has providing certainty to the transportation industry become a desideratum for Democrats? The last long-term surface transportation bill expired September 30, 2009. In other words, Democrats had 15 months of unfettered control of government, yet they failed to pass a long-term bill. Now that we have an ideological divide over numerous issues, they are suddenly in a rush to pass a long-term bill. Please spare us the contrived outrage.
Moreover, the fact that Washington gridlock is able to encumber the majority of transportation projects for 50 states just serves to underscore the reason why we should devolve transportation spending to the states. Since the completion of the Interstate Highway System in 1992, there is simply no reason why states shouldn’t levy their own taxes and manage their own highway projects, leaving the few projects with national scope to the federal government. If a state wants to fund public transportation, then let them have the debate about higher gasoline taxes on a local level. At present, there are 28 donor states – states that contribute more money than they receive in transportation funding. This is utter nonsense.
Wednesday, March 21st, 2012 by Daniel Horowitz and is filed under Blog, Economy
We often forget one of the most pernicious and regressive taxes on American consumers; inflation. Thanks to the burgeoning national debt and the loose money policies of the Fed (near-zero interest rates and quantitative easing), our dollar is as weak as it’s ever been. But you won’t hear Obama blame his monetary stimulus policies for exacerbating already-high gas prices.
The reason for the high gas prices is simple. The global and American economies run on oil, and the supply of oil is not keeping up with the demand. In the United States, we are barred from drilling for oil in numerous locations and we have not built an oil refinery in 35 years. Moreover, government interventions in the market, such as the ethanol mandate, along with draconian EPA regulations on fuel blends and transportation restrictions, have raised the cost of bringing the final product to the pump. Unfortunately, this is all old news.
Charles Kadlec of Forbes online puts forth a compelling argument that the weak dollar is also contributing significantly to the rise in oil prices. Kadlec explains it like this:
Page 3 of 11«12345...10...»Last »