State of Conservatism – Page 6

If Perry is in, then who’s out?

Since a number of published reports have Texas Governor Rick Perry entering the 2012 Presidential race as soon as tomorrow, the obvious question is – who will have their share of the support pie taken?

Personally I’m of the opinion that, if one was to compare this situation to the stock market, a Perry run has already been priced in. A certain number of people have already been sitting on the sidelines just waiting for an official announcement from Rick and now they will join the game – so the “pie” is a little bit larger.

Yet another school of thought intrigues me as well. Let’s break the remaining thirteen or so in the field into three groups – they’re ranked within each group in order of national support, more or less. An asterisk (*) denotes that the candidate is entered into tomorrow’s Iowa Straw Poll.

The Legislators:

Michele Bachmann (House member from Minnesota)*

Ron Paul (House member from Texas)*

Newt Gingrich (former Speaker of the House from Georgia)*

Rick Santorum (former Senator from Pennsylvania)*

Thad McCotter (House member from Michigan)*

This group will likely have little change in the order or in their amount of support. Some think that Bachmann has the most to lose from a Perry candidacy, but I tend to disagree.

The Outsiders:

Herman Cain (former CEO, radio host, and onetime U.S. Senate candidate from Georgia)*

Roy Moore (Alabama Supreme Court justice and candidate for Governor)

Fred Karger (longtime political consultant from California)

Again, since Herman Cain is by far the class of this small group there’s probably little for them to lose if he gets in, although it would make life somewhat more difficult for Roy Moore if he indeed decides to stop exploring.

The Governors:

Mitt Romney (former governor of Massachusetts)*

Jon Huntsman (former governor of Utah)*

Tim Pawlenty (former governor of Minnesota)*

Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico)

Buddy Roemer (former governor of Louisiana)

This is the group most hurt by a Perry bid, because there are many voters who feel having some sort of executive experience is the best attribute for a President. Four of our previous five Presidents before Obama served as a governor, with George H.W. Bush the exception. And that exception deserves an asterisk of sorts because the elder Bush was Vice-President for eight years under Ronald Reagan.

I believe a Perry candidacy hurts Mitt Romney to a small degree because he’s sort of the anointed, establishment candidate and Rick Perry isn’t really an establishment darling. On the other side of the coin, Buddy Roemer has little support to lose and Gary Johnson is playing to a libertarian group that splits its allegiance between him and Ron Paul.

The two candidates who really have the most to fear about Rick Perry getting into the race are Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman. Pawlenty is running as a candidate who won as a Republican in a Democratic-leaning state by being just moderate enough to appeal to independent voters. But Perry trumps that because he’s won twice in a state where, in theory, demographics should be favoring Democrats – Texas has a growing Latino population.

Huntsman loses out because his good economic record in Utah pales in comparison to the job creation in Texas. Jon has had trouble establishing a base of support anyway because the establishment prefers Romney and conservatives are distrustful of someone who worked for the Obama administration.

Since the Iowa Straw Poll has a write-in ballot space, it will be interesting to see how much support Rick Perry gets from those who don’t like the other nine choices presented to them. Some who are skipping the Ames gathering will probably pooh-pooh the results regardless of how they do (unless they win, of course) but I suspect the bottom three will find it more difficult as time goes on to make an impact in the race.

Yet the biggest question of all may be whether the last big name candidate will finally decide to jump into the fray. Time is running short for Sarah Palin, as building a grassroots effort takes some planning and we’re just about five months away from the start of primary season – even less time than that to qualify for the ballots.

And fourteen to me seems about four to five too many to be sustainable. If you take the four who didn’t secure a place on the Iowa Straw Poll (Johnson, Karger, Moore, and Roemer) you can probably make a pretty safe bet that the latter two won’t find their way onto a ballot. Gary Johnson will fight on to continue bringing the libertarian small-government argument into the race while Fred Karger will go as far as his status as the lone gay candidate will take him. Neither will come close to winning the nomination but they’ll press on for principle’s sake.

The two odd men out I see among those who made the Iowa Straw Poll ballot are Thad McCotter and Rick Santorum. McCotter should have started his bid much sooner because he doesn’t stand out in a crowded conservative field already dotted with more well-known House members, while Santorum probably can’t shake either the label of “biggest loser” from 2006 or the ill-fated Arlen Specter endorsement two years earlier.

By January I think the field will look like this, in about this order:

Mitt Romney
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Michele Bachmann
Ron Paul
Newt Gingrich
Jon Huntsman
Tim Pawlenty
Herman Cain
Gary Johnson
Fred Karger

Crucify me if you must – especially those who like Bachmann and Cain – but once people begin paying attention I think they’ll retreat to the candidates they feel are most safe. I think Bachmann makes a good run but the press is out to destroy her and there’s still enough of an establishment base of Republicans out there to prevent her from winning. Nor would they let a complete political outsider like Herman Cain emerge, either.

Obviously that’s not the order of my preference, either, but I’m sure I occupy a place somewhat to the right of the GOP electorate at large – particularly in several early primary states where the balloting is open to independents as well. I’m sure I’ll be disappointed with the early state primary results like I was in 2008.

But I won’t give up the fight – come on America, I dare you to prove me wrong.

‘Here are my colors, bold and clear’

I thought about adding this item to my ‘odds and ends’ last night but decided it was worth more in commentary than that.

At this time last year Jim Rutledge was a barely known contender for a U.S. Senate seat with little money, at least compared to eventual nominee Eric Wargotz. But he drew crowds wherever he spoke because he articulated a conservative message with the zeal and passion of a Pentecostal preacher. Instantly he became a TEA Party favorite, and it was a testament to their support that he drew 30 percent of the vote in a crowded field.

The other day he wrote a short treatise, which I’m reprinting here.

“Nail the Colors to the Mast!”

That is an old naval battle cry when the Captain determined that the ship will never surrender. In contrast, “To strike the colors” means to lower the flag in a clear sign of surrender. “Striking the colors” was an option that was usually kept open to salvage the lives of the men and save the ship from a watery grave. So nailing your colors to the mast meant that surrender was not an option. Colors that have been nailed to the ship’s main mast could not and would not be lowered in the heat of battle when all seemed lost. By giving the terse order “Nail the colors to the mast” the Captain was telling the men, “Today men we fight, and if we must, we die, For God and For Country. Today, by God’s Grace, you will fight like you never have before. Today, you will not be a prisoner of war. Today, you will not be a slave. Today, you are a warrior.”

Is today the day you will give the order, “nail the colors to the mast”?

To nail your flag to the mast, you must know what you believe and know where you stand.

So here is my flag. Here are my colors, bold and clear.

The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God give every man and woman the right to live free from rulers who deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The ruling political elites have violated the Laws of Nature and have abandoned their duty to secure our God-given liberties from tyranny, by, among other things, using government power:

to steal the fruits of labor,

to feed themselves with pensions and fete themselves with lavish parties;

to give unfair market advantages to those who keep them in power;

to demonize talent and entrepreneurship;

to crush the virtues of work, property ownership, and religious charity;

to destroy economic freedom and social mobility by nurturing a growing underclass who are consigned to a lifetime of dependence on the government.

Western civilization moved people toward freedom and away from slavery and serfdom based on the Judeo-Christian ethic.

Western civilization as informed by a Judeo-Christian ethic is our best hope for a society that can be both virtuous and free, albeit not perfect. Utopia is folly.

I am nailing my colors to the mast. How about you?

If you read through the items they serve as an indictment of the system we have now.

First of all, as a society we have forgotten that we the governed are supposed to give our consent to those who govern us. Sure, we dutifully elect our political leaders every two to four years but that lack of vigilance in the interregnum has led to the state within which we exist. And what of the unelected bureaucrats who pass regulations without so much as a cursory check from our elected leaders – or worse, their assent?

It leads to the six subpoints which make up the second charge of government power leading towards ‘tyranny.’ Just look at what the current administration has done in the 30-plus months they’ve been in charge. The TEA Party was a natural reaction to the very thought we were being led in that direction and as time went on it became more and more obvious we were indeed on a path toward an all-encompassing state.

And then Jim discusses a clash of cultures – the elites who forty years ago were chanting, ” hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go!” have pretty much succeeded in their task of eliminating the concept. Now we have the political correctness of all cultures being of equal value, even if they are stuck in the seventh century and treat women as little more than property. “If it feels good, do it” seems to be the new national motto, regardless of the eventual outcomes – in truth, any consequences and responsibilities are to be absolved and forgiven by the public at-large as opposed to a higher power.

Yet in his statement Rutledge is only paraphrasing what another great leader once said: “Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?” Yes, that was Ronald Reagan in 1975, just before he made his first run for President. Sadly, after Reagan left office the Republican Party has too often put up nominees composed of pale pastels rather than bold strokes of conservative governance at all levels of government.

Perhaps Jim has another run for office in him, too – maybe not in 2012, but perhaps 2014. Unlike the cookie-cooker mealy-mouthed politicians who couch their remarks to the lowest common voting denominator, Jim had a refreshing way of clearly stating his message. This is something to be emulated as today’s TEA Party leaders become tomorrow’s political candidates.

Once they win election – and they will – here’s hoping their colors stay nailed to the mast throughout their terms of office. Those on the left don’t have much trouble with adhering to the principle that bigger government is always better and power is all that matters because it’s easy and doesn’t require a whole lot of thought. Conversely, we need to continually convince the public of the benefits of liberty to be a stronger pull in the opposite direction.

Oh, and consider my colors nailed.

On the next American Revolution

Rarely do I completely give over my website to guest commentary, but this is too good to chop up and I don’t feel the need to add to it – this stands well all by itself. The op-ed comes from Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post.

**********

(PUBLISHER’S WARNING: The following essay may cause heartburn and knee-jerk reactions, especially in those who are predisposed to “give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety.” But as Benjamin Franklin concluded, they “deserve neither liberty nor safety.” For such feeble souls, Samuel Adams advised, “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!” For those who are not cast among that faint-hearted lot, please read on.)

I receive hundreds of messages every day from Patriots across the nation. For the last three years, one thematic question has emerged with ever-increasing frequency. To paraphrase that question: “What is the authority to rebel against the central government?”

That question is most often asked by those who have taken their oath of allegiance to our Constitution, particularly active duty, reserve and veteran military personnel. Typical is this note from a disabled combat Patriot this week: “Please clarify for me when my solemn oath to ‘support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign AND [his emphasis] domestic,’ kicks in.”

Such questions were once considered too radical and discordant for consideration in civil discourse. However, as Rule of Law enshrined in our Constitution has been all but completely usurped by the rule of men through the Left’s so-called living constitution, the frequency and tenor of questions about the future of Essential Liberty for our once-great Republic is propelling them into mainstream debate.

The unfortunate ascension of Barack Hussein Obama and his socialist cadres had a silver lining: It revitalized the spirit of American Patriotism in dozens of millions of our countrymen. The imminent threat to Liberty posed by Democratic Socialism is the catalyst driving this great awakening and it is spreading.

To the question of the authority to rebel against government, we turn to the Constitution’s guiding document, our Declaration of Independence. It clearly affirms the “unalienable rights” upon which our Constitution was instituted, and those rights supersede the authority of the Constitution itself as they are the inherent rights of man.

This authorizing language reads as follows: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”

So, is it time for another American Revolution?

The answer to that question depends upon the answer to a more fundamental question: Is it too late to restore authority of our Constitution? Moreover, will the current dire circumstances result in a sunset or sunrise on Liberty?

In my enthusiastic analysis, the degraded state of the union presents a great opportunity for restoration of Rule of Law, and this sunrise on Liberty is already in progress under the broad heading of the Tea Party movement. Further, having been in close proximity to revolutions on foreign soil, I am intimately aware that restoration (or revolution without shots fired) is a far more desirable path than the violent one — not that the latter must ever be excluded as an option.

But behind every sunrise is a sunset. As Ronald Reagan warned thirty years ago, when the “Reagan Revolution” temporarily restored our nation’s course toward Liberty, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it was once like in the United States when men were free.”

Make no mistake; there are formidable obstacles to the restoration of Liberty. The most daunting of these impediments is complacency, the result of either a false sense of comfort, institutionalized ignorance or both. Nonetheless, I still believe that the ballot box is a viable alternative to the bullet box at this juncture. Every effort to work within what remains of our Constitution’s framework to restore its Rule of Law, as outlined in The Patriot Declaration must be exhausted.

If the 2012 election cycle does not provide sufficient momentum toward the goal of restored Liberty, there are substantial measures of civil disobedience that can ratchet up the pressure — measures which will find support among true conservatives in both the House and Senate.

Either way, we face a long, uphill battle. It has taken many years to degrade Rule of Law, and it will take many years to fully restore it.

As for timing, Obama has already dropped a debt bomb on our economy, the goal of which is to “fundamentally transform the United States of America.” The greatest systemic risk to Liberty that this act of economic violence poses is the destruction of free enterprise by way of taxation, regulation and insurmountable debt. U.S. debt has now surpassed 100 percent of our annual gross domestic product (economic output).

It should, of course, be the highest aspiration of every Patriot to restore our Constitution’s Rule of Law, a fundamental principle of which is theseparation of economy and state. But is there still time, and are we sufficiently resolute?

Leading the forces arrayed against us are the statist extremists, the “useful idiots” on the Left who now vilify as “terrorists” those seeking to restore Rule of Law.

In a closed-door Democratic Caucus meeting this week hosted by Veep Joe Biden, Demo Rep. Mike Doyle said of the recent budget negotiations, “We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.” Biden, to his everlasting shame, concurred: “They have acted like terrorists.”

Biden, Doyle, and the Kool-Aid-drinking legions of the Left are formidable. But history shows that Barack Obama’s model for prosperity, is a blueprint for economic collapse, a model that is antithetical to prosperity and ultimately at odds with Liberty.

Patriots, we have an obligation to secure Liberty for our posterity, and in the words of John Adams, “Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison dated January 30, 1787: “I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. … An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.”

Today, Tea Party “terrorists” should expect no such accommodation, as “honest republican governors” are few and far between.

That same year, Jefferson famously wrote more pointedly to John Adams’s son-in-law, William Smith, “What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … And what country can preserve its liberties, if the rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Short of the bullet box, it is my fervent prayer that on 6 November 2012, an unprecedented army of American Patriots will use the ballot box to further alter the course of our nation toward Liberty and Rule of Law.

That notwithstanding, American Patriots remain well aware of both the authority for rebellion and more importantly the obligation to overcome tyranny, as enumerated in the Declaration of Independence. There may come a time to fight, and our Founders wisely extended to us the means for rebellion. We also fully understand the cost outlined in its closing: “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

We do.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander
Publisher, The Patriot Post

‘More,’ Fedzilla screamed, ‘more!!’

I thought I could let this go, but then this Washington Times story by Stephan Dinan begged to differ.

Now I realize that the situation over the last few months was akin to walking a tightrope, but to rack up a record $239 billion in debt in ONE DAY – almost 60% of the wiggle room gained by the Republican sellout – simply boggles the mind. Notice that the previous record deficit day came in 2009, after Barack Obama took office. So don’t blame it on Bush.

In fact, consider that in one day our deficit exceeded that of the entire final Bush budget submitted with a Republican Congress (fiscal year 2007) – $239 billion beats $161 billion in any sort of math, fuzzy or not.

And the public is skeptical too. Today a Rasmussen Poll was released and it showed just 22% of the public approved of the budget deal. Of course Republicans are dead-set against it (by about a 4-to-1 margin) but the poll also showed unaffiliated voters in with the same feelings toward the agreement. Only Democrats had a more favorable impression, with 34% favoring the package with 40% against.

The reason the public doesn’t like the agreement? They don’t trust Washington to cut spending.

Another interesting facet of Rasmussen’s summary is that, despite the frenetic coverage by the media, people had expected the outcome. Perhaps it’s a natural cynicism Americans have with their government. “You can’t fight City Hall,” they often say.

While the TEA Party has made great strides in fighting the excesses of government, its biggest problem is that we only control a small portion of government. Look at the strides certain states like Wisconsin and Ohio have made in curbing their governments – they managed to elect enough conservative legislators in both their legislative bodies to complement the reformist ideas of the governors elected – Scott Walker and John Kasich, respectively.

Both Walker and Kasich also have to overcome continued threats to their reform packages as several GOP state senators are subject to recall elections this month in Wisconsin and Ohio’s Senate Bill 5 – an act which severely curbed union influence in Ohio – goes before Buckeye State voters this fall. Don’t be surprised if unions aren’t looking to dump tens of millions into the campaign to overturn SB5.

So the TEA Party fight may be over for the time being in Washington, and those of us skeptical that Fedzilla could curb its spending appetite may be vindicated based on the one-day deficit record. But we have a lot of state capitals where the fight needs to be renewed.

Come this fall, the scene in Annapolis may rival the one back in March, but contenders will on the opposite sides. I’d love to see 10,000 TEA Party members outnumber 50 union thugs in demanding fiscal responsibility.

Sold out again

Yep, it’s going down just about as I predicted it: the Republicans will cave. I figure enough of the centrists from each party will outvote the extremist Democrats who want to keep spending money and controlling our lives along with their temporary allies in the conservative camp of the GOP who understand it’s time to rein in government.

So we’ll make ‘cuts’ – but will they really be reductions in spending or reductions in the rate of increase? And why hammer on defense spending in a time when we’re in the midst of a Long War with radical Islam? Now I could agree to a certain amount of defense cuts but where we really need to cut is the superfluous bureaucracy I continue to harp on.

In the end, I don’t like the deal because Obama gets what he wants – the increase in the debt limit. Meanwhile, we as a nation have our bond rating decline and how many times must we believe the lie that Democrats will cut spending? They lied to Reagan and they lied to Bush 41, telling them “oh yeah, go ahead and raise taxes, we’ll cut spending.” They must have been standing there with their fingers crossed behind their back.

So, Andy Harris and any other Congressman reading this: vote NO. Hold out on the principles of those who sent you to Congress.

Otherwise, don’t be really upset or surprised to see a third party effort in 2012. Obviously that’s a Democrat’s dream because it ensures both Obama’s re-election and the restoration of a Democratic majority in the House. The Senate could hold Democrat as well.

To borrow a phrase from a fellow Pajamas Media writer, Tom Blumer, we’d be back to a POR (Pelosi-Obama-Reid) economy, and it would truly make us poorer. It makes things harder for me as a Republican trying to keep the TEA Party in the fold when the inside-the-Beltway boys stab us in the back again.

Gary Johnson on ‘intolerance’ redux

A couple weeks ago, I commented on the remarks of Presidential candidate and former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson regarding the ‘offensive’ Family Leader Pledge signed by fellow GOP candidates Michele Bachmann and Rick Santorum.

Yesterday I was invited to participate in a blogger conference call with Governor Johnson regarding intolerance as “a formula for Republican defeat.” Unfortunately I couldn’t participate directly but I asked for the transcript knowing this was an issue I’d broached previously.

Perhaps the question closest to the one I would have asked was offered by New Hampshire blogger Skip Murphy of Granite Grok. I’m going to shorten it just a touch for this purpose, though:

I do have a question about your opening statement, on social conservatives. Certainly the Tea Party is focused on the fiscal issues, but as we all know, social issues often have a fiscal cost to them as well. If you look at Medicaid, Social Security, other entitlement programs, have an outsized cost to them. Is it really something that Republicans and conservative Republicans should do? To concede the social issues to the Democrats and step away from that arena? And thereby letting them raise the fiscal costs of their agenda, versus fighting for what we believe is our agenda, which is cutting the fiscal costs across the board?

Governor Johnson responded:

Well, if you’re talking about fiscal costs, I don’t know where an intolerance to gays, I don’t know where a woman – where decision making should be taken away from a woman, and I’m talking about abortion – and, that that should be the driving issues of the Republican Party. And I guess I could go to immigration, and to the xenophobia about immigrants, and there are costs associated with illegal immigration. I think they should be addressed, but they don’t involve, in my opinion, building a fence, or putting the National Guard arm in arm across the border. There’s some real, rational steps that can be taken, and really, a win-win situation: immigrants that want to come in to this country to work being allowed to work. And businesses that would like to take advantage of being able to get workers that they currently can’t get, because of our immigration policies and our welfare policies in this country that have us sitting at home collecting welfare checks, that are just a little bit less money or the same amount of money for doing nothing, as opposed to getting out and getting an entry level job.

Murphy pressed further:

Well, I do notice that you brought up some hot button issues that are near and dear to a lot of Republicans. But I specifically asked about some of the other entitlements: certainly the ever growing welfare state is a social issue, and it certainly has a high fiscal cost. So, what is your strategy for bringing that down, and again I ask, is that something the Republicans should just forget about, because…

Johnson interrupted:

No, Skip, I didn’t consider welfare as part of this Ames Pledge. If I missed that, I certainly apologize. I saw this Ames Pledge as, really, vilifying, or just saying “No” to tolerance. I saw it as a very intolerant document. And I am a firm believer that we need to reform welfare in this country, and at the base of reforming welfare is “If you can work, you should work.”

It’s an interesting and broad-based conversation overall, but I think the problem with Gary’s approach is that a lot of the base he’s catering to – the small-government crowd – also cares about social issues.

Johnson makes the mistake of assuming that social conservatives are monolithic in their support of government-centered approaches to issues like abortion, gay marriage, and the general decline of society. As I noted in my original post on the Family Leader Pledge (refer to original pledge here,) I didn’t find a lot objectionable except for the call for a Constitutional amendment on marriage between one man and one woman. It’s not that I have an issue with protecting marriage, but it’s properly a state issue.

Ironically, Johnson is in agreement with me on that, but still chose to call me and others who care about these issues ‘intolerant’ because I don’t fall completely into line with his libertarian views on the subject. Perhaps he hasn’t a problem with certain portions of the Family Leader Pledge (particularly its call for a more limited government) but he chose not to sign it and that should have been enough. Many of the other contestants for the Presidential brass ring have forgone the opportunity as well but they haven’t besmirched the competition who did – even Mitt Romney withheld personal condemnation in refusing to sign.

Certainly I would like to pick and choose aspects of government to strengthen (yes, there are a few) and which ones should release their stranglehold on the American people. There are a few otherwise seldom-discussed planks in Johnson’s platform with which I agree and think should be brought out into the national conversation – chief among them the folly of the War on Drugs.

He certainly would like to limit government. Consider this passage from the call:

I just think that we’ve gone way overboard when it comes to this notion of need and entitlement, if you will. So I am promising to submit a balanced budget for the year 2013, which would cut 43% of government expenditures at existing levels. That means Medicaid, that means Medicare, that means military spending, for starters. So, in that context, 43% reduction with regard to everything it is that government does, I think that is a weeding out process that gets us closer to the notion of helping those that are truly in need as opposed to this notion of entitlement and really this give away that has us in the fiscal predicament that we are in. Really, we’re broke, and we’re on the verge of a monetary collapse because we print money to cover these obligations.

Good luck getting that through Congress. although it’s only cutting the budget back to 2002 levels. It also brings up a point that across-the-board cuts aren’t necessarily the correct solution – for example I think the budget of the Department of Education should be cut 100 percent, with the savings from the extra share used to maintain a strong national defense.

Yet the point is a good one. We haven’t prioritized spending in decades because the government gave itself a blank check with deficit spending, knowing they have the power to tax (also known as the power to destroy.) It’s time for some fiscal discipline, and I think TEA Party members understand this point. The question which Skip Murphy presented so well is whether we can have it all – advances in both social and fiscal conservatism – and I think the answer is yes, they are nowhere near mutually exclusive.

I would like to thank Gary Johnson’s staff for forwarding me the transcript. He’s been one of the best in working with bloggers, and that’s appreciated whether I agree with him or not.

Odds and ends number 31

Once again I have a lot of little items that deserve a little bit of comment, so here goes.

Delegate Pat McDonough is at it again. The 2012 Congressional candidate has prefiled a bill called the Toll Fairness Act. It has three goals:

Declare a moratorium on all toll increases.
Mandate a General Assembly vote and Governor’s signature on all toll increases, for accountability.
Prohibit transfers to non-transportation accounts. Delegate McDonough claims almost $800 million has been “stolen” from transportation accounts over the last eight years.

While it’s doubtful such a bill will muster the votes to get out of the Democratic-controlled committee it will be assigned to, the fact that we have this measure prefiled shows that people can be good and angry about the situation. We will see on July 14, when a hearing on the toll increases will be held in Ocean City.

Speaking of the peoples’ voice, the petition drive to overturn SB167 through referendum may well be successful. But CASA de Maryland was granted a request to make copies of the petitions; a move Delegate Michael Smigiel of the Upper Shore found shocking.

Delegate Smigiel made a point which I wanted to amplify. It’s bad enough that a group who’s dead-set against the referendum will be allowed to take possession of these petitions, if only for a brief time. Luckily the potential for mischief is lessened since that cat was let out of the bag.

But I think back to the controversy over Proposition 8 in California (to overturn same-sex marriage) and what happened to those who contributed to that effort financially – a number of them were harassed by pro-gay marriage supporters, with threats to both boycott their businesses and harm them physically. Could pro-illegal groups and supporters use the petition information to do the same in Maryland? They’re playing for keeps; unfortunately for them a goodly number of people about these parts are armed and don’t much like harassment. Hopefully the folks at the ACLU and CASA de Maryland will keep this in mind.

Meanwhile, those who support the petition and wish to make sure the count is done fairly aren’t allowed into the process. A Board of Elections worth its salt would tell the state to go pound sand on that (since it’s simply a policy memorandum and not law.)

And that’s not all from the state of Maryland. Richard Falknor at Blue Ridge Forum discusses the new “green” graduation requirement. There’s no time for teaching critical thinking or even the three R’s, but they have time to push that “smart growth” bullshit on our kids? Since the requirement appears to be only in public schools (for now) I guess I don’t have to deprogram my girlfriend’s daughter – yet – since she attends a private school.

I also learned a new word regarding this new environmentalism. In a press release from the Competitive Enterprise Institute announcing the formation of the Resourceful Earth website, a quote from Myron Ebell, the Director of CEI’s Center for Energy and Environment, caught my eye. Said Ebell, “unfortunately, many major corporations are being greenmailed into supporting these assaults on jobs and prosperity.” ‘Greenmailed,’ indeed. Do you think oil companies really want to spend millions to deal with environmental groups advocating for polar bears or caribou rather than job creation and maintaining our lifestyle? They probably add a nickel per gallon to the price.

Still, pump prices have been on the decline of late. That fact makes the timing of the decision to draw 30 million barrels down from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve very curious. Granted, there will still be nearly 700 million barrels remaining in our coffers, but there was no emergency situation to merit the release. Strife in Libya is no worse than unrest in Nigeria, another major oil-producing nation, back in 2009.

Reaction has been severe from some quarters, and seems to be the correct perception of the situation. Americans for Limited Government, for example, claims savings will be meager and short-lived:

If one is generous and assumes yesterday’s $4 drop was solely because of Obama and International Energy Agency, at best it will save consumers $.10 a gallon for gasoline. That works out to about $1.50 per fill up, or $6 for the month the additional gasoline is available.

In other words, Obama has jeopardized national security by drawing down the strategic reserves to, at best, save consumers about $1.50 per fill up when this ‘flood’ of new gasoline hits the market. To call this irresponsible would be an understatement.

And the real experts at the American Petroleum Institute were equally underwhelmed:

The release makes little sense for American markets. Crude and gasoline inventories are above average, and crude and gasoline prices have been trending down for weeks, despite the loss of Libyan oil, which markets have already adjusted to. The SPR was intended to be used for supply emergencies. There is no supply emergency. We don’t know what impacts this might have on markets long term. But we could and should be taking steps that would increase our own production by 2 million barrels a day or more for decades, which is possible if the government would grant much greater access to America’s ample oil and natural gas reserves. This would do vastly more to help consumers, increase energy security, create jobs and deliver more revenue to our government. It’s action that would truly strengthen our energy future, not a temporary gesture that has no lasting benefits.

30 million barrels is about what our nation consumes in a day-and-a-half. 60 million barrels (the total IEA release) is well under what the world consumes in a day.

Here’s the problem I see with this release. We have a President who doesn’t mind $4 per gallon gasoline, as long as the increase is relatively steady. He also has backtracked from allowing additional oil exploration thanks to a rare but ill-timed drilling accident in the Gulf of Mexico.

If you assume the oil which was placed in the SPR was purchased at a relatively low market price, well, we have to make that up sometime. And if you believe their line about supplies tightening up thanks to a civil war in Libya it would be my guess that oil will be more expensive. We just added 60 million barrels to future worldwide demand, and that will likely drive prices up a little bit.

In short, this is a shell game (no pun intended) to make people believe we’re doing something about a problem better solved with more oil extraction. For example, approving one pipeline would eventually make up for about half of what the world normally gets from Libya on a daily basis. Needless to say, I don’t buy the ‘peak oil’ theory. (Thanks to Jane Van Ryan of API for the pipeline info.)

And one final item. Over the last few weeks I had a PSA for the Move America Forward Troopathon which was broadcast over the internet last Thursday. They now have their tally in and were pleased to report they raised $507,843 from their efforts – exceeding their $500,000 goal.

It wasn’t as much as previous Troopathons raised, but then again we have fewer troops in that theater. Considering that being pro-military isn’t as much in vogue as it used to be I think that total is pretty good and reflects a nation that remains in a giving mood for our men in uniform.

Wow, that did a nice job of cleaning out my e-mail box. Look for more interesting stuff to come.

A convention preview

During most years, the Spring Convention of the Maryland Republican Party is a pretty genteel affair – I should have some idea since I’ve gone to the last five. Unlike the Fall Convention where officers are selected or resolutions incite disagreement, the Spring meeting usually is very businesslike and features our annual awards.

Well, this year may be a little different. I hadn’t thought about writing a preview, but a Facebook friend of mine made the suggestion:

Just wanted to let me know how much I agree with your resolution regarding Rule 11… I think you need to blog about it to create a buzz among the cc members…

The resolution in question is quite simple, and its background – oddly enough – comes out of the last Spring Convention.

If you’ve read along this website over the last few years, you may recall that I fumed about the treatment of gubernatorial candidate Brian Murphy during that gathering. Little did I know at the time the Maryland GOP brass were covertly plotting to assist their anointed candidate (and former governor) Bob Ehrlich by allowing the national Republican Party to waive their rule against pre-primary involvement, known as Rule 11. (Andy Harris was also part of that waiver.)

Once I found out about the situation, I was good and mad because we on the Central Committee were never consulted for input. If they had only brought it before the convention as a resolution, I’m certain the measure would have passed overwhelmingly despite my principled objection.

So I decided to do something about it. Originally this was going to happen for last fall’s convention, but there was enough other business to contend with since the party Chair would be elected – and I thought I’d perhaps have an ally for this resolution in the spring. I’m not sure Alex Mooney fits this bill, however.

Written with Heather Olsen of Prince George’s County, I authored a resolution which would change the party bylaws and make the three representatives to the national party get permission from a supermajority (3/4) of the rank-and-file members before asking for a Rule 11 waiver in the future. Seems like a pretty cut-and-dried, common sense regulation doesn’t it?

Well, apparently not to those who set up the agenda and added a total rewrite of the bylaws (which were just revamped three years ago) onto the business of the convention – then wrote rules to limit the proceedings to three hours and made my resolution last on the list (it’s the only resolution up for consideration.)

I have news for them, though: I don’t give up and I don’t give in. If I don’t get my up-or-down roll call vote this time, you can be sure you’ll see this again come fall. Why not get the debate over with and pass the resolution to allow those elected by the people a check and balance on executive power?

There’s another thing which bothers me about the proposed bylaws. No, it’s not the voting method discussion, which I’ll come back to in a bit. But there’s a proposal to form a Judiciary Committee, a star chamber of sorts to mete out party discipline. Again, my spider sense begins to tingle when we start talking about this sort of matter because I can guaran-damn-tee you there’s a lot in the party who think me at the very least a nonconformist and perhaps some sort of troublemaker. Luckily for me I come from a county which has my back. But what about other TEA Party members and those who don’t share the establishment political background – will they be subject to a witch hunt? I think this is a valid concern.

Now to the voting question. During the national party convention, delegates are each allotted a vote and a candidate needs to win the support of 50 percent plus one of the body there to secure the nomination. The number of convention delegates is known before the start, so the media can focus on the horserace to the magic number of delegates required. It doesn’t work that way in Maryland, though.

The other day I received an e-mail which beseeched me to maintain the one man, one vote principle at the convention (as does this blog post.) While it makes sense on a certain level to do so, the problem is that one county would have 1/6 of the possible votes while others have much smaller proportions. However, that’s not as bad as the previous proportional voting system in place, a different version of which has been in use during the last two state conventions. In those cases, the total delegation of the largest county had enough power to outvote the eleven smallest counties.

In a compromise move, members of a subcommittee got together and hashed out a system which is population-based, but both levels out the playing field somewhat and adds incentives for getting Republicans elected. Obviously the large (and heavily Democratic) counties cried foul about this and I’m betting that’s where the e-mail came from. But with the new system the small, rural counties aren’t completely powerless and can build a coalition among themselves when needed. I think the compromise isn’t perfect, but it’s better than the old system and an improvement over one man, one vote.

But it seems like in this go-round there’s something for everyone to hate. The party has a lot of adjustment to do since there was a lot of new blood added in 2010 and those rookie members have a heavy TEA Party influence (witness who’s taking the lead on the referendum drive to overturn in-state tuition for illegal immigrants – hint: it’s not the state party leadership, but instead a group of mostly freshman Delegates.) One has to ask: would someone like Sam Hale gotten any support at all four years ago?

Nor do I look badly at all the changes proposed – for example, I think two-year terms for MDGOP officers are a good idea for accountability. (Maybe we would have avoided the Jim Pelura controversy, for example.) But the proposal overall needs a lot more work to be acceptable, and I don’t think either the itinerary for consideration or the artificial time limit imposed is the way to proceed.

Our Fall Convention last year took about six hours to recite the reports and elect officers to lead the party. There’s no way three hours will be able to contain a reasonable and reasoned discussion of the bylaw changes; instead, perhaps this is a discussion for the Fall meeting when we can allow for a single-subject meeting at a less hurried pace. (I can also drop my proposal into the new bylaws if necessary.)

The by-laws aren’t going anywhere, so let’s take the time to do them right.

Update, 10 p.m. 5-5-11: My proposal and this post in general were discussed at length on Red Maryland radio (first 20 minutes or so) and I wanted to respond to the questions posed by Brian Griffiths, Greg Kline, and Mark Newgent regarding the 3/4 majority in my proposal.

If Queen Anne’s County Republicans don’t like the proposal, so be it. They can be wrong every so often too. But the reason I insisted on a 3/4 majority was to make it difficult but not impossible to adopt a Rule 11 waiver. I look at it this way: almost every resolution and vote between two options at these conventions turns out to be overwhelming, if not unanimous. (The best example I can think of would be Audrey Scott vs. Daniel Vovak for party Chair in 2009.)

Had the Rule 11 exemption been put up to a vote at the 2010 convention I’d be willing to wager there wouldn’t have been 12 people in the room besides me objecting. And I wouldn’t have objected because I eventually supported Brian Murphy (because at the time I was truthfully undecided between the two) but because I don’t believe in the state party taking sides – that was my experience in the Ohio Republican Party coming out. Remember, as I wrote at the time:

We’re not supposed to endorse candidates pre-primary, but by all appearances the Maryland GOP has placed its lot for better or worse behind Bob Ehrlich. Yes, it can be argued that Murphy has little chance but at least he put his name on the line while someone was dithering about which race to run in – if he would run at all. I think we owed him the opportunity to speak, or else be neutral in the race and find a different keynote speaker.

Now, I’m pleased the trio brought up the “star chamber” aspect of the proposed Judiciary Committee because I think their take is like mine – glad they agree it’s spot on.

But again, I think the Rule 11 fiasco from last year is worth discussing because there’s a potential we could see the same thing happen this fall in the U.S. Senate race or even the Sixth District. (I don’t foresee any GOP challenger for Andy Harris, but you never know.)

The only thing I would have appreciated is the chance to say my piece on the radio show. Just ask.

In print: Debate should be over pace of reduction

I’ll give Susan Parker credit for changing the title (I like hers better) but otherwise pretty much leaving the piece alone. This is in today’s Daily Times.

As I write this on the eve of President Obama’s State of the Union address, it’s anticipated he’ll talk about competitiveness and investment as vehicles to get our moribund economy going. Some Congressmen will stand and applaud particular lines while it’s likely the majority will sit on their collective hands because they disagree.

Yet all of the posturing misses the point which the State of the Union address always seems to convey – the solutions to those things which ail us generally lie in adopting a larger, more oppressive government.

(continued at delmarvanow.com…)

Items of interest

For those of you budding TEA Party activists out there, you may be interested to know…

American Solutions is hosting a conference call with a TEA Party favorite, newly elected Rep. Allen West of Florida. The information is as follows:

C of C Conference Call with Rep. Allen West (FL-22)

Wednesday, January 26th, 8:00 PM EST

Dial-In Number: 712-432-0075
Participant Code: 283031

If that’s not enough, the newly-formed Senate TEA Party Caucus is seeking public input at 10 a.m. Thursday morning. A local activist is putting together a caravan for the event, which would need to leave early Thursday morning. But if you can’t make the caravan or wish to depend on your own self for transportation, Julie Brewington at Right Coast has what you need to know.

(Bear in mind that inclement weather is predicted for Wednesday night into Thursday morning, so this event may end up being postponed.)

But there are opportunities aplenty for freedom-minded activists to get involved.

Thought for the day: To me, the ideal in government would be the opposite situation to that which we have presently: a scenario where one party decreases the size and scope of government slowly, with the other moving at a more marked pace. In either case, the cause of freedom advances rather than recedes.

(I was inspired this morning – it’s part of a longer piece I submitted to another outlet. But don’t expect such good thoughts every day.)

Home state advantage?

It was a small sample to be sure, but unsurprisingly Michael Steele won my RNC Chair poll. There were only 33 votes, which I found disappointing. I enjoyed the write-ins, though.

Here’s how the totals break down (including write-ins):

Michael Steele – 11 (33.3%)
Reince Priebus – 5 (15.2%)
Saul Anuzis – 4 (12.1%)
Maria Cino – 3 (9.1%)
Gentry Collins – 2 (6.1%)
Ann Wagner – 2 (6.1%)
Sarah Palin (write-in) – 2 (6.1%)
Michael Swartz (write-in) – 2 (6.1%)
Gary Johnson (write-in) – 1 (3%)
Rush Limbaugh (write-in) – 1 (3%)

While I thank my supporter (or supporters) for the two votes, let me just quote William Tecumseh Sherman, “If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.” Still, I’m flattered.

I think this poll proves two things, though. As I was watching this poll develop over the last few days, initially Steele had an absolute majority but as time went on it became a plurality. This is interesting because the majority (about 3/4) of my readers come from Maryland so one would naturally assume he would do well. Either I had more out-of-state voters come on board or Steele is losing his status as a favorite son.

Secondly, there seems to be a large streak of “none-of-the-aboveism” among the rank-and-file, almost as if they are asking, “is this the best we can do?” Certainly there is some celebrity involved (witness the votes for Palin and Limbaugh) but the votes for Gary Johnson (and to a lesser extent, yours truly) may suggest that a direction more conducive to the TEA Party is desired. (Just for the record, I didn’t vote in this poll.) Despite the naysayers, I think the TEA Party is finding its voice in the GOP. (I’ll have more to say on that opinion in coming days.)

Even so, among the people who count, there is a suggestion that Steele is in peril as he bids for a second term as GOP head. We’ll see how it all shakes out on January 15, although there is a debate scheduled for this afternoon among the six announced contenders. (I had other plans.) I believe a number of those who can vote may be making their mind up after they hear all six speak in a public forum, and I also think that when we get to voting in twelve days there will only be three or four nominated. The bottom-feeders know the score as well as the rest of us.

It looks like Maryland CAN

Following up on a story that was so last year…love those New Year’s jokes I can make for a few days!

Today I received good news from my blogging friend (Potomac TEA Party Report) Ann Corcoran. She’s helping to organize the first Maryland CAN (Conservative Action Network) conference in Annapolis next Saturday. Alas, I cannot be there due to a previous commitment but she tells me that they’ll break the 100 mark in registrations this week. When we discussed the event, I surmised that “50 is a success and 100 would be huge” – so color it huge!

Among the speakers will be a galaxy of conservative activists from Maryland and beyond, with perhaps the most nationally famous being ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief. She now heads up an organization called Emerging Corruption. Bios on many of the remaining speakers can be found here.

Considering we had about 250 for the GOP convention (held in the same building) and they were supposed to be there as elected officials, drawing triple-digits for this conference is a good first step. The idea is to work and plan our moves for the next two to four years in the wilderness (as far as state politics is concerned) and manuever ourselves into position for success in 2012 and 2014. For example, it may be a great stop for those who are considering running against Senator Ben Cardin and for Congress against a slew of Maryland incumbents.

Certainly I’m sure Ann and other Maryland conservative bloggers will be taking up my slack in covering this event. I’ll keep my ear to the ground and see what develops.