Newt Gingrich lays out a succinct 3 step plan for conservatives in the future. It may seem funny that something like this has to be said, but with conservative Republicans wandering in the political wilderness, it’s obvious it must.
This isn’t rocket science, but it is good advice for just about any political movement.
The conservative movement has a simple and almost certainly successful future if it does three things:
1. Advocate first principles with courage, clarity, persistence and cheerfulness.
2. Insist on developing solutions based on those principles and insist on measuring other proposals against those principles.
3. Be prepared to oppose Republicans when they are wrong and side with Democrats when they are right, but always make the decision to support or oppose a matter of first principles and the application of those principles.
Note the last point. Gingrich isn’t talking about Republicans, although those in charge of the Republican brand could stand to heed the advice.
There’s a reason Gingrich doesn’t use the word “Republican”. It’s because he links this Democratic administration with the past spend-thrift Republican administration:
The Bush-Obama big government, big bureaucracy, politician-empowering, high-tax, high-inflation and high-interest-rate system continues to grow and to place the country in greater and greater danger from inflation, bureaucratic control of the economy, political interference in every aspect of our lives and massive debt.
Remember, we’re on bailout 5 right now. Both Obama and Biden, when Senators, voted “yes” on the first three and are now in the middle of putting the next two together. So the linkage, in my estimation, is correct. This is as much Obama’s problem as it was Bush’s despite his protestations to the contrary. The last two years have seen the Congress under Democratic control, while the executive branch was Republican. The recession is 17 months old, folks and that split government was in charge before the recession developed.
Gingrich hits on another key point:
While telling the truth, we also have to bear the burden of providing solutions and not merely criticism.
That’s critical. Anyone can criticize. Putting plausible solutions together that adhere to the principles of a movement and also are attractive to the citizenry is no easy job. But that is what any movement that wants to be taken seriously must do.
Gingrich concludes with:
Finally, the conservative movement has to learn to reach out to every American who wants a better future through freedom, hard work and opportunity.
Yes, he’s talking about a “big tent” based on only three requirements: a belief in freedom, hard work and opportunity. Conspicuously absent are mentions of wedge issues that normally are identified with Republican politics.
Gingrich’s separation of “conservative” from “Republican” is a warning shot across the bow of the GOP. Shape up or prepare to hear from conservatives. And if Republicans don’t listen, they should prepare to lose conservative support. Conservatives may be finding a way out of the wilderness. It remains to be seen if Republicans will follow.
The arrogance of “art” or the artist, if you prefer.
Val Kilmer is thinking about running for governor of New Mexico. Says Kilmer:
He told The Hill at Monday’s Huffington Post party at the Newseum that he has been approached to run for the highest office of the state where he owns a ranch and has family roots.
“Actually, they’ve asked me to run for governor,” he said, not specifying who “they” are. “People seem to want me to.”
I bet I can name one group who doesn’t want you.
Veterans. Specifically, Vietnam veterans.
Why you may ask?
Read this from an interview in Esquire where the interviewer is asking Kilmer how he relates to the characters he plays:
[Klosterman]: You mean you think you literally had the same experience as Doc Holliday?
Kilmer: Oh, sure. It’s not like I believed that I shot somebody, but I absolutely know what it feels like to pull the trigger and take someone’s life.
[Klosterman:] You understand how it feels to shoot someone as much as a person who has actually committed a murder?
[Kilmer] I understand it more. It’s an actor’s job. A guy who’s lived through the horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He’s some punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that’s why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn’t get on the football team, couldn’t finagle a scholarship. They didn’t have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than a guy who was there.
Pompous ignorance. And the absolute certainty this poseur displays is laughable. He knows “absolutely” what it feels like to pull the trigger and take someone’s life” although he’s absolutely never done it.
And he “understands it more” than a combat veteran what it is like to have been in combat.
He crowns his burst of ignorance with a stereotypical but untrue characterization of a group he obviously knows nothing about. The disrespect he displays is both disgusting and inexcusable.
Let’s see, he played a fighter pilot once, didn’t he? Well let’s plop his rear-end in an Airbus A320 over the Hudson River at about 2500 feet, kill both engines and see if he can “effectively represent” former fighter pilot Sully Sullenburger, shall we?
Piece of cake, right?
Whatever happened to actors like Henry Fonda who when given an Oscar I believe, said, and I paraphrase, “I don’t know what all the fuss is about. I just pretend to be someone who really did something”.
That’s you, Kilmer!
New Mexicans, I love you, but if you ever elect this trumped up fraud to the governor’s office, I can promise you I will never, ever again step foot in NM for the rest of my natural life. And I’ll do everything I can to persuade others never to do so either. In fact, for all I’ll care, La Raza can have you.
Signed: Some poor borderline criminal punk who volunteered to go to Vietnam.
[There, I feel better.]
I won’t go into the whole kit’n kaboodle about how “bi-partisan” has recently come to mean “all of one party plus 3 of the other,” but instead point to this (supposedly) journalistic effort to shore up the new definition:
Harry Reid spokesman Jim Manley on Heath Shuler’s comment that Reid and Nancy Pelosi “failed” on bipartisanship.
It’s a good one
Quite the set up, eh? It must be something awfully devastating. The way that Glenn Thrush, the Politico “reporter” detailing Shuler’s walk into the wilderness, leads into the allegedly withering comments with little more than a snarky swipe at the Congressman’s dubious NFL career (“Manley sacks Shuler”)one would think that Manley had something important to say. One would be wrong.
Before getting to Manley’s “sack” (in Thrush’s words), let’s take a look at the sole account of Shuler’s misdeed, which incidentally is from Glenn Thrush:
“In order for us to get the confidence of America, it has to be done in a bipartisan way,” Shuler said in Raleigh following an economic forum, according to the AP.
“We have to have everyone — Democrats and Republicans standing on the stage with the administration — saying, ‘We got something done that was efficient, stimulative and timely … I truly feel that’s where maybe House leadership and Senate leadership have really failed.”
Shuler, rumored to be mulling a ’10 Senate run, was one of 11 House Democrats to vote “no” on the stimulus and was already deep in Pelosi’s doghouse. Now he’ll have to build a Harry Reid wing.
Apostasy! How dare a Democrat call the incompetent leaders of the House and Senate incompetent. What is he, a Republican? It’s almost as if Shuler really bought into all that post-partisan claptrap that Obama spouted on the campaign trail. Well, Earth to Shuler. The campaign’s over. Time to get in line and do what your told like the rest of America.
But I kid.
According to Thrush, Manley had a much better takedown of Shuler’s insubordination:
Let me get this straight – this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?
Maybe Someone should tell congressman Shuler that under the leadership of President Obama we have put together a bipartisan bill that will create or save 3 to 4 million jobs, and that We have been more than willing to work with our republican friends. We have accepted some of their ideas and will continue to do so. But not at the expense of creating jobs, investing in our future of helping the middle class. He can stand on a stage if he wants, but senate democrats are busy trying to pass legislation that will provide essential investments designed to create and save jobs.
Hmmm. I didn’t realize that Shuler’s career as an NFL quarterback was somehow relevant. Didn’t get that memo. But Thrush sure did:
In four years as an NFL QB — three with the Redskins, one with the Saints — Shuler threw 32 INTs while tallying only 15 TDs. Shuler was the third overall pick in the 1994 NFL draft and held out for a seven-year $19 million contract, but completed fewer than half his passes — with a rock-bottom 54.3 lifetime passer rating.
In 2008, ESPN rated him the 4th biggest draft bust in league history.
Ummm … OK. So, that’s it? That’s the “good one”? Cracking on Shuler’s life before becoming a Congressman? I mean, I see that Shuler’s point concerning the lack of bi-partisanship is roundly countered by Manley’s response to the effect of “Nuh’uh.” But is that really so devastating? Does that have anything to do with Shuler’s point about the failure to include Republican’s in the Mother of All Spending Bills? Judging from Thrush’s reporting, the “good one” was little more than a schoolyard taunt.
Perhaps the larger point was that Thrush simply wanted to generate some controversy so that he’d have something to write about. Take a critical remark from a supposed friendly and use it to elicit a stinging retort. That’s the world of lazy journalism and tabloid reports.
But Thrush misses the real story here in a spectacular fashion. Where Schuler takes a political risk in challenging the leaders of his own party by pointing to the actual lack of any Republicans signing onto the bill, Thrush instead focuses on the sarcastic response, completely ignoring the glaring fact that only three out of 219 have been brought on board. Manley’s retort may generate guffaws in the Democratic lunchrooms, but it’s hardly the caliber of a “good one” even for a sophomore in high school. Thrush has reduced himself to little more than a gossiping sycophant, content with relaying the latest insults delivered by the cool kids in order to ingratiate himself with the in-crowd. And in the process, he has perpetuated the myth that the stimulus bill is any way bi-partisan.
One would think there was a good story in there somewhere. That is, if one were really a journalist.
If you’re wondering, her charts would be the “statistics”.
You’ve seen her “worst recession ever chart, right? If not, here it is:
I know, I know – OMG! They’re right! Panic! Spend! Do something!
Hold on there Bunky. Check this out from Justin Fox:
Ahem. Uh, we’re not even in as bad a shape as the ’74 recession and haven’t yet approached the ’81 recession, have we? Hmmm.
But wait, there’s more. Economist William J. Polley takes us back to WWII:
Oh. My. So, at the moment, we’re kind of in a middling recession (when you go all the way back to ’48) huh?
Beware of politicians with charts and an agenda.
Hope and change.
The stimulus package the U.S. Congress is completing would raise the government’s commitment to solving the financial crisis to $9.7trillion, enough to pay off more than 90 percent of the nation’s home mortgages.
The Federal Reserve, Treasury Department and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation have lent or spent almost $3 trillion over the past two years and pledged up to $5.7 trillion more. The Senate is to vote this week on an economic-stimulus measure of at least $780 billion. It would need to be reconciled with an $819 billion plan the House approved last month.
Again, that’s “trillion” with a “T”. In order to grasp the magnitude of that much spending, understand that you can reasonably round the number to $10 Trillion and thereby assume an extra $300 Billion, which is about the amount of TARP funds already pushed out the front doors of Congress. It’s also about one third of the amount being debated in Congress right now. In other words, the stimulus funds are pennies compared to amount of money already spent and/or promised.
Here’s another way to look at it (my emphasis):
The $9.7 trillion in pledges would be enough to send a $1,430 check to every man, woman and child alive in the world. It’s 13 times what the U.S. has spent so far on wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to Congressional Budget Office data, and is almost enough to pay off every home mortgage loan in the U.S., calculated at $10.5 trillion by the Federal Reserve.
It’s a lot of money. So why is it that we’re only privy to the debate (if it can be called that) over a measly 10% of the spending?
“We’ve seen money go out the back door of this government unlike any time in the history of our country,” Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, said on the Senate floor Feb. 3. “Nobody knows what went out of the Federal Reserve Board, to whom and for what purpose. How much from the FDIC? How much from TARP? When? Why?”
The pledges, amounting to almost two-thirds of the value of everything produced in the U.S. last year, are intended to rescue the financial system after the credit markets seized up about 18 months ago. The promises are composed of about $1 trillion in stimulus packages, around $3 trillion in lending and spending and $5.7 trillion in agreements to provide aid.
Many of us were disappointed with the spending habits of “compassionate conservativism” and lamented how it merely approximated socialist government policies with a friendly face. Of course, the alternative to Bush was real-deal socialist spending and a weakening of our national security.
Now we’re getting the full-on brunt of a dour-visaged collectivist government, employing a magician’s sleight of hand, and it makes the compassionate conservatism look positively stingy in comparison. While we argue over $800 Billion, another $9 Trillion is quietly being shoveled out the backdoor with little to no accountability.
When Congress approved the TARP on Oct. 3, Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke and then Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson acknowledged the need for transparency and oversight. The Federal Reserve so far is refusing to disclose loan recipients or reveal the collateral they are taking in return.
There’s no doubt that the Bush administration greased the skids, but Obama is running a rocket sled of spending, and there does not appear to be any end in sight.
One has to wonder when Atlas will finally shrug.
Or is this just “cynical manipulation?”
President Obama in Elkhart, IN today (email transcript – Fed. News Svc) in answer to a question by Helen Castello, a person in the crowd attending the rally:
So — so we may — we may debate– we — we can debate, you know, whether you’d rather have this tax cut versus that tax cut or this project versus that project. Be clear, though, that there aren’t — there aren’t individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill. Regardless of what the critics say, there are no earmarks in this bill. That’s part of the change that we’re bringing to Washington, is making sure that this money is well-spent to actually create jobs right here in Elkhart.
No earmarks huh? Does President Obama really know that? Or even believe it?
Here he is addressing the House Democrats in Williamsburg last Friday night:
Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one. (Applause.)
We report. You decide.
But you have to wonder how Ms. Castello, who gushed all over Mr. Obama, must now feel knowing he lied to her face about earmarks knowing full well, as indicated by his remarks to Democrats, that the bill indeed included earmarks?
Hope and change.
UPDATE: Here’s a link from a local TV station in Indiana which validates the first quote (although they end up paraphrasing Obama).
I‘ve just been watching Pres. Obama speaking to the Democrats at their luxury retreat. He had a lot of red meat for them. He also spoke passionately about the immediate need for the stimulus package, telling them–and the nation–that passing the bill is absotively necessary. If we don’t pass it, he asserted, millions will be thrown out of work, the economy will collapse, blood and flaming frogs will rain down from the sky, etc., etc., etc.
But what’s even more scary is that the Congressional Budget Office, Congress’ non-partisan budget analysts, has announced that this stimulus bill will do pretty much the reverse of what it’s designed to do.
President Obama’s economic recovery package will actually hurt the economy more in the long run than if he were to do nothing, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said Wednesday.
CBO, the official scorekeepers for legislation, said the House and Senate bills will help in the short term but result in so much government debt that within a few years they would crowd out private investment, actually leading to a lower Gross Domestic Product over the next 10 years than if the government had done nothing.
Apparently the president isn’t buying it, and the Democratic majority in Congress has decided that their own budget analysts are full of sh–shamefully inadequate analysis. So,we’re being told by the politicians that their bill is necessary to prevent economic collapse, while the professionals they employ tell us that the bill is worse than inaction.
Who do you beleive?
UPDATE: The CBO’s web site is back up again. The text of the letter states:
Including the effects of both crowding out of private investment (which would reduce output in the long run) and possibly productive government investment (which could increase output), CBO estimates that by 2019 the Senate legislation would reduce GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.3 percent on net. H.R. 1, as passed by the House, would have similar long-run effects.
In other words, 2019 is the year that the bill comes due, and the crowding out effect begins to become a drag on the economy, presumably until that bolus of debt is paid off. In other words, it becomes a long-term–and increasing–drag on GDP growth, as the crowding out effect overrides the increasingly smaller return, if any, from the stimulus.
Given the vaunted status of tax cheats amongst the Democrats, you’re all shocked, I’m sure:
House Ways and Means Chairman Charles B. Rangel predicted, on C-SPAN’s Newsmakers program that aired Sunday, Feb. 1, 2009, that his multitude of ethics woes would soon disappear. “I think that next Tuesday you will see a break in this and as soon as the Ethics Committee organizes they ought to be able to dismiss this,” National Journal’s CongressDaily quoted the Rangel as saying.
If so, it’s hard to imagine that the Select Committee on Ethics will have devoted anything more than a cursory glance at the various issues raised. Consider just one aspect, for which documents are in the public record: Rangel’s financial disclosure forms. We took a look at his filings going all the way back to 1978, the first year members were required to disclose information on their personal finances, and found 28 instances in which he failed to report acquiring, owning or disposing of assets. Assets worth between $239,026 and $831,000 appear or disappear with no disclosure of when they were acquired, how long they were held, or when they were sold, as the operative House rules at the time required.
This is all according to Charlie, of course. Much like the Obama team clearing itself of any inappropriate behavior in the Blagojevich troubles, taking Charlie’s word here would not be advisable. However, he seems to know that something is coming, and considering that Speaker Pelosi made little to no effort to support the investigation, we shouldn’t be surprised if Rangel walks away from this with his Chairmanship still intact.
Most ethical Congress ever!
Damon Linker at The New Republic has a thoughtful post about how President Obama can win and end the culture war. It goes against the intuitions of most of the Left, but I think he’s figured out something that has eluded almost all of them — a way to unravel some of the most significant bonds that have held the Republican coalition together for the last several decades.
While I think he’s right about same-sex marriage (social conservatives are losing ground steadily), I find his thoughts on abortion particularly cogent.
How could Obama — how could liberals, how could supporters of abortion rights — both win and end the culture war, once and for all? By supporting the reversal or significant narrowing of Roe, allowing abortion policy to once again be set primarily by the states — a development that would decisively divide and demoralize the conservative side of the culture war by robbing it of the identity politics that holds it together as a national movement.
If that sounds strange to you, read the whole thing.
I have said for years that overturning Roe v Wade, and thereby sending the issue back to the states, would effect a political realignment in this country.
Conservatives can’t enact a federal ban on abortion through Congress, RvW or not; whatever Republican politicians may say to win primaries, that would be mass political suicide and they know it. For social conservatives, there is one reachable goal — overturning RvW through the slow process of controlling Supreme Court appointments — meaning conservatives need to control the White House and the Senate for long, preferably unbroken stretches of time. That means that social conservatives expend a disproportionate amount of energy on the very top levels of national politics, allowing them to leverage their energy through GOTV efforts.
But like a dog chasing a car, they don’t have a clear idea of what they would do with it if they got it. If RvW were overturned or significantly narrowed, suddenly abortion would be a state-by-state fight.
It’s much easier to direct their energy into Senate races and presidential elections to win the broad-brush fight against RvW than to convince the state-level electorate on the nitty-gritty details of pro-life policy.
In the vast majority of states, social conservatives wouldn’t be able to put any but the most basic restrictions on the practice – perhaps limiting partial-birth abortions in some, third-trimester abortions in fewer. The options of limiting state funding for abortions, and requiring minors to obtain parental consent or at least knowledge, are both available under current constitutional law.
Virtually no one opposes abortions when the mother’s life is at stake, and while I haven’t looked at the state-by-state poll data, I doubt there’s a state in the union that would ban abortions even in cases of rape and incest. Finally, let’s put something simply: whether principled pro-lifers like it or not, there’s just not enough voter support to really punish women who undergo abortions. Practical pro-life politics would target doctors and institutions, not customers/patients.
And then? Then the fire would die down. Unlike taxes and spending or environmental issues, there are only a few ways to move the ball in either direction on abortion. Once elections make clear the basic outlines of what is achievable on such a narrow issue as abortion, the issue’s potency as a politically unifying force will diminish.
See, when there’s no way to compromise, the radicals control the conversation. So we have two starkly divided camps, each internally united by the near-fiat Supreme Court decision. If specific policy decisions were made by the people and representatives of each state, the camps would begin breaking down visibly based on actual policy preferences, roughly based on gradients of moderation.
At that point, those outside the mainstream have little choice but to begin the hard work of changing hearts and minds, and working through regulation and appropriations. That’s the moderating force of democracy.
The full effects on the national political scene are hard to predict, but they would be wide-ranging.
- A powerful wedge issue would lose a great deal of potency, allowing people who are otherwise uncomfortable fits in their political coalitions to move between parties, or become less reliable partisan allies of politicians who take a hard line.
- We would see moderation at both the federal and state levels, although evangelicals and Catholic groups would probably become more energetic for a while at the state level at the expense of federal efforts.
- And finally, we would do the good work of returning policy and political focus to more local levels of government, and convert a great deal of energy spent on politics into energy spent on private education and outreach.
Whether the parties to this culture war want it to end is another matter.
Sarah Palin has opened up a Political Action Committee called SarahPAC. This is not the action of someone who thinks she’s had her brief day in the sun of national politics, and is preparing to retire gracefully to the wide open spaces of Alaska.This is as close to a declaration of candicacy for president in 2012 as it is possible to make three years in advance.
But, apart from the Hot MILF thing, what does Sarah Palin have going for her?
It’s an interesting question because, as Josh Painter at RedState writes, who Sarah Palin is, or what she believes, seems still to be in the eye of the beholder. Painter surveys a variety of views about Sarah Palin, whose common thread seems to be that what one believes about Gov. Palin derives from one’s internal state of mind, rather than the external reality of what Sarah Palin actually stands for.
Self-described conservative Paul Mulshine, in his New Jersey Star Ledger column:
If anyone can think of a reason Palin qualifies as a conservative, please let me know. The truth is that Palin is a project of the so-called “neo” conservatives, who are actually a bunch of moony-eyed leftists masquerading as conservatives.
Patrick J. Buchanan, in an opinion piece for Chronicles magazine:
Make no mistake. Sarah Palin is no neocon. She did not come by her beliefs by studying Leo Strauss. She is a traditionalist whose values are those of family, faith, community and country, not some utopian ideology.
Michelle Goldberg, writing in the left wing magazine The Nation:
She has not always governed as a zealot; in fact, she’s a bit of a cipher, with scant record of speeches or writings on social issues or foreign policy. Nevertheless, several people who’ve dealt with her say that those concerned about church-state separation should be chilled by the idea of a Palin presidency. “To understand Sarah Palin, you have to realize that she is a religious fundamentalist,” said Howard Bess, a retired liberal Baptist minister living in Palmer. “The structure of her understanding of life is no different from a Muslim fundamentalist.”
Professional Palin critic Dan Fagan in a post on his Alaska Standard blog:
It is indisputable the governor has leaned strongly to the left with her policies in her first two years as governor.
Apparently, Sarah’s message–whatever it is–still hasn’t been clearly made to the literati. It’s endlessly amusing to me, though, that she’s seen both as an unreconstructed conservative, and a wild-eyed leftist.
Depending on who’s doing the viewing, of course.