Combs Spouts Off

"It's my opinion and it's very true."

  • Calendar

    December 2025
    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    28293031  
  • Recent Posts

  • Tag Cloud

  • Archives

Posts Tagged ‘republicans’

Curious pledge demographics

Posted by Richard on January 30, 2007

Last Thursday, I wrote about The NRSC Pledge, a grass-roots online protest — with teeth! — against the vertebrae-challenged Senate Republicans. The pledge is a promise not to contribute to any Republican senator who votes for a resolution disapproving the Iraq "troop surge" plan and not to contribute to the NRSC if it supports such a senator. Over 30,000 people have electronically signed it in the past five days, and this nice map shows the number of signers in each state. I’m amazed by some of the numbers.

California (population 36 million*) has by far the largest number of signers — over 6,000. Second is Texas (pop. 23 million) with about 2,500. Colorado (pop. 4.5 million) takes third place with over 2,200. Arizona (6 million), Florida (18 million), and Minnesota (5 million) all have around 1,300 signers — and no other state has over 1,000!

Look at some of the other big states — Illinois (13 million) has under 1,000, New York (20 million) and Pennsylvania (12.5 million) have fewer than 800 each, and New Jersey (8.7 million) has just over 400.

It’s not just a red state / blue state thing, either. Alabama is a decidedly red state with about the same population as Colorado, but one-tenth as many signers. North Carolina has twice Colorado’s population, but one-fourth the signers. The numbers for the smaller-population western states are pitiful: Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas have about 50 signers each, Idaho about 100, and Utah about 200.

So, how does Colorado end up hot on the heels of Texas, which has over five times our population, and far ahead of any comparable-population state? Are we that much more internet-oriented? That much more politically aware? That much less tolerant of hypocrisy and self-serving posturing? You got me.

And, yes, I most certainly do think these resolutions are self-serving posturing. The Senate just unanimously approved Gen. Petraeus. That so many senators are eager to go on record against what ought to be called the Petraeus Plan (he helped formulate it and strongly endorsed it in his Senate testimony) is an indication of how unserious and inconsistent they are. That they’re ignoring warnings by Petraeus and others about the harm their posturing does is an indication of how craven and contemptible they are.

So, have you signed the pledge yet? Why not do it right now? Oh, and if you have any theories about the participation rate differences, especially Colorado’s stand-out performance, drop them in the comments.

* All population numbers are rounded off from the 2005 figures at Infoplease.com.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A sorry spectacle

Posted by Richard on January 27, 2007

Yesterday, as I skimmed through the posts at Hugh Hewitt’s blog looking for updates on The NRSC Pledge, I skipped Dean Barnett’s post, Being Norm. That was a mistake I’ve since rectified — it’s a must-read. Barnett wrote about Sen. Norm Coleman, a solid conservative Republican whom Barnett really, really liked. Coleman, apparently with one eye on his 2008 re-election campaign, is supporting the Warner resolution.

Barnett expressed his displeasure and described how a politician who aspires to be a statesman ought to behave — and how he ought not:

Winston Churchill, after seeing to Great Britain’s survival, was unceremoniously dumped by the British electorate in favor of the supremely mediocre Clement Atlee in July of 1945. Lord knows I’m not comparing Coleman to Churchill; my point is sometimes outstanding public service is not rewarded at the ballot box.

If you enter the political arena, perhaps an understanding of that fact should be a personal prerequisite. At some point, in the course of doing what’s right, the voters may reject you. And lord knows if Great Britain could survive in 1945 without Churchill at the helm, the United States could weather the absence of Norm Coleman in the Senate.

Yesterday saw the sorry spectacle of John Kerry tearing up on the floor of the Senate as he announced he would not seek the presidency in 2008. As Roger Simon pointed out, it’s worth asking who the tears were for. Certainly Kerry wasn’t crying about the death of a Kerry agenda. Beyond his personal ambitions, there has never been a Kerry agenda.

John Kerry was crying for himself and the dashing of those ambitions. What a pathetic display. …

The fact that he chose to cry tears of self-pity from the Senate floor because he would not achieve his dreams speaks eloquently to what drove him, what consumed him and where his priorities have always been.

Contact Sen. Coleman and ask him if he wants to emulate Winston Churchill or John Kerry.

You have signed the pledge, haven’t you? Over 20,000 25,000 people have.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Take the pledge

Posted by Richard on January 26, 2007

On Tuesday, Gen. Petraeus testified that the Biden-Warner resolution opposing the Bush plan for Iraq, or any other similar resolution, would encourage the enemy and demoralize our troops. By all accounts, Gen. Petraeus is a highly competent, honorable, and intelligent military leader, and his opinion on this subject should carry considerable weight.

But it doesn’t take an expert in military strategy and tactics to understand the consequences of the cowardliness in the Capitol. The Islamofascists have long maintained that the West lacks the will for a sustained fight, and will run away when things get too difficult or bloody. And we already know from seized al Qaeda in Iraq documents that if we abandon Iraq, our enemies will eagerly follow us back here.

Iraq is not an isolated war, it’s one front in a much larger war. At this moment, Lebanon is on the brink of civil war, and an emboldened Hezbollah seems to be preparing to seize control. Do you suppose this is unrelated to the growing evidence of America’s wavering resolve?

ln the long run, retreat from Iraq will likely lead to at least hundreds of thousands and probably millions of deaths in Iraq, and to thousands or tens of thousands of deaths in the United States — maybe more. Who knows how many more will die at the hands of emboldened and strengthened Islamofascists in Lebanon, Israel, India, Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, Australia, Britain, France, the Netherlands, …

The more that spineless Republicans and Democrats appear eager to run away from Iraq, the more al Qaeda in Iraq and Iran’s proxies must think that they’re just a few horrific IED blasts and another handful of American deaths from achieving politically what they can’t achieve militarily. Set aside for the moment the terrible long-term consequences of retreat — right now, today, this very moment, the Biden and Warner resolutions and their colleagues’ related hand-wringing and posturing are directly responsible for encouraging more violence and killing more Americans and Iraqis. It’s disgusting and contemptible and unforgivable.

This morning I joined 6100 other people (that number has since more than doubled tripled quadrupled) in signing The NRSC Pledge, which says:

If the United States Senate passes a resolution, non-binding or otherwise, that criticizes the commitment of additional troops to Iraq that General Petraeus has asked for and that the president has pledged, and if the Senate does so after the testimony of General Petraeus on January 23 that such a resolution will be an encouragement to the enemy, I will not contribute to any Republican senator who voted for the resolution. Further, if any Republican senator who votes for such a resolution is a candidate for re-election in 2008, I will not contribute to the National Republican Senatorial Committee unless the Chairman of that Committee, Senator Ensign, commits in writing that none of the funds of the NRSC will go to support the re-election of any senator supporting the non-binding resolution.

Hugh Hewitt, the quintessential Republican Party loyalist, helped start this effort, and he explained why tonight with four little words: "The war trumps party." I couldn’t agree more.

I also won’t contribute to any organization or PAC — such as the Club for Growth or the GOA PVF — that funnels money to any such senator. Gaius of Blue Crab Boulevard, who has a son serving in Iraq, made this additional promise:

I’ll go one better on the pledge. I WILL actively work against any Republican up for reelection who votes for a resolution – like Chucky "Dead to me" Hagel did. If our politicians are too stupid to see what kind of message they are sending to the world with their grandstanding, then they do not have the best interests of this country in mind and do not deserve to stay in office.

Good idea. I’m not a big-bucks contributor — I’m guessing all my campaign contributions last year amounted to not much over two grand. But I will be contributing to the primary opponents of Republicans who don’t stand with their president on this issue — and I’ll start with a contribution to anyone who challenges Sen. Warner. I’ll give a pass to a few GOP representatives (Ron Paul comes to mind) who opposed the war on principle from the beginning — they’ve followed their conscience all along.

But these gutless GOP wonders with their fingers in the wind who pander to a fickle public on this life-or-death matter (but don’t have the integrity or fortitude to actually prohibit appropriations from being used to increase troop levels)? They deserve to be punished. Please join me — sign the pledge. Then contact senators on Hewitt’s hit list and tell them to grow a spine or else.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“This is their majority”

Posted by Richard on January 17, 2007

Earlier this month, I noted that some Republican senators seemed practically giddy about being "liberated" from the burden of being in the majority. The same is apparently true in the House, where many, if not most, Republicans seem to favor rolling over and letting the Democrats do as they please. According to the Washington Times, only a few "pit bull" Republicans want to actively oppose the Democrats’ agenda (emphasis added):

The younger pit bulls want to go after the Democrats quickly and without remorse. Some of the older Republican stalwarts prefer sitting back and allowing new Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her party members to have their moment in the sun and govern accordingly.

Several Republicans confirmed privately that more than two-thirds of House Republicans are favoring a slow approach, while a minority of members think the attacks on Democrats should come rapid-fire.

Already, some say the opposition has been too quiet in allowing Democrats to pass key elements of their initial agenda.

There have been four major votes on Democratic bills since Congress convened under the new majority earlier this month. Of those, 24 Republicans crossed the line to support changes to Medicare, 37 voted with Democrats to expand funding for embryonic stem-cell research, 68 voted to implement more recommendations of the September 11 commission, and 82 Republicans voted for increasing the minimum wage.

Some Republicans privately fumed at these votes and noted that Democrats in the last Congress were far more united against the Republican majority’s bills.

"It’s the beginning of a long process," said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee. "This is their majority, and they have the right, even though I think a lot of their policies have more political utility than practicability."

"We’ve shown we can work together with Democrats on some issues, but our differences will become progressively clearer," he said.

Rep. Cole, for years, the Democrats have called you and your colleagues heartless monsters, racists, and planet destroyers, and they’ve fought tooth and nail against every Republican bill, resolution, and nomination. If the differences still aren’t clear to you, that reflects rather poorly on you and the rest of the GOP leadership.

The chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee is defending the Democrats’ right to prevail. The chairman of the National Republican Campaign Committee is defending his fellow Republicans’ voting with the Dems in droves. What’s wrong with this picture?

In the entire twelve years that the GOP controlled the House, do you think even one Democrat ever said, "It’s their majority, and they have the right"?

It’s a shame that the Democrats have no effective opposition. A two-party system works so much better if both parties stand for something and possess a modicum of skill, tenacity, and dedication to their professed principles.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Cheerfully ceding control

Posted by Richard on January 5, 2007

Just as there are some women who find it "liberating" to be subservient and confined to a burqa, there are some Republicans who are much more comfortable with the Democrats in charge and their own party in the minority. For the past umpteen years, many Republicans have acted as if they were still the minority, preferring to let the Democrats set the agenda and define the terms of debate. Now, they’re acting as if they’re relieved that the Democrats are back in charge:

“The place is like a bubbling bottle of Champagne, overflowing with joy and hope and civility,” said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia. And to think, this guy is in the minority now.

“People want us to stop acting like kindergarten kids,” said Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee.

The Warners, Alexanders, and Snowes of the Republican Party have been "liberated" from the burdens of governing, effectively promoting "core beliefs" they only pretend to have, and opposing ideas they don’t really oppose. Now they can go back to being the "loyal opposition," politely but ineffectually mouthing platitudes about limited government, fiscal responsibility, and all that other nonsense that they never really believed and didn’t want to implement. And they can go back to doing what they like best — schmoozing and compromising and back-scratching.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Not a Lott to cheer about

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

Senate Republicans chose Trent Lott over Lamar Alexander as the minority whip. That’s choosing awful over terrible. Or maybe terrible over dreadful. It’s hard for me to keep the fine gradations of undesirability among these guys straight.

Dean Barnett pegged the sarcasm meter when he hailed the Senate Republicans for so quickly heeding the electorate’s plea for more Trent Lott. He continued:

Is it just me, or is it becoming increasingly apparent that the Republicans and Democrats are determined to engage in a two year dumb-off? If it weren’t for the fact that there are some very determined lunatics out there trying to kill us, this would be funny.

But they are out there, so it isn’t.

In the dumb-off scoring, the Dems can retake the lead by going with Rep. Murtha as House majority leader. But I suspect there will be plenty of lead changes in the next couple of years. The stupidity competition between the two parties is at the same time funny, sad, and infuriating. It’s also the cause of growing cynicism among the electorate, and I can’t decide whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing from a libertarian perspective.

It does disturb me that I have to depend on this collection of clueless chumps to make the right decisions regarding those very determined lunatics.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

GOP leadership vote now is wrong

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

About a bazillion bloggers, myself included, have expressed dissatisfaction with the current GOP congressional leadership and with its effort to hurry a vote so it can maintain its control of the House Republican Conference for the next Congress.

The vote is currently scheduled for this Friday, and a number of big hitters, including Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed, have expressed displeasure with what Hugh called "the arrogance of a defeated leadership doing a bum’s rush" when what’s called for is reasoned debate, agreement on a set of "First Principles," and then the selection of leaders.

What I haven’t seen is a more fundamental criticism of this hurried vote. Regarding the Congressional leadership, the Dirksen Congressional Center says this (emphasis added):

At the beginning of each two-year congressional session, members of the House of Representatives and the Senate meet separately to organize and select their leaders. The Republicans call their internal party organization the "Conference" while Democrats call their party organization the "Caucus."

Both parties in each chamber hold organizational meetings where their members elect their own leadership, adopt internal rules for how their party will operate, and draft their version of the institutional rules for either the House or the Senate. These meetings are closed to the public and to the press.

Excuse me, Republican leaders, but this Friday is not the beginning of the congressional session. And unless I’m very confused, the members of the House Republican Conference who will vote this Friday are the current members. At least 29 of those voting (probably more, since 8 races are undecided and I think there are some retirements) won’t be members of the next Congress. What business do they have helping to elect the party’s leadership for the next Congress? Most of them are part of the reason that the next House Republican Conference will be in the minority!

This "hurry up and vote" business is a bunch of BS, and Republicans with any guts and integrity at all ought to stand up and say so.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

“Stay the course”: right for Dems, wrong for GOP

Posted by Richard on November 15, 2006

It’s rather ironic, isn’t it? The Democrats succeeded in last Tuesday’s elections largely by appearing cleaner ethically and running moderate and conservative candidates. So Nancy Pelosi wants to celebrate the success of that strategy by dumping Steny Hoyer, who implemented it, and making an ethically challenged moonbat, John Murtha, the new majority leader. Even the Washington Post was struck by the stupidity of that:

Mr. Murtha’s candidacy is troubling for several reasons, beginning with his position on the war in Iraq. A former Marine, Mr. Murtha deserves credit for sounding an alarm about the deteriorating situation a year ago. But his descriptions of the stakes there have been consistently unrealistic, and his solutions irresponsible. …

Mr. Murtha would also be the wrong choice as majority leader after an election in which a large number of voters expressed unhappiness with Washington business as usual. Mr. Murtha has been a force against stronger ethics and lobbying rules. …

As a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, he has been an avid participant in the orgy of earmarking, including numerous projects sought by a lobbying firm that employed his brother. During the Abscam congressional bribery investigation in 1980, Mr. Murtha was videotaped discussing a bribe with an undercover FBI agent. ("You know, we do business for a while, maybe I’ll be interested, maybe I won’t, you know," Mr. Murtha said.) He wasn’t indicted, but it’s fair to say the episode raised questions about his integrity.

Of course, there’s plenty of irony and stupidity on the other side of the aisle, too. The Republicans lost a bunch of seats due to their ethically challenged, unprincipled, inarticulate, and ineffective leadership. So, of course, they’re poised to stick with that leadership. Bob Novak thinks that’s remarkably stupid:

The depleted House Republican caucus, a minority in the next Congress, convenes at 8 a.m. in the Capitol Friday on the brink of committing an act of supreme irrationality. The House members blame their leadership for tasting the bitter dregs of defeat. Yet, the consensus so far is that, in secret ballot, they will re-elect some or all of those leaders.

In private conversation, Republican members of Congress blame Majority Leader John Boehner and Majority Whip Roy Blunt in no small part for their midterm election debacle. Yet, either Boehner, Blunt or both are expected to be returned to their leadership posts Friday. For good reason, the GOP often is called "the stupid party."

Last Wednesday, I expressed my support for Mike Pence as minority leader and John Shadegg as minority whip, noting that the Republicans made a mistake when they chose Blunt over Shadegg in January. The more I read about Pence and Shadegg, the more I hope they can pull off the upset.

Pence said after the election, "The era of big Republican government is over," and issued a vision statement to back that up:

While the scandals of the 109th Congress harmed our cause, the real scandal in Washington D.C. is runaway federal spending, and our voters said, “Enough is enough.”

After 1994, we were a Majority committed to a balanced federal budget, entitlement reform and advancing the principles of a limited federal government. In recent years, our Majority voted to expand the federal government’s role in education by nearly 100 percent, created the largest new entitlement in forty years, and pursued spending policies that created record deficits, national debt and rampant earmark spending.

This was not in the Contract with America. Our opponents will say that the American people rejected our Republican vision. I say the American people did not quit on the Contract with America-we did. And in so doing, we severed the bonds of trust between our government and our most dedicated supporters.

I heard Pence interviewed on the radio this morning, and I was impressed. It’s not just issues, ideology, and vision, either — personality, charisma, and articulateness are important, too, especially when you know the media will be against you. Dennis Hastert cost the Republicans votes every time he stepped in front of a camera and microphone. Pence is a former talk radio host, and it shows.

The more I read about Boehner and Blunt, on the other hand, the more certain I am that "staying the course" with the current leadership would be a monumental mistake. Boehner once handed out checks from the tobacco lobby on the floor of the House while it was in session. Blunt defended earmarks at the Heritage Foundation just last Thursday. Both supported No Child Left Behind, the Medicare drug entitlement, the abandonment of the Contract’s ethics and accountability rules, and boatloads of pork.

Staying with the Boehner – Blunt "business as usual" team could severely damage the GOP nationwide in 2008. And that, in turn, could have disastrous consequences for the 2010 redistricting. Do you Republicans really want to risk returning to minority status for another generation just so these pricks in Washington can protect their perks and pork?

Check out this video in support of Pence and Shadegg (2:21):

[BTW, if you’re on a low-speed connection and the video keeps stopping, that means it’s playing faster than you’re downloading it, so the buffer keeps emptying. Just go get a cup of coffee or a beer or something — give it a minute or two. Once most of it has been downloaded into your buffer (the line at the bottom is red most of the way across), drag the slider back to the beginning and start it playing again. In case it helps, here’s the direct YouTube link.]
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

The dinosaurs are still powerful

Posted by Richard on November 13, 2006

There’s been no shortage of analyses and finger-pointing to explain the GOP’s "thumpin’" this year. It was Iraq. No, it was corruption. They were too extreme. No, they abandoned their conservative principles. Immigrant-bashing hurt. No, failure to close the borders hurt. And on and on… I think one of the primary causes is something almost no one’s discussed — and some, like Dean Barnett, explicitly rejected. 

Hugh Hewitt, lots of bloggers, and other voices of the "new media" like to disparage the "dinosaur media" and point to declining ratings for network news, falling readership and revenue for the big liberal papers, and other signs of the declining influence of the mainstream media. They exaggerate the truth. The dinosaurs may be in decline, but they’re still immensely powerful and can crush you when they make the effort. And, boy, did they make the effort this time!

Yes, it’s the same media as in 2002 and 2004, as Barnett noted. But, (a) they really pulled out all the stops this time, and (b) their relentless propaganda campaign against Bush and the Republicans had a cumulative effect.

Lenin said, "A lie told often enough becomes the truth." After hearing it repeated as fact a bazillion times, most Americans believe that Bush lied about Iraq’s WMD threat and Saddam’s support of terrorists. After three years of negative stories from Iraq outnumbering positive ones by approximately ten thousand to one, most Americans believe the situation is hopeless.

Story after story about DeLay, Cunningham, Foley, and Ney hammered into the American consciousness the Democratic talking points about the "Republican culture of corruption." But there’s nary a media mention of more than 70 Democrats with ethical or legal problems, including Reps. Jefferson, Murtha, Rangel, Mollohan, Conyers, and Schakowsky, Sens. Boxer and Reid, and Govs. Blagojevich and Corzine.

For sure, the Republicans’ wounds were largely self-inflicted. After 2002, Hastert dismantled the Contract with America’s ethics and accountability rules, and the Republicans became arrogant, fat, and lazy. They governed like Democrats, and the American people rejected that, as they usually do. Meanwhile, the Democrats recruited a bunch of candidates who sounded like Republicans, and the American people elected them.

If they’re going to turn things around in 2008, the Republicans need to clean house. They need new leaders like Reps. Pence and Shadegg, and Sens. Kyle and DeMint. They need to embrace the primary candidates backed by the Club for Growth — 7out of 8 were elected this year.

But they need one more thing: an effective strategy for countering the power of those media dinosaurs, because they’re not dead yet.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Good election news

Posted by Richard on November 8, 2006

As regular reades no doubt could guess, I’m not exactly cheerful about spending the next two years hearing about Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel, and Judiciary Chair John Conyers. And I’m disappointed by the departure of Rumsfeld. Nevertheless, I’m basically a "glass half-full" sort of guy, and I think there’s some good news related to yesterday’s elections.

One big bright spot: the property rights protection movement racked up an impressive string of victories. Ten of twelve ballot measures passed, and eight of them are constitutional amendments (one victory, Louisiana, was in September). Only California and Idaho defeated citizen initiatives dealing with eminent domain. They were thrilled yesterday at the Institute for Justice:

“Election Day usually reveals how polarized public opinion can be as campaigns focus on highly divisive issues.  Today, however, the vast majority of voters across the country all agreed that the fundamental right to property must be protected,” said Chip Mellor, president and general counsel of the Institute for Justice, which represented the homeowners in Kelo before the Supreme Court.  “Citizens around the nation agree that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo was wrong.  As we’re seeing tonight’s results, this issue cuts across party lines, state borders and socioeconomic levels.”

“The American people are furious their property rights are up for grabs to the highest bidder,” said senior attorney Scott Bullock, who argued the Kelo case for the Institute.  “They understand that the U.S. Supreme Court declared open season on everyone’s property and the resulting momentum for eminent domain reform shows no sign of slowing.  The significant margins in the votes today show just how wrong a narrow majority of the Supreme Court was.”

The margins were truly significant, typically three or four to one.

Here’s another bit of good news: Dennis Hastert won’t run for minority leader. I’ve made clear my low opinion of Hastert. I think he bears much of the blame for the Republican losses. Hastert helped create the "culture of corruption" by dismantling the 1994 ethics and accountability reforms. His lack of principles, inarticulateness, and focus on wielding the levers of power helped create the widespread distrust of the Republican Party.

If the Republicans really have been chastened and want to mend their ways, in January they’ll follow Human Events’ advice and elect Mike Pence minority leader. Furthermore, they should correct a mistake they made when DeLay departed and pick John Shadegg over Roy Blunt for the number two post, minority whip.

More good news came via Josh Poulson, who argued that the GOP lost because it "abandoned its libertarian wing," and cited a couple of interesting related items. One is this post at Economist.com about the growing clout of Libertarians:

GLUM Republicans might turn their attention to the Libertarian Party to vent their anger. Libertarians are a generally Republican-leaning constituency, but over the last few years, their discontent has grown plain. It isn’t just the war, which some libertarians supported, but the corruption and insider dealing, and particularly the massive expansion of spending. Mr Bush’s much-vaunted prescription drug benefit for seniors, they fume, has opened up another gaping hole in America’s fiscal situation, while the only issue that really seemed to energise congress was passing special laws to keep a brain-damaged woman on life support.

In two of the seats where control looks likely to switch, Missouri and Montana, the Libertarian party pulled more votes than the Democratic margin of victory. Considerably more, in Montana. If the Libertarian party hadn’t been on the ballot, and the three percent of voters who pulled the "Libertarian" lever had broken only moderately Republican, Mr Burns would now be in office.

The other item is Sen. Tom Coburn’s statement on the elections:

“The overriding theme of this election, however, is that voters are more interested in changing the culture in Washington than changing course in Washington, D.C. This election was not a rejection of conservative principles per se, but a rejection of corrupt, complacent and incompetent government.

“A recent CNN poll found that 54 percent of Americans believe government is doing too much while only 37 percent want government to do more. The results of this election reflect that … the Democrats who won or who ran competitive races sounded more like Ronald Reagan than Lyndon Johnson.

“This election does not show that voters have abandoned their belief in limited government; it shows that the Republican Party has abandoned them. In fact, these results represent the total failure of big government Republicanism.

“The Republican Party now has an opportunity to rediscover its identity as a party for limited government, free enterprise and individual responsibility. Most Americans still believe in these ideals, which reflect not merely the spirit of 1994 or the Reagan Revolution, but the vision of our founders. If Republicans present real ideas and solutions based on these principles we will do well in the future.

Read the whole thing. If you’re a discouraged limited-government type, libertarian or conservative, you’ll feel better — and you’ll be glad there are people like Tom Coburn in politics.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Bush on the important issues

Posted by Richard on October 31, 2006

On Hannity & Colmes last night, Sean Hannity interviewed President Bush, and of course, the election was the first topic (emphasis added):

HANNITY: All right, so there you are. You think the GOP holds both houses. You’re confident. You made the statement that your opponents, Democrats, are picking out the drapes a little bit too early.

BUSH: That’s right.

Well, you know, in 2002, a lot of the pundits didn’t get the off-year elections right. In 2004, a lot of people thought I was going down eight days before the election. And in 2006, there is a lot of predictors saying that, you know, the Democrats will sweep the House and maybe take the Senate.

And I just don’t see it that way, because I think most people, when they take a look at the candidates and the positions of the candidates, realize that protecting this country and keeping this economy going are the two most important issues. And you can’t protect the country if you retreat from overseas, and you can’t keep the economy growing if you raise taxes. And that’s exactly what the Democrats in the House would like to do.

That’s the case for voting Republican about as clearly and succinctly stated as it can be.

You could fill a book with all the things wrong with Republicans (and match it page for page with one on the faults of Democrats). But when all is said and done, it’s hard to deny the importance of national security and taxes — and on those two critical issues, the Republicans get it mostly right, while the vast majority of Democrats are completely, utterly, and dangerously wrong.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Those David Zucker ads

Posted by Richard on October 27, 2006

David Zucker is the Hollywood producer/director behind the classic comedy spoofs Airplane! and The Naked Gun. He was a lifelong Democrat until September 11, 2001. Lately, he’s been trying to use his professional talents to help the Republicans, who seem especially message-challenged this year.

Zucker’s Albright ad came out a couple of weeks ago, and I think it’s awesome — it’s not easy to balance zany and chilling, but Zucker does exactly that. According to Drudge, however, "jaws dropped" when he showed it to GOP strategists, who all thought it was "too hot" to use. If you haven’t seen it, here it is:

(If clicking the above doesn’t work for some reason, click this link to watch it at YouTube.)
 

Zucker has a new ad out about taxes. It’s pretty wacky, too. Check it out:

(Here’s a link to it at YouTube in case the embedded player doesn’t work for you.)

It seems to me that the Republican Party could use a little audacity at this point, and blowing off Zucker is foolish and overly timid. I could be wrong — I’m not exactly attuned to the thinking of the average American — but I think one-minute versions of these ads or something like them could provide quite a boost for Republicans.

Apparently, at least some people at the Republican National Committee are OK with a bit of edginess and humor. America Weakly (promoted at the end of Zucker’s tax ad) presents "future history" — the news from 2007 after the Dems take control of Congress — and it’s funded by the RNC.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Maybe Rove is right

Posted by Richard on October 18, 2006

The polls all predict disaster for the Republicans, and everybody from the mainstream media to conservative commenters and bloggers seems to believe them. It’s a done deal. Glenn Reynolds even offered a much-discussed "pre-mortem" explaining all the reasons (and they’re good ones!) why voters are likely to punish the Republicans severely come November (see also Glenn’s follow-up).

Prognosticators are so certain of a crushing GOP defeat that the Washington Post seemed genuinely puzzled that this belief isn’t shared by the White House:

Amid widespread panic in the Republican establishment about the coming midterm elections, there are two people whose confidence about GOP prospects strikes even their closest allies as almost inexplicably upbeat: President Bush and his top political adviser, Karl Rove.

The question is whether this is a case of justified confidence — based on Bush’s and Rove’s electoral record and knowledge of the money, technology and other assets at their command — or of self-delusion. Even many Republicans suspect the latter.

Today in The Corner, Rich Lowry quoted a White House bulletin that suggested viewing all the recent polling data with skepticism (emphasis in The Corner):

A spate of recent polls paints a very gloomy electoral outlook for GOP candidates in next month’s elections. One reason for that, possibly, is a set of samples in recent polls that do not mirror the historical norm for party ID. A memo circulating among Republicans on the Hill, authored by GOP pollster David Winston, takes a look at the historical spread between Democrats and Republicans in House elections and polling over the last 14 years. According to Winston’s analysis, there is a material discrepancy between the party identification listed by people in exit polls (people who actually voted) between 1992 and 2004, and those used over the last few weeks.

Since 1992, the party ID differentials have ranged from +4% Democratic (1998) to +2% Republican (2002). Winston looked at the October polling samples from 8 different polling organizations. The smallest party ID differential was +5% Democratic by CBS/NYT. CNN didn’t provide party ID data. The other six ranged from +7% Democratic (Pew) to +11% Democratic (Newsweek).

Can you say "wishful thinking"? Or "attempting to create a self-fulfilling prophecy"? I wouldn’t bet against Karl Rove just yet.

My take? Glenn and other critics are absolutely correct regarding the failings, betrayals, malfeasance, and incompetence of far too many congressional Republicans. They richly deserve to be punished. But Rush is right when he says that they may deserve to lose, but we don’t deserve the higher taxes, slowing economy, increased federal spending, decreased national security, and other consequences that are sure to follow if Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House and Charles Rangel chairs the Ways and Means Committee.

Voters who are pro-free-market, limited-government conservatives or libertarians should exercise some discretion. If you’re looking at a House or Senate race that’s got an absolute shoe-in incumbent of either major party (and that’s most districts), by all means use your vote in a way that sends the best message — vote Libertarian, Constitution, write-in, or not at all (don’t add to a big-government liberal’s vote total for any reason — that sends entirely the wrong message).

But if you’re in a competitive district or state, don’t just blindly punish a less-than-ideal Republican or tell yourself that this particular Democrat’s pretty moderate, doesn’t support tax increases, etc. — helping to elect that Democrat, no matter how decent and harmless, helps to put Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and friends back in control. What do you suppose the consequences will be for taxes, spending, regulation, national security, judgeships, … ?
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Paper ballots

Posted by Richard on September 25, 2006

Bizzyblog noted that concern about electronic voting machines cuts across party lines, citing Maryland as the latest example:

The state’s governor and paper-ballot advocate is Republican Bob Ehrlich; the people who want to stick with the troubled e-voting systems, which had significant problems (link is to one blogger’s detailed in-person observations; HT Techdirt) in Maryland’s most recent primary, are Democrats.

Those who believe e-voting can still be used and trusted have to pretend that the Princeton IT study, which demonstrated that an easily installed virus can alter vote totals without being detected, and e-voting vendor Diebold’s incredibly weak response to it don’t exist. Oh, and besides that, you can get into the voting machine with a hotel mini-bar key.

This ought to disabuse anyone that the credibility and integrity, or lack thereof, of e-voting is a partisan issue, but it probably won’t.

Here in Colorado, a judge just ruled that the e-voting machines have serious security flaws, but we’re stuck with them anyway:

A Denver district judge ruled Friday that the secretary of state did an "abysmal" job of security testing on new computerized voting machines, but it’s too late to bar them from the Nov. 7 election.

Unable to be certain the machines’ software is safe from tampering that could distort the vote, Judge Lawrence Manzanares ordered the state to immediately devise detailed rules for counties to ensure that no one can get to the machines to reprogram them.

Plaintiffs showed malicious software could be installed with a screwdriver and a flash drive in as little as one minute on some machines, Manzanares noted.

He said the widely used voting machines, where voters cast ballots on a computer screen, "are certainly not perfect or immune from tampering." But he ruled that barring them roughly six weeks before the election, and four weeks before early voting, "could create more problems than it would solve."

Legitimate concerns about e-voting have been overshadowed by the moonbat left conspiracy theories — researching the political donations and affiliations of Diebold executives, repeating absurd, baseless claims about Ohio being stolen, and so forth. It’s good to see that reasonably sane people of varied political persuasions are making reasonable arguments against e-voting.

In Colorado, both the Republican and Democratic candidates for Secretary of State suggested using absentee ballots — paper — for in-person as well as absentee voting (the Libertarians aren’t running anyone for that office, and I can’t be bothered looking up the other parties). I thought that was a great idea, and I don’t understand the judge’s contention that it’s "too late" — I’m sure the printers getting ready to print absentee ballots would be happy to increase the print runs, and there’s plenty of time to do so.

Here’s how to make elections much more fraud-resistant:

  • Stop this trend toward giant voting-centers. Decentralize voting back to many small neighborhood precincts, each with only a few hundred registered voters. If necessary to staff them with sufficient poll workers and observers, pay an attractive fee. And/or arm-twist the political parties.
  • Require each voter to present a valid picture ID or be vouched for by two neighbors (living within a block) as to the voter’s name and address. The neighbors must be there in person and must sign a statement (with penalties for lying) before witnesses. And the neighbors must have previously established their identities in one of the same two ways.
  • Record all votes on paper ballots.
  • Immediately upon poll closing, have the poll workers count the votes at the precinct, with representatives of all parties free to observe. If there are only a couple or three hundred, they should be done about as quickly — maybe more quickly — than with today’s system.

Elections are an excellent example of a process that could benefit from application of the KISS principle — "Keep it simple, stupid!" Low-tech is the way to go.
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The GOP’s wrong turn

Posted by Richard on September 12, 2006

This looks like a terrific read:

In THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, New York Post and RealClearPolitics.com columnist Ryan Sager argues that the GOP has lost its way and that its wrong turn will cost it — not just in conservative dreams deferred, but ultimately at the ballot box.

The problem — the elephant in the room, if you will — is the so-called “big-government conservatism” embraced by President Bush and the leaders of the GOP Congress. The conservative movement has long been a fusion of social conservatives and libertarian conservatives around a shared commitment to minimizing the power of Washington, D.C. But as the GOP has taken over the nation’s capital, it’s gone native — and now all bets are off.

What’s more, as the nation’s population and electoral map shift South and West, the current Republican Party increasingly favors southern values (religion, morality, and tradition) over western ones (freedom, independence, and privacy). The result? The party is in danger of losing crucial ground in the interior West — specifically in “leave-me-alone” states such as Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, and Montana.

All hope is not lost, however, as Sager proposes a way out of the mangled mess. He calls it a renewal of fusionism, a better blend between liberty and tradition, between freedom and responsibility; one that emphasizes small government instead of Republican-controlled government, morality instead of moralism, and principles instead of politics.

The book’s subtitle is "Evangelicals, Libertarians, and the Battle to Control the Republican Party." Read Bruce Bartlett’s review at Human Events. Read the first chapter of the book at TCS Daily. I’m ordering a copy.

I suspect the only thing preventing even more libertarian-minded, limited-government Republicans from bailing on the party is the thought of what a Congress led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid would be like.

Apparently, quite a few Americans are having second thoughts about that prospect. Throughout the spring and summer, the polling numbers for the GOP have been grim, and every media pundit in Washington has said that the Dems practically have a lock on taking control of the House and a good shot at the Senate. But Mike Franc at Human Events thinks the prognosticators may be all wet, and he points to recent polling showing significant shifts (emphasis added):

The September consensus: nearly unanimous. “Voter anxiety over the economy, health care and financial security,” the Washington Post’s Dan Balz observed, “threatens to put Republican candidates across the country on the defensive this fall.” Veteran Congress watcher Stuart Rothenberg predicted “a heavy-damage scenario for the Republicans.” The House minority leader even guaranteed that “we’re going to win the House back.”

Those prognostications were made in September 2002, before the last mid-term election, and they were all wrong. …

Four years later, Republican lawmakers are again facing ominous headlines: “GOP’s Hold On House Shakier” (Los Angeles Times), “GOP Seen to Be in Peril of Losing House” (New York Times) and “More GOP Districts Counted as Vulnerable: Number Doubled Over the Summer” (Washington Post). … With independent voters “alienated” and the Democratic base “energized,” once-safe Republican incumbents are now “on the defensive.”

Ignored was a Gallup Poll released in late August that found an unexpected tightening in what pollsters call the “generic ballot” question: “If the election were being held today, which party’s candidate would you vote for in your congressional district?” …

… The advantage for the generic Democratic candidate slipped from 11 points in late July, to nine points in early August, and then to a statistically insignificant two points (47% to 45%) in its August 18-20 survey. Among those most likely to vote, moreover, the Democrats’ advantage disappeared entirely, with Gallup reporting a dead heat: 48% to 48%.

Anxious to understand this movement toward Republican candidates, Gallup sorted the responses to the generic-ballot question into two new categories. Are Democrats, it wanted to know, “competitive in U.S. House districts currently held by Republicans,” or “just getting a larger-than-normal share of the vote in the districts they already hold”? …

Using area codes and exchanges to identify whether the voter resides in a district represented by a Democrat or a Republican, Gallup reviewed the 13 polls in 2006 in which it asked this question. Through July, Democrats not only posted two-to-one margins in districts they currently represent, but were unusually competitive in Republican-held districts as well.

For example, Democrats outpaced Republicans in Republican-held districts in several polls, with their advantage peaking at an astounding 11-point margin (51% to 40%) in late June. This verifies the widespread perception in conservative circles that Republican base voters were in open revolt against their party earlier this year.

But then Democrats began to lose favor in Republican districts, falling steadily from 51% in late June, to 46% a month later, then to 43% in early August, and finally to the current low of 40% in the August 18-20 survey. Support for Republicans, in contrast, rose 14 points in six weeks, from a low of 40% to its current level of 54%.

Personally, I think a good portion of that turnaround isn’t due to anything the GOP did — it’s disgruntled Republicans looking at and listening to the country’s leading Democrats, and saying, "Whoa… are these folks for real?!?" — and then swallowing real hard and deciding that the good-for-nothing, unprincipled Republican who they had no use for a few weeks ago may be tolerable after all.

I can understand that. I hate that things are that way, but I can understand it. My best-case scenario for this November’s election is that the Republican base is just pissed enough to badly scare and chasten the GOP, and maybe get some of them listening to people like Sager (or even Gingrich) — but that we avoid having to live with Speaker Pelosi. [shudder]
 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »