Voters Now Trust Republicans Most

This has nothing to do with what’s going on at AFP, sort of–but it now appears as though voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on all ten of the key issues Rasmussen Reports tracks. Click on the link to see the full breakdown.  Not every lead is statistically significant, but it should give us hope nonetheless!*

From the article:

Incumbent members of Congress don’t exactly get a vote of confidence from their constituents. Just 27% of voters think their representative in Congress is the best possible person for the job, down six points from November of last year. Only 37% believe their local congressional representative deserves reelection, compared to 42% who felt that way way last fall.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters say most members of Congress don’t care what their constituents think. Most voters continue to believe it would be better for the country if the majority of Congress is thrown out this November, but they also remain unconvinced that a Republican takeover will make a noticeable difference.

Now we can all just cross our fingers and hope that the 60% of voters who think their Congressman doesn’t care actually vote out their dud Congressman come November.

*I swear I’m not a fan of the Republican Party–but I think we can mostly agree that the Republican Party is better than the alternative.

Allie Winegar Duzett is the author of How to Save America: A Tactical Guide for Practical Patriots.  Find her on Twitter for livetweeting of the event. Crossposting today at Rightosphere and Conservatives4Congress.

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.

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 Party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea?

Since the election of President Obama, the Democrats have been very effective at portraying the Republican Party as the ?Party of No.? Depending on your political persuasion, this could be completely true, completely false or somewhere in the middle.

In the last couple of weeks, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been hammered by Erick Erickson of RedState and Michelle Malkin for not fighting to the very finish on the recent Senate passage of a health care reform bill. On the one hand, these criticisms are of delaying tactics would only have slowed the vote by twelve hours, which would have done nothing in the halls of Congress but would have, as Ed Morrissey points out, given the media less time to cover the vote?s aftermath. On the other hand, if the Republican leadership had held firm on the many opportunities they had to slow things down, for example by following Senator Judd Gregg?s (R-NH) advice, and Senator Tom Coburn?s (R-OK) wish to read every part of the Senate bill, among other tactics to slow the bill, senators would have had to go home for Christmas a) without a bill, and b) to face their constituents, the majority of whom dislike the Democratic versions of health care reform and whom are increasingly against them as time goes on.

Senators Gregg, Coburn and Jim DeMint (R-SC), among many others, have been vilified for their articulate and unyielding opposition to health care reform and other Democratic measures. However, they are also the poster children for what Republicans should be about- namely, being the party of ?No, But Here?s A Better Idea.? All of these senators, along with other Republicans, have jammed the Democrats but also offered their own solutions to the various issues facing America. They have also worked with Democrats in a bipartisan fashion on a case-by-case basis.

When it comes to dispelling the myth that Republicans have been, and are being, merely obstructionists, let’s start with Senator Judd Gregg. On the one hand, Gregg voted for Secretary Geithner?s nomination, nearly accepted a position as President Obama?s Commerce Secretary, offered support for the bipartisan Wyden-Bennett bill and has worked with Democrat Kent Conrad (D-ND) on a debt commission. On the other, Gregg has hammered Obama on debt, passed around a virtual handbook for Republican obstructionism and taken the lead on opposing Democratic reconciliation. Additionally, however, Gregg has offered his own bill as an alternative to the Democratic proposals.

Senator DeMint is probably most famous for his Waterloo statement and his numerous delaying tactics on health care reform (see here and here for examples). However, he has also worked with self-declared socialist Independent Bernie Sanders (I-VT) on halting the Bernanke nomination and bringing transparency to the Federal Reserve. As a representative of the Party of ?No, but here?s a better idea,? he too has put forth a health care alternative to the Democratic proposals.

Lastly, we have Senator Coburn. Coburn has slid in two gun amendments this year to two Democrat-supported bills, halting the DC voting bill in its tracks. He has also held up funding for veterans because he wanted to use unused stimulus funds for the benefits and loudly opposed the stimulus package. He also forced a reading of Senator Sanders? single-payer amendment to the Democratic bill. However, at the same time, he has maintained a friendship with President Obama, pushed a transparency bill with then-Senator Obama (D-IL) into law in 2006 and sponsored a Republican alternative to the Democratic health care bills on, of all places, Huffington Post. In fact, he wrote on Huffington Post not once but twice. This is a guy who clearly wants his message to get out to all Americans, not just his constituents or fellow conservatives.

Other ?No but here?s a better idea? Republicans include Representative Paul Ryan (R-WI), the numerous Republican co-sponsors of the Wyden-Bennett bill and Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

The fact is that Republicans are trying to stop a very bad makeover of a massive portion of America in ways that swing from bad policy to unethical to unconstitutional. For an example of the latter, with respect to David Frum?s recent piece supporting the individual mandate?s constitutionality, he is wrong- an individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional. Other bad components include the Senate bill’s abortion funding, the House bill’s public option and the lack of legitimate tort reform in either bill.

Personally, I think Republicans should have fought tooth-and-nail for a post-Christmas vote on the Democratic health care reform bill in the Senate. They should have offered amendments, yes, as Frum has said- but they have a responsibility to stop the bill first and foremost. That is what the minority is supposed to do with a bill as bad as this one, with as little power as Republicans and conservatives have right now- stop the legislation cold and start over with a bill that includes conservative and free market principles and ideas. Some Republicans are just being the Party of No, but sometimes saying?saying?’no’ is necessary, despite what some Democrats may say.

Congressman Parker Griffith Moves to Republican Party

Rep. Parker Griffith, congressman from North Alabama was elected last year as a Democrat and had been a member of the Blue Dog Coalition.? But he announced today that after deep reflection and prayer he felt he must make the move to the Republican Party.

He indicated that he had voted against the health care bill, was against the stimulus, and voted against cap and trade.? Additionally, he commented that those in control of the Democratic party no longer reflected his beliefs and his beliefs were reflected by the Republican party and this was why he made the move.

There is no doubt that this move will be compared to Arlen Specters move to the Democratic party earlier this year.? But I believe there is a significant difference here.?

Specter claimed to be a conservative but voted with the left.

Griffith on the other hand always claimed to be a conservative and was elected as a conservative Democrat, and voted conservative.

Griffith was never misleading his constituency.? The constituency elected a conservative Blue Dog Democrat, and he voted accordingly.? But in the words of Reagan, Griffith didn’t leave the Democratic party. The party left him.

-nick

Weekly Team-Up: Dobbs & Fox A Match Made for Democrats?

Lou Dobbs has suddenly resigned from CNN effective immediately.? Given the recent?Biblical exodus of sorts of conservative journalists from all the major networks to Fox News in the last 12-18 months, will Dobbs be the next to make his arrival on Rupurt Murdoch’s ever growing conservative juggernaut?

MarketWatch seems to think he is headed to Fox Business Network, which would most likely be very fitting.? It would also allow for him to be a guest commentator on Fox News, and do drop in segments on Fox News from the Fox Business studios.

We have to ask once more: is?this a good thing? Sure, it’s great for Fox News Network and its profits, but is it good to be pulling all conservative influence from the other networks? Check out Dustin’s articles on this?here and here.

-nick

———————————————————————————————————————-

Following up on Nick’s comments, a liberal friend made a point recently?that made a lot of sense- namely, that with Lou Dobbs on Fox, the Republican Party and conservatives will further be known as the “white party” and the “white movement.” If Dobbs is brought onto Fox News, conservatives and Republicans stand to lose a massive number of potential voters and supporters they are already struggling with- minorities in general, and Hispanics in particular. Dobbs is despised by many Hispanics, and if he comes to Fox, this will do great damage to the conservative movement and its ability to convince minority voters to support its candidates and policy viewpoints.

Before the accusations start, no- I am not saying we should be politically correct. I am saying, however, that good tactics are needed to spread a message, since many people associate a message with the messenger in both positive and negative ways. Example: my friend Rachel Sheffield, a researcher at The Heritage Foundation, is a much better representative for?social conservatives?than someone like Rhode Island Governor Carcieri, for many reasons. These include the fact that Sheffield comes across as sincere and constructive when supporting heterosexual marriage (full disclosure: she’s a friend of mine), whereas Carcieri is appears bigoted and hateful in his most recent defense of heterosexual marriage. Likewise, someone like Dobbs could cause major damage to the conservative movement’s attempts to show immigrants and minorities how conservative policies are better for both of those groups of people as well as the country as a whole.

Personally, I don’t pay attention to Dobbs, so?I don’t know the truth of the accusations against him regarding race and prejudice.?However, since Hispanics dislike him, my opinion doesn’t matter- theirs does. After all, a movement can have strong views without alienating a large number of American citizens, but Dobbs is not able to do that for the conservative immigration policy supporters. Thus, the question remains: is Dobbs an effective voice for conservative immigration policies, or is he a liability to the movement?

-dustin

Can’t I Dissent on Anything?

The following was originally published and is the sole property of NewMajority.com

Like thousands of other undergraduates, I flocked to Washington, D.C. this summer to intern and build up my political resume. As summer is coming to a close and I will shortly be trading long days at the office for long nights at the library, an interesting event occurred during my final week at my internship at Brent Bozell?s Media Research Center.

I was chatting with one of my fellow interns when I noticed she had a stack of Pro-Life stickers, T-shirts, and pamphlets piled up on her desk. She apparently was given the material at one of Grover Norquist?s ?Wednesday Meetings,? by someone who asked her if she would be interested in starting up a Pro-Life group on her college campus. Like a good young conservative activist eager to fight the liberal establishment, without hesitation she precipitously agreed.

My intern friend proceeded to ask me if I would like to have a sticker for my car. When I replied with a solemn ?no,? she proceeded to Socratically question my position on abortion. When I told her that I do not consider myself ?pro-life? or an evangelize for the movement, my friend was quite taken aback and looked almost insulted. My young colleague ardently disagreed with me, to no surprise as she is Catholic and a strong social conservative. But what?s notable was her initial response to my view of the issue, ?Maybe you are working in the wrong place.?

Now of course the MRC is a conservative organization, and leans to the right on abortion. I chose to intern there because I am a conservative on foreign policy, immigration, economics, and basically every social issue, I don?t even consider myself ?pro-choice.?

This kind of seclusion regarding social issues seems to be an overwhelming theme of the conservative movement and Republican party politics lately. More than once, I have been labeled a ?squishy moderate? by my College Republican counterparts because of my view on abortion.

Apparently, gone are the days of Frank S. Meyer?s and William F. Buckley?s ?fusionism.? While maybe supply-side economics won?t fix the financial problems of today, and SDI won?t help win the Cold War, a return to Reagan?s ?big tent? philosophy would be a positive for conservatism. How can we rebuild a party when we practice seclusion rather than inclusion? Does one need to check every box on the conservative ideological checklist in order to be a Republican or a conservative?

Another Dead Horse Around the Waterhole…

There are times where I cannot help but feel like I?ve led many equines to water, and they die of thirst.? This happened quite frequently in my college days (which I will unconsciously refer to as my Rousseauian days from time to time), where I would be approached by one of my two friends for help regarding relationships (contain your laughter), classes, or whatever dilemmas and quandaries normal people face.? Usually, as is generally the case in almost all of these types of situations, the person being helped already knew the best course of action, because we are all too aware of that idea of ?common sense.?? Nevertheless, people choose to ignore it, or seek further council to help his/herself solidify what it is they will do, and carry out that plan.? Unfortunately, many people do not heed the advice given unto them because it tends to be the least convenient means, the way forward that calls for the most self sacrifice.

??????????? I am beginning to harbor similar feelings regarding our Republican brethren (and sisters).? Of course, there have been an increasing number of hecklers from within the ranks of the Republican Party and conservative movement, who use their platforms to mask their attacks under the guise of ?constructive criticism? as if harking entirely on the negative aspects and name-calling were constructive.? I must touch upon this subject, because they are attempting to do that which I am trying to do: better the political movement of which I belong.? They do so through constant humiliation and scrutiny, as if the father that beat his boy mercilessly for not living up to his expectations actually succeeded in making his son into a better man.? No, the boy grows into that which he knew, and perpetuates the cruelty.? I don?t wish to become one of those antagonists; but there is something about recent events that lead me to need to speak out.?

??????????? In the summer of 2008, I will admit to being swept up by the Sarah Palin fanaticism.? There is a charm about her, something romantic, and something that invoked images of the Yeomen Farmer and the Mr. Smith going to Washington.? The Republicans failed to define her before the media covered her in manure (which in Alaska they do sell Moose dung ?trinkets? oddly enough) and turn her into a ditz.? Fair enough.? Of course there were people from McCain?s Camp that were helpful in dropping the media some fodder as well.? Besides, the first lawyers and Private Investigators that showed up in Wasilla and Anchorage were actually from a Republican candidate.? Many Conservatives stuck by her, and many degraded her; it was the difference between the ?top-down? Conservatives and the ?bottom-up? ones.? I tend to consider myself humbly as a ?top-down Conservative,? being guided by ideals and principles over culture and pragmatism to a degree.? This did not deter me from getting excited and throwing my own support behind Governor Palin, and I don?t really regret it, yet.

??????????? With that said, I was at first sad to hear Governor Palin would be stepping down.? This of course drew shouts of glee from the more snobbish Conservatives, and seemed to throw liberals for a loop until they figured out how to spin it to make her look like a witch.? Nevertheless, I was at first a bit sad as I said, but then later, I became a bit angry.? Sarah Palin?s move may have been justified in her mind, because let?s face it, she has been getting lambasted with 15 ethics investigations, and people who possess nothing close to a respectable sense of humor.? I don?t believe this is the true reason why she is doing this, I think that this was her out, and instead of fighting like the ?Mr. Smith? type many of us thought her to be, she is cutting and running.

??????????? Governor Palin admitted that she was officially a ?lame-duck? governor essentially.? Many people in her position would be traveling on tax-payer money, going to other states, travelling abroad, et cetera.? She was not going to do this? so she is just quitting altogether?? In the end, Sarah Palin made a pact with the people that elected her.? She swore an allegiance to do for her state what needed to be done.? I do not find this a necessary way out, I find it to be the easy way out.? In the end, this hurts Governor Palin?s career, it hurts her word (which used to count for something, right Governor Sanford) and she hurt the Party.???

?

-rj

Hypocritical Leaders Should Not Sink Social Conservatism

On June 25 I wrote a piece on New Majority- you can see it here. Below is what I wrote originally, before it was edited for space and content:

By now, everyone knows South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has admitted to an affair in South America. Within hours of his admitting to the affair the frontrunner Republican to replace him has taken his picture down from her campaign website and conspiracy theories about what REALLY happened in Argentina appeared on a blog. Sanford has also resigned as the head of the Republican Governor?s Association.

After Sanford admitted to the affair, one of my co-workers mentioned he thought the Republican Party should perhaps give up its mantle as the party of family values- not a bad opinion, given what happened with Nevada Senator John Ensign and former Congressional members Mark Foley, Newt Gingrich, Larry Craig and other Republicans who have had sordid and underhanded parts of their personal life come to light in recent years. However, as Dinesh D?Souza put it in Letters to a Young Conservative- to paraphrase- Republicans accept that people aren?t perfect, and that even those who proclaim family values will fail (the reference, written in 2002, compares former President Clinton to then- Majority Leader Gingrich), but that the movement should not follow the failures of the imperfect beings who are family values proponents. Instead, the fight must continue through its supporters’ failures.

The question remains for the Republican Party, however, as to whether or not social values should even BE a leading issue, especially with such prominent leadership failures. What does it mean for the party? Personally, I think that while that question is relevant, it’s more important to find reasons to keep up the good fight- it’s easy to forget WHY these flawed and immoral people supported family and social value policies in the first place (besides, of course, to win elections).

I think there are three reasons rank-and-file Republicans should not give up the fight, both on a grassroots and national level- first, there are definitive links between family and economic success that should be put in the public eye; secondly, all political “values” are hypocritical at the leadership level, so why target the social values; and lastly, there are undeniable societal and cultural benefits of upholding conservative social values.

Regarding the links between family values and economic success and security, Robert Patterson defended the idea of social values as a leading fight for Republicans on June 3- he says the Republican leadership must “fully [recognize] the interplay between the economic and social conservatism that the party claims to represent, and holding up what [David] Goldman terms ?impoverished demography? as the key domestic concern of the 21st century.” Included in Patterson’s analysis are the fact that in the first part of the last century “American families were vibrant and strong, which helped hold the welfare state in check” (something that is missing today, with our massive divorce and illegitimacy rates), and instituting a variety of Social Security, Medicare and other tax breaks for families in the nearby future. He also believes we should look to Teddy Roosevelt- apparently he was quite the family man, and considered it his topmost priority even as president.

Secondly, one only has to look at the D.C. school voucher issue to understand the far-reaching hypocrisies of the Democratic Party. See my piece here from several weeks ago, where I talked about how the school voucher system in our nation’s capital took 1,700 children and put them into a voucher system that has them almost a full half-grade ahead of their equivalent peers in the normal D.C. public school system for half the cost to the taxpayer, less than half a decade into the program. Yet, for some reason, President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan- the former who claimed on the campaign trail he would support what worked for education- are allowing Democrats to kill the plan once the current crop of students graduate. Considering that Wall Street Journal, The Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute are fully in support of the voucher program for its success, one would think the Democrats (who claim they support the poor, minorities and children) would jump on the chance to help these kids. Apparently, though, unions and government control of schools is more important. Of course, there is simply NO questioning that Democrats care about poor minority children- isn’t that why most of the media hasn’t jumped on this hypocrisy, even though it will take literally thousands of students in the nation’s worst education district and put them on the economic, educational and cultural path to success?

Generally, I would avoid the prior paragraph in arguing for supporting Republican social and family value policies- tit-for-tat is not a wholly productive or wide-ranging way to win elections, appear above the fray of petty politics or prove solid leadership. However, since the Democratic hypocrisies have much larger effects on the general populace (see Charles Krauthammer’s piece on drilling policies in the United States last August) than a simple, immoral affair, I think they are worth pointing out.

Beyond the political, however, are the simple facts of upholding socially conservative values and their unquestioned benefit for society. As Patterson pointed out, strong families help the economy. Furthermore, Concerned Women For America points out that teenagers are happier when abstaining from sex before marriage and women are less depressed when following the same habit. Numerous studies also show that Natural Family Planning methods of sexual activity lead to a less than 5% divorce rate as opposed to the 50% average rate in America.

Unfortunately, the rest of us are flawed, too- we may not be having affairs but we are judging these politicians, shallowly looking at the social conservative movement through THEM as opposed to through the people it truly affects on a grassroots and local level and getting wrapped up in the “reality show” that is the 24-hour news cycle. For those who really believe in the family values movement, we must convince the rest of America through constant, unceasing examples of upstanding moral behavior, forgiveness for those who fall short, and the ready reminders that it IS the conservative social movement that will help keep America great, not the low moral standards of the Democratic Party. As someone at my college explained a few years ago, Democrats aren’t shocked at the behavior of other Democrats because of the party’s own low moral standards- is this really who we want leading the social value fight in America? A failed high standard is certainly better than a successful low moral standard.

- dustin