Town hall beatdown assailant, victim on August ballot

An “alleged” assailant and one of the victims in the infamous 2009 Carnahan town hall beatdown now have something in common: Both have filed for party committee posts in the August 7, 2012 Missouri non-presidential primary.

Ellston McGowan, an SEIU staffer who was accused and later technically acquitted of assaulting Kenneth Gladney, has filed (and is unopposed) for Green Party committeeman in the 2nd Ward in north St. Louis. McGowan, who was the Green Party nominee for mayor in 2009, also filed as the Green Party candidate for Public Administrator, the office that administers the probate estates of deceased city residents for whom no family members are available or willing to do so.

Tea Party activist Kelly Owens, after photographing the 2009 assault on Gladney, was herself assaulted by a colleague of McGowan, breaking Owens’ camera. Owens, a long-time Libertarian Party activist, filed for Republican committewoman for the 24th Ward in the Dogtown neighborhood. She is challenging the current 24th Ward committeewoman, Republican City Chair Sharon Barnes. Owens was recently elected a delegate to the congressional district and state conventions at the March 24 Republican caucus in the City of St. Louis, as part of a slate unofficially supporting Ron Paul for president.

Catholics for Choice manipulates birth control data

The abortion rights group Catholics for Choice published an ad this week online and in major newspapers (and also the St. Louis Post Dispatch) on the current controversy over President Obama’s proposal to require religious institutions to provide free contraception for their employees even if doing so violated the institutions’ fundamental religious tenets. The ad (reproduced below left) sought to isolate the Roman Catholic bishops who opposed the move by characterizing their position as overwhelmingly opposed by rank and file Catholics.

The ad is deceptive and dishonest on a number of fronts. The ad illustrates 98% support for birth control in general, but uses bishop symbols to characterize the other 2%, in a deliberate attempt to confuse readers into thinking that only 2% support the bishops’ opposition to Obama’s plan. The claim is based on undocumented claims by a Planned Parenthood affiliate that 98% of sexually active women have used birth control at some point in their lives. Having used birth control (even once) any time in a woman’s life is not the same as favoring it today, and is a far cry from thrusting the policy down the throat of a religion or organization that opposes the practice on principle.

In contrast, a recent survey by the Public Religion Research Institute found that only 49% of Americans (52% of Catholics) believe that religiously affiliated colleges and hospitals should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost (i.e., the Obama position), with 46% (not 2%) opposed. However, a majority of Catholic voters (52% to 45%) oppose the policy. In addition, the same poll found broad support to exempt religious institutions from Obama’s policy. In that context, only 36% of Americans say that churches should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception or birth control at no cost, with 57% (including 59% of Catholics and 68% of Catholic voters) opposed (i.e., favoring religious exemption).

A poll commissioned by Administration cheerleaders CBS and the New York Times predictably showed greater support for the President’s policy, but nowhere near the 98-2 split touted by the rogue Catholic ad. The Times reported 59% support for requiring the health insurance plans of religiously affiliated employers to cover the cost of birth control, and did not bother to mention the companion figure for opposition. As one would naturally expect for a result-oriented push poll such as this, it did not pose the alternative question focusing on religious exemption. The CBS/NYT poll tracked Catholic respondents separately (with a 7 point margin of error), but the Times did not reveal those numbers.

The focus on birth control instead of abortion is part of Campaign Obama’s strategy to shift attention away from abortion (where Obama is at odds with most Americans) to the straw man of birth control, which has greater support (h/t Dick Morris). In lock step with Democrat talking points and strategy, Catholics for Choice frames the issue as support vs. opposition for birth control instead of the real issue, support or opposition to religious freedom.

Beyond the deceptive use of the data, Catholics for Choice went for more sinister subliminal messages. The ad contrasts 98 icons of women against 2 icons of a bishop’s hat. The intended inaccurate impression was to pit the Catholic bishops against Catholic women and to infer that the only people opposing the birth control policy are Catholic bishops. Both of those impressions are blatantly untrue.

Furthermore, the ad conveys another impression that inadvertently exposes the group’s underlying attitude: Men (or at least lay men) don’t count. The ad divides the 100% universe solely between women and bishops. Other men just don’t matter.

Observations on the 2012 GOP presidential race

The Unablogger

I haven’t decided yet whom to support as the best choice to take on President Obama. But here are a few quick notes.

Romney should change his logo.

Mitt Romney’s last name is spelled out with an artsy, hard to distinguish “R” followed by the rest of his name in regular readable print. The problem, which his campaign has inexplicably not noticed, is that the rest of his name (written in all caps, no less) is “OMNEY”. The mind, trying to translate that into something it recognizes, transposes the first two letters into the word “money.”

In the aftermath of reaction to Romney’s $10,000 bet offer, that’s not the image Romney wants to project, either now or in the general election.

Newt will not get to debate Obama.

Newt Gingrich impresses at every debate with his mastery of the facts, his calm, confident stage presence, his excellent presentation skills and his superior ability to think on his feet. Perhaps the most frequent reason cited by Newt’s backers for their support is their desire to see him debate Obama. The consensus (with which I agree) is that Newt would destroy the President in a debate.

Problem is, Obama’s team is aware of that potential disaster. That’s why there won’t be any Obama-Gingrich debates. Obama will chicken out. He will follow a classic Rose Garden strategy and find other pressing presidential business that precludes his participation, even if it’s just another round of golf. And a supportive mainstream media will back him up 100%. He may even do the same if Romney is the nominee. The only way to get Obama to take part in the debates is for Republicans to nominate Rick Perry. Which brings us to my next point:

Perry not ready for prime time.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has an outstanding record of job creation, but the more I see of him, the less I like. His television commercials are excellent, but outside that controlled environment he is a fish out of water. Perry isn’t the first (and won’t be the last) shooting star who looked great in his home state but quickly wilted in the harsh light of 24/7 national attention. Regrettably, he is a walking, talking gaffe machine that instills no confidence in his ability to lead.

Electability.

As I have written more extensively before, the Buckley Rule (Nominate the most conservative candidate who can actually win) applies to this contest. On one hand, we accomplish little, if anything, by replacing President Obama with a RINO who will continue current policies but attach the Republican name to them. On the other hand, it does the country no good to nominate a conservative purist who will repel swing voters into the arms of President Obama. There are times, like 1964, when the electorate isn’t ready to accept a principled conservative (Barry Goldwater), even against a flawed incumbent (Lyndon Johnson). There are other times, like 1980, when a bold, clear contrast (Ronald Reagan) with a failing presidency (Jimmy Carter), articulately presented, is exactly what the electorate is seeking.

So, will 2012 be more like 1964 or 1980? Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Santorum and former candidate Herman Cain (who was my choice until he suspended his campaign) all seem capable of donning the Reagan 1980 mantle. Poor early polling is usually due to voters’ unfamiliarity with newer candidates to the national stage. But previously uninformed voters warm up to a candidate once he/she becomes the nominee. If we go with an inspirational conservative firebrand, will we inspire the nation the way Reagan did, or will we scare voters away the way Goldwater did? Must we “settle” for the “safer” Mitt Romney? Which brings us to my final point:

Romney is conservative enough.

Many conservatives dismiss Mitt Romney as too moderate. I would feel better about Mitt if he would be forthright in disavowing Romneycare. But we need to remember four years ago, when moderate Sen. John McCain emerged from a similarly crowded field to surge to the nomination. By Super Tuesday, evangelical conservatives fell in behind Mike Huckabee, while economic conservatives looked to – remember? – Mitt Romney! He was credible in riding the conservative white horse. While many of Romney’s backers today are establishment neo-cons whose support does not impress me, other notable Romney supporters are legitimate tea-party friendly conservatives whose opinions I respect.

While not as conservative as his opponents, Romney may well be conservative enough.

We need to use this primary season to vet our candidates and pick the one that is best suited for these times. I haven’t yet decided who that is.

Obama’s ‘feud’ with CBC is all show

The Unablogger

The press, even conservative press, is spinning President Obama’s recent tough love speech to the Congressional Black Caucus and the adverse reaction by CBC members as signs of a falling out with the Left. Don’t buy it.

The whole thing is staged, with Obama and CBC members in it from the get-go. The purpose is to make Obama look more like a centrist, in contrast to the CBC. It is designed to blunt the (accurate) public perception that Obama’s goal is to enact the CBC’s radical race-specific agenda. It is designed to rebuild bridges to the independents who elected him and subsequently deserted him.

This is a classic ploy that even has an accepted name: a “Sister Souljah moment.” When former President Bill Clinton was down in the polls and being called “America’s first black president,” he picked a fight with rapper Sister Souljah, scolding her publicly for her outrageous “kill white people” comment. It succeeded and helped him win reelection in 1996 after having lost Congress in 1994.

Obama’s “Sister Souljah moment” won’t hurt his standing with African Americans, with whom he maintains a job approval rating over 80%, just as it didn’t hurt Clinton when he invented the tactic. Obama’s strategists are trolling for gullible independent white voters.

With former Saturday Night Live writer and cast member Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) now in Washington, it’s not surprising to see some SNL influence on the Administration. The faux CBC tiff is inspired by a Jon Lovitz character: “Acting!!!”

McCaskill rated Missouri’s most liberal in Congress

The Unablogger

A new, objective legislative scorecard by Heritage Action for America exposes Sen. Claire McCaskill’s (D-MO) campaign to posture herself as a “moderate” to be nothing but a big lie.

The scorecard, which rates members of both houses of Congress on degrees of conservatism, rates McCaskill with a dismal 5% score, the lowest of all 11 members of Missouri’s congressional delegation. That’s worse (i.e., more liberal) than Missouri’s urban Democrats in the House, Reps. Russ Carnahan (7%), William Lacy Clay (10%) and Emanuel Cleaver, II (14%). Metro East Rep. Jerry Costello (D-IL) was rated at 18%.

While Democrats can be expected to score poorly on a test that measures conservatism, the apples-to-apples comparison of members of the same party is still quite illuminating.

It’s not just that McCaskill stands out in a conservative state. She rates worse than many of the best known congressional liberals. Heritage Action rated avowed socialist Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT) at 10%, former House speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) at 15% and former presidential candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) at 20%. Other nationally known liberals rated more conservative than McCaskill included Reps. Barney Frank (D-MA, 16%), Barbara Lee (D-CA, 16%), Maxine Waters (D-CA, 12%), Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL, 11%), John Conyers (D-MI, 11%), Charles Rangel (D-NY, 11%) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX, 10%).

In pointed contrast, Heritage Action rated Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), who is seeking the Republican nomination to oppose McCaskill for re-election, at 81%. (Senatorial candidate Sarah Steelman was not rated because she is not currently serving in either house of Congress.) McCaskill’s senate colleague, Republican Roy Blunt, scored 72%.

The highest rating went to Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) at 99%. The ratings for Republicans in Congress who are currently seeking the presidency are 94% for Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN), 76% for Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), and 68% for Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-MI).

The Heritage Action scorecard measures voting records on all three facets of conservatism – fiscal, social and national defense. Red State blogger Daniel Horowitz notes that it is “more than just a measure of someone’s personal belief in conservatism; it is a measure of how much temerity a member has to implement his/her beliefs, even if it elicits consternation from their own leadership.” Horowitz also points out that senators, such as McCaskill, should be held to a higher standard than house members, because the Senate is more decentralized, making it easier for an individual member to oppose leadership.

McCaskill, in both formal votes and intangible acts of leadership, has toed the party line, contrary to the interests of her Missouri constituents.

A serious response to the S&P downgrade

The Unablogger

The Standard & Poor’s downgrade of U.S. debt is a genuine wake-up call. The country is in deep financial dodo. We need to get serious about enacting government policies that will right the ship.

S&P stated that the downgrade was issued, even after the much ballyhooed deal to raise the debt ceiling and reduce the deficit, because of (1)  the nation’s continuing budget deficits and climbing debt burden and (2) the political gridlock in Washington.

The first problem, of course, is that the government is spending more than it takes in. A lot more. In order to reduce the deficit (and ultimately, the debt), the U.S. must either increase revenue, reduce spending, or do some of both. President Obama and Democrats in Congress (notably in the Senate where they hold the majority) propose to increase revenue via tax increases. while Republicans in Congress (notably in the House where they hold the majority) propose to reduce government spending. Their disagreement produces the second problem – the gridlock.

The Democrat policy is flawed because it is based on the fallacious assumption that higher taxation automatically generates a proportionate increase in revenue. The problem is, higher tax rates act as a disincentive for business expansion, consumer spending and job creation. Those in turn result in less income subject to the higher rates, reducing or even eliminating the assumed gains in government revenue. The Heritage Foundation points out that tax revenues correlate with economic growth, not tax rates. Since 1952, the highest marginal income tax rate has dropped from 92% to 35%, and tax revenues have grown in inflation-adjusted terms while remaining constant as a percent of GDP. Democrats temper their tax increases by proposing to increase taxes only on “the rich.” Unfortunately, “the rich” includes most of the employers whose employment decisions are impacted by tax rates. Heritage notes that tax changes favoring “the rich” create growth better than tax cuts favoring low- and middle-income taxpayers. The other side of that coin dictates than tax changes targeting “the rich” will harm economic growth more than tax increases targeting low- and middle-income taxpayers.

Democrats in the debt debate have tiptoed around actual tax rate increases by proposing the elimination of certain deductions (e.g., the President’s rhetoric about corporate jets). But, as with tax rates, that policy’s  impact on related employment and other tax-generating activities needs to be considered carefully. For example, the 1993 tax increases included an excise tax on yachts that sharply reduced yacht sales and led to loss of jobs in the yacht building industry. Current Democrat proposals to cap itemized deductions for the wealthy would effectively eliminate deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable donations by the very people who can afford to make such personal expenditures. That in turn would further harm a housing industry whose slide helped precipitate the Great Recession, and reduce the resources available to charities at the very time they are needed most.

The Republican strategy of cutting government spending is more sound. Eliminating the trillion dollar Obamacare boondoggle (which a clear majority want Congress to do) would be an excellent first step. While Obamacare repeal wouldn’t save its entire trillion dollar cost because of the need to restore the Medicare cuts that Obamacare imposed, the net savings would be significant. A smaller but symbolically important gesture by the President would be to reduce expenditures on his personal staff. Former Clinton adviser Dick Morris notes that pay increases to the President’s top 20 employees increased this year by an average of 48%. That’s unconscionable in these perilous economic times. And, of course, cut the pork.

Keynesian Democrats, flashing back to the 1960s, argue that reduced government spending adversely impacts government revenues in the same way as tax increases. Democrats liken increased government spending to tax cuts, claiming that both strategies utilize a “multiplier effect” by putting  money in people’s pockets that they spend on other goods and services. But government spending doesn’t really pump any new money into the economy, because, as the Heritage Foundation notes, government must first tax or borrow that money out of the economy. In contrast, pro-growth tax cuts support incentives for economically productive behavior. The right tax cuts help the economy by reducing government’s influence on economic decisions and allowing people to respond more to market mechanisms. Most tax increases do exactly the opposite.

Unfortunately, principled but simplistic solutions like “raise taxes” and “cut spending” are not sufficient by themselves to solve a problem as complex and as federal debt accumulated over a number of years. While cutting federal spending is a much better solution than raising taxes, spending cuts alone many not be enough. But revenue sources should be chosen that don’t negatively impact economic growth and job creation. The government can raise some revenue without taxing anybody at all by simply selling off unused or underutilized government assets, like certain office buildings and other real estate. Reducing or eliminating deductions for state and local taxes should be considered because such a policy wouldn’t really provide a disincentive for anything within a taxpayer’s control (other than the extreme step of moving to a lower taxed state or locality). The so-called “sin taxes” on cigarettes, alcohol and similar products whose consumption has not historically been adversely affected by higher cost are another avenue to explore. Another realistic conservative sacrifice could be reinstating pre-Bush levels of estate and inheritance taxation. Conservatives recently reduced these taxes on the basis of fairness, but can we legitimately argue that higher death taxes will be a disincentive to death? If so, bring it on!

The “political gridlock”part of the problem must be solved by voters in 2012. We need to turn the presidency and control of both houses of Congress over to a single political party. If a constitutional amendment (like the Balanced Budget Amendment) is part of the solution, the straight-party vote should also extend to members of state legislatures, where constitutional amendments are ratified. The personal popularity of politicians from the other party must be disregarded in this time of crisis. In order to get a government that is decisive, the voters must be decisive. One way or the other, full bore.

RTW: A conservative ‘bridge too far’

Missouri legislators are proposing to enact a “right to work” law, which would prohibit closed union shops. This is an unusual situation where good policy is bad politics.

 

The Unablogger

Don’t get me wrong. RTW would be good public policy, and very good for the Missouri economy, especially jobs. Economic growth in the U.S., where it exists, is primarily taking place in states with RTW laws, some of which border Missouri and attract our jobs. Aside from RTW’s economic benefits, relieving unwilling workers of the obligation to pay union dues to fund political causes that many of them oppose is the right thing to do. (Even in the Democrat landslide of 2008, over a third of all union members voted for Republican John McCain.)

 

Unfortunately, this is a case where good policy will predictably produce an electoral backlash that will have both short- and long-term negative implications for conservative policy. Enacting the law will require a vote of the people, and a vote on RTW in a general election would hand Democrats an opportunity to exploit it to ramp up turnout of otherwise unmotivated government-dependent folks who vote straight Democrat when they bother to vote. Democrats have a long history of using controversial ballot measures to manipulate turnout. Years ago, when Republicans were still somewhat competitive in the City of St. Louis, Democrats would repeatedly use meaningless ballot measures about reopening Homer G. Phillips Hospital to gin up the reliably Democratic African American vote. Last year, California Democrats used a ballot measure to legalize marijuana to get reliably Democrat but rarely voting stoners to the polls. The stoners made California a Democrat firewall against the 2010 Republican wave, saving Barbara Boxer’s senate seat, retaking the governorship and reelecting every vulnerable Democrat congressman, while the rest of the country was a sea of red. (And since the ballot measure itself lost, they can do it again!)

 

The relevant Missouri precedent is 1978, the last time a RTW proposal was on the Missouri ballot. 1978 was setting up to be a Republican year much like 2010. Both 1978 and 2010 were the GOP off-year rebounds following both big off-year losses four years prior (1974 and 2006) and subsequent losses of the White House (1976 and 2008), followed by voter remorse and outrage over failing leftist presidencies (Carter and Obama). But this remorse and outrage was short-circuited in Missouri, where the RTW issue woke up complacent union bosses. They registered thousands of new voters in union households, and their “Right to Work is a Ripoff” campaign was so popular and so pervasive, you still see old clunkers bearing that campaign’s 33-year-old “RIPOFF” bumper stickers.

 

A RTW supporter has tried to undermine these facts by destroying a straw man. In an op-ed piece in the liberal St. Louis Beacon, Bruce Hillis seized on careless hyperbole from aging former Sen. Kit Bond stating that the 1978 RTW proposal had “wiped out every single Republican from top to bottom.” That, of course, was clearly exaggeration, and Hillis pounced on it, pointing out that the GOP had in fact lost “only” five of its state house seats that year.

 

But the “straw man” of Bond’s hyperbole is not the relevant comparison. It makes more sense to compare Missouri’s 1978 results with what could and likely would have happened that year in the absence of RTW on the ballot.

 

Let’s first place Missouri in 1978 in proper context. The relatively small number of Republican lost seats was due to how few Republican seats were there to be lost, following the Democrat blowouts in post-Watergate 1974 and the victories of Democrats Jimmy Carter and “Walkin’ Joe” Teasdale in 1976 (when even Bond himself lost reelection). Seven of Missouri’s 10 seats in Congress were held by Democrats heading into 1978, including three by freshmen. Democrats then held a 22-12 majority in the Missouri senate and a 112-51 super-majority in the house.

 

The electoral disaster was the blown opportunity for Republican gains. With all of those pickup opportunities in an election that Republicans were sweeping everywhere else, RTW-impaired Missouri Republicans picked up no seats in congress (not even the vulnerable freshman Democrat in the 2^nd District seat now safely held by Republican Todd Akin), no seats in the state senate and actually lost five more state house seats. In contrast, in the similar national political landscape in 2010, Missouri Republicans knocked off 34-year Congressman Ike Skelton (ironically one of the freshmen left unscathed in 1978) and gained 17 Missouri house seats, even though there were already 38 fewer Democrat house seats available to pick off.

 

That, Mr. Hillis, is the relevant comparison, and yes, 1978 was indeed a Republican electoral disaster. Unlike most of Missouri’s current legislators, who were too young to pay attention to politics (if even born) in 1978, I lived through that disaster. I recruited a legislative candidate in a swing district and spent so much time managing his campaign that it cost me my real job near the end of the campaign. The Democrat blowout wasted all of it.

 

More is at stake in 2012 than in 1978. It is absolutely essential that Missouri cast its 10 electoral votes to oust Barack Obama, and that Missouri maintain its GOP congressional delegation and its majorities in the General Assembly. RTW on the ballot will make those essential goals much more challenging. There will be another time, when a Republican governor can put a RTW proposal harmlessly on a primary ballot (just like Democratic Gov. Bob Holden deflected the impact of the “marriage definition” ballot measure in 2004). But if the legislature passes RTW in this session, Democrat Gov. Jay Nixon will put it on the general election ballot, to insure his own reelection and the broader success of his party.

 

Union backlash may be foreign to Mr. Hillis in the comfort of his idyllic conservative small town in Mexico, Missouri, but here among volatile swing voters in metropolitan St. Louis, it means a lot. I felt the pain in 1978, and I don’t want to experience it again. While RTW is the right thing to do, the right thing to do now is to wait. The 2012 election and its impact on the nation’s future are at stake.

The Buckley Rule and the concept of ‘electability’

The Unablogger

As tea partiers and other conservatives begin to recruit candidates to continue the revolution through the 2012 elections, we must learn from both our successes and failures in 2010. Many establishment types have chastised us for “ruining” Republican chances of capturing the U.S. Senate and some governorships by nominating genuinely conservative candidates who ultimately didn’t win. We are urged to invoke The Buckley Rule, promulgated by the late conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr., “Nominate the most conservative candidate who is electable.”

I wholeheartedly agree with The Buckley Rule. But to follow the rule, we (and anyone else who is preaching it) need to understand it. Simplistically pointing to the defeats of GOP senate nominees Christine O’Donnell, Sharon Angle and Ken Buck and gubernatorial nominees Dan Maes, Carl Paladino and Bill Brady doesn’t cut it. Similarly, the successful campaigns of Mark Kirk, Kelly Ayotte and Dan Coats, all establishment-backed candidates who overcame tea-party candidates, do not provide any meaningful support for moderates’ case. After all, tea-party backed senate candidates Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and Mike Lee and Idaho congressional nominee Raul Labrador were also on the moderates’ rant list, but these candidates’ big general election wins diverted the moderates’ scorn to other targets. Other establishment-backed primary winners, notably Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman and Dino Rossi, failed to bring home wins. In most of those cases, other more objective measures of electability were the primary reason for victory or defeat. And sometimes, you fight the good fight but still lose.

Moderates and their allies in the mainstream media tend to assume that “electable” is synonymous with “moderate.” Nothing could be farther from the truth. Electability is a complex measure that is unique to each particular contest. I would suggest the following criteria be utilized, and certainly my savvy, perceptive readers can offer others in the comments below.

Ideological compatibility with the electorate. Electability varies with the ideological complexion of the district’s voters. On the west coast, the east coast north of the nation’s capitol, and in many urban areas, conservatism realistically does not sell well. In the case of the 2010 Delaware senate contest, a principled conservative like Christine O’Donnell may have been ideologically incompatible with the electorate in a state where liberalism has dominated for the past generation. In contrast, moderate Sen. Scott Brown turned out to be perfect for the Massachusetts special election that proved to be the national momentum changer in 2010. On the other hand, conservatives were right to push for more principled candidates for the senate seat in Utah and the one-term-Democrat house seat in Idaho, where conservatism is king. For those electorates, the more conservative candidates were the more electable candidates.

Risk of liberal Democrat victory. Conservatives need to assess whether it is necessary to settle for a “lesser evil” in order to avert something even worse than a RINO. As I have written before, virtually every RINO Republican is more conservative than any elected Democrat. How much worse would the Democrat be than the RINO alternative? Would a principled nominee who does not appeal to the needed votes of moderate independent voters expose the seat to an over-the-top leftist? In Delaware, Sen. Chris Coons was often referred to as the “bearded Marxist.” If Coons’ voting record begins to track that of avowed socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), conservatives may come to regret not settling for the arguably electable RINO alternative, Mike Castle. But in Colorado, milquetoast Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet, though an unfortunate obstacle to the quest for control of the senate, wasn’t as big a risk.

Risk of moderate Republican victory. This is a corollary to the previous factor. Sometimes getting the party victory that you want is worse than losing. Would a more moderate nominee, if elected, discredit the conservative or Republican brands? The poster child for this factor is Dede Scozzafava, the disastrous RINO congressional nominee in a 2009 special election in upstate New York. The pro-abortion, ACORN-endorsed Republican nominee lost what was then a historically safe Republican seat when most grassroots Republican voters bolted to the nominee of the Conservative Party. But if elected, her performance in office would have damaged the Republican Party’s credibility with its base. Before jumping to the conclusion that we have to settle for a RINO, we need to stop, think and ascertain as best we can the potential damage to the party that can result from embarrassing unreliable representation by a RINO.

Vetting of personal issues. A candidate’s ideological purity doesn’t matter if a history of dishonest or unethical behavior or other personal misconduct (or the mere appearance of same) renders the candidate unelectable. This is an area where an established party organization has vetting resources and experience that grassroots tea party organizations lack. But that difference is meaningless if the party organization fails to do the job. In a low-visibility Republican primary for Missouri state auditor in 2002, the Republican organization recruited a capable but little-known candidate, but failed to check into Al Hanson, a perennial candidate who also filed. Missouri Citizens for Life, a pro-life group that was (and remains) very influential in Republican primaries, endorsed Hanson based on pro-life positions expressed in his response to their questionnaire, after the establishment recruit failed to respond. The grassroots organization looked only to its questionnaire and made no effort to vet their pick on anything else. The endorsement propelled Hanson to a shocking 65-35 win over the recruited candidate in the Republican Primary. Then, immediately after the primary (but not in time to inform primary voters), the mainstream media disclosed that Hanson was a convicted felon. Hanson refused the party’s pleas to withdraw, and incumbent Democrat Claire McCaskill won big in November, perhaps enhancing her image enough to defeat Republican Sen. Jim Talent four years later. Though not as telling as a criminal felony record, significant problems with unsuccessful Republican senate nominees in both Delaware and Nevada helped Democrats withstand the 2010 Republican wave and hold those seats. Moral: We need to know everything about potential candidates, warts and all, to avoid serving up an easy target for negative Democrat campaigning.

Conservatives need to recruit top-flight candidates in 2012, from the presidency on down. Being a solid conservative is an important requirement, but the other factors listed above also need to be considered objectively. They need to be addressed during the recruitment process, so that the opportunity to recruit someone else remains if the early favorite is found to be unacceptable. It’s also better not to have to air dirty laundry publicly in a resource-wasting contested primary.

Over a dozen serious candidates may vie for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, and a solid handful of serious choices will seek the right to unseat Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill in Missouri. It is essential that capable conservative candidates win the general elections for both offices. We must be able to make an informed and reasoned decision who “the most conservative candidate that is electable” is.

Sarah Palin’s ideal role for America

I am a fan of Sarah Palin. I think she is well qualified and that she would be a fantastic president if elected. But I think she would serve the conservative movement best if she didn’t run for president. Not in 2012. Maybe never.

 

Sarah Palin

This isn’t about Palin’s qualifications. Even before stepping into the Alaska governor’s office, her tenure as mayor of Wasilla had provided her with more government executive experience than Barack Obama has midway through his presidency. As governor, she demonstrated leadership by bucking the establishment of her own party, exposing corruption and replacing it with honest, responsive government. She stood up to oil giant Exxon and other powerful special interests and devised a creative plan that responsibly developed Alaska’s oil reserves while sharing the profits with the people. She produced a plan for renewable energy resource use and for construction of an ambitious trans-Alaska natural gas pipeline, while cutting government waste and eliminating federal pork projects. Qualified? You betcha!

 

Nor does this reflect concern that Palin is too polarizing to win the general election. Well, duh, anyone who steadfastly advocates the conservative policies that our country needs is the polar opposite of President Obama, and is therefore “polarizing” by definition. I wouldn’t want a nominee who wasn’t. I was reminded recently that exactly the same charge was leveled against Ronald Reagan in 1980. Reagan’s poll numbers at this point in the 1980 campaign were as bad or worse than Palin’s are now. Reagan fiercely defended his principles and communicated them in a way that ordinary people understood, once he had their attention. And that’s what ultimately enabled him to unseat an incumbent president. The parallels between Reagan and Palin are undeniable.

 

Even so, I believe Palin could best serve conservative interests (and therefore the national interest) by refraining from seeking the presidency, while still developing creative conservative solutions to national problems, continuing to connect with ordinary people with her plainspoken common sense explanation of conservative policy, inspiring and motivating the conservative base, and running interference for whichever conservative candidate the Republican Party nominates. As demonstrated as recently as the aftermath of the Arizona shooting tragedy, Palin is a lightning rod for criticism from Democrats and the mainstream media (forgive the redundancy). She could take much of the flak, leaving the actual candidate unscathed (or at least minimizing the damage). Not being the candidate would free her up to be an inspirational high-profile role model raising her children, and to do things a candidate or federal officeholder could not, like continuing to serve as a Fox News contributor (an excellent forum for communicating conservative values) and earning speaking fees and other family income. It takes a strong person to do such a thing and persevere. A strong person like Sarah Palin.

 

This has been done before, but not as purposely as I have outlined here. The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) performed that function for the Democrats after his failed intra-party challenge to President Jimmy Carter in 1980. Kennedy was the originator of copious amounts of liberal legislation, much of which unfortunately became law. He inspired his party’s base and drew millions of loyalists to fundraising events for his party and its candidates. Perhaps most important, he served as the lightning rod that drew Republican fire, diverting much of it from his party’s real candidates. Ted Kennedy served his party well and will be among the most revered of his generation, without ever having been its presidential nominee. He will be remembered long after actual Democratic nominees like Michael Dukakis and John Kerry are as forgotten as James Cox and John Davis.

 

An exception to this plan would be if no other satisfactory electable Republican candidate emerges. Taking the veto pen out of Obama’s hand next election is the only way that the damage that he and the Pelosi-Reid congress caused in the first half of his administration can be undone in time to prevent permanent harm to the republic. If Palin’s Reaganesque candidacy is the only thing that can save us, then she has to do it, and I’ll support her. But at this time, I believe a suitable alternative will emerge and catch fire. (Note to liberals: That’s a metaphor. I am neither predicting nor advocating the burning of any candidate.) Let’s see how the political landscape looks a year from now.

 

I am not saying that Palin should not otherwise serve again in public office, though doing so would put an end to her Fox News gig and reduce her personal income-producing capacity. Kennedy was elected to the U. S. Senate eight times, and used that office to turn his ideas into policy and law. The seat of accidental Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK) comes up in 2014, and that might well prove to be the perfect perch from which to launch the Palin magic.

 

I won’t insult Palin by denominating her “the Republican Ted Kennedy” (that’s a bridge I won’t cross, so to speak), but she could do for conservatives and Republicans what Kennedy did for liberals and Democrats. And that’s a lot!

A presidency of racial polarization

The Unablogger

One statistic in a recent study by Rasmussen Reports stands out above all others. While President Barack Obama’s overall approval rating (a combination of both “strongly” approve and “somewhat” approve) during the last week of 2010 was only 38% among white voters, he enjoyed 94% approval among African American voters.

But this disparity wasn’t because of racially intolerant independents and Republicans; a similar racial disparity exists among Obama’s fellow Democrats. While Democrat voters gave their president a solid 82% approval rating, Rasmussen discovered a huge racial gap in the level of enthusiasm. While Obama earned “strong” approval (the level of loyalty that Rasmussen regards as more relevant) from 75% of black Democrats, he was “strongly” approved by just 40% of white Democrats, and just 33% of white Democrat men.

This disparity has widened greatly over the course of the Administration. When measured the first week after inauguration, Obama received “strong” approval of 88% of black Democrats, 72% of white Democrats and 70% of white Democrat men.

Some disenchantment is natural and has historically affected every presidency, but the disparate racial disenchantment within Obama’s own party is striking. While the president lost less than 15% of the “strong” support he had initially enjoyed among black Democrats, he lost 44% of his most enthusiastic support from white Democrats and over half of his strong approval of white Democrat men.

These numbers will probably not matter to Obama when he faces a Republican challenger in 2012, because Democrats historically rally behind their party’s president, whether enthusiastic or not. (The exception of the 20th Century, Jimmy Carter, lost because rural evangelical Democrats not only abandoned fellow evangelical Carter for Ronald Reagan in 1980, they largely realigned more or less permanently with the Republican Party.) But if a credible Democrat (not Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich, but Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold) challenges Obama for renomination, he may have a problem.

Politics aside, a presidency that is so racially polarizing is not healthy for the country.

Update: The mainstream media validated my observations in this January 7, 2011 article in the center-left National Journal analyzing exit poll data from the 2010 election: White Flight: President Obama’s path to a second term may rely on states shaped by the same social forces he embodies. But I stand by my observations anyway!