What Can Brown Do For You?

It hurts, I know.  For the countless Conservatives and Tea Partiers who helped Scott Brown’s campaign make history, those who donated money from all around these United States (like the $348,000 spent by the Tea Party Express in California for a Scott Brown TV ad), those Republican operatives who boarded the buses here in DC and trekked northward into enemy territory to knock on doors: I cannot offer you and yours much comfort in my words.  Actions speak louder than words, and Conservatives, Libertarians and Tea Partiers seem to be uniting for the first time this year due to Senator Brown’s recent actions. 

It sucks; and nobody wanted to think this was going to be the case because as Glenn Beck said during his closing speech at CPAC, “it’s not enough for Republicans to just suck less than the other side.” 

What led us to this unfortunate quandary was the Senator’s recent vote against the filibuster for Senator Harry Reid’s Jobs Bill.  This will allow the Bill to reach a final vote in the Senate Wednesday.  His actions earned him praise from Maryland Democrat and Representative Steny Hoyer, which is the equivalent of Dallas Cowboys picking up L.T. and having Dan Snyder applaud the move as “great.”  It has also earned him some malicious scorn on his Facebook page and office phone lines; and a bit of criticism here at thelobbyist as well.   

Sen. Brown was probably pacing back and forth with his home state sticking to his shoes before returning to DC for votes this week.  He was probably taking a lot of information in about the problems facing Massachusetts, particularly unemployment which increased from 8.7% to 9.4% (November – December 2009), a considerable increase especially when compared to the rest of the United States.  All the while, Massachusetts’ Unemployment Insurance benefits have dipped $41.9 million into the red. 

I am not endorsing Senator Brown’s actions, nor am I even excusing them.  It is imperative that the Republican Party experience an eureka moment where they do not treat people who are for limited domestic influence by federal government as the fringe.  Can’t there be someone who can moderately explain why limited government involvement on the federal level is a good idea for the entire country?  Isn’t this where Reagan reigned supreme?  At the same time, can’t Tea Partiers, Conservatives and some Libertarians also come to accept that a Republican in Massachusetts will not be an exact replica of a Texas Republican, or a Carolina Republican? 

I am just asking for everyone to hold tight I guess.  I know we made Scott Brown into this last best hope, and I do not think that his voting in favor of this particular jobs bill shows us anything we really should not have already expected: Scott Brown is a Republican.  Not a Tea Partier, not particularly Conservative, and certainly not a libertarian.  Does this make him a RINO?  No… he is still a Republican and can still help us keep the $1 Trillion government slow-roll take-over of healthcare.  That means a lot more to me right now than the $14-40 Billion jobs bill.  Let’s not burn our bridge just yet, and keep our eyes on the prize.

-rj

Politico Calls ‘Em Out

Yesterday, Politico led with an article describing some deep hypocrisy among so-called fiscal hawks among both parties. According to Politico, the “hawks” are very much for cutting spending…unless it’s within their state’s limits. Senators DeMint, Enzi, McCaskill and Tester, among others, are targeted for their support for fiscal discipline outside of their state.

Today, Politico targeted Democratic deals designed to pass health care reform. Senator Ben Nelson’s (D-NE) so-called “Cornhusker Kickback” has been taken out of the picture…but Senator Mary Landrieu’s (D-LA) “Louisiana Purchase” is still on the table. According to Politico:

But there is no visible movement to erase a Medicaid deal with Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) that she has said is worth $300 million, three times the amount of Nelson’s agreement.

Or to strike a line item that exempts Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan from a 40 percent tax on insurers that provide expensive health plans. Or to remove a provision that sends an extra $500 million in Medicaid funding to Massachusetts and $600 million to Vermont for being leaders in providing health insurance to their residents.

Politico snags statements from a number of Democrats senators regarding their state’s deals. Below are two:

“It is very clear from the process that took place in the final days of the bill that Americans are disturbed about the process,” said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.). “I believe it would be important for us to take out the egregious items.”

Does that mean he might forfeit the money for Massachusetts?

Not at all. Kerry argued the funding was completely legitimate because Massachusetts has already used significant state resources to extend benefits beyond what the current federal Medicaid rules require.

“I don’t think adjusting for Medicaid costs for states that have already done some things is inappropriate,” Kerry said. “I’m not for a single-state fix. I’m for every state in the country that has taken action, to have that reflected somehow, and that should be part of the fix.”

Kerry’s remark highlights an axiom of Washington: Every deal is egregious except your own.

On the labor deal, Levin said he signed off on it initially “in the context of trying to get the bill passed.”

But now that party leaders have gone back to the drawing board, he said critics want another chance to eliminate the tax completely. Barring that, he said they would like to raise the threshold on plans that would be taxed and exempt additional benefits — under the terms of the labor deal, only basic coverage would be taxed, exempting things like dental and vision coverage.

Other senators and several representatives are noted as getting their own deals in as well. While this is the way Congress works, and thus no bill is ever free from deal-making…this is pretty shortsighted of Democrats to make more of the same kinds of deals that hurt them so much in Massachusetts.

I first heard about the deals when Politico’s Mike Allen was on Morning Joe today. Arianna Huffington was on the show, and after Allen pointed out the Massachusetts, Vermont and Michigan deals, she made the observation that (and this is as best as I can remember, 25 minutes after the fact, so please excuse the lack of an exact quote)) beyond what was in the deals, Democrats are using the same secretive processes that made them so devastatingly vulnerable in Massachusetts. It’s the process, she noted, that is anathema to Americans most of all.

Following Huffington’s statement Joe Scarborough, the host of Morning Joe, offered some advice to President Obama on how to get rid of these backroom deals and get health care reform back track. Again, from memory, Scarborough said that President Obama should call each and every troublesome Democrat- and Joe Lieberman (I-CT)- in and inform them that they will support the health care bill he likes. If they don’t, he will veto their appropriations. Secondly, for those who are up for re-election this year, he should threaten to primary them if they don’t get in line. With his experience as a representative from Florida, Scarborough claims he knows that each senator will flinch at these threats.

I have to agree with Huffington; beyond making deals, which I think most Americans grudgingly accept as part of the political system- of course, that acceptance becomes significantly easier to bear when money comes to their state or district- we want the kind of transparency offered by C-SPAN, open dialogue, etc. Secondly, I agree with Scarborough. Elections and money to their own state are the lifeblood of U.S. Senators, and threatening both will lead very quickly to Democrats (and Joe Lieberman) falling into line. (Also, threatening to away Lieberman’s chairmanship of the Homeland Security Committee would probably help Democrats.)

I’m On The Radio

Destruction Among The Democrats

I was at my internship with Laura Ingraham earlier today, and as part of the job I had to look up information regarding the falling house of cards that is the Democratic Party and its domestic initiatives. Below is what I found:

1. President Obama’s Transportation Security Administration nominee has resigned after Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and other Republicans held up his nomination due to his lying to Congress.

2. Senator Jim Webb (D-VA) is calling for health care voting to halt until newly-elected Senator Brown (R-MA) is seated.

3. White House officials and House Democrats see things differently on health care and the ramifications of the Brown election.

4. Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN) may very well have Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) as a challenger this year, despite his calling out the left today.

5. White House advisor David Axelrod and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs don’t get it.

Below is what I have found since:

6. Suddenly, deadlines aren’t so important to President Obama.

7. Moderate Scott Brown (R-MA) and conservative Jim DeMint (R-SC) are on the same page, it appears. Kind of makes Democrats look like the ones who are purging their own ranks.

8. Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) is kinda-sorta-not-really calling for health care reform to start over.

Update:

9. Representative Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) has been rumored to be prepared to resign from Congress if the health care debate keeps going, and is being courted by a large insurance organization.

10. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is being hammered by the liberal members of her caucus.

None of this is to take away from the fact that Republicans still have work to do in creating a big tent- though Ed Morrissey continues to do great work regarding that goal- and that the Tea Partiers and many other Americans are as angry at the Republican Party as they are at the Democratic Party. While I think the Republicans will win several Senate seats, and 20-30 House seats, I also think the divisions between conservative Republicans and moderate Republicans, and between social conservatives and fiscal/economic conservatives, will hand several House races and at least one or two Senate seats to the Democrats in 2010. Of course, if President Obama keeps using his waning political capital to help Democrats in tough elections, perhaps Republicans will be fortunate enough to have another two years to get their own house in order before the 2012 elections.

No More Terrorists in Afghanistan?

RealClearPolitcs has posted a video of Senatorial hopeful, Martha Coakley, making the most asinine statement of the new year.  Apparently, she is under the opinion that we have accomplished all that we could have hoped to in Afghanistan: 

“If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that goal. They’re gone. They’re not there anymore.”

 

The fact that this woman stands any chance of winning a Senatorial seat is a sad testament to the state of Massachusetts.  Bear in mind, however, that the fact that Mr. Scott Brown is making it more of a race is a sign of hope for the state as well.  To make such blatantly false allegations contrary to sworn testimony of our commanders in the field for the mere hopes of scoring political points is beyond sophistry, and one would not be far if if inclined to consider her actions maleficent.  Let’s listen to the people who know better than this nugatory wannabe-Senator. 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ROBERT GATES: I would like to provide an overview of the strategic thinking and context behind [President Obama's] decisions, in particular the nexus among al Qaeda, the Taliban, Pakistan and Afghanistan…Put simply, the Taliban and al Qaeda have become symbiotic, each benefiting from the success and mythology of the other..Al Qaeda leaders in particular have stated this explicitly and repeatedly…

…The lesson of the Afghan Taliban’s revival for al Qaeda is that time and will are on their side…Rolling back the Taliban is now necessary, even if not sufficient, to the ultimate defeat of al Qaeda…The president’s new strategic concept aims to reverse the Taliban’s momentum and reduce its strength, while providing the time and space necessary for the Afghans to develop enough security and governance to stabilize their own country.

Or how about this…

ADMIRAL MICHAEL MULLEN, USN, CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF:  To say there is no serious threat of Afghanistan falling once again into the Taliban’s hands ignores the audacity of even the insurgency’s most public statements…we see every day of collusion between these factions on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border…through brutal intimidation, the Taliban has established shadow governments across the country, coercing the reluctant support of many locals and challenging the authority of elected leaders and state institutions.  Indeed, we believe the insurgency has achieved a dominant influence in 11 of the 34 provinces.

 Testimony from a December 3, 2009 House Armed Services Committee hearing.  Thank you to a co-worker for grabbing this up and sharing it! 

-rj

What it Means To Be A Conservative

From Austin Russell:

At times, it can appear almost impossible to identify the fundamental philosophical precepts that define the Conservative—or, as it has come to be called by many popular news sources— the Tea-Party Movement. Many dismiss it as nothing more than a marketing gimmick employed by the Republican Party to turn public sentiment against the current administration. Indeed, some argue that the only ideal underlying the movement is outrage. Politico reported yesterday morning—without providing any direct quote—that Representative Ron Paul (R-TX) himself, a popular figure within the movement, suggested that “the GOP should be wary of aligning themselves too closely to protesters who can be unpredictable in their actions and messaging.” The obvious inference is that the Movement lacks a firm philosophical leg upon which to stand.  Additionally, The New York Times yesterday published a criticism of Governor Mitt Romney for his participation in the formation of the Massachussetes socialized healthcare program. It calls Romney “One of the most prominent supporters of the main ideas behind the health care plan passed by the Democratic Senate”—equivocating support for state government social programs with that of federal social programs in an attempt to demonstrate that “the [Republican] [P]arty’s voice has been dominated by people who make things up, and then condemn the rhetorical phantoms of their making.” While the article does not directly refer to the Conservative Movement, it does place Rush Limbaugh, Senator John McCain (R-AZ), Mitt Romney, and Governor Sarah Palin into the same philosophical camp, once more implying that there is no true difference between the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party. The reality, of course, is that nothing could be further from the truth.

Barack Obama’s ascendance to the presidency, combined with the Democratic takeover of Congress did not, as many suppose, signal a desire on the part of the American people to empower, much less to expand, the size of the federal government. Rather, the continued expansion of the federal government under President George Bush and the Republican Congress, despite campaign promises to the contrary, convinced voters that the Republican Party was, at the very least, dishonest. It was upon Democratic promises of responsibility, accountability and change upon which so many relied for their vote. After all, if the previous administration had practiced a policy favoring bigger government, would not a change from such require a policy favoring smaller government? Unfortunately, the reality was not, as many supposed, a choice between big and small, but rather, big and bigger. In an effort to understand and correct their mistake, Americans have taken it upon themselves to more narrowly define what it is they actually want. And what do they want? The answer is obvious: a smaller, less intrusive, cleaner and more efficient federal government.  That is why the latest Gallup poll found that an overwhelming majority (40%) of Americans identified their political ideology as conservative.

The new movement favors principles over individuals and values what politicians do over what they say or how they present themselves. In short, conservatives care most about what happens rather than who is in power. If Barack Obama were, today, to begin supporting the ideals of smaller government, and individual liberty—and not only in word, but in deed—there is no doubt that those same conservatives that now seek his political head would rally behind him in numbers greater than those following his election fourteen months ago.

The Lion Rests His Head (1932-2009)

My mornings generally begin with rolling out of bed to Willie Geist (of Morning Joe fame) and his new show Way Too Early.? He was being assisted by the regulars of Morning Joe in breaking the news of the passing of Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy; a burden that no one man could carry on his own.? Even as staunch a Conservative as I am, I cannot help be feel the full weight of this somber moment.? Ted Kennedy was an icon; the personification of liberalism as understood today.? To myself, and many other younger Conservatives, he was the opponent.? We would argue in class, not against teachers and later professors and their beliefs; but against Ted Kennedy and the movement of which he was the avant-garde as if we were engaged in some form of transcontinental dialogue.? No matter how much one disagreed with the man?s views, politics, or personal life, you cannot take away his importance from the left and ultimately from America.

I was reminded of a story I heard while on Capitol Hill.? An older gentleman reminisced about a time when he was a mere intern working for then-Senator Paul Sarbanes of Maryland.? Underneath the House offices and Senate offices are a number of tunnels and a little train system that ferries people between their respective office buildings and the Capitol.? When you are travelling these halls you always run the chance of brushing elbows or exchanging glances with statesmen you see all-too-often on the news.? The makers of history.? This gentleman sat down in one of the carts for the train to head toward the Capitol, and as many people do, stared straight forward in an effort to maintain his invisibility amongst other passerbyers.? His cart quickly filled up with the larger than life Ted Kennedy and his Chief of Staff, which caused the young intern?s heart to jump into his throat.? Senator Kennedy looked at him, smiled and asked who the young intern was, who he was working for, whether he was enjoying DC, et cetera.? The short train ride concluded and both man and young man exchanged farewells, I imagine the Senator?s was more boisterous than the intern being left frozen like a deer in headlights.

Around a month later, the intern was back on the underground train again.? This time only Senator Kennedy sat with him in the cart which rendered the young intern silent again (this gentleman did not go into politics, understandably so).? Senator Kennedy smiled at him, and said, ?I hope you?ll forgive me but I can?t remember your name.? But I would like to know how your internship with Paul [Sarbanes] is going; are you still enjoying it??? You thought the intern was blown away before, now he had a whole new level of admiration for the Massachusetts Senator.

Senator Kennedy was best at that sort of interaction, from what I hear.? He may have met and dined with and drank with over a thousand people between his and the young intern?s two meetings, but he remembered people and their stories.? He was a statesman.? That is all that I have the authority to judge him on.? There will be reminders of his vitriol on the judiciary committee towards Republican Court appointees, his politics and practices, and most of all reminders of that July night in 1969.? I will refrain from speaking ill of the dead for this particular piece, but my hopes are that the man?s death does not become politicized. Ted Kennedy was a symbol after all, so his name and memory will be invoked for years to come.? In the end, he was a statesman and will live in politics long after he lived in our world.

-rj