Interview with Bob Turner (R-CAND/NY-9)

The campaign of Bob Turner- who is running against Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) this year- was kind enough to schedule an interview with Mr. Turner. The interview was originally published at www.rightosphere.com, and is seen below.

Dustin Siggins:  So I was reading National Review, the review you got, and I found it very interesting- especially because, on a personal level, I tried to interview Rep. Weiner some weeks ago

Bob Turner: *Chuckles*

DS: On his Politico piece about Social Security. I was going to do a bit of investigative journalism, getting his perspective; getting the perspective of someone else who disagrees with him; and his press secretary answered my phone calls, never responded to my e-mails, and blew me off. So it was very interesting how that worked, especially considering how much he’s on Fox, and how much he’s out there, that he wouldn’t want to talk to someone. I found that very interesting. So I will admit I have a bit of a personal vendetta in going to talk to you.

BT: *Chuckles* Okay.

DS: I have no shame in admitting that. Speaking of Politico, I’m sure you have an opinion on Social Security. Do you agree with the Congressman that Social Security is sound, and if not, how do you fix it?

BT: Weiner suggests that Social Security is sound. In reality, it is no more secure than any other U.S. debt obligations. Some people think the Social Security fund is like a secured savings account, but Social Security money has been spent. What’s left is an IOU, so this is no more secure than every one of our other debts, and all our debts are reliant on the state of the economy.

DS: Okay. How would you- what do you think are good policies to implement, to prevent this IOU from getting worse, which it’s only going to, at this rate?

BT: Well, to fix and to secure Social Security, we need to address the overall health of the economy. Obama’s economic policies- which Weiner supports- are a failure. The way to fix the economy is not through social stimulus spending, but we have to promote business growth. That is the tried-and-true way; it’s still tax cuts and tax credits for research and development; lower capital gains tax; incentives for venture capitalists; new business credits. These are the kind of programs and stimuli that create jobs and expand the economy.

We also have to keep an eye on prudent spending- spending cuts, reduction in government expansion, elimination of waste- you know, all of the tried-and-true methods to get this train back on track.

DS: Okay. I’ll take a little segue into social issues for just a moment.

BT: Okay.

DS: I didn’t see anything on your website regarding abortion. I was wondering what your opinion on it was.

BT: I’m an unabashed pro-lifer. I’m opposed to abortion on moral, religious, social grounds. Partial-birth abortion is particularly heinous, and Weiner has supported that. That would put me on the extreme other end of that position. This is not so much a legislative issue as judicial, except for federal fundings, which if- no, when I’m elected, I would certainly oppose all federal funding of abortion.

DS: You mentioned judicial issues. Can you explain that, just a little bit?

BT: Well, in Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court has said the states cannot legislate abortions as a personal right, so it would probably take a Constitutional amendment, and a major social issue I just don’t think is on the agenda for the next two or four years. The only practical opposition here will be funding- or defunding- of any abortion programs on the federal level.

DS: Fair enough. This has [inaudible] issue since Mitch Daniels- governor of Indiana- said we should have a truce, but obviously with President Obama in office we’re never gonna be able to get a pro-life-

BT: Well, exactly.

DS: – person on the Supreme Court. I guess my third question- I don’t know how much you’ve followed this- Rep. Weiner has targeted Goldline-

BT: Oh, yeah, I got a lot to say about this one.

DS: I was wondering two different questions (related). One, whether or not Goldline has done good or bad things, is this what a Congressman should be involved in? Should a Congressman be involved in targeting a company like this? And second of all- and related to that- if not, why do you think not? If so, why do you think so?

BT: There’s far more to this than meets the eye, and I’d like to give you a bit of my personal experience on this. I believe Representative Weiner is carrying the water for the Obama administration in his fight against Glenn Beck. In reality, it’s a diversion and a sideshow from many of the real issues that Beck is speaking about. You know, we have serious issues, and this ordinarily wouldn’t be worth too much attention, but what they- they: Weiner, Pelosi, Obama, and Company- are really doing is targeting this advertiser to chase the advertiser off the air. By so doing, they harm Beck. Get enough advertisers to do that, and he’s off the air.

Now, some years ago, I did a program, the TV program, with Rush Limbaugh. It lasted three or four years on the air. It was a half-hour television show. I don’t know if you remember it. It was in the mid-90s.

DS: Um, I was 10 at that time, so probably not.

BT: [Laughs} Oh, okay- so you don’t. You were not the target audience.

DS: No, I was not. [Laughs]

BT: At that time, it was a syndicated program, that means the company I was running produced, financed it, distributed it to the stations, and then sold the advertising time to recoup its investment. We found ourselves scrounging for advertisers because a lot of mainline advertisers had received letters. It didn’t take many, and through a little investigation we were reasonably sure those letters were generated by surrogates of the DNC. Most of the letters were from GLAAD, or NOW, accusing Rush of being homophobic, misogynistic, etc. What it did was make the advertisers hesitant. What ultimately happened is the rates we were charging were about half of what we would ordinarily get- which hindered the program. The program was still profitable, but instead of the ratings- which were a little under a 3, which might have generated $25 million a year- we were doing $15, $14 million per year, not making it that attractive for Rush to continue, or his executive producer- brilliant young guy names Roger Ailes.

DS: Roger Ailes? I’ve never heard that term applied to him, but maybe it’s all relative.

BT: That was in the mid-90s. [Laughs]

DS: [Laughs] I’m 24 years old, so I may be a little-

BT: So after that number of years we said, “This is not-“ It was profitable, but it was not profitable enough to be worth the effort, particularly when Rush was doing 10 times better or more in radio. So that effort against the advertisers turned out to be decisive. I see the same thing here, and I can tell you that from personal experience this is not about attacking Goldline- this is about attacking Beck’s advertisers to hinder or cripple the program.

DS: I think it’s a sign of success when he has-

BT: Oh, indeed. He has them scared.

DS: He’s got them scared. You know, they keep talking about all these advertisers that have dropped him, but the evidence just isn’t there that- I just read the most recent numbers; he got something like 2.54 million viewers on his Fox show. [DS: The actual ratings, according to Huffington Post(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/06/30/cable-news-ratings-top-30_n_630984.html#s108334) have Beck at 2.057 million viewers per day- third in cable behind O’Reilly and Hannity, respectively.] It’s something along those lines. I mean, he’s smoking everybody, except for Hannity and O’Reilly. So it’s really not working.

So I guess- one of my last questions- I looked at Real Clear Politics to see what they judge the race as, and they don’t even judge the race as competitive. According to the National Review piece, you got in because there was no one to write a check to.

BT: That is true.

DS: So how do you- I don’t know how long Rep. Weiner’s been in office for, but it’s been quite some time-

BT: He’s going for his seventh term.

DS: He’s articulate- I’ve seen him on TV- he’s articulate-

BT: Slick.

DS: Slick, okay. He has a lot of alleged facts at his control- how do you overcome this? I guess it’s an anti-incumbent year, but-

BT: True. I’m not sure how others may judge the competitiveness of this race, but I know something about the people of the 9th District and what they’re concerned about. This is a district of working middle-class homeowners, small business operators- these people work, they pay taxes, these are (dare I say) typical Americans in a very ethnically-diverse area. But these are the things they have in common, and they are worried. They are worried about jobs, about the economy, and they are extremely dissatisfied with the current administration and, I believe, they tie in the Democrats Pelosi and Weiner with as being architects of this problem. Now, the fact that Anthony Weiner has not run against anyone in the last few elections, to me, does not mean he is unbeatable. In the grassroots support, I just feel it. We have just begun, and my political career is three months old. We had our first meeting with volunteers, and we had about 70 people show up.

DS: Wow.

BT: The goal is to get a thousand to cover every one of the 512 EDs in this district, but it’s growing exponentially. I asked, with a show of hands, “How many of you have [n]ever been involved in a political campaign before?” [DS: The audio did not catch the “n” in “never”- which Mr. Turner did say.] And my hand was the first one up. But after that, about 90% of the people in that room have never been involved, and they cut across multiple ages and areas of this district. I found that a very encouraging sign.

If you talk to Karl Rove or Dick Morris, they’ll tell you you need a photogenic candidate. You need Slick slogans and political tricks, and you need a ton of campaign money. Well, how are we doing? Well, I’ve got a face for radio-

DS: [Laughs] I’m in the same boat you are.

BT: And as far as slick political slogans and all, we’re gonna run on principles. That should be unique.

DS: [Laughs]

BT: And for a ton of money, we got volunteers, and we have a lot of them. I can feel the ground moving, and the grass is swaying in our direction. I think this will be under the radar until September. We’re getting a reasonable response to the contribution effort, but a lot of this won’t be seen until later in the campaign, but I think people will kind of wake up around the beginning of September, and they’ll realize this will be a very competitive race.

There are a lot of things going on- a lot of changes in this district that are not apparent on the face of it, but I think this is going to be a very competitive race.

DS: Well, then, I guess I have one more question for you, before I let you go. You mentioned earlier the Obama social spending, and you just said you are going to run on principle. For me personally, I believe the biggest issue facing this nation is our debt- the debt crisis coming down the pike. According to the CBO it’s 2020, according to the IMF it’s 2015, that we hit 100% of debt-to-GDP ratio.

BT: Yes.

DS: So I was wondering two things: How do you think Americans (I don’t know if you will be able to answer this), how do you think Americans can trust Republicans, considering it was Bush who really started this spending, and Obama, who’s just made it worse. How can Americans trust Republicans, and secondly, as a Member of Congress, would you be willing to cut defense spending- which has at least doubled in the last decade- as a part of reigning in that spending?

BT: I’d be looking to cut spending. I’d be less inclined to cut defense spending when we’re in the midst of the long war, and in a very uncertain world. I believe America’s strength is in its strong military, and secondly, in its strong defense of the right and principles and human freedom, and not some wishy-washy diplomatic tactician’s-

DS: But it’s worked out so well.

BT: [Chuckles] Yeah. The money that can be cut- and there’s only so much real cutting that can be done- is in the redundancies and the wasteful government spending and a cap on spending. And digging into the administrative programs to cut out billions- hundreds of billions- in waste and unneeded programs. But the real way to manage the deficit is to increase the productivity of the nation as a whole. It may even have to be- and it will be- tax decreases in particular areas, particularly against business, that will help grow the economy, and bring that ratio of GDP to deficit down to what we can have manageable levels. It will take a long time before we can really attack this, and I think what we need is appropriations reform in the House- how bills are put together- how earmarks and riders can be attached to bills. We can change all that within the House rules, and a majority of Republicans can do that. Whether they have the political will, I think, in January, we’re gonna find out. We’ll be the majority, and we have [to] them to the test. I am more committed to the principles than to the party, and I hope there are enough others like that, but that remains to be seen. But you’ll get a fight from me, I can tell you that.

DS: Well, you got in because, as you said earlier, there was nobody to write a check to, so I doubt you’re going to be in for a 25-year career in the House.

BT: [Laughs] That would be most unlikely. I think an actuary would put my life expectancy at a little under that anyway, but-

DS: Well, I don’t know how old you are- 66?

BT: 69.

DS: Wow. Geez.

BT: [Laughs] Yeah, we don’t have to dwell on that-

DS: [Laughs] No, no, no- you have the experience, you have the…all the things Rep. Weiner does not, that’s your advantage, right?

BT: Well, yeah, that’s true to a degree. I’ve actually started businesses, and run them, and had real jobs, yes. Mr. Weiner, Mr. Obama, have never had a real job, have never in a business environment, never been at risk.

DS: Well, we definitely agree on this last point.

Wanted: A Mainstream Media That’s Actually Mainstream

Yesterday, an interesting series of articles came out that say a lot about the national media and the Tea Party movement.

First, allow me to introduce a Washington Post article describing the anti-racism battle the Tea Party movement is fighting in the public arena. I found the article on the Huffington Post political page (since updated). According to the article,

The challenge is made tougher by one of the defining elements of the tea party movement: No one person controls it. There is no national communications strategy. And incidents of racist slogans and derisive depictions of President Obama continue to crop up, providing fuel for critics who say the president’s skin color is a powerful reason behind the movement’s existence.

In a new Washington Post-ABC News poll, most Americans see the movement as motivated by distrust of government, opposition to the policies of Obama and the Democratic Party, and broad concern about the economy. But nearly three in 10 see racial prejudice as underlying the tea party.

Supporters and opponents alike say the movement draws its strength from opposition to Obama’s policies, but they split deeply on the race question, according to the poll: About 61 percent of tea party opponents say racism has a lot to do with the movement, a view held by just 7 percent of tea party supporters.

A matter of perception

That indicates that the issue of race and the tea party is largely about differing perceptions, reflected in how people view the well-known illustration of Obama made up like the Joker from the Batman movie “The Dark Knight.” Some see the image, with its exaggerated lips, as an offensive reference to minstrelsy. Obama’s critics, however, say President George W. Bush was also portrayed as the Joker, as well as Dracula.

Now, there are multiple errors in this article, including the fact that neither of these Post sources regarding the poll cite the demographics in the poll- such as how many Democrats were polled, etc. Secondly, the article fails to note that the Joker picture was made by a liberal college student, not a conservative activist or conservative racist. Lastly, the racist slogans referred to could easily be the ones held by the liberal LaRouche supporters…but the Post simply sticks to the unprofessional and politically hackish general statement of “incidents,” without a single source or citation of the alleged incidents.

Next up on the “interesting article” stage is a Politico article describing the Post’s leftward tilt towards liberal bloggers. To be fair, the Post does have the tremendous writings of Charles Krauthammer and George Will, among other conservative columnists, but the article makes a great case that the Post is clearly heading towards a particular demographic- the young, Internet-savvy liberal. Given the initial article I quoted above, I think Politico was quite timely in its publication of the article.

Last, but not least, on stage we have The New York Times, which as of late has been acting strangely neutral/non-liberal in some of its articles. This latest betrayal of “mainstream” media values is a pretty interesting article about how a record number of black Republicans are running for Congress- a full 32. In the article, accusations of racism within the Tea Party are shot down by the candidates:

The black candidates interviewed overwhelmingly called the racist narrative a news media fiction. “I have been to these rallies, and there are hot dogs and banjos,” said Mr. West, the candidate in Florida, a retired lieutenant colonel in the Army. “There is no violence or racism there.”

As Ed Morrissey noted (emphasis mine),

There was more violence at May Day rallies this past weekend than there have been in over a year of Tea Party rallies.  Did the New York Times [sic] cover those and assign them to the entire liberal politisphere in the manner they do here with conservatives?  Did they link that violence to the immigration-reform movement in the same way they have with no violence at all at Tea Parties with its attendees?

The same media double standard is true with the supposed racism they keep reporting at Tea Parties.  These rallies back candidates like West, Princella Smith, Vernon Parker, Ryan Frazier, and others.  They support these candidates for the simple reason that these candidates best represent their views on governance, fiscal policy, and national security.  Will they all win?  Probably not, although this year looks better than most, but it shows that conservatives have no barriers to entry except on policy and philosophy — just like any other political movement.  The media spin on Tea Parties and conservatives has gotten very, very threadbare — and increasingly desperate.

Morrissey is absolutely correct. Poll after poll, as well as outright statements, show just how much liberal power players and media members are missing the mainstream-America nature of the Tea Party, and in doing so, are alienating themselves and their influence in providing real news. When you lose the Times, though…maybe it’s time to admit you have a problem.

RNC Chair Michael Steele Gets Hit From All Sides

The last couple of days have not been good for Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. A number of figures have hammered him, and The Corner’s Robert Costa has a pretty good rundown of some of the more prominent ones:

In case you missed it on Sunday, George Will had some tough words for Michael Steele, the embattled RNC chairman: “He has fundamentally misconstrued his job, which is to be the face and the ideological spokesman for the Republican party.”

“There are a lot of people who do that,” Will said, “but the best party chairmen are like major league umpires. If, at the end of the game, they go back into the dressing room and no one has noticed them, they’ve done their job brilliantly. They strive for anonymous perfection, and that should be the role of the party chairman. The best Republican party chairmen — Ray Bliss of Ohio, who rebuilt the party after the Goldwater meltdown, Bill Brock, former senator from Tennessee, who built the party up on the eve of the Reagan triumph — they were perfectly anonymous. And I’m not sure that this man has understood that.”

Steele doesn’t appear to have taken Will’s advice. Earlier today, he appeared on Good Morning America and told George Stephanopoulos that he has less room for error as chairman due to his race. “The honest answer is yes,” Steele said. “It just is. Barack Obama has a slimmer margin. A lot of folks do . . . That’s just the reality of it . . . My view on politics is much more grassroots-oriented. It’s not old-boy network oriented. I tend to come at it a little bit stronger, a little more streetwise if you will. That rubs some feathers the wrong way.”

Robert Gibbs, of course, had a quick comeback at today’s morning meeting with reporters. “I think that is a fairly silly comment to make,” he said. “I think Michael Steele’s problem isn’t the race card; it’s the credit card.”

I think Dan Amira at New York has it right: “Steele probably blew a chance to cool this down.” Besides, as Ben Smith notes, “Jonathan Martin made a pretty convincing case a few months ago that, in some sense, the reverse is true within a Republican party that’s almost entirely without prominent African-American officials.”

You can see the Will comments here, as well as the follow-up comments by another Roundtable contributor who explains what the job of an RNC chair is…and how Steele is not doing that job. Furthering the damage, this morning Politico reported that the top RNC fundraiser is ditching the organization, which is sure to bring more pressure to bear to fire Steele. However, I think the most damaging remark came from Gibbs- when the Democratic White House Press Secretary is getting quoted favorably, and being laughed with and not at, by conservatives against another right-of-center leader, the RNC chair is in trouble.

I saw part of Steele’s comments this morning on ABC, and while I missed his comment about being black, this is not the first time he has brought race into the debate. The fact is that he has made the RNC look ridiculous throughout his tenure, and while it has been proven this strip club fiasco is not his fault, it’s emblematic of the inept leadership he brings to the table. Blaming others just  makes it worse.

Personally, I think getting rid of Steele would have zero impact on what few Republican race relations we have, and bringing in a dynamic person like former governor Sarah Palin would not only inspire fundraising, it would bring in far more fundraising than we might (or might not) lose by ridding ourselves of a bad RNC chair, no matter what his skin color is. It would also free Steele to travel around the country, speaking on behalf of candidates, something he did well with in 2008, when he was a McCain surrogate. Additionally, we have other minority candidates we can support for leadership positions, if we must look at race. (Which, given it’s politics, we must.)

Oh, and the other good thing about bringing Palin in? It would likely prevent her from running for president. An added bonus.

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.)

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.

Cheney: Obama Pretending We Aren’t At War

Politico has posted a statement by Dick Cheney on the attempted Christmas Day plane bombing.

“As I?ve watched the events of the last few days it is clear once again that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war. He seems to think if he has a low-key response to an attempt to blow up an airliner and kill hundreds of people, we won?t be at war. He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won?t be at war. He seems to think if we bring the mastermind of Sept. 11 to New York, give him a lawyer and trial in civilian court, we won?t be at war.

?He seems to think if he closes Guantanamo and releases the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists still there, we won?t be at war. He seems to think if he gets rid of the words, ?war on terror,? we won?t be at war. But we are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren?t, it makes us less safe. Why doesn?t he want to admit we?re at war? It doesn?t fit with the view of the world he brought with him to the Oval Office. It doesn?t fit with what seems to be the goal of his presidency?? social transformation ? the restructuring of American society. President Obama?s first object and his highest responsibility must be to defend us against an enemy that knows we are at war.”

Health Care Officially Passes Senate

It passed on a party-line vote, too. However, do not despair yet:

1. The White House is outright lying about President Obama’s campaigning on the public option. Desperation?

2. According to Politico, the White House is admitting negotiations over the bill may go past the State of the Union address in late January or very early February. Given that there have been multiple passed deadlines already, and primary season hits full stride in May, will vulnerable Democrats like Senator Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) be willing to pass this monstrosity in the final vote? Their constituents will be (and are) paying attention, and 2010 is going to be a Republican year anyway, so conservative Democrats are going to continue to be very careful.

3. Democrats in the House have felt ignored and trampled for much of the health care debate, and The Heritage Foundation has compiled a number of issues the House and Senate will have to overcome to get a final bill passed. Question: will the House be willing to cave? That verdict is uncertain.

4. Politically influential conservatives, liberals and moderates are against the Senate bill. Polls show Americans are increasingly against the so-called “ObamaCare” version of health care reform. Again, will vulnerable Democrats risk voting for the bill?

5. The designed-to-be-a-pain federal legislation process is in America’s favor.

It’s Christmas- let’s enjoy the day, thank God for sending us His son and enjoy our time with family and friends. Let’s also pray for the guidance and ability to prevent this bill from gravely harming Americans by not letting it pass.

Pro-Life IS Pro Health Care Reform

Fox Isn’t News- But Talking Points Memo Is?

Politico reports that Talking Points Memo is now in the White House Press- not at the invitation of the White House, but at the invitation of the White House Correspondents Association. The question should (but doesn’t) remain: will TPM now be unable to get interviews because of their unsubtle biases?

To be fair, they have a DC bureau and hired a former Washington Times White House reporter, so I guess this makes them a semi-legitimate news source…but it still isn’t good public relations for the White House. Once again, whatever one thinks of the White House vs. Fox News drama- personally, I think it’s bad tactics on the part of the White House, but to call it Nixonian and compare it to dictatorship shutdowns of media is likely intellectually dishonest and certainly over the top- this administration has gotten itself in over its head.

Partisan Attack Or Not, Exemption Must Go

Politico reports a Congressional Budget Office analysis of H.R. 3596, the
“Health Insurance Industry Antitrust Enforcement Act of 2009,” shows that the legislation will have a minimal, if any, impact on health care premiums. Insurance companies, long allowed an exemption from anti-trust laws, have been under attack for that exemption in recent weeks. In the article: “The CBO analysis undercuts Democrats’ main argument for revoking the exemption, that it will bring competition and lower prices. And it bolsters the insurance industry’s argument that the bill has little to do with controlling costs, but rather is a political shot fired by Democrats unhappy with the industry’s increasingly aggressive opposition to key provisions of health reform.”

Question: who cares? Anti-trust laws are a good thing, and should be enforced down the line. Democrats ARE conducting a brazen, partisan attack on insurance companies, but this time the end may justify the means.

Next Page »