We are constantly subjected to the tired bromide from GOP leaders that they can’t be expected to govern with just one-half of 1/3 of government. However, as we all understand, they might not be able to pass good legislation but they can use their power to block bad legislation. At a minimum, shouldn’t we be able to block funding for “Arab Spring governments”?
Last week, the Senate Appropriations Committee not only approved Obama’s request for a fund to support the Arab Spring governments, they allocated $1 billion, 30% more than the president’s request. You read that correctly. We are sending $1 billion of our money to entities such as the Muslim Brotherhood. The provision, which was part of the draft appropriations bill for State and Foreign Operations (S.3241), was approved by every member of the Committee except Ron Johnson.
Can anyone explain why Republicans would willingly support such a travesty?
Here’s a list of Republicans who supported this bill:
The Club for Growth released a memo today on the current state of the TX Senate run-off. Bottom line-David Dewhurst’s chance to win this Senate race was Tuesday, May 29th. Given the trend lines and with the national attention this race is about to receive, his numbers are headed south while Madison Project endorsee Ted Cruz continues to surge. This could be a long 60 days for David Dewhurst that sees him spend a lot of his own money and still lose on July 31st.
We are proud to roll out our next conservative endorsement: Sam Aanestad
While we are all focused on the presidential campaign and some of the seminal battles in the Senate, the establishment is working overtime to fill the open House seats with like-minded candidates. Nobody is focusing on the California presidential primary next Tuesday because Romney already clinched the nomination. However, there is an important battle between the two factions of the party over an open House seat in the northeast corner of the state.
California is often viewed as a deep blue state that is incorrigibly out of reach for Republicans. However, we must remember that there are large swaths of the state that still lean Republican. In those areas, we must fill the Congressional districts with conservatives.
Let’s be honest. Very few of the 19 Republicans representing California are conservatives. We need more insurgents to join the leading California conservative, Rep. Tom McClintock, in his effort to battle the moderate Republicans in California and elsewhere in the country. Due to redistricting and vacancies, there are a number of open seats, but few of them are attracting conservative talent.
District 1, being vacated by Wally Herger (formerly named district 2), is an exception to this unfortunate reality. That’s because former state senator Sam Aanestad is running for the seat.
During his tenure in the state Assembly and state Senate, Sam has been one of the few bright spots in the California Republican Party. He has consistently supported the free-market from the nanny-state onslaught of both parties in this near-failed state.
He plans to substantiate his unvarnished support for free-markets by running on a platform to phase out farm subsidies and crop insurance, even though he hails from a farming district. It’s high time we stop electing Republicans from some of our most conservative districts who claim to support the free market except for the aspects that are unpopular at home. Rural dependency is just as bad as urban dependency, and Aanestad, unlike his main rival, is willing to say such. His rival, Doug LaMalfa is a big supporter of government subsidies. Republican Whip Kevin McCarthy is also working overtime to ensure that he wins and that McClintock is denied a key ally in the state’s delegation. Republican leaders don’t want someone who will call them out for the debt ceiling like Aanestad has done.
According to the latest data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, GDP grew at a dismal rate of 1.9% in the first quarter of 2012 as opposed to the 2.2% that was initially reported. This would be a mediocre number during a regular time in the business cycle. It is an unmitigated disaster this far into the “recovery” from such a deep recession. This is the sort of growth that European countries have experienced in recent years.
Yesterday, Obama signed the extension of the charter for the Export-Import corporate welfare bank. Luckily, The Republican Study Committee is here to remind us of Obama’s comments railing against the bank while he was running for president in 2008.
It’s another week in Washington, and another story is out containing a plethora of quotes from Republicans who are willing to “put revenues on the table.” Here are some quotes from today’s article in Politico:
“Nobody wants to raise taxes, but the question is can you lower tax rates, lower loopholes and deductions and apply that to debt reduction? I think the answer is yes,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.). “If our position is every time you eliminated deductions and exemptions, all of it has to go to bring down rates, how do you pay off the debt?” […]
Added Sen. Mike Johanns (R-Neb.): “My impression is if you brought rates down, did real meaningful tax reform, the additional revenue would not be a deal-killer for many.”
Others suggested that it’s time for their party to show more willingness to deal on the tax issue.
“I think it’s the type of platform that we have to look at: It looks at spending; it looks at revenues; it looks at entitlements,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.).
“I think there are revenues that are available out there that we ought to be taking a look at,” such as tax breaks for oil companies, said Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.).
Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine moderate, said she believes “the demands of the deficit require us to look at both sides of the ledger, both the spending side and the revenue side.”
What a heartburn! With the exception of Susan Collins, these senators are considered to be members in good standing within the Republican conference.
Social conservatives are sure racking up a lot of victories for an issue that is supposedly a political liability and a loser at the ballot box. After winning 61% against gay marriage and civil unions in North Carolina, one might think that it’s just those intolerant homophobic states in the south that are so out of touch to think that marriage should actually consist of …gasp..a man and a woman. Well, let’s take a trip to Maryland, often regarded as the most Democrat state in the country.
Earlier this year, with the help of two Republicans in the state House of Delegates, left-wing politicians passed a gay marriage bill which was signed by Governor Martin O’Malley. Immediately, conservatives mobilized to organize a petition referendum in the hope of placing the issue before the voters on the ballot this November. A total of 55,700 valid signatures are needed by June 30, with the first batch due today, May 30.
So how many signatures were submitted? 122,481! That’s a lot of hateful racists out there, especially for such a blue state.
The effort is being spearheaded by an online site, https://mdpetitions.com/, which helps volunteers download the exact information that is needed to execute a successful drive. The driving force behind the effort is freshman delegate Neil Parrott from western Maryland. The total cost was a paltry $18,000. Much of the legwork was backed by the Maryland Marriage Alliance.
It’s ironic how the two most successful petition drives in Maryland history occurred during the past two years and were directed at striking down the MD dream act and gay marriage. Those are two issues that the bloviating class of Republican pundits believe to be liabilities for Republicans. We’ll find out what happens when these two issues are placed before the voters of Maryland in November, but if we win in such a blue state, it would be nice if the equivocating leaders of our party would take notice of reality.
It’s game time for the conservative movement. With the Wisconsin recall fizzling out by the day, it appears that the runoff between Dewhurst and Cruz will be the most important battle for conservatives this year. We must not sit this one out!
Last night Dewhurst won by just 10.4 points, despite enjoying a bigger lead in the polls throughout the entire duration of the campaign. He garnered 44.6% to Cruz’s 34.2%. There will be a runoff July 31, which gives us plenty of time to make up the margin.
I noticed that many supporters and detractors of Cruz expressed their surprise over the fact that Dewhurst still won by 10 points. After all, they contended, if Cruz is such an attractive candidate, why didn’t he come out on top? How is he going to make up the margin in the runoff?
There are a few points to consider. First, although Cruz is a household name among conservative activists, he was an unknown quantity to most voters, even Republican primary voters. That’s why he was polling in the single digits for a long time. Dewhurst, on the other hand, is the sitting Lt. Governor for a decade who has full name recognition and the backing of the entire establishment, not to mention Rick Perry. He has unlimited personal wealth to go up on the air and distort his record and the record of his opponent. Ted Cruz has made steady progress throughout the campaign, and last night’s results reflect that upward trajectory. The votes cast on election day itself split 41.4% for Dewhurst and 38.1% for Cruz.
More importantly, we must remember that moderate Republicans never run as moderates anymore, at least not in the primaries. While it is patently obvious to those of us in the field that Cruz is a conservative star and that Dewhurst helped grow government in the Texas legislature, that is not necessarily the narrative that is communicated to the majority of voters. In fact, Dewhurst has used all his money to evince a conservative image while painting Cruz as a pro-amnesty China-loving pinko liberal! Fred Upton is doing the same in Michigan, as he sends out think mailers every week painting his conservative challenger as a tax and spend liberal.
We are always told that Americans are clamoring for compromise and are reviled by overzealous partisanship. Well, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, it’s not just “extremist” Republicans who desire a leader who places convictions above compromise. Those surveyed favored conviction over compromise by 56-38%.