Credit Sharron Angle with a sense of humor

August 5, 2010

Sharron Angle‘s campaign to unseat Harry Reid in Nevada has stumbled badly in the first few weeks since she won the Republican nomination, making what should have been a runaway victory over the unpopular Senate Majority Leader a tight race, instead, with Harry enjoying a small lead.

But, I’ll give her this: whether her own people are coming up with them or she’s getting help from the national Republicans, her commercials are funny:

And effective. Reid’s tenure has been a disaster for Nevada, and the progressive policies he’s pushed in the face of strong national opposition have only made a bad situation worse. The stimulus package was sold a way to keep unemployment from rising above 8%, but the national rate is around 9.75% and Nevada’s is much worse than that. But, don’t worry, Silver Staters; at least the chimps are happy.

The Angle campaign is smart to keep hammering Pinky Reid on the economy; it’s where he’s the weakest and avoids some of Angle’s more controversial social-policy positions. And I’ve always said satire is one of the most effective weapons in the fight against a crappy politician.

Keep them laughing at him, Sharron. It’s Pinky’s glass jaw.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)

Advertisements

Charlie Crist’s nightmare

June 6, 2010

This looks like one of those scandals that can just ruin a politician’s dreams: Jim Greer, the former Florida Republican Party Chairman recently arrested for stealing money from the party, now says he thought it was okay because Governor Crist told him to do it:

Gov. Charlie Crist personally signed off on his former Republican Party chairman’s confidential fundraising role with the state party, according to Jim Greer’s attorney, whose allegation contradicts the governor’s statement that he “didn’t know anything” about the deal now part of a criminal investigation.

State investigators say Greer and the party’s former executive director, Delmar W. Johnson III, secretly set up a shell company called Victory Strategies to divert party money and enrich themselves. Greer was charged Wednesday with fraud and money laundering.

But Greer’s attorney, Damon Chase, said Saturday that the deal giving them a 10 percent cut of party donations was legal. What’s more, Chase said Crist’s former right-hand man, now U.S. Sen. George LeMieux, first proposed the idea that they earn a fundraising commission to save the party money and replace the $30,000-a-month contract with fundraiser Meredith O’Rourke.

“You guys work hard. You deserve it,” Chase said Greer was told by the governor as they played pool in February 2009 at a Palm Beach golf tournament.

Crist is running as a Republican an Independent in the senate race, having fled the Republican Party after it was clear he would be crushed in the primary by former state assembly Speaker Marco Rubio. Oh, and he kept Republican donors’ money, too, after having promised to return it. Nice.

The problem for Crist initially was that Greer was his guy, appointed as party chair at Crist’s urging. Now, however, it appears that Crist may have encouraged Greer and his partner to help themselves to the party cookie jar. While Greer’s charge may or may not be true, and while the Republican primary is immaterial to Crist, now, it’s likely going to hang around all summer and into the general election, buzzing in voters’ ears.

And that may well cost Charlie the promotion he so desperately wants.

(via David Freddoso)


Interview with Marco Rubio

June 5, 2010

Ed Morrissey does a wide-ranging and interesting interview with Marco Rubio, the Republican nominee-presumptive in the Florida senate race. Rubio was in Minnesota for a fund-raiser hosted by Governor Tim Pawlenty:

LINKS: An interview from a few months ago with National Review. Rubio was also interviewed by Power Line. The video hasn’t been posted yet, but John Hinderaker writes about his impressions of Marco.


California: US Senate race debate

May 9, 2010

Thursday night a debate was held at the Museum of Tolerance among the three candidates for the Republican nomination for US senator: Chuck DeVore, Carly Fiorina, and Tom Campbell. I wasn’t able to attend, but the debate will be broadcast this morning at 11AM on KABC. In the meanwhile, Meredith Turney of Flash Report provides her analysis of the debate:

Unsurprisingly, all three camps have claimed victory for their candidates’ performance. I think each candidate was able to deliver on their respective strengths. However, each performance should be analyzed based on each candidate’s ability to win not only the primary, but the general election.

I would never support Tom Campbell in a Republican primary if I had a choice of someone more conservative, which both DeVore and Fiorina obviously are. This was most clearly elucidated when the candidates were asked whether they support someone listed on the no-fly list being allowed to purchase a firearm. Campbell immediately responded, “No.” While DeVore and Fiornia affirmed their belief in the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the due process of law (those on the no-fly list haven’t been convicted of a crime). Taken aback by his peers’ response, Campbell retorted, “It seems somewhat unusual to take that position, except perhaps in a Republican primary.” Republican primary voters won’t miss this slap at their conservative, Second-Amendment-supporting reputation.

(…)

With the election less than a month away, voters are just now beginning to pay attention to candidates. The senate race has been overshadowed by the far more expensive governor race. Polling numbers show Campbell neck-and-neck with Fiorina, and DeVore trailing both. But there is still a large group of undecided voters. As conservatives begin to examine the positions of each candidate, they will immediately rule out Campbell and begin focusing on the other two candidates. When it comes to conservative positions on major issues, DeVore and Fiorina are both appealing. It then becomes a matter of who can beat Barbara Boxer in November. Based on Democrats’ attacks on Fiorina during the primary season, it looks like Boxer would rather not face Fiorina this November.

Carly may have the edge based on the “Whom does Boxer tell us she fears most?” factor, but it’s not as if she is without weaknesses, such as her un-conservative fondness for representation by gender, her prior lack of interest in that most basic of a citizen’s duties – voting, or her controversial record while head of Hewlett-Packard. I can’t get rid of this nagging feeling that she’s a dilettante running for the nomination because she has nothing else to do, and that as a senator she’ll lack conviction to the principles she’s professed.

She has, however, picked up the endorsement of major conservative groups, as Sarah Palin pointed out in her endorsement.

As I’ve said before, my choice is Mr. DeVore; he has both the positions and the consistent track record. I’ll vote for him in the primary, and I think he has as good a chance as any of beating Senator Boxer (D-Moron). I’ll be interested to see the debate to get a better handle on all three candidates and to gauge my own comfort at voting for any of them in November.

RELATED: Following up on yesterday’s post about the Palin endorsement, I note Erick Erickson of Red State voices thoughts similar to my own: luv ya, guv, but I’m staying with Chuck.

UPDATE: I just noticed this was the 3,000 post on this blog. What a windbag I am. 🙂


Of Palin, DeVore, Fiorina, and endorsements

May 8, 2010

Like many on the Right, I was taken by surprise by former Governor Sarah Palin’s endorsement of Carly Fiorina for the Republican nomination for Senator from California. As a supporter of both Palin and Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, who’s also running for the nomination and who shares many of the Governor’s beliefs, I had expected her to endorse him, should she choose to get involved at all. Not surprisingly, her announcement set off a minor storm on the Right, both in California and nationally. This post, then, is about two things: the endorsement itself and how the Right should take it.

SHE DID WHAT??

Governor Palin issued her endorsement on Thursday; you can read it on her Facebook page, including the update she added after receiving a lot of criticism.

Why’d she do it?

Not being a party to the inner workings of either the Palin, Fiorina, or DeVore camps, I’m not going to speculate about “real” motives. (Then why are you blogging, dude? I thought that was the whole point! -Tito I’m trying to be reasonable for a change?) All I have to work with are the Governor’s own words, so, out of courtesy to her and lacking contrary evidence, I’ll take them mostly at face value.

“Mostly?”

Yeah, there are a couple of things that bother me. Well, three actually. In no particular order:

First, Governor Palin lists several reasons for supporting Carly Fiorina in the pre-update portion of her post, all meant to show Fiorina’s a genuine conservative whom the conservative-libertarian Right can support. Okay, but almost all those also apply to Assemblyman DeVore, who also seems to have been more consistent in his beliefs than Ms. Fiorina. So, what’s the difference that tells me I should give my vote to Carly? Sarah doesn’t say, largely ignoring Mr. DeVore in her post.

Second, Palin refers to Carly’s growing up “…in a modest home with a school teacher dad…” Huh? Pardon me, Governor, but Carly Fiorina is the daughter of Joseph Sneed III, who was an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Texas since graduating from UT in 1947. Subsequently, he taught at Cornell and Stanford law schools, was the Dean of Duke’s law school, and served from 1973 until his death in 2008 on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Fiorina was born in 1954, when Judge Sneed was made a full professor at UT, and three when he took up his position at Cornell. I would not call this a “modest upbringing” in the way most people understand it, certainly not like Governor Palin’s own youth. Not wanting to believe the Governor was being deliberately misleading in that statement, I can only assume she took biographical information from the Fiorina campaign and ran with it. This speaks of sloppy, superficial research at best, and calls the rest of her endorsement into question.

Third, when Palin referred to Fiorina in her endorsement as a “commonsense conservative,” I had to ask how it was conservative for Carly Fiorina to endorse legislative apportionment on the basis of gender, rather than individual merit. That’s corporatist, not conservative. And it’s something I find antithetical to everything American politics should be.

I’ve yet to receive a good answer to any of these.

Of the aftereffects of the endorsement itself, there’s no doubt that it was good for Fiorina and a body-blow to DeVore, who actively sought Governor Palin’s  blessing. And there’s no doubt that it sent shock waves through the conservative populist (“Tea Party”) movement here in the Golden State and nationwide. And this leads to the next section.

HOW DO WE DEAL WITH THIS??

To paint with a bit of a broad brush, there have been three general reactions to Palin’s announcement:

Puzzled, but willing to give the governor a break: “Now why would she do that? It doesn’t make sense, but I’ve admired her to this point, so I’ll have to think about this for a bit.” I fall into this group, along with quite a few Righty bloggers.

Hurt, betrayed, and ticked off: “OMG?? WTF?? Sarah Palin endorsed that RINO McCain toady? Then she’s not a Tea-Party, grassroots conservative! She’s just a… a… she’s just a Republican politician!” Followed by wailing, gnashing of teeth, and the tossing of souvenir caribou jerky into the garbage. Seen mostly on Twitter. (Including from some DeVore aides. Joshua Trevino, you need to walk back that “sheepdog” comment. It’s insulting both to Governor Palin and conservatives in California, and you make Mr. DeVore look bad by reflection.)

Ticked off at those who criticize Sarah Palin: “How dare you? The Governor is perfect! She’s one of us! She shakes things up! YOU’RE THE REAL RINO!!” Seen mostly at dedicated pro-Palin blogs, such as Conservatives for Palin. And before anyone comes after me with a 10-gauge, C4P does a great job defending the governor from the lies and slanders that have been thrown at her by the Left, the mainstream media (but I repeat myself), and the establishment Right. However, they have a bad habit of reacting to even legitimate criticism or questioning of Sarah Palin like a bunch of coked-up wolverines. (Adrienne Ross, your implication that DeVore is using state-paid staff to subsidize his campaign is definitely tendentious, as anyone can see who reads the article you linked.)

Here’s my take: an endorsement should be taken merely as a guide or a suggestion to be considered, not as holy writ to be obeyed blindly. And I don’t think Sarah Palin wants Stepford Wives for followers. We in the Center and the Right, who believe that progressives such as Barbara Boxer are backhanding the Constitution, spitting on the Founders, and running this country off a cliff, have to remember that our real political foes are on the progressive-statist Left, not each other. There is room to reasonably disagree. Or, as the great philosopher Rodney King once put it:

“Can’t we all get along?”

I support Sarah Palin. I like her record; I like what she stands for. And, 95% of the time, I like her judgment. I plan to vote for her and campaign for her should she run for President. But, as a conservative, I recognize that no person is perfect – not even Sarah Palin. I think she made a mistake with this endorsement, picking the second-best candidate. But I see this neither as a betrayal of “true conservatism” nor as a divine revelation. It is the recommendation of one very smart, very savvy politician whom I admire greatly – and with whom I disagree in this particular case. I can take her opinion into account, look at the web sites of all three candidates, and still make my own choice.

Which is to vote for Chuck DeVore.

If Carly wins, or (God forbid) Tom Campbell, I can vote for them, too, with a clear conscience. Any of the three is better than Barbara Boxer.

Any of them.

So let’s put down the long knives, remember what unites us, and aim for the gold ring in November, not the brass one in June.


Like spoiled children

February 17, 2010

Unable to get their way playing by the rules, some leading progressives are now advocating not just banning the filibuster, but eliminating the Senate altogether.

Granted there’s a snowball’s chance of this ever happening, yet these left-liberal intellectuals are truly laying bare just how little they care for the constitutional order we’ve created here. They don’t want representative democracy; what they want is a form of Jacobinism.

Of course, this is an old theme in progressivism; Woodrow Wilson, our first progressive president, also was the first to speak disparagingly of the Constitution and considered representative democracy a phase whose time was passing. (Liberal Fascism, pp. 81-93)  FDR was so impatient with the Supreme Court that he wanted to subvert it through his court-packing scheme.

Still, they worry me.Nailbiting

(via Zombywolf)


Massachusetts Miracle

January 16, 2010

Political campaigns these days inspire a lot of videos on YouTube; the Massachusetts senate race is just the latest.

But this one is real good:

Our video-guru Tito gives this one extra points for making good use of Massachusetts history to frame the current contest and for reminding people we have the means to resist tyrants that our ancestors lacked. Well done. Applause

The election is Tuesday. Let’s help make a miracle in Massachusetts and the nation. Let’s elect that 41st vote against liberal fascism. Go to Scott Brown’s donation page and give. You can learn more about him here.

(hat tip: Mark Tapscott)