Podcast: NY 23 With Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser And Valour IT With Marine Steve Schippert
Thursday, October 29th, 2009An inside look at NY 23 and conservatives versus the Republican establishment. Also, we talk about identity politics and Republicanism.
Steve Schippert joins me to discuss what it means to servicemen and women to be connected during their times of rehabilitation. Remember, you can donate at this site.
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
What Is Sarah Palin Up To?
Friday, October 23rd, 2009In my editorial at Pajamas Media today, I talk about Sarah Palin’s decision to endorse the conservative, rather than the Republican candidate and what it all means:
With her decision to endorse Doug Hoffman, the conservative (not Republican) candidate, Sarah
Palin sends the Republican Party a very clear message. She will be using her considerable fundraising ability to fund candidates who ideologically match what it used to mean to be a Republican. Since the Republican Party, from its toes to its nose, has difficulty identifying candidates with those credentials, she’ll help them do it.
The Republican Party has a choice. They can continue to antagonize those who vote them into office or they can start paying attention. They mistakenly buy the D.C. bubble philosophy that moderation is the way to find good candidates. What they’re seeing is a base willing to lose if the Republican Party doesn’t change its ways.
I also talk about identity politics and how it is blowing up for the Republican party. The love the party has for Sarah Palin has less to do with her beauty or gender than her beliefs and ideology. So the Republican party, while looking for women candidates needs to remember what’s most important: the beliefs. The base is sick of people who pay lip service to ideas like small government and fiscal responsibility and then turn around and govern like drunk liberals spending other peoples’ money.
Palin & Romney: Heart & Head? More Like, Heart & Soul…less
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009Matt Lewis wrote a thoughtful piece about the Republican party and what the two leaders mean for the future of the party:
The most often repeated template is for Republicans to select the person whose “turn” it is to run for president. That’s how the Grand Old Party opted for Richard Nixon, John McCain, Bob Dole — and even George H.W. Bush. The other, less frequently employed model, says: “If you’re going to send up a long shot candidate anyway –perhaps a ‘sacrificial lamb’ — why not go with your heart?” That’s how the GOP chose conservative firebrand Barry Goldwater as its standard-bearer in 1964, a decision that guaranteed a landslide victory for Democrats.
Today, the perfunctory, “next in line” theory suggests that the most likely GOP nominee will be former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. While Romney dropped-out of the 2008 campaign earlier than Mike Huckabee, most conservatives concede that Romney finished in secondplace – and that is certainly the view held by the McCainiacs. So, by the logic that led to the nominations of McCain and Dole, it’s Romney’s turn. Even if rank-and-file conservatives find him less than perfect concede that he’s paid his dues.
But what about the other model? Who is this year’s Goldwater – and, just maybe, our Reagan? Who is the person movement conservatives really want? It sure ain’t Mike Huckabee. And it might be Sarah Palin.
Further, he says this [and yes, I'm heavily quoting, go read the whole thing]:
With three years to go, predictions are a risky business. Palin may not even run. And perhaps someone such as Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour will emerge as the conservatives’ darling. If recent elections are any guide, the Republicans’ heads will tell them to choose Mitt Romney. Their hearts whisper something else. Is “Sarah” the name of this siren song?
There is an implication in this analysis that nominating Romney would be a “smart” thing. I would suggest, that is false. Mitt Romney, it should be remembered, lost to John McCain. Anyone who lost to John McCain should be discounted, in my opinion. John McCain was a weak and flawed candidate and everyone knew it. The Republican primary voters felt that the other candidates were weaker and/or more flawed.
Voting for Mitt Romney in 2012 would not only be not using one’s head, it would be outright stupid. Sure, he’s got the economic turnaround thing going, but he has the look and feel of someone a person just can’t trust. He is, dare I say it, unelectable. And everyone, but the most devoted Romney-ites knows it.
As for Sarah Palin being the luring conservative temptress, bidding the GOP to crash into the shoals of death, pain and panic…now, that is wrong, too. While the verdict is still out on Sarah Palin, she could be a very good or a very bad choice. How can anyone know that yet?
Sarah Palin has to delineate herself from not only McCain’s policies, she has to define herself as a Republican. Or is she going really rogue and starting her own party? We’ll find out soon enough.
Right now, I don’t think Romney makes sense on any level. Really, I can’t think of one Republican candidate for president who would be a good choice. But it is early yet. Strange times can lead to stranger candidates. These are strange times.
Podcast: CA Governor Candidate Steve Poizner & Western CPAC Ralph Reed Speech
Thursday, October 22nd, 2009
To subscribe on iTunes, just click here!
When Melissa isn’t on the radio, you can find her at melissaclouthier.com and on Twitter. Her username is MelissaTweets.
Conservatives Causing Problems: Clashing With GOP Establishment
Friday, October 16th, 2009The Grand Old Party rests on a false premise: Conservative ideas won’t sell anywhere but in conservative places. This premise is wrong, as Pat Toomey is proving in Pennsylvania. The national Republicans spurned Pat Toomey in favor of Arlen Specter. Look what happened there. And now, wonder of wonders, Toomey would beat Specter head-to-head. What changed?
Nothing.
The Republican party simply does not have faith in certain core ideals anymore because they believe that the American people don’t believe them anymore. They are wrong. I’ll get to that in a minute.
First, the Wall Street Journal’s Naftali Bendavid has a provocative piece about how Tea Party activists are tangling with GOP leadership:
But these newly energized conservatives present GOP leaders with a potential problem: The party’s strategy for attracting moderate voters risks alienating activists who are demanding ideological purity, who may then gravitate to other candidates or stay at home. It’s a classic dilemma faced by parties in the minority — tension between those who want a return to the party’s ideological roots and those who want candidates most likely to win in their districts.
Here is another false premise: Activists are demanding ideological purity. No, they are demanding
that the Republican party stand for something, anything.
How can a socialist call oneself a Republican? And what good does a Republican socialist do once in office? If the ideas of a candidate would have him or her voting Democrat 90% of the time, what good is it to have him? The Democrats are demonstrating this problem right now. Blue Dogs don’t want the health care plan and rightly so. They will be trounced back home should they vote to expand the government. But therein lies the dilemma: Democrats are for expanding government. They believe, fundamentally, that the government is the solution. Why be a Democrat if you don’t believe that? Progressive Democrats are rightly furious. It has been their goal for ages to socialize medicine. Now, with huge majorities, they’re still being thwarted–by their own.
Winning at all costs usually means not winning at all. Arlen Specter is self-serving loathsome creature. He swung back and forth making decisions that suited him. He had no ideological center. He has no core beliefs. Well, he has one: What is good for me?
The Republican party needs to stand for something. Isn’t a small-government bent, the least people should expect from the party? It seems that the Republicans still don’t know why they were voted out of office. It was not because they were “too conservative”. That argument would apply had they attempted to stick to any conservative policy. No, they lost because they strayed from their core beliefs.
So, until the Republican party gets clear, the Tea Party folks will be pushing back. And if that means losing some local elections until the Republican party gets religion, so be it. The American people do not want some softer version of Democrats. Obama won because he sounded like Ronald Reagan–all personal responsibility and low taxes.
The Republican party is putting up candidates who believe in big government because they believe that’s what the people want. They are wrong. The American people want an alternative to the soft socialism coming from the Left. The American people want jobs–that comes from smaller, not bigger government. The American people want spending cuts–that comes from fiscal responsibility on the part of Congressional members. These are all (or used to be) Republican ideals.
In the midterm elections, Republicans are going to sweep. People are sick to death of the Democrats already. Republicans should be scouring the landscape for solid conservatives who will deliver responsible legislation once elected. Right now, they’re treating the electoral ills wrong because they’ve misdiagnosed the cause.
Tea Partiers have it right. The Republicans need to pay attention or risk staying a minority party for a very long time.
P.S. And to those folks believing that there is going to be some magical Third Party to save the day, I say that the cure is to remake the Republican party, not go outside it.
via Memeorandum
Helping Republicans Help Themselves
Monday, October 12th, 2009After Obama and the Democrats swept the Republicans out of office it became clear that Republican leaders got one message and everyone else got another message. The Tea Party movement was not borne of Democrat failure.
I will say that again: The Tea Party movement was not borne of Democrat failure.
The Tea Party movement was borne of Republican failure and consequently, the fear of Democrat success.
While the Republicans ruled (and they did rule as imperious potentates), they expanded the size and scope of the government. They used the taxpayer as their personal checkbook. They disrespected and ignored their constituents. They manipulated the President financial during a time of war. It was an unholy alliance.
As frustration built, the Tea Partiers saw the press give Barack Obama a free pass. Unquestioned and never challenged, he sailed through his pre-election campaigning. His associations with communists, anarchists, criminals, etc. were deemed irrelevant.
Many Americans bought President Obama’s speech. He talked of responsibility. He talked of restraint. He was reasonable.
Where do Americans now turn?
I’ve been saying for a while that the way back to the promised land is not through a third party. It’s not through hoping the Republicans will get it. It’s through taking back the Republican party.
Erick Erickson of Redstate says this:
Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, has urged Tea Party activists to “put down the protest signs” and stage takeovers of local Republican parties.
“Grassroots activists need to start infiltrating the party,” said Erickson. “The only way to start getting [the establishment] back is to start pounding them with every fist we have.”
Activists need to help Republicans save themselves. The word Republican is nearly meaningless as it has no contrast with Democrats. When people get involved and transform the party from within, real change will happen.
The Failed Logic of the NRSC
Wednesday, September 9th, 2009For a couple election cycles, Republicans have clearly believed “the more moderate the better”. The result has been that the American people have had two versions of Democrats to choose from–the middle left and the hard left.
Forget social issues for a moment. Just think of something that affects us all: Money. When it comes to taxing and spending, both middle of the roaders and leftists believe in taxing and spending. It’s just a matter of degrees.
On social issues, Americans are more moderate than the extremes of either party. As someone who is ardently anti-abortion, but for common-sense solutions like a morning after pill, my advice to the Republicans is to look at what matters to Americans most: It’s the economy, stupid. It’s lower taxes. It’s less intrusion. It’s less debt. It’s nicer rhetoric.
But the Senate Republicans don’t get it. They have had the equation exactly backwards. The sound like crusty old, intractable throw-backs while having the soft mushy middle-left Democrat core. It’s the worst of all worlds. Erick Erickson says:
More troubling, I’m troubled by reports from too many people to count that Rob Jesmer, the Executive Director of the NRSC, is aggressively pushing a new campaign theory — moderates will win and conservatives will lose. In fact, I’m told he has been rather blunt in a few small groups that the GOP needs to reject conservative candidates in favor of moderate candidates.
Because of the moderate Republican senators we currently have, the GOP is in a very precarious place. We do not need more of them and the NRSC equation is fundamentally flawed.
The NRSC saw Chuck Schumer find candidates to the left of the Democrats and the NRSC now thinks it should replicate that success by finding candidates to the left of the GOP. We are now being left with NRSC recruits to the left of the recruits Chuck Schumer got. And that is too far left.
But this tactic will ultimately do a disservice to the American people. Americans, for some time now, have had no representatives willing to cut back their power, i.e. taxpayer money. They used to look to Republicans to be the party of fiscal responsibility. But they’ve lost that competitive advantage. These days, the only thing Republicans can say is “we’re not as bad as them”. And that’s saying something,…just not enough.
More moderates means less of what Americans want. America is still a center-right country, as Barack Obama is finding out. Why would the Republican party tack left? I don’t see how this is good for the GOP or for America.
Pew: Good Grief! 37% Actually Approve Of Congress?
Wednesday, September 2nd, 2009The latest Pew research came out today. Democrats should be gnashing their teeth. I’m shocked that the approval of Nancy’s House is as high as it is, but then, again, someone has to consistently vote Democrat. Looks like there ain’t nothing a Dem can do to tick off at least 1/3 of the electorate.
On a more depressing note for Democrats, there’s this:
Independents’ views of Congress shifted more dramatically in recent months than have opinions among Republicans or Democrats. Notably, independent voters who express an unfavorable view of Congress, say they would back the GOP candidate over the Democrat by a whopping 51% to 31% margin, while the smaller proportion of independent voters who have a positive view of Congress say they intend to vote for the Democrat, by 55% to 29%.
You know what this poll tells me? That the notion of an Independent voter is a myth. In the last election, irritated people who normally vote Republican voted for Barack Obama and Democrats generally because they 1) wanted to punish Republicans and 2) actually hoped Obama would bring fiscal restraint and change. Of course, that didn’t happen and these people are swinging back to home.
The minority of Independents who approve of the Democrats are closet Democrats. There are those who like to call themselves Independents because it sounds superior to say so.
Either a person is a statist or an individualist. That is, he either wants the government to step in and fix things or he wants to be left alone to figure it out. Most people of voting age are pretty clear which way they want things to go. They are either a Democrat or a Republican until they change their philosophy.
Of course, the problem for those voting Republican has been that elected Republicans have acted like statists. They have no where to turn.
Sarah Palin Is Proving Relevant Yet Again
Monday, August 31st, 2009Sarah Palin will be jetting to Hong Kong to talk finance:
The former Alaska governor will visit Hong Kong to address the CLSA Investors Forum, a well-known annual conference of global investment managers, the host announced Monday.
Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Alan Greenspan have spoken at the event, hosted by brokerage and investment group CLSA Asia-Pacific Markets.
“Our keynote speakers are notable luminaries who often address topics that go beyond traditional finance such as geopolitics,” company spokeswoman Simone Wheeler said in a statement.
“We just felt it would be a fabulous opportunity for CLSA clients to hear from Mrs. Palin,” Wheeler said, adding that CLSA approached Palin with the offer.
She said the conference aimed to present investors “a diversity of views that potentially influence decision-makers who help shape the markets.”
Her first speaking engagement post Alaska-governorship will be important and international. Her thoughts will be eagerly anticipated, I bet.
Let the gnashing of teeth begin.
Dynasty American Style
Monday, August 31st, 2009Glenn Greenwald kvetches about one of the Bush twins getting a TV gig on NBC’s Today show. There are dynasties in America wah! This wouldn’t sound so ironic if his bellyaching didn’t come on the heels of Kennedy’s love fest. Will a Kennedy replace Teddy? The world waits with bated breath. Wait, no they don’t.
They should convene a panel for the next Meet the Press with Jenna Bush Hager, Luke Russert, Liz Cheney, Megan McCain and Jonah Goldberg, and they should have Chris Wallace moderate it. They can all bash affirmative action and talk about how vitally important it is that the U.S. remain a Great Meritocracy because it’s really unfair for anything other than merit to determine position and employment. They can interview Lisa Murkowski, Evan Bayh, Jeb Bush, Bob Casey, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller, Dan Lipinksi, and Harold Ford, Jr. about personal responsibility and the virtues of self-sufficiency. Bill Kristol, Tucker Carlson and John Podhoretz can provide moving commentary on how America is so special because all that matters is merit, not who you know or where you come from. There’s a virtually endless list of politically well-placed guests equally qualified to talk on such matters.
Dynasties and nepotism are counter to the American system. That’s why Hillary Clinton is a fraud. The whole Kennedy family is irritating. Oh, and let’s not forget those who had sex with someone powerful, Sally Quinn, to get where they are now.
Please. Glenn Greenwald is discontented because Bush’s daughter, who has actually accomplished something–being a school teacher–might be called on to report on teaching? At least she’s got a profession. Greenwald’s outrage would matter more if his perspective were more balanced and he named all the Democrats who get special favor.
Look at Hollywood. Look at any profession, really. Kids often end up in a parent’s field–it’s what they know and their parents give them help.
Still, the nepotism thing is bothersome in politics. The Kennedys should lead the way and pronounce that none of the progeny should be allowed in the biz. End the dynasties, Democrats. Lead America by example and produce leaders exclusively by merit.
