Tag Archives: the census

Normally Liberal Friendly Northeast Is Not Looking So Friendly To Democrats in 2010

Bookmark and Share    Throughout its recent history, the Northeast has not generally been friendly to Republicans but in recent years it has been downright unfriendly to them, and in Congress, Northeastern Republicans are now almost extinct.

Comprised of New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and the six New England states of Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Vermont, the Northeast sends a combined total of 83 representatives to Congress, or about 20% of the total representation that the country has in the House of Representatives. Of those 83, only 13 are Republican. States like Connecticut, New Hampshire, Maine, Massachusetts and Rhode Island have not even a single Republican representing them in the House.

It was not always that way.

Much more political parody did once exist, but over the course of the last two decades, all parody was lost. Coincidentally, this decrease in Republican representation correlated with a decreasing growth of population in the Northeast. The region has been losing many residents to the South and to the West and as a result, not only are their fewer Republican representatives in that corner of the country, with less population, there are fewer congressional districts as well.

Between the 1980, 1990 and 2000 censuses, states like New York lost 10 congressional districts. In 1980 they lost five seats, in 1990 they lost three more and in 2000 they lost another two. The declining growth of population took the Empire State from 39 seats in 1980 to 29 seats in 2010.

New York was the hardest hit but most all the of the Northeast lost seats. New Jersey has lost 2 seats and Pennsylvania saw a decline of 6 seats.

Now with the region already having one of its lowest ever percentages of representation in the Capitol, after the 2010 census figures come out, they are expected to lose even more representation.

But another change may also be sweeping the region.

As resentment towards the Democrat controlled government increases, the anger is even seeping into the normally liberal friendly Northeast.

In states like Pennsylvania, not only are Republicans likely to maintain their hold on the six seats they currently occupy, but they are on the verge of picking as many as six new Republican seats. While in New York, in addition to the paltry two Republican seats that are in their column now, they are looking at picking up as many as 8 new Republican seats.

But the gains are not limited to the states with the largest delegations.

Rhode Island which has two seats could see a seat change in the district currently held by Senator Ted Kennedy’s son, Patrick.

After representing his Rhode Island district, now for eight terms, Patrick Kennedy woke up one morning to a WPRI-News 12 poll that stated the results showed him to be in for the race of his life with only 35% of the voters saying that they would vote for Patrick Kennedy again.

Since then, Patrick Kennedy has announced that he is retiring and not running for a ninth term in Congress.

South of the Ocean State, Connecticut is spicing things up with more than just nutmeg as they find two seats heavily in play and likely to swing in favor of Republicans. And North of the Ocean State, the Bay State of Massachusetts which sent a wave change sweeping through the nation after Republican Scott Brown won Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat, they may elect two new Republicans to Congress.

Of the two congressional seats occupied by Democrats in the Granite State, New Hampshire voters are looking to likely replace incumbent Democratic Carol Shea-Porter and pick up the Democrat seat that is being vacated by Congressman Paul Hodes, who is seeking the US Senate seat that is held by retiring Republican Senator Judd Gregg.

In New Jersey, one seat looks likely to change hands and go to the G.O.P. but as many as two more could follow.

The changing face of the congressional makeup of the Northeast is a powerful sign of things to come nationally. It is the strongest region for Democrats in the country but in the 2010 midterm elections it will produce some of the weakest results possible for Democrats. They are results that put the fear of God into them when they look at Republican strongholds such as the South and the West.

Add to that bad numbers and lagging prospects in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic states and what you have is a Democrat Party that is running for cover. Unfortunately for them, it looks like the leader of their Party, President Barack Obama, won’t be able to provide that cover. In fact, it would seem that he is why they need it in the first place. Just ask Creigh Deeds of Virginia, Jon Corzine of New Jersey and Martha Coakley of Massachusetts. All of them used Barry in their campaigns but now after sound defeats at the hands of the voters, they will all probably be among the first to tell you that if you want any chance of winning, keep the President as far away as possible.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

Democrats Offer Illegal Immigrants Reduced Tuition Costs For College Educations

Bookmark and Share    Eight days from now, Republican Chris Christie will be officially sworn in as the 55th Governor of New Jersey (legislation signed on January 10, 2006, allowed people who served as an acting governor for at least 180 days, to drop the “acting” from their title and be officially documented as a “Governor”. The law was retroactive to January 1, 2001). With such little time left, Democrats, who will continue to hold majority control of the state assembly and senate, are trying to pass any all things liberal.

This past Thursday, they feigned an attempt to change the definition of marriage and after dawn breaks on this day, they will try to pass a bill that will offer in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.

In-state tuition offers residents of New Jersey discounted rates to students who wish to attend any of New Jersey’s exemplary institutions of higher learning. Significant cost reductions are one of the few benefits that a resident of New Jersey receives for living and paying taxes in the Garden State. Students and their families who have not suffered from and shared in Jersey’s tax burden do not get that break.

Until now……at least if Democrats have their way.

In a last ditch effort to pass some of the most contentious parts of their agenda, Democrats are proposing to allow illegal immigrants who reside in New Jersey with in-state-tuition rates.

In other words, New Jersey liberals want illegal immigrants, who are hiding in the state, to be given the benefit of a reduced cost for their college degrees. If you live in New York and your son or daughter dreams of walking the New Brunswick campus of Rutgers University, they will have to account for the full, annual, out-of-state tuition fee of $17,709. With room and board that annual fee is about $30,000. But in-state tuition is $8,541 annually and with room and board it is about $20,000 or ten thousand less than the cost to out-of-state students.

The legislation begs many questions in my mind.

First; if the immigrant in question is illegal, how can their addresses be accurately verified and how can they be positively identified as a New Jersey resident.?

Second; if the student in question is an illegal immigrant, why would their illegal presence in the United States be rewarded with a discount for college and not instead be reported to the authorities?

Third; If you are going to charge American citizens or legal immigrants who are from another state more money than those who live in New Jersey, how could Democrats dare suggest that someone from another nation who is here illegally be charged less?  Why should an illegal immigrant who pays no state, or for that matter federal taxes, be rewarded with any  benefit.

Fourth; What does the word illegal mean?

A college degree should not be required to understand that the word “illegal” means “not permitted”. It connotes an act that is unlawful and against the rules. In simpler terms, it is “wrong”. To do or be anything that is classified as “illegal” means it is wrong or that you are in the wrong.

So why is it so difficult for Democrats to understand that wrong, bad, or in this case, “illegal” activity is not to be rewarded or extended benefits? Why can they not see the wrongness of charging illegal immigrants less for an education in New Jersey than we would other American citizens or students who are here legally? I am even brought to question how and why Democrats feel that they must make it compulsory for the state to educate illegal immigrants and mandate discounts for their higher educations?

It is legislation like this, legislation that lacks any common sense and tests the bounds of logic, which accounts for the reason why, in political lexicon, the word “liberal” is often viewed as ridiculously reckless and backwards. It is legislative initiatives like this which Democrats sponsor and promote which has made many Americans come to feel that Democrats have become a party of liberal extremists who lack the ability to tell right from wrong.

If somehow, a few Democrats are not so fearful of the whooping that they may eventually get from voters if they support this measure and the bill passes both houses of the legislature, outgoing Governor-deject Jonnie “Obama” Corzine, promises to sign it into law.

If that happens, unless Republicans can take control of both houses in the 2011 elections, this bill is unlikely to be brought up for another vote to repeal it and illegal immigrants will be able to count on New Jersey for many years to come.  

The arrangement  between Democrats and illegal immigrants is actually a very convenient one.   Evidence of that was ironically just yesterday, the day before the liberal agenda extends benefits to illegal immigrants. 

In Jersey City, one of the Garden State’s largest cities, Democrat mayor Jeremiah Healy made a much publicized announcement.  It was an appeal to illegal immigrants that urged them to be sure to fill out a census form.  Healy told illegal immigrants that if they don’t fill out the form , they wont count.  He went on to insure illegals that they can not be reported to any authorities or be arrested or deported.  The Mayor added that the same even applies to illegal immigrants who have outstanding warrants against them.

You might ask why the Mayor of a city would go out of his way to try to make sure that illegal immigrants, including ones that have arrest warrants out on them,   essentially be granted amnesty so that they can be counted in a census?

The answer is simple.  Most cities are Democrat strongholds and if Democrats can boost their population figures, they can also increase the representation that they receive in legislative bodies, including Congress.  With more representation comes more power.  So for Democrats, illegal immigrants are a valuable commodity that they can use to gerrymander legislative districts with.  To them, illegal immigrants can remain illegal, undocumented citizens for ever more, so long as they can be used to increase the number of Democrats that can represent strongholds, like New York City, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Detroit or other urban centers.

So really, is it any wonder why Democrats want to offer illegal immigrants benefits and reduced costs?

Bookmark and Share

4 Comments

Filed under politics

For Republicans Only: Rebuilding and Reinvigorating the Nation and Party-PART II

Bookmark and Share    In the first part of this series we pointed out that the devastating losses of 2006 and 2008 and the loss of the White House produced a severe shortage of prominent Republican figures on the national stage. reprebrand1Without an individual whom can be that face and without the party putting forth cohesive policy paths, on all levels, the G.O.P. is adrift in a turbulent sea of waves created by a torrent of liberal initiatives.

This situation led us to establish a few things.

First we must get everyone on the same page and identify the problems that face the nation and their causes and then paint a picture of those problems that can be depicted in the form of a common enemy. It was determined that we could easily call that enemy “the government” and show it to be the common antagonist in our lives that all Americans can rally with Republicans against.

We also established that we need a figure who without being a threat to any other Republican’s presidential ambitions, can provide the national voice for the message that the G.O.P. needs to get out.

That person was suggested in Part I, but putting aside exactly who is best suited to be the messenger, let us focus on the message.

Under President Obama, and the Democrat led Congress, it is quite apparent that a significant portion of society is finally beginning to question just how much control they want any American federal government to have over their lives.

This thinking is not new. Such sentiments have been eroding at the popularity of both the Republican and Democrat parties. It also accounts for the fairly significant and deep rooted, loyal base, of national support that Dr. Ron Paul, a Texas congressman has. Even though Ron Paul caucuses with Republicans and runs as one, he is at heart, a libertarian and it is to the libertarian party that we have lost many Republicans.

We must get them back and we can do so if we combat the government enemy by stressing less government, less government fiats upon the people that limit their freedoms, more economic and educational opportunities and more ethical political leaders.

As previously mentioned, this approach, as it was under Ronald Reagan, describes government as the enemy……the common enemy that the G.O.P. can inspire the American people to rally behind in the fight against the enemy.

By making it clear that while we are not proposing that there be no government, we must make it understood that as government is creating more problems than it is solving and spends more than it ever takes in, it must be curbed. It must be reduced in size and scope in order to stop costing the American people more than it is worth and to be effective in those areas which it should and could be effective.

With the government now owning financial institutions, car companies and getting more and more into the business of business, people are becoming increasingly skeptical. This encroaching government control is made even more threatening with the liberal passage of such things as Cap-and-Trade and now socialized medicine. Even senior citizens are beginning to oppose the administrations attempt to control their treatment and coverage in the face of aging and declining health.

All of this will not only begin to deteriorate our national quality of life, it will also start costing more. The more control that government has, the more money it needs to implement and maintain those controls

This message must and can be conveyed in many different ways and in regards to just about every issue that comes up. But in our message, as we unite Americans in combating our “common enemy”, we must also produce alternatives. To gain the peoples trust and recapture the majority in Congress, we must offer policy alternatives that flow from principles. Those principles are the same ones found in the Constitution and they are the principles of freedom. They are also the principles which many former Republicans who are now libertarians have come to realize we are drifting away from with increased speed as everyday passes by.

We must demonstrate that the Democrats are trying to play God by creating a centralized government power structure that overrides state’s rights and individual’s rights and has a hand in every single aspect of our lives.

But before Republicans oppose any action of the President or the Democrat controlled congress, they must have their policy alternative to offer at the same time.

This must be done in such a way that everyone from Republican Governors, and state legislative leaders, members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are all on the same page and speaking the same policy message and theme. To coordinate this, our Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell and our leader of the House, Republican Minority Leader John Boehner must work together. Coordination must also be made with the state Republican organizations and the Republican Governors Association and its mayoral counterparts. The RNC would be the perfect entity for such coordination and through them the RGA, NRSC and NRCC could all be on message and pushing for the same policies. Policies that could be a part of what Republicans could call “The American Agenda”.

In shaping that American Agenda the G.O.P must also politically incorporate other objectives into it.

They must rebrand themselves and capitalize on the displeasure with Democrat overreach, and their corporate welfare and dependency politics. This can be done by showing that the new GOP is smarter, younger and more diverse and more in touch with the founding principles that have to date made America great. In addition to having that one trusted, proven and articulate face of the party conveying our national message, allow the Sarah Palins, Eric Cantors, Bobby Jindals, Aaron Schocks, Michelle Bachmann’s, Cathy McMorris Rodgers‘, John Thunes and a host of other vital young Republicans to be in the forefront. Flood the market with fresh faces that have a clean slate and smart, succinct messages. Then deliver the fresh, smart and forward looking message that will be contained in our “American Agenda”.

That agenda should contemplate the adoption of some policy risks and give thought to making some changes that demonstrate our faith in freedom, attracts young voters and changes the national conversation.

Such can be done by crafting our American Agenda with the following directions:

A). – Consider the legalization of certain drugs :

-Demonstrate that we know that freedom means people have a right to do what they like with their bodies whether it is good or bad so long as it does not take the lives of others or infringe on the rights of others.

B). – Support Domestic Unions :

-Shake everything up and get the state out of the marriage business by allowing churches, mosques and temples to marry those they choose. That is the business of their God, not the federal government.  At the same time, do not seek to have government redefine marriage.  Allow the government to preserve the religious sanctity of marriage while also preserving its constitutional civic responsibilities and perform Domestic Unions that ensure that people who unite contractually are treated equally before the law, as the Constitution requires.

Aside from “shaking things up”, we must  address healthcare and present a renewed commitment on some of those issues the party is traditionally strongest on and implement policy solutions that demonstrate our convictions to our nations Constitution.

An approach to the issue of healthcare should be one that is not based on the failed socialist policy initiatives that our nation has shunned and fought against. That would lead us to adopt some of , but not the only, following constitutionally driven approaches into our “American Agenda”.

C). – HealthCare Opportunities :

-Offer the type of “change” in healthcare that we can live with and have the federal government adjust what it can and should change on the issue. For instance (1) .-Tort Reform.   It will have a drastic effect on the rising cost of healthcare in America. (2).- Portability. The current lack of portability prevents people from keeping their coverage when they change jobs or relocate and often they can not continue with the same coverage they have throughout their lives as other changes in their lives occur. Federal action that would allow for the portability of health insurance would solve this problem and help to stabilize insurance markets, reduce costs and ultimately reduce the fluctuating number of uninsured in America.  ( 3). – Enact a policy toolbox of federal initiatives that states could include and federal funding to the states would be linked to success in reaching the goals. With federal legislative guidelines and financial support, state experimentation would produce a myriad of various solutions and in time the best solutions for each state will evolve into better and stronger healthcare availability options for all states. (4).- Incentivise good health and fitness by offering limited tax credits for gym memberships and fitness equipment.

On those issues that the G.O.P has consistently been strong on, the new “American Agenda” must reinforce those strengths with the following items:

D). – Means-test Everything :

-If any federal social programs are to exist, they must be designed to help those whom are truly needy. Government welfare programs like Medicare for the rich are unreasonable and unacceptable ands we need to make that clear. For those who will rightfully point out that constitutional grounds for any “federal social programs”, are at the very least questionable, they must understand the need for compromises that can help begin to change attitudes and minds. This is one such compromise. If we are to have such programs they must not be abused or overextended.

E). – Taxpayer Bill of Rights & Balanced Budget :

-After the current massive expansion and growth of government by Democrats, people will want government to shrink. By creating a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that will lock government revenues in at population plus inflation as measured by acceptable cost of living indices we can assure people that we will be at the very least stop government from growing. Then add limits on national debt that would force cuts and stop passing the national credit card and its bill to future generations.

F). – Environmental Security not Global Warming: “More Obvious Conservation Methods, Not More Taxes” :

-Call it environmental security and dedicate ourselves to protecting and preserving our environment by funding such things as geo-engineering and sequestration technology but not by sucking the finances of the American people during times of economic hardship for an Al Gore hypothesis that can only be conclusively proven through the evidence produced by the passage of another million years. The G.O.P. must highlight the undeniable, rational pro-environment record that we have extending as far back as Theodore Roosevelt and we must get in the forefront of the issue by demonstrating that the historic Cap-and-Trade measure adopted by liberals is more than irrational, it is dangerous, ineffective and another example of overreaching control that taxes us on air while destroying the long-term health of our economy and individual’s economic prosperity.

G). – Enforce Our Fundamental Belief In National Sovereignty and Freedom :

-The administrations “globalization” policy is a threat to us on many levels. It puts our security, sovereignty, economy and national heritage at risk. We must therefore (1). – Implement an Open Arms-Secure Borders Comprehensive Immigration Reform Bill that welcomes and protects legal immigrants, secures our borders and eliminates the tolerance for illegal immigrants who weigh heavily on our law enforcement capabilities, emergency services and economic prosperity. (2). – Declare our united support for an English First, Not English Only Bill. (3).- Make it clear that our government will not excuse, or make excuses for, those enemies of freedom who hinder progress in areas of our interests or seek to inflict harm on us or our allies. The electorate must be clear on the fact that Republicans do not buy in to the Democrat approach to foreign policy which leads us to believe that Americans should feel guilty for defending our nation, the cause of freedom or our national sovereignty, heritage or interests. (4).- Seek to curtail the use of Eminent Domain abuses by eliminating federal funding for any state or municipal projects that use eminent domain to acquire land.  It must be made clear that the constitutional right to property cannot be abrdged.

H). – Energy Independence :

-The government must take advantage of all available sound domestic energy sources while promoting the independent study of advanced uses for clean, renewable energy technologies.

I). – Reform How Government Does Business And Limit Election Spending

-Demonstrate that we not only acknowledge the political culture of corruption and shady tactics but that we stand against it with reforms to prevent it. (1).- Eliminate the public financing option for federal elections. Make it clear that we do not want taxpayers spending money for politicians to lie us in attempt to get our vote. (2.) – At the same time, place a spending limit on all elections for all federal offices. (3.)- Adopt the Enumerated Powers Act which forces all legislative initiatives and federal spending to be supported by the clause in the Constitution that proves it to be a proper measure for the federal government to undertake. (4.) – Pass a bill drafting amendment that prohibits spending measures and regulations that are unrelated to that bill from being tacked on to it.

The Republican Party needs to rebuild itself with an agenda that includes of all the above points.

If it can get everyone on the same page, rebrand itself with fresh faces and trustworthy policy directions and a unified message in 2010 then they can at the very least make inroads to a strong eventual comeback.

With the right people, policies and message we can demonstrate that by trying to be like European nations with unfunded liabilities and the bureaucratization of everything we may actually become like them and spend decades enduring 10 percent unemployment rates and trying to maintain our national identity. We must use our policies and messages to capitalize on the dissatisfaction that Democrats are creating and demonstrate that raising taxes and spending other people’s money is not the best way for our country to go.

Now is the time for us to offer up a second revolution that is made up with ideas that puts an end to bureaucratic governmental licentiousness and unleash entrepreneurship all while offering leadership with a view towards freedom, pragmatism and common sense, all of which the left has abandoned.

But as is the case with any good strategy, its success lies in its implementation and the methods and tactics needed to see it through. In the next part of this series we will address those plans and reveal the logistics needed to grow the seeds of a political revolution to restore freedom to the freest people the world has ever known.

Bookmark and Share

Click the image below to read Part I of this plan

Click the image above to read the first part of For Republicans Only 

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

For Republicans Only: A plan for rebuilding and reinvigorating a down and out party.

Bookmark and Share     It may seem a shame or insincere to have to be political and develop political strategies to get anything done in American politics. But when you plunge into the sea of politics you better be willing to swim. This does not mean that repboatayou can’t be sincere about the issues and their effects on the American people but it does mean that if your gonna swim with the sharks you’d be wise to put on your flippers instead of your running shoes. And that is what this article deals with. It is meant to discuss the political reality behind the Republican Party’s ability to get back into the game and the tools and the political strategies it must utilize to lead again.

As we look ahead you do not have to be a rocket scientist to see that the G.O.P. cannot afford a third consecutive election cycle where they lose another 20 or more seats in congress or any more governorships or state legislative chambers. To do so in 2010 will be lethal.

That is when the census takes place and redistricting begins. By losing more congressional seats we will be making it that much harder to reach a majority in 2012. And to lose any more sway in the states will mean that Democrats will have the opportunity to gerrymander Republicans into minority status for a decade or more.

So Republicans can’t wait for the presidential election of 2012 to help them increase their numbers. They must make their gains now and 2010.

In 2009 it looks like Republicans will do well and pick up Governors in New Jersey and Virginia. But for 2010, the G.O.P. needs to get on message and into gear now.

But how do we expect to make a significant run towards majority status when we will be needing it most in 2010?

Sadly, I do not see signs of a national Republican strategy and message shaping up. After supporting Ken Blackwell for

Mike Steele

Mike Steele

 RNC Chairman, I am not privy to the leaderships plans but from the outside I see no movement in the direction that we must take.

We could just sit back and allow the Democrats to get comfortable. That is how the G.O.P. lost control of things in the first place. After the first four years in control of both congress and the White House, complacency and the lack of a need to get the power that they had, allowed many to stop keeping their noses clean and to cease going that extra mile to make our case.

The same fate will eventually come of the current liberal ruling regime in Washington, D.C..

To a degree, Democrats understand this and that is why they are rushing , at a breakneck pace, to consolidate their power immediately by entrenching some of the most expansive and extensive socialized programs we have ever seen into government. They want to do so before the tide turns on them.

But to regain control of congress essentially by default will not make for a meaningful reason for Republicans to be in control or for an enduring leadership role that will last for any significant length of time.

So what are Republicans to do?

For that answer we should look back to a similar time. A time when Republicans were down and out. It was 1980 and much like now, we had a President who on the national stage spoke softly and carried a very small stick. He was a President who also saw government as the solution to all our problems but had policies which essentially drained every dime out of the American economy and made it so that the government and its people could not afford to do anything about anything.

To counter the Democrats and the “days of malaise” that they had us in, the G.O.P. revamped their image in the eyes of the people and became the innovative and anti-establishment, anti-government party. And they did so by presenting easily understood alternative solutions to those being bandied about by the left. They were also able to focus a spotlight on a common enemy that most Americans related to. This common enemy became something to rally against with Republicans.

Common enemies are a very powerful source of unity and support.

President George H.W. Bush spent the first four and a half years of his eight years in office riding a wave of support because terrorists proved themselves to be an undeniably severe threat to Americans and therefore a common enemy to rally against. This was not some political creation. It was a national reality and while terrorists still remain a collective concern, the lack of thousands of Americans falling victim to them again all at once, has made them a less powerful rallying cry these days but hopefully not any less of a concern.

arepleader10In the 80’s, the Reagan Revolution successfully united a majority of Americans by condensing all the problems that we were facing into a different enemy. Reagan successfully defined government as the enemy. And who was in total control of government? The Democrats.

This theme, this rallying cry, allowed Americans to see that government was not the solution, it was the problem. Over time, the approach increased Republican numbers at every level. From city councils, to state legislatures and governors mansions, slowly but surely, Republicans increased in numbers until a clear majority of state houses and state executive offices were dominated by Republican majorities.

But this message was not just meant for the purpose of having majority control. It was also meant to make a beneficial difference. It was meant to use that power to reduce the size and scope of the government enemy. To reduce government’s tax burden on the people. To eliminate the barriers to economic growth, job opportunities and entrepreneurial expansion. It was also used to rebuild our military capabilities and restore America’s role on the international stage. Defeating the communist enemy was another reason.

With Republican control came the change America needed and that is exactly what the G.O.P. must demonstrate to Americans again. We must convince them that we are currently headed down a road that our nation once ran away from. The road that was plotted for our nation under Jimmy Carter whose increased regulations, increased taxation and government interference created both a deficit of personal economic empowerment and of national morale.

That same Carter-like approach to our federal government is taking place today under President Obama. And at a time when we are again experiencing tough economic times, the liberal tax and spend approach is again making things tougher for all of us.

This case must be made to the people but it cannot be effectively made with an algebraic equation or Ross Perot bar graph. It must be made through a concise, everyday translation that everyone can relate to.

In 1980, during one presidential debate, Ronald Reagan discussed the historic and disastrous inflation rate that the Carter administration brought to bear on us. He spoke of a little girl who when shopping with her mother saw a doll that she fell in love with and desperately wanted. She pleaded with her mother to buy it for her but her mother told her that she had to earn it and with her allowance she must save for it. The former Governor and soon to be President continued to explain that the little girl saved her money until finally she had enough to buy it. But when she went back to the store, the price had increased and she did not have enough money after all. So, disappointed, she went back home hoping to save enough money to buy it the following week. When that next week came, she went back to the store with enough to cover the new purchase price only to discover that the price of that same doll went up again. Reagan described how this disappointing cycle repeated itself for a month and he further explained that this was the effect of inflation and the misery index which was created during the Carter years.

He stated that this was the result of the economic condition that we got ourselves into under the Carter administration and that as hard as we tried to keep our heads above water, the rushing tide of rising costs was a never ending cycle that kept on putting everything out of our reach and like that little girl whose so desired doll was always out of reach because of inflation, so too was the American dream becoming out of reach for all individual Americans.

Reagan helped people to relate to our troubles by encapsulating all of our nation’s problems down to the face of an innocent little girl. And in doing so he made Americans believe that he understood them and their problems.

It allowed him to capture the hearts, minds and votes of the American people.

This is the approach that we again need. Republicans must reconnect and demonstrate that they relate to those not in the political class.

But who is to be the messenger and where are the innovative approaches to come from?

Eric Cantor

Eric Cantor

In looking for such a person we can easily see that the House of Representatives is hardly a place where such a face of national stature can be easily be created. The few promising figures in congress who have the innovative minds and anti-establishment mentality that we need must rise to a higher level of prominence before they have a realistic shot at being the right national messenger. Congressmen like Eric Cantor of Ohio, Mike Pence of Indiana and Paul Ryan of Wisconsin are perfect examples of the type of capable, competent leaders we need. But until they are in a position of greater power and prominence like that of a Governor or Senator, there is little chance for them to command the amount of attention that they need to effectively and properly deliver a nationally captivating message

Mike Pence

Mike Pence

For Cantor, Ryan and Pence, the G.O.P. would be wise to start making room for them as Senators or Governors in the coming years. But that still wont fill the void we have right now.

In looking at the United States Senate, prospects there are thin.

Of the forty Republicans remaining, few have the persona, gravitas and ability to capture the nation’s imagination and trust. McCain is over and was over even before he ran for President. The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, lacks any significant attraction in speech or persona and ideas.

Judd Gregg

Judd Gregg

Among the most promising, somewhat conservative figures, whose personalities and abilities can fit the bill, are possibly Bob Corker of Tennessee but more likely Judd Gregg of New Hampshire and John Thune of South Dakota. Both of these men are consistently strong, sound voices that could emerge as potential standard bearers in 2012 and they could start carrying the banner now by coalescing the party together under the type of “get government out the way” policy alternatives that we could make a message out of.

Gregg though seems always prepared to hang up his hat and return to a quiet life of retirement in the hills and mountains of New Hampshire.

So that leaves Senator John Thune.

He is young, the youngest of them all and I have always appreciated him. In his first run for the Senate, he lost by almost 500 votes that were illegally obtained for incumbent Senator Tim Johnson through a Democrat scheme that involved cash for votes and falsified registrations from two South Dakota Indian registrations.

John Thune

John Thune

But two years later, Thune made history when he defeated the Senate’s Democrat leader Tom Daschle.

Since then, Thune has been a relatively strong conservative influence and he has command of the issues, an energetic and confident charisma and clean record.

After sifting through the ranks of federal office holders, the only other obvious place to find the leader we need is from within the ranks of state leadership.

The governors.

It is here where we also find the most innovative and beneficial ideas in government.

The majority of Republican governors are handling things far better than most Democrat governors like those in New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Pennsylvania,

Donald Carcierie

Donald Carcieri

 Ohio, Washington and others. But here too, the right captivating figure is hard to find out of the 22 existing Republican governors.

Mark Sanford was a promising option. His potential was not for any command of communication skills, which he lacked, but because of actual strong policy positions and administrative qualities. That was of course all before he ran off to Argentina and abandoned his state and family for a romp with his “soul mate”.

Donald Carcieri happens to be the most unique of all governors.

He is the Republican governor of Rhode Island, one of, if not the most, liberal states in the most liberal region of the nation, New England.

What makes him most unique there is the fact that he is actually a centrist with a propensity towards conservative positions. He is often in opposition to his Democrat dominated state legislature on such things as the obligations of state workers, separation of powers and illegal immigration. He has even vetoed more than 30 pieces of legislation that they have presented to him. Yet he has still been elected twice.

But we are talking Rhode Island here and Carcieri lacks any great innovative leadership qualities and national appeal.

Haley Barbour

Haley Barbour

I would hope to see Carcieri eventually take one of the two Democrat U.S. Senate seats, like Sheldon Whitehouse’s seat, but I hardly expect him to capture the national imagination.

Of those remaining, the brightest gubernatorial lights are those of Louisiana’s Boby Jindal, Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, and the best of all of them, Mitch Daniels of Indiana.

Daniels won reelection to a second term as governor by as much as 60% while at the same time, Indiana voters elected Barack Obama for President. In some cases he even got 20% of the African-American vote. That is an unusually high percentage for any Republican anywhere. He clearly has crossover appeal.

He can also be an inspiring speaker who conveys his message with conviction and in a way that makes people trusting of him and confident in him. As a conservative he has refrained from the wholesale selling out of the ideals that many in the G.O.P. have done over the past five or so years. Just one example can be demonstrated by the size of Indiana’s government.

While governments in most other states has increased in size, Mitch Daniels has shrunk both the size and cost of government. Currently the state has about 30,000 public employees. That is the smallest number of state employees since 1983.

Another area of distinction for him is in the area of government budgets.

When first coming into office Indiana had an $800 million deficit but Daniels turned it into a surplus of $1.3 billion. Much of this was helped by his reducing the growth rate of state spending from 5.9 percent to 2.8 percent.

The only problem is that Mitch Daniels has stated that he will not ever run for president. That puts a damper on national hopes for him but they have also been the same words uttered by a few people who are now former presidents

Bobby Jindal

Bobby Jindal

As for Jindal his record in Congress proves him to be an ideally strong conservative. On issues like abortion, immigration, national security, healthcare, energy, education and on just about every other issues he is right where the right wants a leader to be.

As Louisiana‘s Governor he has maintained his conservative credentials and even reigned in Louisiana‘s state budget problems.

On the downside, Jindal has only been in office since 2007 and during that time, his first, and to date, only appearance on the national stage was a response to President Obama’s State of the Union. In it, Governor Jindal put forward the right message but its delivery fell flat and received rapid fire shots aimed at claiming he was done.

Such is not the case but even Bobby Jindal has admitted that he is a little green and needs more seasoning.

That leaves Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty and Mississippi’s Haley Barbour open for discussion.

Tim Paelenty

Tim Paelenty

Both of these men have produced for their states and both of them are more qualified than President Obama was when he was elected President of the United States.

In Pawlenty we have a strong messenger and practitioner of what he himself has termed, Sam’s Club Republicanism, a combination of social conservatism with working family economic appeal.

He has governed well, put spending under control and geared state government more towards that which it should be dealing with such as responsible infrastructure planning, maintenance and construction.

If Pawlenty can raise money and attract some of the top tier consultants which Mitt Romney has already attracted to his camp. And if he can raise enough money to insure that his campaign for the presidential nomination is not under funded, thaen Pawlenty’s record, populist approach and appeal could be quite successful. But to get to that point, he should really start reaching for more national exposure now.

He should start interpreting his alternative policies to the Obama administration and allow himself to become the natural face of the G.O.P.. In him is the ability to not only shape the message that we as a party need to get out but he also has the ability to shape the policies that we can center that message around. If Tim Pawlenty were to take the lead now on issues like healthcare, taxes, the bailout, energy and job growth, many others will line up behind him as they begin to see that Pawlenty is the figure who can part the seas for the rest of them.

The same applies to Haley Barbour of Mississippi.

He has a folksy, “get’er done” way about himself and an appealing record of accomplishment for his state on budgetary control.

Before, during and after the ravaging of the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina, Barbour effectively prepared his state for it and efficiently dealt with its aftermath. Louisiana was the only state to be hit as hard or harder by Hurricane Katrina and in Louisiana’s case it was prepared for and handled so horrifically that its Governor, Kathleen Blanco was practically forced out of office and ultimately rejected even for consideration to a second term in office.

Both Pawlenty and Barbour have the perfect opportunity to step up and become the leader and messenger that we need. Both of them have the unique ability to convincingly demonstrate to Americans that with the right policy direction, rather than being in our way, government can get out of our way and be an effective tool for insuring opportunity, independence and an enduring quality of life with economic freedom and growth.

Mitch Daniels has the ability to do so too and probably better than any of them………….if he wanted to.

Jeb Bush

Jeb Bush

Of course three, now former governor’s have this same ability and opportunity. Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and dare I say it, Jeb Bush of Florida.

Jeb has put off any attempts for the White House for now. After two Bush’s in the Oval Office over the course of sixteen years, the obvious notion that the nation is Bushed out is a pretty safe bet.

As the most conservative member of the Bush family to have served in office, Jeb has been a truly effective leader and one that Floridians would have never let go if they had the chance to reelect.

Palin has promise but after resigning from office early she also now has problems. None of which can’t be overcome. Her chances to be the national face and voice of the party is fifty-fifty, much like her standing among Americans. They either love her or hate her.

Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin

Now out of office, Palin must walk a very careful line that seeks to diffuse those that hate her and broaden the numbers of those who love her. She will also have to make sure that she is taken seriously at all times. There will be no room for her to flub on any issue and while using her appealing folksy ways, she must convey a command of the issues and demonstrate a breadth of knowledge and competence that can in no way be denied by anyone who hears her. If she can deliver her small government, Washington outsider, equal opportunity, freedom based policy messages, she could out shop Tim Pawlenty when it comes to being a Sam’s Club Republican.

The largest elephant in the room though is Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney

He is definitely running for President and he is by all measures the current frontrunner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2012.

In addition to being a successful businessman in his own right, Romney is also a managerial genius. He took the once derailed, scandal ridden, over budget and chaotic build up of the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics and turned it into a smooth running, ethical and profitable display of organizational perfection.

Beyond that credit is Romney’s term as Governor in a liberal state that is called home by such liberal giants as Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Barney Frank and Ted Kennedy. The liberal bastion of Massachusetts is no place for a conservative Republican to sprout out from but Romney played politics and outmaneuvered his Democrat opponent.

However; in doing so Mitt created a few problems.

A now long past conversion from pro-abortion rights to pro-life has left many right-to-lifers wondering if he is sincere on the issue. Why right-to-lifers find it hard to believe that someone would agree with them after witnessing a personal family struggle with the issue, itself is hard to understand. But so be it.

On gay rights, previous statements made when Mitt ran against Ted Kennedy for the U.S. Senate and in his actions as Governor during Massachusetts first in the nation “Gay Marriage” fight have critics claiming that on that issue, Romney experienced another political conversion.

The two issues together give Romney naysayers the opportunity to call him a flip-flopper.

But that charge only adds height to Mitt’s biggest hurdle. Obamacare.

As Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney was a central figure in the creation of a state run healthcare program that made the purchase of health insurance by state residents mandatory. The concept was based on the principle that if everyone was covered, healthcare costs would be less expensive. The problem is that such a law of supply and demand doesn’t reconcile when a government bureaucracy is over seeing it.

It would be easy to suggest that Romney did the best he could with a liberal state and an overwhelmingly liberal dominated state legislature and that is true to an extent. However Mitt’s fingerprints are allover this one and to make matters worse he was the first governor to implement a plan of this type anywhere. The episode does make the case for the federal government to avoid the creation of a socialized healthcare program. It also makes a case for allowing experimentation within each individual state until an efficient model is found and emulated by all the states. But when it comes to Massachusetts, this episode proves that socialized medicine is not the way to go and for Romney the problem now is that it was his plan which demonstrated why it is not the way to go.

There are other factors involved though.

The state legislature and Romney’s successor, Governor Deval Patrick did tinker with the original program. They tinkered with it a lot and many of the healthcare reforms made in the original plan have changed from what Romney had influenced. Nevertheless the issue is Romney’s to defend against and explain. It exposes his Achilles heal in any 2012.

Romney’s best defense against possible Republican opponents who were or are governors would probably be “I tried and it failed and I learn from mistakes, whereas my fellow governors up here never even tried to make healthcare more accessible and affordable.”

This assessments of Republican leadership prospects leaves us with the following conclusion.

As it looks now, the most likely and promising of likely individuals to choose from will be a field that consists of Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Haley Barbour and John Thune.

Others will run and some from the above mentioned group may not. But if the six that I bring up were to be the field of candidates for the Republican nomination, it would indeed be a hotly contested race that will also undoubtedly inject a great many substantial policy models and directions that will help to fuel the conservative movement.

But that isn’t till 2012.

What will become of 2010?

Short of any of the possibly convincing figures discussed being ballsy enough to attempt to become our national voice right now, as it currently stands, there is no one person who can do it while also having the ability to enjoin all of the party leadership including the senate and house in a national strategy.

Newt Gingrich

Newt Gingrich

Someone needs to be able to bring all levels of leadership together and get them all on the same page to push one strategy.

It must be a strategy similar to Newt Gingrich’s “Contract With America”.

Critics can malign the “Contract With America” all they want but it worked.

After forty years in the wilderness, Newt Gingrich, along with the help of a faltering Clinton administration, brought Republicans in to the majority in the house. And the new generation that came into power with that “Contract” actually adhered to it, at least for as long as Newt Gingrich was Speaker of the House.

As for who can be both the voice of the party and the unifying force for a national Republican strategy, politics being

Mitch Daniels

Mitch Daniels

 what it is will prohibit everyone from getting behind any potential Republican candidate for President. Each camp and their supporters will not permit any one of them to get the attention and credit for bringing us back.

So this role must be played by a neutral party. It must be someone who is not going to run for President in 2012 and who will not put the momentum of the popularity that will come with this role behind any potential nominee until they have won the nomination.

This person must also have the persona we need to effectively be a persuasive point man. They must be respected with a proven record and untarnished by any of the negative stereotypes that the left can easily pin on Republicans.

All of this points to one man. One man who, if he really means what he says, fits all of the qualities that are required for becoming the coalescing figure that wont be a threat to any single Republican’s presidential ambitions or be a threat to any senate or house leaders power over their Republican conference.

That person is Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels.

If he truly has no desire to run for President, he is the person that can help Republicans deliver a national message which counters the overspending, over controlling liberal government enemy.

With him as the face of the party that delivers a Reagan-like message dealing with the Republican alternatives to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid agenda, the party can rebuild and have a shot at winning more seats instead of losing more seats in 2010.

The stars would be aligned perfectly if Republican National Chairman Mike Steele could get representatives of the Republican Governors Association and of the house and senate together and onboard, hammer out what could be generally be called “The American Agenda” and let Mitch Daniels be the national point man for it.

This would allow for the type of cohesive leadership plan that, with accurate precision, can get Republicans back on message and working together while the message is being delivered loud and clear through what would be a voice from the heartland. A governor’s voice. One with crossover appeal who has been an effective leader with a proven record, cut state budgets, reduced the size and scope of government, practiced a true commitment to both family and conservative values and whom, if he seriously will not run for President himself, is no threat to any other potential candidate. Daniels is the best man for the job and one of the only people who could do that job as well and as convincingly as him.

With whom that messenger should be established, in Part II, we will deal with exactly what that message must be and the Republican organizational plan to deliver and implement it.

Bookmark and Share

2 Comments

Filed under politics

JUDD GREGG WITHDRAWS NOMINATION FROM OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

antgreggBookmark and Share    Earlier today, the previous post in fact, POLITICS 24/7  suggested that if Presdient Obama does not have faith in Senator Judd Gregg’s ability to properly carry out all of the responsibilities of the Commerce Secretary, than he should withdraw Gregg’s nomination for the job.

The controversy swirled around President Obama’s attempt to take responsibilities for the census out of the hands of the Commerce Department because Gregg is a Republican.

President Obama’s call to put the census in the hands of the White House and under the direction of his partisan chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, did not exactly assure people that the census would be anymore non-partisan under him than Senator Gregg.

Well in what is becoming a norm for the administration, another cabinet nominee has declined the nomination.

Senator Gregg claims that ideological differences over the stimulus package make it clear that he is not in sync with the administration and that he was apprehensive over the President’s attempt to take responsibility away from the department. White House officials have yet to respond.

Either way, the move is good one.

It was apparent that President Obama did not have confidence in Senator Gregg and that there would be too much second guessing of him if he were to actually become Secretary of Commerce.

This is the second nominee for Commerce Secretary to withdraw their nomination.

Governor Richardson of New Mexico withdraw weeks ago after it was disclosed that he was under investigation for selling state contracts in turn for campaign donations.

As it stands now, commerce seems to be a problem for the administration.

Hopefully they can get their act together and find someone who they can trust to do the job without taking the department’s responsibilites away  in order to serve partisan political agendas.

Bookmark and Share

Leave a comment

Filed under politics

KARL ROVE IN CHARGE OF THE CENSUS?

Bookmark and Share    If that were true, liberals would be jumping out of their shoes and throwing them at the White House with a sense of fury unparalleled in political history. antcensus_bureau_sealIf it were true that a partisan Republican architect of political strategy were to be put in charge of a process that much of our government will be based on for a decade, people would be calling for investigations, hearings and heads on a plate.

Well that is what people are beginning to do. But not because Karl Rove is implementing some sort of partisan designs on the census but because Rahm Emanuele is being called upon to do so.

Rahm Emanuele is an undeniable partisan politician who first came to fame as a member of the Clinton administration.

He rose through the political ranks as a fundraiser for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and as a diehard, Chicago, clubhouse, Democrat, Emanuele never had a problem in insuring that all things political went his way. Such is why when he became a Chicago congressman, the Democrat party turned to Emanuele and made him the Majority Whip, the guy that whipped Democrat votes into line.

So partisan is Emanuele that a few years back he mailed a dead fish to pollster who published poll results that Emanuele did not like because they failed to show his Democrat candidate ahead by as much as he wanted.

Rahm Emanuele is so driven by partisanship that one night, shortly after Bill Clinton was elected President, during a dinner, Emanuelle started rattling off a list of names which he considered to be political enemies and to punctuate his intentions he stabbed the table with a steak knife each time , as he said “Nat Landow! Dead! Cliff Obama TransitionJackson! Dead!” etc…..

This is the man who President Obama wants to hold sway over the non-partisan and non-political census process.

The census takes place every ten years and it determines just about every statistic regarding the American population and government funding to that population. Based upon population shifts, it also determines how new congressional district lines are drawn and that dictates influence of everything from who your representatives are to how much sway your state has in electing a president.

Until now, responsibility for how the census is conducted and how census figures are determined was under the responsibility of the Commerce Department. However now that President Obama has nominated Judd Gregg, a Republican Senator, to be Commerce Secretary, liberals have yelled at President Obama and protested a Republican being involved in the census process.

In response to their cries, President Obama stated that the White House will supervise the census.

That means that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuele will be in charge of it and that brings up quite a few problems.

First of all, it demonstrates a lack faith in President Obama’s choice for Secretary of Commerce.

By taking responsibility for the census away from the Commerce Secretary, President Obama is in essence claiming that he does not trust Senator Gregg’s ability to do the job properly. If that is the case, why did he choose Judd Gregg for the job? Was this another example of the bad job of the Obama administration’s vetting process?

If it is not an indication of Gregg’s inability to do the job right than it is a blatant attempt to put the non-partisan census process in the hands of  diehard partisan operative Rahm Emanuele.

Either way this another dent in the creation of what is suppose to be the most ethical administration in history.

The census process has not even begun to get off the ground and already the Obama administration is tainting it. The President has made it clear that he is going to make the census a top priority and now he is making it obvious that he will try to make it a political process that favors Democrats.

It is a slick move on behalf of President Obama. After all, under the Commerce Department, everything that they do to establish census procedures needs to be approved by congress. Not so in the White House though.  The White House staff can operate secretly and does not require congressional approval. That means that under the direction of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuele, census figures can be established any old way.

After seeing five different administration nominees already get caught up in scandal, it is not very comforting to see the new administration actively participate in political slights of hand that taint a process that we will have to live with for a decade.

Bookmark and Share

punchline-politics

CENSUS MAKERS ARE FOOLS

A famous Norwegian explorer returned home from a voyage and found his name missing from the town register.

His wife insisted on complaining to the local civic official who apologized profusely saying,

I must have taken Leif off my census“.

Leave a comment

Filed under politics