1 – TAX REFORM - We support replacing the current tax code with the Fair Tax. The Fair Tax would treat everyone – gay or straight – equally. Until then, we support death tax repeal; domestic partner tax equity; cuts in the capital gains and corporate tax rates to jump start our economy and create jobs; a fairer, flatter and substantially simpler tax code.
2 – HEALTHCARE REFORM – Repeal of Obamacare; encourage free market healthcare reform. Allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines – expanding access to domestic partner benefits; emphasizing individual ownership of healthcare insurance – such a shift would prevent discriminatory practices by an employer or the government.
3 – SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM - The only way to permanent solvency in the Social Security system is through the creation of inheritable personal savings accounts. Personal savings accounts would give gay and lesbian couples the same opportunity toleave their accounts to their spouses as their straight counterparts.
4 - RESPECTING THE PROPER ROLE OF THE JUDICIARY - We believe our Constitution should be respected and that judges appointed to the federal bench should recognize the proper and appropriate role of the judiciary as laid out by our Founding Fathers.
5 – HOLDING THE LINE ON SPENDING – Standing up for all tax payers against wasteful and unnecessary spending to protect future generations from the mounting federal debt.
6 – FIGHTING GLOBAL EXTREMISTS – Standing strong against radical regimes that refuse to recognize the basic human rights of gays and lesbians, women and religious minorities.
7 – DEFENDING OUR CONSTITUTION – Opposing any anti-gay federal marriage amendment. Marriage should be a question for the states. A federal constitutional amendment on marriage would be an unprecedented federal power grab from thestates.
8 – EMPOWERING INDIVIDUALS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES – Protecting 2nd amendment rights. The answer to stopping bias motivated crime is not the Hate Crimes laws, instead we support empowering individuals to lawfully protect themselves.
9 – RESPECTING STATES RIGHTS – Supporting a strong 10th Amendment that limits the scope of the federal government and empowers states; repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act and return power to regulate marriage and family law to the states.
10 – EDUCATION REFORM – The answer to the serious problem of bullying is not more federal intervention in education. Instead, we support empowering parents and families by supporting school choice initiatives and protecting the right of parents to homeschool their children.
That very admirable agenda is GOProud's, as director Jimmy LaSalvia explains:
The so-called “gay agenda” has been defined narrowly by the gay left. In contrast to the approach of the left, GOProud’s agenda emphasizes conservative and libertarian principles that will improve the daily lives of all Americans, but especially gay and lesbian Americans.
My hat's off to him. I am of a religious bent, so I think that the homosexuality is sinful, but I also believe that is a matter wholly between the individual and God. Gays should not suffer discrimination, and there is a large place open for them both at my table and under the GOP tent.
The polls are closed in South Carolina and the last kazoo has sounded. Fox projected the winner of the South Carolina Republican primary to be Newt Gingrich as soon as the polls ended. Update: The final tally is Gingrich 41%, Romney 27%, Santorum 17%, Paul 13%.
Just the fact of Gingrich's win puts a huge dent in the aura of inevitability Mitt Romney has attempted to paint since the start of the race. But it is the exit polls that are truly eye opening.
According to conventional wisdom, Romney is best suited to beat Obama, Gingrich is toast among women voters because of his past affairs, and Gingrich can't appeal to independent voters. The exit polls shred the conventional wisdom and, given that Gingrich won in virtually every possible demographic, ought to be giving the Romney camp nightmares. This from the exit polls:
Women voters: Gingrich 38%, Romney 29%
Independents: Gingrich 31%, Romney 25%
Very Conservative: Gingrich 47%, Romney 19%
Somewhat Conservative: Gingrich 41%, Romney 30%
Moderate to Liberal: Gingrich 31%, Romney 34%
Age 18-29: Gingrich 27%, Romney 16%
Age 30-44: Gingrich 37%, Romney 19%
Age 35-64: Gingrich 40%, Romney 28%
Age 65 and up: Gingrich 47%, Romney 36%
Evangelicals: Gingrich 45%, Romney 25%
Tea Party Supporters: Gingrich 45%, Romney 25%
Income less than $50k: Gingrich 40%, Romney 24%
Income $50k to $100k: Gingrich 40%, Romney 24%
Income over $100k: Gingrich 38%, Romney 34%
With a College Degree: Gingrich 37%, Romney 31%
Without a College Degree: Gingrich 42%, Romney 24%
------------------------------------------
Issues that mattered most:
Abortion: Gingrich 27%, Romney 6%
Budget Deficit: Gingrich 44%, Romney 23%
Economy: Gingrich 40%, Romney 32%
-----------------------------------------
Candidate Can Beat Barack Obama: Gingrich 51%, Romney 37%
Candidate is a True Conservative: Gingrich 37%, Romney 2%
Candidate Has The Right Experience: Gingrich 49%, Romney 34%
Candidate Has Strong Moral Character: Gingrich 6%, Romney 19%
It is of note that Romney came into the SC primary with a 16 point lead ten days ago. He also outspent Gingrich by at least two to one on advertising in South Carolina. And yet . . .
Check back. I will be updating this post with an analysis of the issues Gingrich's victory raises tonight in the run for the Republican Presidential nomination.
A quick parting thought. How would you like to own the Malox concession near NRO headquarters at the moment. And a parting question, who do you think is drinking more scotch or popping more valium tonight, George Will, John Hinderaker, Jennifer Rubin, Ann Coulter or Kathleen Parker?
The third Monday in January is annually set aside to honor the most towering figure of our nation's civil right's movement. And his most eloquent speech was given in 1963, I Have A Dream. That speech was a stirring call for true equality. After opening by noting the promise of our nation, that "all men are created equal," near his conclusion, he said: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
The full speech is in the video below. Do watch it. His moving appeal to equality as the basis for our nation rings as true today as in 1963.
And there is this via Hot Air today from MLK's niece, Dr. Alveda King who asserts in the interview below that had her uncle lived to see today, he’d be considered a pro-life, social conservative.
What follows is reposted and updated from 2008:
(2011 Update) Three years ago, I wrote a post on race in America, surveying our history and pointing out the far left's bastardization of MLK's dream of equality for all. It is appropriate to revisit that post today. I predicted at the time that, with the election of Obama, we would fall ever deeper, and perhaps irrevocably, into identity politics and multiculturalism, moving ever farther away from realizing MLK's goal of equality. I was wrong:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Liberal African American NYT columnist Bob Herbert recently had this to say in extolling the virtues of the left:
Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.
Mr. Herbert pretty much sums up what has been the far left / liberal / progressive line for decades. But then how to explain all the vicious, ad hominem and unhinged Palin-bashing coming from the left? To take it one further, how to reconcile that Palin-bashing with the left's acceptance of people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a part of their stable? It seems quite the conundrum unless one knows a bit of history and can identify the massive deceits. Here are some facts, some of which you might not be aware:
- In fairness, it was the Democrat Harry Truman who, by Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948, desegregated the military. That was a truly major development. My own belief is that the military has been the single greatest driving force of integration in this land for over half a century.
- It was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, also a Republican, who managed to convince the other eight justices to agree to a unanimous decision in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education. That case was brought by the NAACP. The Court held segregation in schools unconstitutional. The fact that it was a unanimous decision that overturned precedent made it clear that no aspect of segregation would henceforth be considered constitutional.
- Republican President Ike Eisenhower played additional important roles in furthering equality in America. He "proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. . . . They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s." Moreover, when the Democratic Governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools in what became known as the "Little Rock Nine" incident, "Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school."
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was championed by JFK - but it was passed with massive Republican support (over 80%) in Congress and over fierce opposition from Democrats who made repeated attempts at filibuster. Indeed, 80% of the vote opposing the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Women were added to the Act as a protected class by a Democrat who thought it would be a poison pill, killing the legislation. To the contrary, the Congress passed the Act without any attempt to remove the provision.
- Martin Luther King Jr. was the most well known and pivotal Civil Rights activist ever produced in America. His most famous speech, "I Had A Dream," was an eloquent and stirring call for equality. If you have not read the speech or heard it, you can find it here. I would highly recommend listening to it. Rev. King was, by the way, a Republican.
Nothing that I say here is to suggest that racism and sexism could not be found in the Republican party or among conservatives at any point in American history. But if you take any period in history and draw a line at the midpoint of racist and sexist attitudes, you would find far more Republicans than Democrats on the lesser side of that line. And you would find a much greater willingness on the part of Republicans, relative to the time, to effectuate equality. That was as true in 1865 as in 1965 - and in 2008.
Sometime about 1968, the far left movement emerged as a major wing of the Democratic Party. This far left wing hijacked the civil rights movement and made it, ostensibly, their raison d'etre. Gradually, the far left has grown until it is now the dominant force in Democratic politics. JFK, Truman and FDR would recognize precious little of today's Democratic Party.
The far left fundamentally altered the nature of the Civil Rights movement when they claimed it as their own. They imprinted the movement with identity politics, grossly distorting the movement's goal of a level playing field for all Americans and creating in its stead a Marxist world of permanent victimized classes entitled to special treatment. The far left has been the driver of reverse racism and sexism for the past half century. That is why it is no surprise that, with the emergence of a far left candidate for the highest office in the nation, Rev. Jeremiah Wright should also arise at his side and into the public eye preaching a vile racism and separatism most Americans thought long dead in this country. Nor is it any surprise that the MSM, many of whom are of the far left, should collectively yawn at Obama's twenty year association with Wright. Wright is anything but an anomaly. To the contrary, he is a progeny of the politics of the far left.
The far left did not merely hijack the civil rights movement, they also wrote over a century of American history, turning it on its head. That is why Bob Herbert, quoted above, is able to wax so eloquently while spouting the most horrendous of deceits. The far left managed to paint the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the prime repositories of racism and sexism. The far left has long held themselves out as the true party of equality. They have done so falsely as, by its very nature, identity politics cements inequality. Beyond that truism, the far left has for decades played the race and gender cards to counter any criticism of their policies, to forestall any reasoned debate and to demonize those who stand opposed to them. They continue to do so through this very day.
For example, Obama has attempted repeatedly to play the race card so as to delegitimize criticism of his policies. And today we have the Governor of New York calling the McCain camp racist for belittling the executive experience one could expect to be gleaned from the position of "community organizer." Apparently, according to Gov. David Patterson, "repeated use of the words 'community organizer' is Republican code for 'black'." What Gov. Patterson is doing is the well worn trick of taking any criticism of something pertaining to one of the victim class and recasting it as an illegitimate attack on the victim class itself. These tactics, which the left has used with incredible effectiveness in the past, have done incalculable harm to our nation over the decades.
We are either a melting pot wherein "all men are created equal" - the ideal of our Founders for which we have long laboured and are ever closer to succeeding - or we are to become a multicultural nation of pigeon-holed special interests. We are to become a nation where groups are encouraged to remain apart, defining themselves by their victim class before defining themselves as Americans. Multiculturalism is unworkable - we can see it destroying Europe and Britain - but that has not stopped the far left in America from their embrace of the concept. Nor has it slowed their efforts to weave multiculturalism irrevocably into the fabric of our society.
The far left has long pushed forward minorities and women to prove that they are the party of inclusiveness. On the right, the process has been slower. You had the percolation of minorities and women to major positions through the natural process of time and selection of the fittest. Only the most jaded would ever argue that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did not earn their positions solely on merit. And love her or hate her, Kristi Todd Whitman was both well qualified and a very good governor.
I have long been waiting for a self-made and accomplished woman or minority to rise to the very top in Republican politics. It is something that would intrinsically expose the incredibly damaging canard that the far left has pushed for near half a century. I had hoped Colin Powell would be that man a decade ago. As to Condi Rice, had things worked out differently for the Bush administration and had she not selected the Sec. of State slot (a killer for anyone with Pres. aspirations) I thought that perhaps she would have a good shot at running in 2008. I've been waiting for Thomas Sowell to run for any elected office for decades - and yes, I would consider him for beatification. These are people for whom neither their skin color nor their gender makes them a victim. These are people for whom what unites us in common as Americans is more important than what divides us into sub-groups. And these are people who earned their success by virtue of their excellence rather than the distortions of identity politics.
It is inevitable that one of the two concepts I earlier described - a melting pot of equals or a multicultural morass of victim groups - will gain ascendance in America. I have long felt that we are at a crossroads in our nation for precisely this reason, and that the ramifications of how we decide this issue will be existential. . . .
-------------------------------------------------------------------
When I wrote this post, I thought that electing Obama would take our nation irrevocably down the multicultural path, strengthening in America the victim class mentality that defines the left. I did not count on the rise of the Tea Party, nor that the left would go all out with the race card in a concerted and transparent attempt to delegitimize the message of that grass roots movement. Instead of strengthening the victim class mentality, all indications are that it has had a contrary effect, exposing the device to much of America. It is a tremendous irony that Obama, a man whose promise to lead us to racial equality was always without the barest hint of substance, may well inadvertently lead us to that promised land regardless. As the race card loses its ability to stigmatize the far left's political opponents, it spells the beginning of the end to the victim politics of the left. When the last vestiges of its toxin are banished from our land, then will come the day MLK's dream is fulfilled, and all of our children will "live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
Update (2011): NiceDeb has a round-up of MLK posts, linking not only to this post, but also to a fine post by Michelle Malkin, asking the left to give the race card a rest on MLK Day. In it, Malkin provides an exhaustive list of the times the left has used the race card in the recent past, concluding with an essay from Jerome Hudson that appears at Human Events:
Like most Americans, I’ve had enough with this administration’s policies. I was fed up and fired up.
I am even more so in the wake of the most moving gathering I’ve ever been privileged to be a part of.
At one point, some of the people attending the Rev. Al Sharpton’s “counter rally,” coined “Reclaiming King,” stopped me. I guess they must have been judging me by the color of my skin not the content of my character, because they asked if I was going to come join them.
“No, I won’t be there,” I told them. “Why?” one of them asked with a grimace on his face. I looked at him and said, “I want to be where the Lord is and the Lord is in this place.”
One of the older black women in the group asked me if I felt like I was “selling out” for being one of the “tokens” in the Beck rally crowd?
I laughed and said “Ma’am, Al Sharpton is a pretender. He is going to tell you to pretend that the color of your skin matters. He is going to ask you to ignore the now overwhelming proof that 50 years after the Civil Rights movement, blacks are now destroying each other faster than the KKK could have dreamed.”
As I walked away, the group stood frozen, not knowing how to reply.
Later, as Sharpton preached a divisive message void of actual solutions on how to “close the education and economic gap” in the “black community,” Dr. Alveda King, Martin Luther King’s niece, invoked the spirit of her slain uncle proclaiming, “I too have a dream, that white privilege will become human privilege and that people of every ethnic blend will receive everyone as brothers and sisters in the love of God.”
Her comments on restoring the “foundation of the family” in America were met, not with boos, but with a thunderous applause.
(What bigots those white folks! Having the audacity to cheer Dr. King’s niece like that. Racists the whole lot of them!)
I was probably the only 24-year old black college student in the crowd. It’s hard to know, because we had over 300,000 people there. But that didn’t matter to me. As we all stood hand-in-hand, American shoulder to American shoulder, our myriad faces streaked with tears as we sang “Amazing Grace.” It was a moment I will be proud to tell my grandkids about one day.
What that moment taught me is this: Something profound is happening in America that runs far deeper than politics. The ground is shifting, and it’s in freedom’s direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 2012: It is a tragedy that the goal of MLK, a society where people are "measured by the content of their character and not the color of their skin," has been so distorted and hollowed out to be used as a political tool by the left. All of the most prominent voices of the black civil rights movement today - Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. - invariably seem to be doing far more for themselves than for blacks as a group. Indeed, for but one example, there is Prof. Henry L. Gates who has made an entire, extremely well paying career at Harvard out of arguing for reparations from all whites to all blacks for the original sin of slavery in America.
And as I pointed out in a post a few days ago, in taking stock of what the Civil Rights Movement and the Obama administration have achieved through today:
. . . Blacks should be waking up to a hard lesson - that the left wing promises sold to them, the separatism and victimhood, they are all empty. And on the two most important issues facing blacks today, jobs and education, their best hopes lay with the right.
. . . The black middle class has been growing steadily since 1955. But that middle class is under full frontal assault from Obama. According to the Economic Policy Institute, quoted in the Chicago Sun Times, the median net worth for black families has plunged 83% under Obama. Black unemployment has risen to 16.2%, and only 56.9% of black men over the age of 20 remain in today's workforce. According to the Censsus Bureau, the poverty rate for black households in America today is at a staggering 27.4%. As the Sun-Timessummed this up:
Millions of Americans endured financial calamities in the recession. But for many in the black community, job loss has knocked them out of the middle class and back into poverty. And some experts warn of a historic reversal of hard-won economic gains that took black people decades to achieve.
“History is going to say the black middle class was decimated” over the past few years, said Maya Wiley, director of the Center for Social Inclusion. “But we’re not done writing history.”
Adds Algernon Austin, director of the Economic Policy Institute’s Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy: “The recession is not over for black folks.”
And indeed, it should be noted that Obama's most recent decision to decimate Army ranks will likewise severely restrict another historic avenue for black advancement to the middle class. In the Army, 27.7% of the enlisted ranks are filled by blacks.
[The second way in which the modern civil rights movements has wholly failed the black community is in education, and particularly] the horrid state of public education in the inner cities. Is is, as Juan Williams has called it from the left, "the key civil rights issue of this generation." And as Thomas Sowell has opined from the right, "Republicans have a golden opportunity to go after the votes of black parents by connecting the dots and exposing one of the key reasons for bad education in inner cities and the bad consequences that follow.."
Both Williams and Sowell also agree that the single biggest hurdle to improving education in the inner cities is the power of teachers' unions. The left stands shoulder to shoulder with all public sector unions - teachers' unions in particular - because they provide much of the economic base for Democrats. And indeed, Exhibit one in trying to win the black vote on this issue is Obama who, at the start of his administration, ended the DC voucher program for DC's inner city youth, while at the same time he enrolled his children in the area's best private school.
. . . One of the things that is long overdue is some Republican re-thinking — or perhaps thinking for the first time — about the approach that they have been using, with consistently disastrous results, for trying to get the black vote.
The black vote was once consistently Republican, from the time of Abraham Lincoln to Herbert Hoover. Even after Franklin D. Roosevelt won over the black vote to the Democrats, it was not considered remarkable when Eisenhower got a higher share of the black vote than any Republican president in recent times has.
It may be years before Republicans can again get a majority of the black vote. But Republicans don’t need to get a majority of the black vote. If they get 20 percent of the black vote, the Democrats are in trouble — and if they get 30 percent, the Democrats have had it in the general elections.
One of the great travesties of the past half century has been how the far left has fully sewn up the black vote. It was LBJ's championing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 - over the objection on Constitutional grounds of Barry Goldwater - that cemented the black vote for Democrats. Since then, blacks have regularly voted near 90% for Democrats.
The Democrats have been able to accomplish this by treating the blacks as servile victims permanently entitled to special treatment. Democrats substituted a brand of soft racism for the hard racism that was historically the hallmark of their party. And as we see today, that faustian bargain has worked out much better for the hard left than it has for blacks in our society.
But that house of cards is crumbling before our very eyes. Quite literally, all of the stars are aligned for conservatives to make a real push for the black vote. Blacks should be waking up to a hard lesson - that the left wing promises sold to them, the separatism and victimhood, they are all empty. And on the two most important issues facing blacks today, jobs and education, their best hopes lay with the right.
The first star in alignment is jobs. The black middle class has been growing steadily since 1955. But that middle class is under full frontal assault from Obama. According to the Economic Policy Institute, quoted in the Chicago Sun Times, the median net worth for black families has plunged 83% under Obama. Black unemployment has risen to 16.2%, and only 56.9% of black men over the age of 20 remain in today's workforce. According to the Censsus Bureau, the poverty rate for black households in America today is at a staggering 27.4%. As the Sun-Times summed this up:
Millions of Americans endured financial calamities in the recession. But for many in the black community, job loss has knocked them out of the middle class and back into poverty. And some experts warn of a historic reversal of hard-won economic gains that took black people decades to achieve.
“History is going to say the black middle class was decimated” over the past few years, said Maya Wiley, director of the Center for Social Inclusion. “But we’re not done writing history.”
Adds Algernon Austin, director of the Economic Policy Institute’s Program on Race, Ethnicity and the Economy: “The recession is not over for black folks.”
And indeed, it should be noted that Obama's most recent decision to decimate Army ranks will likewise severely restrict another historic avenue for black advancement to the middle class. In the Army, 27.7% of the enlisted ranks are filled by blacks.
The second star in alignment is the horrid state of public education in the inner cities. Is is, as Juan Williams has called it from the left, "the key civil rights issue of this generation." And as Thomas Sowell has opined from the right, "Republicans have a golden opportunity to go after the votes of black parents by connecting the dots and exposing one of the key reasons for bad education in inner cities and the bad consequences that follow.."
Both Williams and Sowell also agree that the single biggest hurdle to improving education in the inner cities is the power of teachers' unions. The left stands shoulder to shoulder with all public sector unions - teachers' unions in particular - because they provide much of the economic base for Democrats. And indeed, Exhibit one in trying to win the black vote on this issue is Obama who, at the start of his administration, ended the DC voucher program for DC's inner city youth, while at the same time he enrolled his children in the area's best private school.
Then there is the third star in alignment. Black Republicans are starting to gain a wide voice. When groups like the Black Caucus or the NAACP play the race card now, there are black conservatives like LTC Alen West to respond. And the message of West and his ilk to their fellow blacks is quite literally to runaway from the Democratic plantation.
And finally, the last star in alignment is the race card. There was a time when throwing the race card ended all debate, sending the one whom the card was aimed at ducking and running for cover. For a host of reasons, that is no longer true today. The race card is near bankrupt - though that won't stop the hard left from playing it while there is still any life in their bodies. The race card has been the key to their rise to power. Its bankruptcy spells their death knell. Indeed, expect the race card to fly fast and furious when Republicans seriously vie for the black vote.
For their part, as Republicans vie for the black vote, they must heed the warning of Dr. Thomas Sowell:
There is no point today in Republicans’ continuing to try to win over the average black voter by acting like imitation Democrats. Those who like what the Democrats are doing are going to vote for real Democrats.
Indeed, in the current climate, there is no reason to pretend to be anything other than a conservative Republican when addressing the black community.
It is doubtful that we will ever see again the stars aligned so favorably for breaking the Democrat's stranglehold on the black vote. But according to people close to the issue, it would appear that there is virtually no top down attempt being made by the Republican Party to court the black vote. This from PJM:
Timothy Johnson is the chairman and founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation. He is less than impressed with the Republican Party’s outreach efforts:
I’m a past party official, so I can speak from in house party politics. The short answer is the party sucks at it. That’s the bottom line. The party when it comes down to the black community is doing a terrible job, and is still doing a terrible job.
Johnson said that the GOP may have done a little better under the leadership of Michael Steele, but the current leadership has simply given up on getting black votes:
I have candidates who are honest with me and they say, “Tim, I’ve had people tell me ‘Don’t worry about the black community.’” That pisses me off. When they are honest with me and say, ‘Tim, we’ve been told, ‘Don’t worry about going to the black community, they’re not going to vote for you anyway,’” that’s a bold faced lie. You don’t know who I’m going to vote for. I’m an American.
That is just unforgivable. The opportunity is here for a long term shift in the political calculus in favor of the right and very much for the betterment of black Americans as a whole. It just remains to be taken like the low hanging fruit that it is.
Polls show that Florida Governor and senate candidate Charlie Crist is getting swamped by the challenger Marco Rubio. Crist's latest act ought to see him lose what little support he still has among Republicans. That latest act is Crist's veto of a bill that would have removed tenure rules for Florida public school teachers and instituted merit pay. I have blogged extensively on these issues within the context of public sector unions here. For all the reasons I set forth in that post, issues of public sector unions, tenure rules and teacher merit pay should be core issues of the Republican Party in 2010 and beyond. How any Republican - even the most nominal of Republicans - could possibly veto this bill is mind boggling. Dafydd at Big Lizards makes the case that Crist is eyeing a run as an independent and does not want to upset his new base. If so - and I think Dafydd is right - then it is an act of incredible political cynicism. The alternative is that Crist is a big government Democrat wearing only the moniker of Republican. In either event, as Dafydd concludes, "it's time for Charlie Crist to go."
Meet our newest Republican, compliments of Michael Steele:
After learning of the RNC's fundraising at a lesbian bondage club, porn star Stormy Daniels was so impressed that she decided to switch parties from Democrat to Republican. Daniels, decidedly not from the social conservative wing of the Republican Party, is nonetheless a fiscal conservative with some very libertarian beliefs. This from Politico:
. . . We can thank Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele for Daniels’s rightward turn. She was a registered Dem until the infamous Voyeur nightclub incident, she said.
“While this decision has not been an easy one, recent events regarding Republican National Committee fundraising at Voyeur, an L.A.-based lesbian bondage-themed nightclub, finally tipped the scales,” she said in a statement. “For me, this spirit can be summed up in the RNC’s investment of donor funds at Voyeur. As someone who has worked extensively in both the club and film side of the adult entertainment industry, I know from experience that a mere $1,900 outlay at a club with the reputation of Voyeur is a clear indication of a frugal investment with a keen eye toward maximum return.”
She added: “As is the case with so many of my fellow Louisianans, I have been a registered Democrat throughout my life. But now I cannot help but recognize that over time my libertarian values regarding both money and sex and the legal use of one for the other [are] now best espoused by the Republican Party.”
It was during the Ali-Foreman fight that Ali made famous the rope-a-dope strategy. He was on the ropes most of the fight, way back on points - until Foreman got tired in the later rounds and Ali knocked him out. Foreman had strength and power on Ali. Ali played him like a cheap violin.
Now we have Obama, on the ropes, his poll numbers sinking quicker than a lead weight dropped over the a deep sea trench, and he has invited the Republicans to a televised meeting on health care. For the Congressional Republicans to take this bait is the height of stupidity. Yet according to WaPo, that is precisely what they intend to do.
The Senate's top Republican promised Sunday morning that he and his members will attend President Obama's health care summit on Thursday "ready to participate" but said the Democrats are being "arrogant" by refusing to scrap their legislation and start over.
"You know, they are saying, "Ignore the wishes of the American people. We know more about this than you do. And we're going to jam it down your throats no matter what," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on Fox News Sunday.
Republicans have accused the president of using Thursday's summit as political theater, and had raised the prospect of not attending. McConnell dismissed the idea of a GOP boycott, saying that "we're discussing the -- sort of the makeup of the room and that sort of thing, but yeah, I intend to be there and my members will be there and ready to participate."
McConnell said, however, that his party will continue to oppose Democrats if they try to use the parliamentary tactic called "reconciliation" to pass parts of their health care agenda without 60 votes in the Senate. He acknowledged that there are "a variety of different options" that Republicans could use to try and slow that process.
"The only thing bipartisan about it would be the opposition to it, because a number of Democrats have said, "Don't do this. This is not the way to go," McConnell said.
"We believe that we think a better way to go is to, step by step, move in the direction of dealing with the cost issue, targeting things like junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals, interstate insurance competition, small association health plans," he added. "There are a number of things you can do without having the government try to take over one-sixth of the economy." . . .
This is sheer idiocy from a Senator who has obviously spent far too much time in Washington. McConnell also played a pivotal role in the big spending ways of the previous Republican Congress and in refusing to forgo earmarks since. This horse's ass is now going to play right into Obama's hands. I hope that there are ten Tea Party candidates that take part in the Republican primary for this joker's seat.
McConnell is clearly concerned about not appearing "bipartisan." But Obama, Reid and Pelosi have made this the most partisan Congress in over a century. McConnell is spineless indeed if he is afraid to explain that to the American people in no uncertain terms.
The left's health care monstrosity is an economy buster that most Americans do not want passed. It was written by the left with little to no Republican input. Republicans have every right in the world to refuse Obama's dog and pony show on 25 February. They should offer instead to talk about jobs. Barring that, there is not a single thing good that can come out of this for Republicans.
What I expect to happen on Feb. 25 is Obama will attempt to portray his plan as moderate and the Republicans as pure obstructionists. Repulicans will respond in respectful and measured tones wholly inappropriate to the level of malfeasence by Obama and the Democrats in the crafting of this bill, and wholly inappropriate to the level of danger this bill poses to our nation. Regardless, Obama will use that as cover and justification to jam healthcare down the throats of all Americans using the budget reconciliation process. McConnell is assisting. Rope a Republican indeed. God help us, in 2010 we need to throw all the bums out.
Congressional Republicans are about to make a mistake. Earlier last week, Obama announced that he would like to meet with Congressional Republicans about health care in a televised event. This is a trap for Republicans. It's Obama in place of Lucy, waiting for the Republican Charlie Brown to try and kick the football. Here is how it is being spun by the Washington Post.
President Obama brought Republicans to the negotiating table on Tuesday, hoping to stem a steady deterioration in relations between the two parties that has brought business in Washington to a standstill, left the Democratic agenda in tatters and angered voters who are eager to have lawmakers address their concerns.
The two-hour session was part of a renewed drive by the White House to create legislation by consensus, regardless of party label. Obama tried the approach after he took office, but it did not take hold. . . .
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll suggests that the public is frustrated by the bickering and recriminations. According to the survey, 57 percent of Americans consider the loss of the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof supermajority a "good thing," but few think Republicans should wield their new power to block bills frequently. Nearly six in 10 say that Republicans are not doing enough to forge compromise with Obama on important issues, while nearly half view the president as doing too little to overcome differences with the GOP.
On the issue of health-care reform, public attitudes about the stalled Democratic legislation remain virtually deadlocked. But nearly two-thirds of voters, or 63 percent, want Congress to keep trying to tackle the issue. . . .
One, what has brought Washington to a standstill has not been the Republicans who, until two weeks ago, couldn't effect any piece of legislation the left wanted to steamroll through Congress. Democrats brought Washington to a standstill. Two, if this poll WaPo talks about wasn't a push poll I'll eat my hat. It is at the very least an outlier. Every poll I have seen to date puts health care reform a couple of rungs below the top of what voters care about, and the health care monstrasity that has been crafted by the left is what gave Scott Brown his victory in blue Mass. This article could have been authored by Robert Gibbs. And lastly, the claims to bipartisanship efforts by Obama are just surreal.
The 2700 page Healthcare monstrosity is dead - and there is not a single thing inside that bill, not a even a single period or comma, that should be resuscitated. It was a bill that Republicans were all but completely shut out of - by Obama, Reid and Pelosi - from the start. Indeed, through much of 2009, Obama closed the doors of the White House to the Republicans on the health care issue. And lest we forget, there was his infamous response to Republican calls for bipartisanship in regards to the Stimiulus bill last January - "I won." That's right, and he owns it all now.
That is precisely why Obama now wants to make a dog and pony show of "bipartisanship" in the run up to the 2010 elections? Spare me. He wants to pass his radical agenda without change. Barring that, he wants to portray himself and his far, far left agenda as middle of the road, while Republicans are made out to be the "obstructionists" - and in that effort, he will be given the full support by the MSM, as the opening salvo by WaPo makes clear.
CBS's Mark Knoll deals with the reality of "bipartisanship." He assesses that Obama's calls for bipartisanship are nothing more or less than a call for Republicans to surrender:
Unannounced, President Obama took to the lectern in the White House briefing room today to give a personal readout of his meeting earlier with congressional leaders of both parties.
"Despite the political posturing that often paralyzes this town, there are many issues upon which we can and should agree, he said.
It was more a plaintive plea than a political observation. His top legislative priorities are going nowhere and he's searching for a way to get them out of lockup.
In this 13th month of his presidency, he's anxious to pass a jobs bill and be seen addressing an unemployment rate that only last week declined from double digits. And his efforts to enact bills on energy, financial regulatory reform and especially health care are stuck in Congress despite the solid majority his party holds in both chambers.
He's appealing for a spirit of bipartisanship - urging Democrats and Republicans alike "to put aside matters of party for the good of the country."
It's a familiar refrain from U.S. presidents who can't get their way in Congress. . . .
What these presidential appeals for bipartisanship always mean is: do it my way.
Mr. Obama said he "won't hesitate to embrace a good idea from my friends in the minority party." But he wants his way. He wants his energy policy enacted along with his jobs bill, his financial regulatory reform and his health care plan.
And if the opposition continues to block his objectives, he said he "won't hesitate to condemn what I consider to be obstinacy that's rooted not in substantive disagreement but in political expedience."
When a sitting president calls for bipartisanship by the opposition – he really means surrender. And if they block his proposals, its "obstinacy" and not political views they hold as strongly as he holds his. . . .
This offer from Obama of a televised meeting with Republicans on health care holds no upsides for Republicans. What Republicans should do is recount how they have been shut out of the crafting of the bill. They should explain that there is no way to simply tweak this health care monstrosity in a way to make it anything but a drain on, if not a destroyer of, our economy, They should point out that the far left health care plan has been rejected by the American people. Then they should announce a stand on principle - that unless Obama is willing to throw out the health care bill and start over on a true bi-partisan bill, there is nothing to talk about on that issue. That should be coupled with an offer to meet in a televised meeting on jobs, unsustainable deficits, profligate spending, spending and tax cuts, and a national couterterrorism effort dangerously reduced to tatters - the immediate priorities of the American people (well, except for the last one, which is my own). Let Obama choke on that one.
Funniest graphic I've seen in a long time. A good scrubbing under the trunk, a shave and some nice clothes - hey, the Republican brand gets a makeover.
One can only imagine the byzantine politics behind this one, but who am I to look a gift donkey in the mouth. The NY Post reports that two Democrats in the NY State Senate, "Hiram Monserrate of Queens and Pedro Espada, Jr. of the Bronx -- are poised to announce that they have decided to caucus with the GOP out of anger at Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith." The story is not precisely clear as to the cause(s) of the angst, but it appears that the same-sex marriage bill now in the Senate is part of the problem. No matter, its good news regardless. It means that control of the NY State Senate will now pass to the Repulicans.
Without the many great and noble deeds of liberals over the past six or seven decades, America would hardly be recognizable to today’s young people. Liberals (including liberal Republicans, who have since been mostly drummed out of the party) ended legalized racial segregation and gender discrimination.
Mr. Herbert pretty much sums up what has been the far left / liberal / progressive line for decades. But then how to explain all the vicious, ad hominem and unhinged Palin-bashing coming from the left? To take it one further, how to reconcile that Palin-bashing with the left's acceptance of people like Rev. Jeremiah Wright as a part of their stable? It seems quite the conundrum unless one knows a bit of history and can identify the massive deceits. Here are some facts, some of which you might not be aware:
- In fairness, it was the Democrat Harry Truman who, by Executive Order 9981 issued in 1948, desegregated the military. That was a truly major development. My own belief is that the military has been the single greatest driving force of integration in this land for over half a century.
- It was Chief Justice Earl Warren, a former Republican Governor of California appointed to the Supreme Court by President Eisenhower, also a Republican, who managed to convince the other eight justices to agree to a unanimous decision in the seminal case of Brown v. Board of Education. That case was brought by the NAACP. The Court held segregation in schools unconstitutional. The fact that it was a unanimous decision that overturned precedent made it clear that no aspect of segregation would henceforth be considered constitutional.
- Republican President Ike Eisenhower played additional important roles in furthering equality in America. He "proposed to Congress the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960 and signed those acts into law. . . . They constituted the first significant civil rights acts since the 1870s." Moreover, when the Democratic Governor of Arkansas refused to integrate schools in what became known as the "Little Rock Nine" incident, "Eisenhower placed the Arkansas National Guard under Federal control and sent Army troops to escort nine black students into an all-white public school."
- The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was championed by JFK - but it was passed with massive Republican support (over 80%) in Congress and over fierce opposition from Democrats who made repeated attempts at filibuster. Indeed, 80% of the vote opposing the Civil Rights Act came from Democrats. Women were added to the Act as a protected class by a Democrat who thought it would be a poison pill, killing the legislation. To the contrary, the Congress passed the Act without any attempt to remove the provision.
- Martin Luther King Jr. was the most well known and pivotal Civil Rights activist ever produced in America. His most famous speech, "I Had A Dream," was an eloquent and stirring call for equality. If you have not read the speech or heard it, you can find it here. I would highly recommend listening to it. Rev. King was, by the way, a Republican.
- and finally, as an aside, Mr. Herbert does not name a single Republican - and I can find none from 1854 to the present - that has ever been drummed out of the Republican party for their opposition to civil rights. That charge is libelous. Could this be projection on his part? I ask since purges to insure ideological purity have occurred recently on the left.
Nothing that I say here is to suggest that racism and sexism could not be found in the Republican party or among conservatives at any point in American history. But if you take any period in history and draw a line at the midpoint of racist and sexist attitudes, you would find far more Republicans than Democrats on the lesser side of that line. And you would find a much greater willingness on the part of Republicans, relative to the time, to effectuate equality. That was as true in 1865 as in 1965 - and in 2008.
Sometime about 1968, the far left movement emerged as a major wing of the Democratic Party. This far left wing hijacked the civil rights movement and made it, ostensibly, the raison d'etre of their wing. Gradually, the far left has grown until it is now the dominant force in Democratic politics. JFK, Truman and FDR would recognize precious little of today's Democratic Party.
The far left fundamentally altered the nature of the Civil Rights movement when they claimed it as their own. They imprinted the movement with identity politics, grossly distorting the movement's goal of a level playing field for all Americans and creating in its stead a Marxist world of permanent victimized classes entitled to special treatment. The far left has been the driver of reverse racism and sexism for the past half century. That is why it is no surprise that, with the emergence of a far left candidate for the highest office in the nation, Rev. Jeremiah Wright should also arise at his side and into the public eye preaching a vile racism and separatism most Americans thought long dead in this country. Nor is it any surprise that the MSM, many of whom are of the far left, should collectively yawn at Obama's twenty year association with Wright. Wright is anything but an anamoly. To the contrary, he is a progeny of the politics of the far left.
The far left did not merely hijack the civil rights movement, they also wrote over a century of American history, turning it on its head. That is why Bob Herbert, quoted above, is able to wax so eloquently while spouting the most horrendous of deceits. The far left managed to paint the conservative movement and the Republican Party as the prime repositories of racism and sexism. The far left has long held themselves out as the true party of equality. They have done so falsely as, by its very nature, identity politics cements inequality. Beyond that truism, the far left has for decades played the race and gender cards to counter any criticism of their policies, to forestall any reasoned debate and to demonize those who stand opposed to them. They continue to do so through this very day.
For example, Obama has attempted repeatedly to play the race card so as to delegitimize criticism of his policies. And today we have the Governor of New York calling the McCain camp racist for belittling the executive experience one could expect to be gleaned from the position of "community organizer." Apparently, according to Gov. David Patterson, "repeated use of the words 'community organizer' is Republican code for 'black'." What Gov. Patterson is doing is the well worn trick of taking any criticism of something pertaining to one of the victim class and recasting it as an illegitimate attack on the victim class itself. These tactics, which the left has used with incredible effectiveness in the past, have done incalculable harm to our nation over the decades.
We are either a melting pot wherein "all men are created equal" - the ideal of our Founders for which we have long strived and are ever closer to succeeding - or we are to become a multicultural nation of pigeon-holed special interests. We are to become a nation where groups are encouraged to remain apart, defining themselves by their victim class before defining themselves as Americans. Multiculturalism is unworkable - we can see it destroying Europe and Britain - but that has not stopped the far left in America from their embrace of the concept. Nor has it slowed their efforts to weave multiculturalism irrevocably into the fabric of our society.
The far left has long pushed forward minorities and women to prove that they are the party of inclusiveness. On the right, the process has been slower. You had the percolation of minorities and women to major positions through the natural process of time and selection of the fittest. Only the most jaded would ever argue that Colin Powell and Condi Rice did not earn their positions solely on merit. And love her or hate her, Kristi Todd Whitman was both well qualified and a very good governor.
I have long been waiting for a self-made and accomplished woman or minority to rise to the very top in Republican politics. It is something that would intrinsically expose the incredibly damaging canard that the far left has pushed for near half a century. I had hoped Colin Powell would be that man a decade ago. As to Condi Rice, had things worked out differently for the Bush administration and had she not selected the Sec. of State slot (a killer for anyone with Pres. aspirations) I thought that perhaps she would have a good shot at running in 2008. I've been waiting for Thomas Sowell to run for any elected office for decades - and yes, I would consider him for beatification. These are people for whom neither their skin color nor their gender makes them a victim. These are people for whom what unites us in common as Americans is more important than what divides us into sub-groups. And these are people who earned their success by virtue of their excellence rather than the distortions of identity politics.
It is inevitable that one of the two concepts I earlier described - a melting pot of equals or a multicultural morass of victim groups - will gain ascendance in America. I have long felt that we are at a crossroads in our nation for precisely this reason, and that the ramifications of how we decide this issue will be existential.
On this blog, I congratulated Obama for achieving the status of the first African American nominee for President. I meant that sincerely, though I have also said before that he is the product of identity politics. He is the polar opposite of the post racial candidate he held himself out to be initially. It seems likely that the policies he would institute in America would represent the victory of multiculturalism - and indeed, Obama has explicitly stated his view of multiculturalism as the future of America. It would alter our nation fundamentally to create not simply a house divided, but a house with countless divides.
Sarah Palin is the emblem of what feminism was supposed to be all about: an unafraid, independent, audacious woman, who soared on her own merits without the aid of a patriarchal jumpstart, high-brow matrimonial tutelage and capital, and old-boy liaisons and networking.
What we have seen in shrill reaction from the far left to Ms. Palin shines a giant spotlight on the far left's agenda. Their goal is not equality for women or any other minority, else the rise of Sarah Palin would be welcomed on its merits, irrespective of other political disagreements. There would be no need or attempt to delegitimize her. The frothing and vitriolic reaction of the far left shows their goal to actually be the maintenance of a permanent victim class that can be used by the far left to further their fundamantal goal of remaking society into a socialist utopia. Sarah Palin, by her very being, exposes the canard and is thus an existential danger to the far left.
All of that - the deception, the rewriting of history, the true agenda - is why Mr. Herbert can wax eloquent about the great civil rights victories of the modern left even as his compatriots set out to wholly destroy Sarah Palin. And all of that makes Sarah Palin's ascendance meaningful indeed. The rise of Obama and Hillary on the left have pushed us to the center of a crossroads on all of this, with the only option being of a turn in one direction or another. McCain's utterly brilliant selection of Gov. Palin as his running mate clarifies the issues completely and makes the choices stark. Because of that, my personal belief is that this election will have ramifications long beyond the next four years. A victory for Obama will go a long way to fundamentally reworking our society in the far left mold. A victory for McCain/Palin will mark a major step backwards from that abyss. It will be a truly major blow against the far left and their agenda for this country. There is much at stake indeed this November.
Naming Gov. Sarah Palin as the V.P. pick was a masterstroke by McCain. It has energized his base and opened up a multi-level trap for the left that they are powerless to avoid. Her resume is sufficiently thin that the left cannot resist attacking her on grounds of experience – drawing a very unfavorable comparison to Obama who has based his candidacy on the propositoin that experience doesn't matter. Two, character assassination and misogynistic attacks just are not going to work against this woman. In fact, it will very likely backfire. But precisely because of who she is and what she represents, the left is just powerless to stop themselves from going down that road.
A panic choice for VP? That is the first knock on Gov. Palin from the left in an effort to delegitimize her. But all indications are that Gov. Palin was anything but a panic pick. For one, at this point in the game, McCain is far ahead in the polls of where he could expect to be in historical terms. There was no reason to panic. But beyond that, it is coming out now that McCain had Gov. Palin at the top of his list for months because of her character and background. As the LA Times said today
It is easy to see why McCain was drawn to her; their political resumes have much in common. The 44-year-old Republican has sold herself as a political maverick willing to buck her party over principle, an ethics reformer who quit a lucrative job rather than play ball with the old boys' network and a pragmatist who will reach across the aisle to get her agenda enacted. Like McCain, she has at times been a black sheep in her own party. . . .
According to WaPo, McCain was taken by Palin from the first time he heard her speak in February at a Governor's Association meeting. He saw her as a "kindered spirit" from the start. As Newsweek calls her in a surprisingly flattering article, she is McCain's Mrs. Right.
And given her conservative credentials, she has energized the base like no other pick could have. Gov. Palin hits all the social conservative hot buttons, including that she is herself an evangelical. Add to that her strengths on the Second Amendment, her fiscal conservativism and her incredible political bravery in standing on ethics issues, and Evangelicals along with the rest of the base couldn't be more excited. Even Hillbilly Whitetrash, as committed against McCain as any conservative could be, is now going to be pulling the lever for the PALIN-McCain ticket. Donations to the McCain campaign have skyrocketed. McCain and Palin just drew record crowds – Obama numbers – to their campaign stop in Missouri.
The meme that Governor Palin was a panic pick – or even that she was an affirmative action pick – just cannot survive on the above facts. Clearly, her plumbing is secondary to her appeal to the base, regardless that said plumbing happens to likely be an asset in the current race.
And that, really, is why the far left just will not be able to help themselves in going after Gov. Palin with all sorts of ad hominem attacks doomed to backfire. Gov. Palin is a woman. As such, she is a victim and is expected to embrace her victimhood. But Gov. Palin doesn’t fit that bill. I dare say you are not likely to see tears coming from her during a campaign stop. You’ve seen the left attack others like her who have refused to embrace their victimhood. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, Bill Cosby, Colin Powell, Thomas Sowell – all are classed as victims by the left but all failed to embrace their victimhood. Thus all have regularly been savaged by the far left. The far left can’t help themselves on this. (Update: The Daily Standard perfectly captures this is in the NOW reaction to Gov. Palin. She may be a woman, but she is not acting the victim and thus is to be fought against and denigrated)
Outside of an election, it does not matter so much. But in this case, the nation is watching and waiting to pull the levers in a referendum in November.
Thus you have most on the left doing all they can to denigrate Palin. Andrea Mitchell, appearing on NBC the other day, called Palin "Annie Oakley" and said that she would only appeal to the undeducated among Hillary voters. Then there are the attacks on Palin for her competence as a mother. This bizarre argument is predicated on her decision to fly back to Alaska to give birth after her water broke.
The Kos kids have been pushing the rather incredible rumor that Gov. Palin's son Trig, her four month old child with Downs Syndrome, is actually her grandson. That one goes beyond bizarre. Rightwing Nuthouse addresses this one in some detail, and Ann Althouse comments today
Stop prying into other people's vaginas, even if you happen to oppose them politically. What is wrong with you people?" The insane obsession with Sarah Palin's pregnancy rages on. This will all go down in the annals of feminism, people. So think before you write. Andrew? [AND.]
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Protein Wisdom has an entire round-up of all the ad hominem attacks on Palin. They run the gambit from incredible snobbery to charges of witchcraft and labels of trailer trash. And there is the half true but completely false rumor that Palin is a convicted felon. Ben Smith has the whole story on that one. At any rate, the floodgates have been opened. The far left are powerless. And if the other 90% of America – those not in the MSM, not members of Kos, or not drawing Soros paychecks – end up liking this incredible woman, then the blowback will be severe.
But that is just one level of the trap posed by Gov. Palin. While I would argue her experience is sufficient to be named Vice President, there is room there for argument. But there is a rule of thumb – you don’t attack an enemy - even a potentially weak one - when you’re weaker than they are. That just has not dawned on the left yet. They see weakness and they are going to go for the kill – not realizing that crossing that field is as suicidal as Pickett’s charge.
But charge they will – and thus the argument that Gov. Palin is too inexperienced to be VP is now front and center. You have to love all the irony in this question put to Obama in a 60 Minutes interview Sunday:
Does the fact that he chose as his Vice President someone who has less experience than you take that weapon out of his arsenal?
Wow. Think of just how that question is going to play when it is asked everyday between now and November. Pushing the inexperience meme against Palin in relation to Obama is a minefield of titanic proportions for the left. As McCain has noted, Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden together, and she was serving in elected office when Obama was "still a community organizer." But far more importantly, that is an apples to oranges comparison. The real comparison is McCain to Obama. Obama has gotten this far on the argument that experience does not matter. If all of a sudden it does matter, Obama’s huge problems just grew exponentially.
The one thing I’ve been moderately concerned about is the ethics complaint made against Gov. Palin by a man she fired for cause, former Public Safety Commissioner Walt Monegan. I could not see McCain tapping Palin for V.P. without thoroughly investigating this and satisfying himself that this a charge with no validity. That said, I've been waiting for someone to explain the whole story. Joshuapundit has performed that service for us. You can read about it as his site, but it appears that, while there are a lot of moving parts to the story, none of them splash mud onto Gov. Palin.
All of this said, Gov. Palin is going to sink or swim over the next two months. She has her work cut out for her because, given that few really know her and given the short decision time, she has precious little room for mistakes. She needs to live up to her resume and she needs to show enough grasp of the issues to make people comfortable with her. That is very much borne out by a Frank Lunze focus group you can find at Hot Air. Probably never before has so much ridden on two months of campaigning and one VP debate.
But it does now. For the next two months, its going to be pure Palindemonium.
Alaska's Governor Sarah Palin is the Republican VP Pick. This is a brilliant pick. She is a strong conservative and a true Washington outside. She has had private sector business experience, she has executive experience, she is pro-life, she is a mother of five, including a soldier and Down's Syndrome child, she is a strong proponent of drilling in ANWR, and she is a maverick herself by all accounts, having taken on the corrupt Republican Party in Alaska and won. This just threw a wild card into the race.
This from the Washington Post:
Republican presumptive presidential nominee John McCain has chosen first-term Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, according to a senior McCain adviser.
Palin, 44, will be the first woman nominated to the ticket by the Republican Party, and is a surprise choice after McCain considered more experienced politicians, including several of his former rivals for the GOP nomination. Palin was elected in 2006, and before that was mayor of tiny Wasilla, population 6,715.
She is a favorite of conservatives, who say she brings a reform-minded agenda and is what one called a "feminist for life.'' She is the mother of five; her youngest child, born in April, has Down's syndrome.
Palin had been before mentioned as a dark-horse candidate for the pick, but speculation in recent days had focused on McCain's primary rival Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, and on Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty. The choice--to be announced at a noon rally here--was kept secret by the McCain campaign despite a frenzy of speculation from the 24/7 world of cable news and political blogs.
. . . McCain's communications director, Jill Hazelbaker, playfully declined to provide any confirmation Friday morning. Speaking on CBS' "Early Show," she provided only a vague sense of the motivation that has driven McCain's decision. "John McCain is going to make the choice from his heart," she said.
"He's going to choose someone who can be a partner in governing. He's going to choose someone who brings character and principle to the table and who shares his priorities. And I'm confident that he's going to make a great pick."
. . . Karl Rove, President Bush's former top political advisers, said on Fox News that picking Palin would "shake up" the traditional coalitions in both parties. He called Palin a "breath of fresh air," and said picking her would be an indication that McCain is hoping to make a direct appeal to women voters, especially those who voted for Sen. Hillary Clinton, not Sen. Barack Obama, during the Democratic primary.
"It would be a clear sign by the McCain campaign that they would be making a bid" for women voters, Rove said. "In the last 24 hours, we've seen both campaigns refocus themselves in a powerful way on the Hillary Clinton supporters."
One GOP source who said McCain had chosen Palin call it a "stunning pick" and said he was still trying to get his arms around it. The source, who did not want to be named since McCain has not commented publicly, said conservatives will be pleased since she is an anti-abortion Republican.
But he acknowledged that Palin is "not really that well known."
Aides to Obama said they are salivating at the prospect of a Palin pick, readying talking points to question McCain's choice. With 18 months in office, little foreign policy experience -- or experience of any kind -- Palin would be, in the words of one senior Obama adviser, "a gift."
Democratic officials expressed surprise about Palin but predicted that she will make it more difficult for McCain to use one of his central attacks on Obama: that the first-term senator lacks the experience the White House requires.
"He cannot say any more that Barack Obama doesn't have the experience to be commander in chief when he chooses a woman whose signature achievement two years ago was that they won an award from the National Arbor Day Foundation," a Democratic operative said.
Democrats began quickly scouring Palin's past. They pointed out that she had once raised the sales tax to support construction of a recreation center in her city. And they noted that Palin has been accused of improperly using her office to have her ex-brother-in-law fired from his state trooper's job.
"She's under investigation right now," the Democrat said.
Read the entire article. I am amazed that the Obama camp is denigrating her already.
Geraldine Ferrarro was the only other woman ever chosen to run on a major ticket. She is on Fox News at the moment saying that this is a big reach across the aisle to the PUMA folks that Obama just spent the last week trying to bring back into the fold.
Sarah Palin, John McCain’s vice presidential pick and the first female governor of Alaska, is seen as a rising star within the Republican Party.
She became the youngest person to assume the top office of the 49th State in 2006. Her anti-abortion stance is certain to appeal to evangelicals, while her views on the threats of climate change mirror those of Senator McCain.
“Palin is becoming a star in the conservative movement, a fiscal conservative in a state that is looking like a boondoggle for pork barrel spending,” Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway has said. “She’s young, vibrant, fresh and now, and a new mother of five. She should be in the top tier. If the Republican Party wants to wrestle itself free from the perception that it is royalist and not open to putting new talent on the bench, this would be the real opportunity.”
Palin’s presence adds youth to a McCain ticket, but it is her gender that could help sway women, especially the “security moms” who helped President Bush win re-election in 2004, to vote GOP.
Born in Sandpoint, Idaho, on Feb. 11, 1964, Palin moved with her family at the age of three months to Wasilla, Alaska, though she returned to her birth state to attend the University of Idaho, where she studied journalism and graduated in 1987 with a bachelor’s degree.
Palin is the mother of five children — Bristol, Willow, Piper, Track and Trig, who was born in April with Down syndrome.
She grew up in Wasilla, just outside of Anchorage, played on Wasilla’s state champion girls’ basketball team in 1982, wore the crown of Miss Wasilla in 1984 and competed in the Miss Alaska contest.
She began her professional career as a television sports reporter, but after she married her husband, Todd, she helped run his family’s commercial fishing business. Other professional endeavors included the ownership of a snow machine, watercraft and all-terrain-vehicle business.
She ran for Wasilla City Council in 1992, winning her seat by opposing tax increases. Four years later, she was elected mayor of Wasilla at age 32 by knocking off a three-term incumbent.
At the end of her second term, party leaders encouraged her to enter the 2002 race for the Republican nomination for lieutenant governor. Against veteran legislators with far more experience, Palin finished second by fewer than 2,000 votes, making a name for herself in statewide politics.
Palin had exceptionally high approval ratings through mid-2007 and received high marks for her accessibility, a change from Frank Murkowski’s administration.
My hats off to McCain. I was hoping he would make a bold pick. This certainly foots the bill. I was going to write an analysis of this, but I think Ed Morissey has done a better job than I can do on this one. This is his take on it all at Hot Air:
. . . Palin has served less than two years as Governor of Alaska, which tends to eat into the experience message on which McCain has relied thus far. At 44, she’s younger than Barack Obama by three years. She has served as a mayor and as the Ethics Commissioner on the state board regulating oil and natural gas, for a total of eight years political experience before her election as governor. That’s also less than Obama has, with seven years in the Illinois legislature and three in the US Senate.
Palin has no formal foreign-policy experience, which puts her at a disadvantage to Joe Biden. However, in nineteen months as governor, she certainly has had more practical experience in diplomacy than Biden or Obama have ever seen. She runs the only American state bordered only by two foreign countries, one of which has increasingly grown hostile to the US again, Russia.
And let’s face it — Team Obama can hardly attack Palin for a lack of foreign-policy experience. Obama has none at all, and neither Obama or Biden have any executive experience. Palin has almost over seven years of executive experience.
Politically, this puts Obama in a very tough position. The Democrats had prepared to launch a full assault on McCain’s running mate, but having Palin as a target creates one large headache. If they go after her like they went after Hillary Clinton, Obama risks alienating women all over again. If they don’t go after her like they went after Hillary, he risks alienating Hillary supporters, who will see this as a sign of disrespect for Hillary.
For McCain, this gives him a boost like no other in several different ways. First, the media will eat this up. That effectively buries Obama’s acceptance speech and steals the oxygen he needs for a long-term convention bump. A Romney or Pawlenty pick would not have accomplished that.
Second, Palin will re-energize the base. She’s not just a pro-life advocate, she’s lived the issue herself. That will attract the elements of the GOP that had held McCain at a distance since the primaries and provide positive motivation for Republicans, rather than just rely on anti-Democrat sentiment to get them to the polls.
Third, and I think maybe most importantly, Palin addresses the energy issue better and more attuned to the American electorate than maybe any of the other three principals in this election. Even beyond her efforts to reform the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, she has demonstrated her independence from so-called “Big Oil” while promoting domestic production. She brings instant credibility to the ticket on energy policy, and reminds independents and centrists that the Obama-Biden ticket offers nothing but the same excuses we’ve heard for 30 years.
Finally, based on all of the above, McCain can remind voters who has the real record of reform. Obama talks a lot about it but has no actual record of reform, and for a running mate, he chose a 35-year Washington insider with all sorts of connections to lobbyists and pork. McCain has fought pork, taken real political risks to fight undue influence of lobbyists, and he picked an outsider who took on her own party — and won.
This is change you can believe in, and not change that amounts to all talk. McCain changed the trajectory of the race today by stealing Obama’s strength and turning it against him. Obama provided that opening by picking Biden as his running mate, and McCain was smart enough to take advantage of the opening.
Posts
