Archive for the ‘Republicans’ Category

Select Long-Shot House Campaigns

Thursday, October 14th, 2010

A few days ago I covered a handful of the most competitive House races. With tides moving so strongly against the Democrats, now would be a good time to look at some House races that Republicans might view as hopeless in any other year.

But this year, all bets are off.

So here are some long-shot campaigns for the seats of particularly egregious incumbent House Democrats that just might fall the GOP’s way in this election:

  • Jerry Costello of Illinois vs. Teri Newman for Illinois 12th Congressional District. (Teri, here’s a free hint: Auto-running movies with sound on your website isn’t going to win you any votes.) Costello is a Stupak bloc flip-flopper who voted for the Stimulus, but against TARP and Cap-and-Trade.
  • Joseph Donnelly vs. Jackie Walorski for Indiana’s second congressional district. Donnelly is another Stupak bloc flip-flopper, and also voted for TARP and the Stimulus, but against ObamaCare. Walorski has been endorsed by Sarah Palin, so she might well have more money and attention than others on this list.
  • Lloyd Doggett vs. Dr. Donna Campbell for the Texas 25th congressional district. Having endured having old liberal warhorse Lloyd Doggett as my Representative back when I still lived within the confines of The People’s Republic of Austin, I would be delighted to see a Republican take Doggett out. Doggett voted against TARP, but for the Stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare. One issue in the campaign is Doggett’s writing language into federal law to deprive Texas of almost a billion dollars in federal education funds. In this Human Events piece on the race, Campbell notes that Doggett “voted 98% of the time with Nancy Pelosi. And him getting in again, is one more vote that keeps Pelosi in.”
  • Barney Frank vs. ex-Marine Sean Bielat for Massachusetts’ Fourth Congressional District. Frank is as much responsible as anyone in the House for helping create the current recession by his steadfast opposition to tightening regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac at the same time he was having an affair with Fannie Mae executive Herb Moses. Frank, as you would expect, has a perfect liberal record in voting for TARP, the Stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare. Here’s a Wall Street Journal piece on the race.
  • Charlie Rangel vs. Michael Faulkner for New York’s 15th congressional district. Rangel is, of course, a corrupt scumbag. (The question of whether he’s the most corrupt scumbag in the House I’ll leave as an exercise for the reader.) Like Al Sharpton, he has a certain amount of venomous charm. Unlike Sharpton, he’s actually been elected. Like Frank, Rangel has a perfect liberal record in voting for TARP, the Stimulus, Cap-and-Trade, and ObamaCare. Faulkner has a good bit of name recognition from being a former New York Jets football player. The differences between Faulkner and Rangel are legion (not least of which is my working assumption that Faulkner isn’t a corrupt scumbag), but one of particular local interest may play a role if this race becomes the upset of all upsets: Rangel supports the Ground Zero Mosque while Faulkner opposes it. Polling for the race is non-existent (Democrats outnumber Republicans 15-1), but at least some observers think it might be more competitive than expected.

Remember, in 1994 no one expected Speaker of the House Tom Foley’s race to be even remotely competitive, but George Nethercutt still beat him, and there are some observers who say it could very well be much worse for Democrats this year than 1994. If that’s the case, then it’s a good bet one or more of the Republican candidates listed above will pull off an upset.

Williamson County Republicans Spend $5 Million on Donuts

Wednesday, October 6th, 2010

Or so their filing report would lead us to believe.

Oh sure, you say it’s a typo. But just wait until they grab 100% of the police vote in November…

More on the Left’s Obsession with Sarah Palin

Tuesday, September 14th, 2010

Today’s New York Times reveals that the Democratic Party isn’t just going to run against Bush this fall.

Mainly they’re going to run against Sarah Palin.

It’s interesting to see the irrational sputtering and fuming from the left on Palin, especially when asked what they think of her. They always start with the assumption that every right-thinking (which is to say Left-thinking) person believes that Palin is some sort of drooling moron. When asked to back up this judgment they become very defensive, or else cite widely debunked sound-bites such as her being a book-banner or a bad student (as opposed to being a member of the Honor Society), or saying God made dinosaurs 4,000 years ago.

It’s amazing that a political party who has controlled the House and Senate for four years, and the White House for two is, instead of running on their own record, attacking someone who currently holds no elective office. I’m sure that will earn some ink in any official history of the Democratic Party’s failure in this year’s elections…

An Explanation for the Left’s Irrational Hatred of Sarah Palin

Sunday, September 12th, 2010

“Oooo, I don’t like that woman,” said a non-conservative of my acquaintance when Sarah Palin’s name came up. And indeed, the reason for the American left’s pathological hatred of Palin, a reaction based on a visceral emotional reaction rather than intellectual disagreement, is one of the great mysteries of our time. Kevin Burke suggested that one reason was repressed shame over themselves not living up to Palin decision not to abort Trig.

This essay over on Chicago Boyz suggests that the real reason is status anxiety:

Status-anxiety occurs when a person believes that their position in a real or imagined social hierarchy is threatened. Leftists react emotionally to Palin because of the threat she poses to their own individual sense of status. All their other arguments are just put forth to rationalize that emotional reaction.

In short, it is not the ideas she puts forth, its that someone like her is significant at all.

Status-anxiety occurs most strongly when a group has no meritorious claims to its social position. The classic example would be the pre-WWII European aristocrats who inherited their wealth and position, and who therefore had no right to status in an industrial society other than from cultural inertia. Closer to home, the most vicious white racists were poor and working-class whites who knew full well that only racism kept them from being on society’s bottom status tier. As long as all non-whites were judged inferior to any white person, a poor white person still had some status. They bitterly resisted losing what little status they still had.

Leftism at its heart holds that a small percentage of humans have a vastly superior understanding of everything compared to ordinary people. The point of leftism is to empower these superior individuals to impose their superior understanding upon society by the force of the state. Leftists must be viewed by themselves and others as superior human beings if they are to have a claim to power and status.

Also:

Since they have few meritorious indicators of a personal and group claim to status remaining, leftists are forced to fall back on the same standards employed by the European upper classes. They try to restrict status not by merit but by conformity to their own life pattern. They demand that people go to the right elitist schools. They demand that people live in certain communities. They demand that people have the right recreational interests. They demand that people enjoy uniform kinds of art and music. They demand that people have the proper modes of speech, accent and allusion. They demand that people have the right religious beliefs. And so on.

On this basis Palin is a nightmare: She went to a state college. She lives in the “backwoods”. She likes hunting, fishing and sports. She likes country music and representational art. She doesn’t have the right accent. She doesn’t dress appropriately. She’s a Pentecostal instead of atheist, Unitarian, Episcopalian, etc.

Palin’s success stabs them in the heart of their anxiety. If Palin can be a successful political leader, what does that say about the leftists’ claims of intellectual and moral superiority? If people don’t just instantly assume that leftists are smarter and better than everyone else, why would people trust a leftist government to make so many decisions about the people’s live, e.g., medical care?

That is why leftists see Palin as a genuine and significant threat of unusual magnitude. In the emotional thinking of leftists, she is a personal threat to everything each individual leftist has attained in life. They feel a sincere, visceral sense of danger about her because she attacks the very core of their egos. They feel the same hatred towards Palin that the European upper classes felt towards the upstart middle-class. They feel the same hatred that poor whites felt towards non-whites. They feel that way for the same reasons. If she succeeds, worse, if she is right, then they become nobodies.

As long as she is viewed as a significant political figure, the left’s obsession with Palin will never wane because it does not spring from rational roots. She threatens something too deep and too profound in a political subculture built around the belief that a small percentage of human beings have a vastly superior understanding of the world compared to all the rest.

“There are no moderate Democrats in Congress”

Thursday, September 2nd, 2010

This Jim Geraghty piece up on NRO, in which he he interviews longtime GOP insider “Obi Wan” about the coming election, is well worth a read.

This is the quote I found most striking:

“There are no moderate Democrats in Congress, because when you vote for a supposed Blue Dog you are voting for the enablers-the ones who keep the House and Senate run by liberals”

For much the same reason there’s no such thing as a pro-gun Democrat.

Report on Rep. John Carter’s Open House on August 17, 2010

Tuesday, August 24th, 2010

My congressman, Rep. John Carter (“Warlord of Mars”) of Texas House District 31 held an open house in Round Rock on Tuesday, August 17. Here’s my brief report. (I’m quoting from memory, so please forgive me if I get any quotes slightly wrong.)

This was a standing-room only crowd (my rough estimate would be 300-400 people), predominately older (not uncommon for political events), and 95% conservative (this is, after all, Williamson County). Save one liberal that shouted questions from the audience rather than waiting to use the microphone, it was also very well-behaved. (It would probably be unfair to compare Rep. Carter’s open house to those of Russ Carnahan or Claire McCaskill or even Ciro Rodriguez, all Representatives catching flack from their constituents for voting for the Obama-Pelosi agenda.) I think about two people in the Q&A session voiced approval for ObamaCare, but even those two were against cap-and-trade.

Indeed, there seemed to be overwhelming sentiment for smaller government in the room, and there were probably more hardcore libertarians than liberals. One attendee suggested the abolition of all federal departments except those (War (now Defense) and State) listed in the Constitution.

Carter, a former Williamson County judge, himself looks a bit older than his website’s official photos, and is a solid public speaker, if not a natural one.

Rep. Carter talked about how he had voted against TARP, the Stimulus, ObamaCare, Frank-Dodd, and cap-and-trade (the first four of which passed anyway). He said they had about two days to consider TARP, with the Bush Administration saying the banking system was about to collapse. He voted against it anyway, despite the pressure brought to bear for him to vote for it. “I told them I had presided over five death penalty case, three of which resulted in the death penalty being carried out, and compared to that their pressure was nothing. After that, they agreed I wasn’t going to change my mind, went away and left me alone.”

He also told us that worst effects of Obama’s policies may not have been felt yet, which is an ominous thought.

He showed off the infamous ObamaCare chart with its myriad array of boxes and new federal entities. He said he had experienced socialized medicine firsthand in The Netherlands (his wife is Dutch) and wanted no part of it.

He said that Washington was destroying small businesses. He talked about a subdivision developer in Bastrop who was making money, had sold half the lots in the subdivision, and was current on all his payments, but because of Dodd-Frank, the bank said he had 30 days to take his loan to another bank because Dodd-Frank said they had too many real estate loans in their portfolio. He said he had to take on a partner just to move the loan.

He also said that Republicans had pleaded with their Democratic colleagues not to let the Bush tax cuts expire. “Where I come from, when you pay more money, that’s a tax increase.” He also said that lower-income earners were going to be some of the hardest hit.

Come question and comments time (Carter appeared as part of the GOP’s “America Speaking Out” tour), there was the usual mixture of personal issues: one small business owner said she thought the government was trying to drive her out of business, questions about having to pay taxes on social security, a recent veteran (standing ovation) relating how he had a job offer pulled at the last minute due to a credit check, exhortations to read the constitution, etc. The usual panoply of grassroots American democracy. (At least in a Republican district. Perhaps speakers at Nancy Pelosi’s town halls exhort people to read Karl Marx or Howard Zinn.)

When it came my turn to ask a question (I was about 15th in line), I asked how, if Republicans were to recapture the majority, they would ensure they showed more fiscal restraint than the last time they were in the majority. Carter flatly admitted “We screwed up,” including himself in some votes early during his tenure when colleagues had urged him to vote for big spending bills “because we have to govern.”

I feel fairly confident that Rep. Carter has repented of the free-spending ways of the late Dennis Hastert-led Republican House, but I’m not sure his colleagues have.

I had to leave shortly after that, but I had a chance to say hi to Republican State House District 52 candidate Larry Gonzales, who I interviewed and endorsed (and have since contributed to) on the way out. I asked him how the campaign was going, and he said “Great! We’re loaded for bear.”

LinkSwarm for July 19, 2010

Monday, July 19th, 2010

A few random links to kick off your week:

  • Wondering how congressional candidates are doing in the fundraising sweepstakes? This handy chart provides the lowdown.
  • If you wanted to make conservatives and libertarians paranoid, how would you go about it? How about sneaking a provision into ObamaCare requiring dealers to report all gold and silver purchases? But what’s the big deal? It’s not like a Democratic President ever ordered the seizure of American’s gold before. Oh wait, yes he did.
  • Europe is even more screwed than most of us think.
  • For a look at where ObamaCare is leading us, take a look at Massachusetts.
  • This story is about a guy’s horrible experience buying a used Saturn. I’m linking to it here because along the way it provides a pretty sobering look at the parts of the Hope and Change Economy that the usual media sources don’t cover:

    I immediately began looking for work, but by this point the recession was in full swing and over half the yards on our street had ‘For Sale’ signs up. In fact, the town of Marion, SC has lost nearly 30% of its residential population since January, 2009. There were no jobs within two hours of the town and any jobs that were available were swamped with applications. The high school put up a notice that they were looking for two custodians. They had over 600 people show up for applications. The unemployment rate was over 50%, but people like myself, who didn’t qualify for unemployment benefits, and people on welfare, don’t go on the national unemployment statistic. It’s only for people receiving unemployment checks. Those who didn’t comprised such a huge chunk of that ratio, that the official statistic only stated a 19% unemployment rate for the PeeDee region of South Carolina. Yeah, MSNBC didn’t mention the fine points of that statistic, did they?

(Hat tips: Instapundit, Real Clear Politics, Fark)

LinkSwarm for Saturday, July 3, 2010

Saturday, July 3rd, 2010

A few tidbits to tide you over the Independence Day weekend:

  • Dwight over at Whipped Cream Difficulties has a very interesting post up on Maywood, California closing their police department down. Summary: It has less to do with the budget crunch than with the entire department acting like corrupt, out-of-control thugs running roughshod over innocent people. Dwight and I both though of the similar situation in the (now thankfully dissolved) township of New Rome, Ohio.
  • “I don’t know whether the Tea Party movement will die out. But I sure hope it hangs on long enough to take down Lindsey Graham.” (Yeah, this was already on Fark, with that exact headline, but since I was the submitter…)
  • Former leftist, opponent of jihad, devout atheist and relapsed smoker Christopher Hitchens has suspended his book tour to be treated for esophageal cancer. Hitchens intellectual journey from being a (mostly) far-leftist to being a (mostly) neo-conservative has been deeply gratifying to those of us on the right, and as a voice sounding the alarm against radical Islam he’s probably only second (at least in the U.S.) to Mark Steyn. (So yes, the two most powerful voices against jihad in the U.S. are a Brit and a Canadian.) As an agnostic, I have no particular stance on the metaphysical certitude of Hitchens’ atheism, but I do believe he’s underestimated the vital role religion plays as a binding agent in a free society, as those societies which made atheism a central tenant (the Soviet Union and its ilk) don’t seem to have profited by it. (To paraphrase the late Octavia Butler, “I don’t believe in God, but the people growing up today don’t seem to believe in anything at all, and it’s scary.”) I always thought it would be interesting to debate Hitchens on the issue from the viewpoint of the social utility of religion rather than its metaphysical truth. BattleSwarm Blog wishes him a speedy recovery.

(Hat tips: Whipped Cream Difficulties, the Bookfinder Insider Mailing List)

Republicans to Gain 100 Seats in House?

Wednesday, April 14th, 2010

Sean Trende at Real Clear Politics suggests that Democrats could be in for a bigger shellacking this November than the suffered even in 1994.

A 1994-style scenario is probably the most likely outcome at this point. Moreover, it is well within the realm of possibility – not merely a far-fetched scenario – that Democratic losses could climb into the 80 or 90-seat range. The Democrats are sailing into a perfect storm of factors influencing a midterm election, and if the situation declines for them in the ensuing months, I wouldn’t be shocked to see Democratic losses eclipse 100 seats.

He foresees a bad economy, a controversial agenda (i.e, the deep unpopularity of runway spending in general and ObamaCare in specific) and the reversal of the 2006-2008 Democratic wins in traditionally Republican districts combining for a perfect storm of voter anger directed at the Democratic party.

Also this:

Remember, Republicans don’t need to win in Massachusetts for a landslide; they could pick up seventy seats without winning a single one in a Democratic-leaning district.

Certainly it’s too early for premature celebration; six months is a long time in politics. But there’s good reason for Republicans to be optimistic…if they don’t blow it.

If Michael Steele isn’t scrambling to make sure every Democratic incumbent has at least one Republican challenger for the general election, he’s not doing his job.

Gonzales Trounces Gordon

Tuesday, April 13th, 2010

Early returns have Larry Gonzales trouncing John Gordon by a sizable margin in the Texas House District 52 race. As of 8:34 PM, Gonzales had 2,519 votes to Gordon’s 1,096, with just under half the votes counted. I’m going to go out on a (very short) limb here and predict that Gonzales will win. (For my next shocking prediction: Obama will not balance the federal budget next year!) I like to think my endorsement had a tiny effect on the final outcome, but the vast majority of the difference is the fact that Larry Gonzales was a much better candidate, and ran a much better campaign.

I did have a chance to drop by Gonzales victory party on my way home, where a fellow attendee was able to snap this pic before both Larry and I had to rush off elsewhere:

Lawrence Person and winning candidate Larry Gonzales

I was only able to spend a few minute there, but in person he seemed just as smart and personable as he seemed via email. (In addition to politics, we talked about the early days of desktop publishing, his work dealing with the Texas legislature, and compared our iPhones.) Congratulations to Larry for a well-earned victory.

Now I have to get back back to finishing those pesky taxes…

Updated: Preliminary final results are even more a Gonzales landslide: Gonzales 3,601 (71.28%), Gordon 1,451 (28.72%), a fairly dramatic reversal considering that Gordon garnered a slight lead in the March primary.