Home ›

Election 2010

Up The Establishment

Submitted by LowDownCentral on Fri, 09/24/2010 - 11:22
in

Conservative Tea Partyby Lance Thompson

The media has focused on the growing rift between new conservative stars and their Tea Party backers versus the old guard establishment Republicans.  This difference has been highlighted in races in Florida (Marco Rubio over Charlie Crist), Alaska (Joe Miller over Lisa Murkowski), and most recently Delaware (Christine O’Donnell over Mike Castle).  In each case, a conservative outsider has overcome long odds to beat an experienced but more moderate candidate backed by the Republican establishment.  This trend shows every indication of continuing.
 
Christine O’Donnell, now the Republican candidate for Delaware’s open Senate seat, will face Democrat Chris Coons in November.  Polls show O’Donnell trailing in double digits.  This is a familiar situation to conservative candidates this year.  Marco Rubio trailed governor Charlie Crist by double digits in the Florida primary before winning the Republican Senate nomination.  Crist then declared himself an independent (refusing to return the millions in Republican campaign funding he had already received), and again took a double digit lead.  This race has reversed to Rubio’s advantage.  Joe Miller in Alaska was also behind in the polls before his win over Lisa Murkowski.
 
In all of these cases, old guard Republican strategists and pundits warned voters that the conservative Tea Party candidates were too extreme, and would not have the appeal to win.  Let’s examine both arguments individually.
 
First, in an era of rampant and unchecked socialism rammed through by an ultra-liberal President and Congress, there is no other possible cure than a conservative resurgence.  We didn’t get socialized medicine, skyrocketing debt, and a crippled economy by half measures and bipartisanship.  We arrived here thanks to a Democratic steamroller that paved the way for every item that’s appeared on the liberal wish list for the last two generations.  The only way to reverse this trend is to put strong, principled, undiluted conservatives in office and in power.  Moderates will not do.
 
Second, the fact that Tea Party candidates are prevailing all over the country, in states previously thought too blue to bother, demonstrates that the enthusiasm, power, and momentum this election year is with conservative candidates who connect with the people.  The pundits who now tell us that these candidates, once nominated, can’t win the general election are the same ones who told us earlier that these candidates would not win in their primaries. 
 
Have we not nominated moderate conservatives before?  Wasn’t John McCain known for reaching across the aisle?  Wasn’t he always tougher on conservative Republicans than he ever was on Democrats?  His even-handedness and bipartisan reputation was supposed to guarantee support from independent voters and the press.  Instead, his inept campaign was so ineffective that an opponent with no executive experience, less than one full term in the Senate, and no discernible aptitude for world leadership beat him handily in 2008.
 
And even when the Republicans place moderate, established, electable candidates on the ballot, and they do actually win, they are notable undependable when needed most.  Moderate Arlen Specter enjoyed the support of the GOP and President Bush over conservative challenger Pat Toomey for the 2004 Pennsylvania Senate primary.  Specter prevailed and paid back the GOP with liberal votes on the judiciary committee and by switching parties prior to his 2010 re-election bid.  He failed to win the Democrat nomination, and is now thankfully out of politics.  Moderate electable candidates do not serve conservative causes or interests.
 
If we believe in conservative principles, we must nominate and elect conservative candidates.  This year, more than ever, watered-down, moderate, half measures are not enough.
 
The American people are restive.  They are preparing to throw out a record number of Democrats from Congress and state governments across the country.  If the Republicans who replace them don’t put our nation back on the right course, they will be thrown out as well.  We won’t get a second chance to get it right.
 
Christine O’Donnell is a principled conservative.  She deserves our support.  The establishment may fight her tooth and nail.  But Christine O’Donnell has already defeated them.  They just don’t know it yet.  Burt Lancaster said it best in the film “Sweet Smell of Success,” when his character, powerful columnist J. J. Hunsecker, tells struggling publicity agent Sydney Falco that Falco’s influence is over.  “You’re dead, kid.  Go get yourself buried.”

 

Last Week’s Elections and What it Means for Legislation is Audacity

Submitted by marcaross on Mon, 11/09/2009 - 17:00
in

Audacity has always been a favorite term and mindset of Team Obama. And there was no better display of audacity this week when White House Press Secretary stood before the gathered national media and proclaimed that 110,000 voters was a better indication of President Obama’s policy and political capital than 4.3 million voters.

As several media outlets have reported, last week Gibbs said that Republican gubernatorial victories in Virginia and New Jersey do not signify anything for President Obama, but the dynamics and the Democratic candidate's success in an Upstate New York special election has consequences for the Republicans.

That is audacity Team Obama style.

If the White House wants to convey to a shaken and weakened Democratic majority on Capitol Hill that they have the bandwidth and power to move voters next fall they are clearly overconfident or don’t really care. How can the White House possibly dismiss the voters of New Jersey and Virginia - two trendsetting and economic powerhouse states – and formulate their political calculations on special election filled with more sideshows and spectacles than the Iowa State Fair? Why is the White House not seeing that their leader made five visits across heavily Democrat New Jersey in the closing days of the race which did little to get out the vote? What is the White House thinking now that part of their political coalition of African-Americans and young Americans has clearly proved to be a part time democratic force that sees their work being done as a result of winning last year’s election? It must be audacity.

As I see it, the White House is basing their political calculations on the fact that their term in office is unique and unprecedented. As such, it will demand sacrifice from the most vulnerable members of their party for the greater good. Without doubt, the White House is telling freshman Members of Congress like Rep. Tom Perriello and Rep. Glenn White, without our massive war chest and GOTV efforts last year you wouldn’t even be voting on Capitol Hill – so get inline. The White House surely knows they will lose seats next fall, but will they lose 40 seats; they must not think so. Meaning they can maintain majority control on Capitol Hill that will be diluted but not vanquished while being able to move aggressive legislation before November 2010.

With this mindset coming from the White House, upcoming legislation will be shaped by moving now -you can already see this in play from Saturday's night healthcare vote. Team Obama can realize their dream of changing the country's economic, cultural, banking, energy and healthcare foundations regardless of the outcome next fall. The loss of a few members who don’t really represent Democratic districts or the simple fact that a majority of voters clearly doesn’t support their agenda is of no concern.

Speaking with a former union organizer in Los Angeles the day after the election, he lamented how disappointed, frankly shocked, he was by the lack of turnout by Obama’s coalition. He went onto say, how can his team expect to move their political agenda, their core legislative goals and cherished dream of healthcare reform if those who elected Barack Obama last fall aren’t constantly engaged in the process and not voting. He closed by saying, it is clear that presently a majority of voters are not fully embracing what Obama is attempting to do, but last year’s election is what matters and their great political cause is more important than a tough race for a few Members of Congress or Senators in an upcoming election.

With such thinking coming from liberal activists in the field as well as what I believe to be the internal thinking of the White House, I fully expect condition normal and full speed ahead with Team Obama’s aggressive and multifaceted legislative agenda. As the White House has learned, winning one election means little in America. Other concerned citizens and targeted industries should heed this warning as well.

When your mindset is based on audacity, it is clear you are willing to make sacrifices so long as it moves long held and treasured legislative priorities closer to reality. I suggest to the numerous constituencies that Team Obama hopes to change, regulate and control, last week’s state elections mean little and last week’s federal election means everything to the White House. As they see it, all that matters is the fact that 110,000 voters sent them one more vote in Congress for them to use to pass their agenda.

 

Syndicate content