The past two days, two well known political commentators and reporters have published thoughtful editorials regarding Sarah Palin's decision to resign the Governorship. Both essentially make the same point we at Kaw & Border do -- that Palin had to do what she did.
One is from famous moderate Republican Roger Stone, entitled "Palin's Plan"
http://stonezone.com/
Stone grills the media and fellow political analysts for their knee jerk reaction to Palin's decision:
Watching the Washington chattering class pan the Palin moves shows the moronic level of political analysis in the media today. Switch-hitter Dave Gergen, Ed Rollins who bolted his Party to go destroy the candidacy of Ross Perot and then trashed Perot, and Upper West Side reform Democrat Dick Morris who toiled for Ohio lefty, Howard Metzenbaum and Clinton but is today a born again Christian and right-winger, all panned the Palin move. Fools.
In fact, resignation as Governor was necessary to preserve any prospect that Palin could be nominated and elected in 2012 or beyond.
The second article is from Politico correspondent Roger Simon entitled The Sins of Sarah Palin:
http://www.politico.com/rogersimon/
Simon's piece explains why the elite conservative big wigs (the poobahs) and the media in general can't stand Sarah Palin -- she doesn't play by their rules. Here is a great excerpt:
The Republican Party likes to nominate the next guy in line. John McCain in 2008, George W. Bush in 2000 and Bob Dole in 1996 were all the next guys in line. They had “earned” their place in the party hierarchy. (Or, in the case of George W. Bush, his father had earned it for him.)
Today, it is hard to see who the next guy in line is, but the party mandarins, the pooh-bahs, are agreed on one thing: Sarah Palin ain’t it.
She is a dumb hick, a nobody from nowhere. She hunts moose with a chainsaw from the back of a snowmobile or something. Just listen to her resignation speech. It was not slick or polished or written by somebody else. She appeared to deliver it off the top of her head as if she were a real person. What a doofus!
Doesn’t she know that the highest form of political communication today is to exactly regurgitate a speech written for you by a speechwriter who has crafted, vetted and polled every phrase, line and word?
But listen to Palin. Listen to how “rambling” and “disjointed” she is. Once upon a time in American politics, this was known as being “plain-spoken,” but that time has gone. An entire industry of political consultants has grown up to make sure politicians are never plain-spoken.
Both Rogers -- Stone and Simon -- hit the nail on the head. The future is unclear for Palin -- but if she ever had a hope of being national and taking advantage of the huge base she has, she had to resign and get out of Alaska. She may fail in this national endeavor (whereever it leads her), but there is not one candidate for Congress, Governor, or anything else right now that wouldn't love to have Palin speak at their fundraiser, picnic, or reception.
One thing is also clear -- Palin is far from done. She also doesn't play by the media's rules. She is her own person, like her or not like her. She writes her own columns, tweets her own twitters, hunts her own moose, and captures her own salmon. Perhaps this unpolished Palin won't catch fire -- but judging by the reaction she draws -- both in support and against -- our guess is Palin will continue to be followed by an obessive press, hanging onto every word she says.
Palin now has three years to build an army, study up on issues, speak in front of more crowds in more cities and get more experience, all on her own terms rather than those of the McCain team. She can and will communicate directly with the public. She will publish a book which will make her a lot of money to pay off her debts. She can, despite what some say, win back voters who are only now listening to the ridiculous commentaries on TV by those who can't stand her. The public is fickle and the candidate they don't know that will yesterday can become their rallying point tomorrow. And, by the time 2012 rolls around, people won't care she left Alaska a bit early -- keep in mind by 2012, Romney and Huckabee won't have been Governor for over 5 years, and Newt Gingrich hasn't been in office for more than a decade. And let's not forget that Obama was a U.S Senator for less time than Palin was Governor before he decided to run for President in early 2007.
To us, it seems that those talking heads thinking Palin is done are protesting a bit too much. Perhaps they know that Palin's decision doesn't end her career, but rather it launches it. She is, they know, the number one force in politics today outside of Obama. She is now no longer relegated to Alaska by time or necessity, but can take her message, her charm, and her millions of supporters into a greater cause -- right when conservatives are looking for someone to rally around. Good timing, it seems. Perhaps it won't lead to a presidential bid, or perhaps it will.
Point is, Sarah Palin now has options and has, much like she did last year, the ability to turn the political world upside down like no one has on the Republican side in a generation. And that, no matter what you think of her, is a very good thing.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Saturday, July 4, 2009
July 3 was Sarah Palin's Independence Day
In perhaps what will go down as the biggest political move in a decade, Sarah Palin has decided to resign from her position as Governor of Alaska, effective July 26.
The conventional wisdom to this -- including among many well-meaning conservatives -- is that this move will sink Sarah Palin. Their claim is that by only serving 2 1/2 years as Governor, she will no longer be politically viable on a national level. And, for most politicians and most public figures, this might be an accurate analysis.
What that analysis is missing, however, is that Sarah Palin is not most politicians or most public figures. With the exception of Barack Obama, there is no person in politics today who draws more attention and more passion -- of both support and opposition -- than Sarah Palin. She is a political force, and liberals, the media, and some stone-throwing conservatives who have never liked her -- can't stand that fact.
Our take is similar to that of radio host Mark Levin -- who believes that Sarah Palin needed to do what she did today -- logistically, politically, and personally.
In our view, July 3 will forever be known as Sarah Palin's Independence Day. In the end, we believe it will be regarded as the most genius political move in this generation of politics.
Starting with the basic political choice, Sarah Palin had three choices:
A. Conventional Route A: The "George W. Bush/Bill Clinton" choice. Stay as Governor, run for re-election. This would give her "more experience" and more of a record as a public official. This is the safe route.
B. Conventional Route B: The "Mitt Romney" choice. Don't run for re-election out of necessity but serve out your term. Recognize that being Governor of Alaska and a huge national figure running for President is extremely difficult logistically, politically, and personally. Many people wouldn't have been surprised by a decision not to run, much like Mitt Romney opted not to run for re-election in Massachusetts. The circumstances, however, are different -- Romney decided not to run because he would have probably lost a run for reelection in the most liberal state in the union. In Palin's case, she likely would have won -- which makes this decision today all the more interesting -- but logistically, due to the obscure status of Alaska and the mere mileage between Alaska and the lower 48, particularly the media centers of the east coast -- it didn't make sense.
C. Unconventional route. The "Sarah Palin" choice. This essentially Option B sped up -- she recognized the reality of the situation that made her decide to not run for re-election but rather than hanging onto a title for 18 more months, she, in one day, pulled off both a principled and political move that allows the rocket ship that is Sarah Palin to finally blast off and morph into whatever SARAH PALIN -- rather than the media or conservative and liberal snipers -- thinks is best for Sarah Palin.
In our eyes, Option C was a genius political move and the only decision Sarah Palin could have made if she was ever going to seize the opportunity that comes from the fact she is a sensation with millions of supporters nationwide -- who, aside from Barack Obama, draws more passion and attention than any other figure in politics today.
Looking at Alaska politics specifically, once Palin decided she was not going to run again, she obviously had a desire to make sure her Alaska-based agenda remained in place for not only the next 18 months, but the next four years -- the period of which she would be on the national stage. Her closest ally in Alaska is her Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell. By resigning 18 months early, Palin has given him the gift of incumbency, and with it, the chance to establish his own name ID, his own record, which of course, likely to follow that of Palin's. So, she essentially laid the foundation for her successor to have the advantage going into 2010, particularly since may other candidates were lining up to run for Governor if she decided not to run again. Also, in terms of being a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, her decision today in one fell swoop saved Alaska thousands, if not millions, of dollars for a lame duck governor and all the frivilous complaints she was fighting off. If she's not Governor, those complaints go away, as she is then a private citizen.
Moving beyond Alaska politics, another reason for the decision had to be simply the reality of logistics such as time and distance. Whether Palin likes it or not -- and let's assume she embraces it for the moment -- Palin is a national figure with a great deal of power as a political force. The logistics of travel and time between Alaska and the lower 48 made doing both nearly impossible if she wanted to have any semblance of control over her life, whether it be family or otherwise. It's not the same as being the Governor of Texas or the Senator from Illinois. If she felt her calling -- and the pathway that was clearly in front of her -- was more national than Alaska-based -- she simply had to get out from the shackles of being Alaska's Governor sooner rather than later.
In truth, the only real "argument" for staying was that it would allow her to build more of a record. The fact is that the liberal media was never going to give her credit for her accomplishments -- part out of intentional bias and also out of the fact Alaska is a small state (popluation wise) far removed from the attention of 99.5% of Americans. So, the record she could build as Governor would never be noticed anyway -- and any record she did build, no matter how great, would be torn apart by her opponents in the media and on the left. So, any benefit garnered from remaining as Governor would be nullified by the realities of other forces out there. Whether or not they are fair or not, they are realities, and her decision today recognized that.
Furthermore, who said that to run for President, you had to be Governor for 4 or 6 or 8 years anyway?
Poltically speaking, resigning the Govenorship frees Sarah Palin up to be herself, to go to as many events in the lower 48 that she wants to go to (or doesn't want to go). It allows her the freedom to manage her life and daily schedule in a way she wants, without the limits of daily Governor duties. It allows her to help out Republican candidates throughout the country by being a fundraising draw, a rally draw, and a media draw. Sarah Palin, in fact, has had to turn down speaking requests and other engagements for this very reason -- not anymore. Now Sarah Palin can take hold of her national following and embrace it in whatever way she feels fit.
Moreover, with this new freedom, she can actually take on her critics more directly. She can make more speeches, appear at more events, and start to cultivate the huge grassroots following she has. She can, in a sense, at least have a fighting chance at defining who she is by having a more of a constant opportunity to explain it herself, rather than having the media do it for her.
The fact is, in truth, while the public may hear a lot about Sarah Palin, they have heard very little actually from Sarah Palin -- and that is not an environment from which one can succeed politically when those doing the "reporting" are your enemies.
In a sense, this is similar to the late 70's after Ronald Reagan was no longer Governor of California and before he became President. He was able to embrace his status as a national figure, followed by millions of conservatives nationwide, freed from the limits of elected responsiblites of California. He operated at a time when we had a very liberal President at a time that the Republican brand was dead -- but nonetheless saw the fact he was a national figure with a dedicated following, and turned it into a political movement that laid the groundwork for a Republican -- and specifically, a conservative -- resurgence and revolution.
Today, though the individual details are different, history may be repeating itself. Again, we have a very liberal President. Again we have a Republican Party who has a very poor rating in the eyes of the public at the same time when more and more people are idenitfying themselves as conservatives. Up comes Sarah Palin -- who much like Reagan, has a national following with passionate supporters unmatched since the days of Reagan -- who many see as the leader of a revived conservative movement than can also appeal to Americans who aren't automatic Republican votes. By being free to do what she wants, Palin is now free to seize this opportunity before her, to try and follow in Reagan's footsteps -- and to shape herself and the Republican Party and the conservative movement in the way she wants -- in a way none of the other Republican national figures can -- and in a way she couldn't have done had she remained governor.
Finally, personally speaking, Sarah Palin may simply recognize that her calling -- demonstrated by her numbers of supporters and the attention she draws -- is to be a national figure, not an Alaskan figure. It could simply be that Palin feels that this is the time the country needs her -- needs an opposing political force that could match that of President Obama. The fact is, the ONLY person on the national scene today that can draw the attention near the scale of Obama is Sarah Palin. By being free to go on the national stage without the shackles of being Governor, she can embrace that role -- if she chooses to -- without reservation.
Now, it could be that she is, as some are reporting, sick of politics. Perhaps that is the case. Perhaps she just wants to quit altogether, to go back to a private life and comment occasionally on politics, but largely remain out of the scene.
It is our view that this is the wishful thinking of those in the media that can't stand her. This is the wishful thinking of those who may hate her and fear her but recognize the fact she is the only person who can possibly counter Obama on the national scene.
Rather, it is our view that today was Sarah Palin's new beginning, and the start of a force unseen in Republican circles since Reagan -- and, for Palin personally, the start of a new period of time where can define herself, be free to be who she is, free to travel the country and meet with and enjoy the support of her millions of followers, to rebuild whatever damage was done to her by the vicious media in recent months, and to choose whatever path she wants to take. She can be who she wants to be -- whether that be a private citizen, a mother, a wife, a conservative spokeswoman, or maybe, just maybe, President of the United States.
The conventional wisdom to this -- including among many well-meaning conservatives -- is that this move will sink Sarah Palin. Their claim is that by only serving 2 1/2 years as Governor, she will no longer be politically viable on a national level. And, for most politicians and most public figures, this might be an accurate analysis.
What that analysis is missing, however, is that Sarah Palin is not most politicians or most public figures. With the exception of Barack Obama, there is no person in politics today who draws more attention and more passion -- of both support and opposition -- than Sarah Palin. She is a political force, and liberals, the media, and some stone-throwing conservatives who have never liked her -- can't stand that fact.
Our take is similar to that of radio host Mark Levin -- who believes that Sarah Palin needed to do what she did today -- logistically, politically, and personally.
In our view, July 3 will forever be known as Sarah Palin's Independence Day. In the end, we believe it will be regarded as the most genius political move in this generation of politics.
Starting with the basic political choice, Sarah Palin had three choices:
A. Conventional Route A: The "George W. Bush/Bill Clinton" choice. Stay as Governor, run for re-election. This would give her "more experience" and more of a record as a public official. This is the safe route.
B. Conventional Route B: The "Mitt Romney" choice. Don't run for re-election out of necessity but serve out your term. Recognize that being Governor of Alaska and a huge national figure running for President is extremely difficult logistically, politically, and personally. Many people wouldn't have been surprised by a decision not to run, much like Mitt Romney opted not to run for re-election in Massachusetts. The circumstances, however, are different -- Romney decided not to run because he would have probably lost a run for reelection in the most liberal state in the union. In Palin's case, she likely would have won -- which makes this decision today all the more interesting -- but logistically, due to the obscure status of Alaska and the mere mileage between Alaska and the lower 48, particularly the media centers of the east coast -- it didn't make sense.
C. Unconventional route. The "Sarah Palin" choice. This essentially Option B sped up -- she recognized the reality of the situation that made her decide to not run for re-election but rather than hanging onto a title for 18 more months, she, in one day, pulled off both a principled and political move that allows the rocket ship that is Sarah Palin to finally blast off and morph into whatever SARAH PALIN -- rather than the media or conservative and liberal snipers -- thinks is best for Sarah Palin.
In our eyes, Option C was a genius political move and the only decision Sarah Palin could have made if she was ever going to seize the opportunity that comes from the fact she is a sensation with millions of supporters nationwide -- who, aside from Barack Obama, draws more passion and attention than any other figure in politics today.
Looking at Alaska politics specifically, once Palin decided she was not going to run again, she obviously had a desire to make sure her Alaska-based agenda remained in place for not only the next 18 months, but the next four years -- the period of which she would be on the national stage. Her closest ally in Alaska is her Lt. Governor, Sean Parnell. By resigning 18 months early, Palin has given him the gift of incumbency, and with it, the chance to establish his own name ID, his own record, which of course, likely to follow that of Palin's. So, she essentially laid the foundation for her successor to have the advantage going into 2010, particularly since may other candidates were lining up to run for Governor if she decided not to run again. Also, in terms of being a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars, her decision today in one fell swoop saved Alaska thousands, if not millions, of dollars for a lame duck governor and all the frivilous complaints she was fighting off. If she's not Governor, those complaints go away, as she is then a private citizen.
Moving beyond Alaska politics, another reason for the decision had to be simply the reality of logistics such as time and distance. Whether Palin likes it or not -- and let's assume she embraces it for the moment -- Palin is a national figure with a great deal of power as a political force. The logistics of travel and time between Alaska and the lower 48 made doing both nearly impossible if she wanted to have any semblance of control over her life, whether it be family or otherwise. It's not the same as being the Governor of Texas or the Senator from Illinois. If she felt her calling -- and the pathway that was clearly in front of her -- was more national than Alaska-based -- she simply had to get out from the shackles of being Alaska's Governor sooner rather than later.
In truth, the only real "argument" for staying was that it would allow her to build more of a record. The fact is that the liberal media was never going to give her credit for her accomplishments -- part out of intentional bias and also out of the fact Alaska is a small state (popluation wise) far removed from the attention of 99.5% of Americans. So, the record she could build as Governor would never be noticed anyway -- and any record she did build, no matter how great, would be torn apart by her opponents in the media and on the left. So, any benefit garnered from remaining as Governor would be nullified by the realities of other forces out there. Whether or not they are fair or not, they are realities, and her decision today recognized that.
Furthermore, who said that to run for President, you had to be Governor for 4 or 6 or 8 years anyway?
Poltically speaking, resigning the Govenorship frees Sarah Palin up to be herself, to go to as many events in the lower 48 that she wants to go to (or doesn't want to go). It allows her the freedom to manage her life and daily schedule in a way she wants, without the limits of daily Governor duties. It allows her to help out Republican candidates throughout the country by being a fundraising draw, a rally draw, and a media draw. Sarah Palin, in fact, has had to turn down speaking requests and other engagements for this very reason -- not anymore. Now Sarah Palin can take hold of her national following and embrace it in whatever way she feels fit.
Moreover, with this new freedom, she can actually take on her critics more directly. She can make more speeches, appear at more events, and start to cultivate the huge grassroots following she has. She can, in a sense, at least have a fighting chance at defining who she is by having a more of a constant opportunity to explain it herself, rather than having the media do it for her.
The fact is, in truth, while the public may hear a lot about Sarah Palin, they have heard very little actually from Sarah Palin -- and that is not an environment from which one can succeed politically when those doing the "reporting" are your enemies.
In a sense, this is similar to the late 70's after Ronald Reagan was no longer Governor of California and before he became President. He was able to embrace his status as a national figure, followed by millions of conservatives nationwide, freed from the limits of elected responsiblites of California. He operated at a time when we had a very liberal President at a time that the Republican brand was dead -- but nonetheless saw the fact he was a national figure with a dedicated following, and turned it into a political movement that laid the groundwork for a Republican -- and specifically, a conservative -- resurgence and revolution.
Today, though the individual details are different, history may be repeating itself. Again, we have a very liberal President. Again we have a Republican Party who has a very poor rating in the eyes of the public at the same time when more and more people are idenitfying themselves as conservatives. Up comes Sarah Palin -- who much like Reagan, has a national following with passionate supporters unmatched since the days of Reagan -- who many see as the leader of a revived conservative movement than can also appeal to Americans who aren't automatic Republican votes. By being free to do what she wants, Palin is now free to seize this opportunity before her, to try and follow in Reagan's footsteps -- and to shape herself and the Republican Party and the conservative movement in the way she wants -- in a way none of the other Republican national figures can -- and in a way she couldn't have done had she remained governor.
Finally, personally speaking, Sarah Palin may simply recognize that her calling -- demonstrated by her numbers of supporters and the attention she draws -- is to be a national figure, not an Alaskan figure. It could simply be that Palin feels that this is the time the country needs her -- needs an opposing political force that could match that of President Obama. The fact is, the ONLY person on the national scene today that can draw the attention near the scale of Obama is Sarah Palin. By being free to go on the national stage without the shackles of being Governor, she can embrace that role -- if she chooses to -- without reservation.
Now, it could be that she is, as some are reporting, sick of politics. Perhaps that is the case. Perhaps she just wants to quit altogether, to go back to a private life and comment occasionally on politics, but largely remain out of the scene.
It is our view that this is the wishful thinking of those in the media that can't stand her. This is the wishful thinking of those who may hate her and fear her but recognize the fact she is the only person who can possibly counter Obama on the national scene.
Rather, it is our view that today was Sarah Palin's new beginning, and the start of a force unseen in Republican circles since Reagan -- and, for Palin personally, the start of a new period of time where can define herself, be free to be who she is, free to travel the country and meet with and enjoy the support of her millions of followers, to rebuild whatever damage was done to her by the vicious media in recent months, and to choose whatever path she wants to take. She can be who she wants to be -- whether that be a private citizen, a mother, a wife, a conservative spokeswoman, or maybe, just maybe, President of the United States.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
What if Conservatives Had Control?
Today, the big national political news is the development that the Minnesota Senate Race is finally resolved. It's official now -- Liberal Democrat Al Franken is now going to be the junior United States Senator from Minnesota -- winning the battle in the Minnesota Supreme Court over Norm Coleman. Though it is unquestionable that the election was stolen, the reality is now that it hands the Democrats a virtual 60-seat majority, when you consider that both of the body's independents -- Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders (who is an avowed socialist, unlike his colleagues, who are closet socialiasts) -- both caucus with the Democrats.
What this means is that aside from a narrow 5-4 center-right majority on the Supreme Court (highlighted by the 5-4 majority in the New Haven firefighters case on Monday), there is absolutely no check on the liberal power in Washington. Obama was the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and is now President. Biden was one of the more liberal members of the Senate, and is now Vice President. Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal and is Speaker and all but about 30 members of the Democratic Caucus come from the liberal wing of the party Harry Reid, aside from a couple of Nevada-specific issues, is a liberal and is Majority Leader of the Senate. Out of the 60 Senators that are Democrats, the vast majority are from the liberal wing of the party. Only a few -- Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska, Landrieu, Pryor, Dorgan, Conrad, Bayh, and Lincoln -- could be considered moderate Democrats in any sense of the word, and most of them vote quite liberally on most issues.
Last week, a poll from Gallup indicated that only 20% of the nation considered themselves liberal. 40% were conservative, 35% moderate, and the rest undecided. So, we essentially have a situation where elected officials who come from the 20% liberal faction of the country have been given absolute power. Aside from that small check (when Kennedy votes "right") on the Supreme Court, there is absolutely nothing to slow liberal policies down aside from the possibility of outrage of the American public generating enough political fear among members of Congress that it causes them to lessen the effect of some of what they're trying to impelement.
Absolute-power scenarios rarely come in American politics. In the 1990's, under Clinton, the Republicans had control of Congress and slowed down much of what he wanted. Even in the 1993-94 period when he had a Democratic Congress, the majority in the Senate was not as large as they have now, and there were a lot more conservative Democrats then -- Richard Shelby, of Alabama, for instance -- now a conservative Republican -- was actually a Democrat at that time. In the early part of this decade, when Republicans had control, they didn't have a large enough margin in the Senate to stop filibusters, and the moderates had enough seats in the Senate that conservatives actually only had about 45-49 seats, not enough to pass things, let alone stop Democrat stalling tactics.
As a result of this rare power, liberals are trying to push through a number of far-left initiatives while they can. Cap and Tax and Government Health Care, which could ONLY be enacted under this current liberal control, are the two biggest examples that could represent a fundamental change in how this government does business -- simply becuase they would be so hard to undo. Other items -- such as undoing the Defense of Marriage Act, abortion-on-demand, etc -- are coming down the pike as well. Not to mention liberal judges, uncountable "special czars", a liberal foreign policy, and other things that are the result of Obama's direction.
All this led this blog to think what if we were operating in an alternative political universe that was exactly the opposite of what we had now? What if the conservative Senator was elected President, and conservatives controlled the Senate with 60 seats, and just 3-4 moderate Republicans? What policies would be implemented? What would be the long term effect on the country?
Imagine this -- imagine if Congressman Paul Ryan (albeit a Congressman at the moment, not a Senator), who many see as a rising star, became President? What if the Arlen Specters and Charlie Crists of the world were unseated by the Pat Toomeys and and Marco Rubios of the world? what if Steve King took the place of Tom Harkin, and Michele Bachmann took the place of Al Franken? What then?
Here are a few thoughts:
- The United States would continue the policies of George W. Bush overseas. We'd resume calling the war the "War on Terror", and we'd take the battle directly to the terrorists. We'd stand behind freedom fighters in Iran and stop upholding dictators in Honduras. We'd do more than send a ship chasing around the North Korean vessel, and threathen North Korea with annihliation if they dared attack Hawaii or South Korea. We'd win the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan, and actually increase spending on the military. We'd stop the closing process at Gitmo and call back the terrorists from Palau. We'd resume real military tribunals and stop the notion of terrorists having hearings in U.S. courts.
- When Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens moved on, we'd appoint people like Janice Rogers Brown, Diane Sykes and Edith Jones to the United States Supreme Court. We'd then have a court which would uphold the rights of the President to fight foreign wars, including the terrorists. Roe V. Wade would be overturned, ending the notion that the right to kill a baby is protected in the Constitution. McCain-Feingold would be ruled unconstitutional, and freedom of speech would return. The Second Amendment would be upheld, not only in DC but nationwide. The Tenth Amendment would be upheld and power would be returned to the states. Eminent Domain would again be illegal under the Constitution.
- Rather than adopting Government Health Care, we'd be on the road towards a true free market in health care, where consumers had control rather than insurance companies, places of employment, or the government. Choice would expand, competitiveness would increase, and costs would drop. The quality of care would increase. Individuals would have control over their own health care, and the only government involvement would be basic safeguards such as portability, preexisting condition coverage, and basic emergency room care.
- Rather than adopting the Cap and Tax program, we'd have a real energy policy which pursued a multi-pronged strategy of dealing with our energy needs. While wind and solar would be welcomed, we'd actually drill for oil whereever it could be found, including offshore and on the north slope of Alaska. We'd pursue reasonable environmentally "green" friendly ideals without adopting policies that relied on junk science. We'd recognize that temperatures are actually dropping, not increasing, and stop the arrogant belief that man actually can have the kind of impact on the environment that liberals think it can have -- either positively or negatively. We'd end the trend towards government telling people how to live and what to buy and how much energy to consume -- but rather, we'd promote nuclear energy, clean coal technology, and other altnerative energy sources instead. As a result, gas prices would plummet back well under $2, home energy costs would drop, the price of an airline ticket would drop, and therefore, humans would travel more, spend more money, and the economy would get a boost.
- Rather than a massive expansion of government, we'd see budget reform implemented. Zero-based budgeting would be adopted, where every program, each year, started with 0 dollars and had to justify every dime it would receive from the government. Over time, the budget deficit would go away and we'd begin to pay off our debt. The effect of this would be to create more money for government to return tax dollars to the people and perform tasks that government was created to do -- the military, highways, etc.
- Massive government bailouts would cease. Banks, car companies, and any other big business would be allowed to fail. The President would no longer meddle in the affairs of private business. American capitalism and opportunism would then take hold, and over time, within a few years, the voids created by companies folding would be met by new companies with better products and services.
- Entitlements would be reformed or reduced. While present-day seniors would be protected, Social Security would be reformed long term so younger people could opt out of the system and instead, keep their own money to build their own retirement account or, do things like, buy a house or pay off debt. The result would be the payroll tax -- a regressive tax that hurts low income people as well as small business owners, particularly the self employed -- would be gradually phased out, meaning that people making about $30,000 or less -- and couples making about $50,000 or less, would only pay a small income tax and therefore be able to save and invest and protect their families and businesses into the future.
- The tax code would be replaced by a simple tax such as the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax, which would be capped constitutionally. The only time we'd increase taxes is in the case of a war. This would put accountants out of business, but reduce costs dramatically for businesses, individuals, and promote the free market economy.
- Regulations would be reduced or eliminated except where to promote safet, protect consumers and investors, and where it was necessary to encourage competition. Rather than overregulation, fraud would be discouraged by harsh penalties and protection for whistleblowers.
- A Constitutional Amendment would be passed that would outlaw gay marriage, or at the very least, prevent the Full Faith and Credit Clause from applying to gay marriage.
- Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning would not only be defunded, it would be banned period.
- Abortion would either be returned to the states, or, perhaps, a Human Life Amendment would be given to the states, recognnizing unborn children as having equal protection under federal law.
- Education policy would be returned to the states, and free market economics and competition would be promoted where possible. Vouchers and other forms of school choice would be encouraged and promoted -- not just in DC but elsewhere, implemented by states. Rather than huge federal mandates, the only federal involvement would be student loans in certain cases, or other policies which would encourage more choice in education. The focus would be on the education of children rather than the promotion of unions and a narrow agenda.
- Speaking of unions, card check would be a thing of the past and unions would be limited in their power, returning to their intended state of simply protecting the worker. People would be free to work and union membership would be deemphasized.
- Government involvement in business would be limited. Rather than being a stifling effect through taxation, regulation, and such, government would only serve as a help to promote enterpreneuers through small business loans and enterprise zones to encourage development. Rather than bulldozing towns such as Obama wants to do in Flint, Michigan, we'd pursue policies which reduced the tax burden to zero to give the American Spirit a chance to work in areas that people previously thought were hopeless.
- Churches would have their freedom of speech restored, and be free to participate in political efforts, as the tax penalties for churches speaking about candidates would be taken away.
- We'd have a national discussion about faith and family, and restoring basic moral values and absolutes, rather than the continued progression towards moral relativism, where family means anything and faith means nothing. People would be encouraged to pray in school, pray at the workplace, and talk about their faith openly. God and Jesus would be welcomed, not shunned, while other faiths would still be respected in the tradition of America.
This is a long list but is a broad one. The list would be longer if conservatives were elected nationwide at the state and local level as well. But, that's another post.
For conservatives currently fighting the good fight on blogs, in campaigns, and in non profit organiztaions and tea parties, this is the kind of nation we are fighting for. While this may seem far away right now, and indeed it is, the fact is that conservatives out number liberals 2-1 in this country, and if approached with reason, facts, and kindness, many of the moderates will side with conservatives.
The problem is, we've never had a large enough collection of leaders who not only preach this message, but act on it. Everytime we've had power -- we've largely blown it. When we've had it and used it well -- such as with Reagan and tax cuts and fighting Communism, or Bush with the terrorists and promoting freedom -- the country embraces conservatives. It is when we fall for the lie that liberalism is the way to go or that compromising principles is the same as governing that we fail.
The good news is that in difficulty comes opportunity. There are leaders on the horizon that are well poised to be the generals in a new conservative army. We have Fox News. On the radio, we have Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Gleen Beck, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Fred Thompson, and others. In Kansas, we have people like Sam Brownback, Todd Tiahrt, Jerry Moran, Tim Huelskamp, Mary Pilcher Cook, Jeff Colyer, Anthony Brown, Kris Kobach, Lance Kinzer, Ty Masterson, Kasha Kelley, and others. In other states, we have people like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, John Thune, and others. We have candidates on the horizon as well, such as Michael Williams and Eliazabeth Ames Jones in Texas; Pat Toomey, in Pennsylvania; Marco Rubio in Florida.
Of course, there are many questions still be to be answered. Will these conservative candidates and public figures be unfraid to not only run on conservative ideas, but actually act on them, and attempt to convince voters that these policies are right? Rather than "voting for their district", will conservative elected officials in tough districts actually vote their conscience and then convince their electorate why they are right? Will supposedly national conservative leaders (like John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell) endorse principled conservatives like Marco Rubio rather than backing perceived "popular" people like liberal Charlie Crist? Will these leaders actually recruit conservative candidates and promote a conservative platform, so the term "Republican" actually means something besides a mere party label? Will conservative candidates have the courage to run, and create more boats in the rising tide of American conservatism? Will conservative activists have the courage to say no to liberal tactics, and get online on places like Facebook and Twitter, and fight the liberal lies? Will the Tea Party particpants actually get involved with and donate to conservative campaigns and run for office themselves?
All of these questions -- and more -- remain to be answered. The conservative movement depends on it. The ability of conservatives to achieve governing numbers like liberals have now depends on it. The future of Kansas depends on it.
Indeed, the nation's future depends on it.
What this means is that aside from a narrow 5-4 center-right majority on the Supreme Court (highlighted by the 5-4 majority in the New Haven firefighters case on Monday), there is absolutely no check on the liberal power in Washington. Obama was the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate, and is now President. Biden was one of the more liberal members of the Senate, and is now Vice President. Nancy Pelosi is a San Francisco liberal and is Speaker and all but about 30 members of the Democratic Caucus come from the liberal wing of the party Harry Reid, aside from a couple of Nevada-specific issues, is a liberal and is Majority Leader of the Senate. Out of the 60 Senators that are Democrats, the vast majority are from the liberal wing of the party. Only a few -- Lieberman, Nelson of Nebraska, Landrieu, Pryor, Dorgan, Conrad, Bayh, and Lincoln -- could be considered moderate Democrats in any sense of the word, and most of them vote quite liberally on most issues.
Last week, a poll from Gallup indicated that only 20% of the nation considered themselves liberal. 40% were conservative, 35% moderate, and the rest undecided. So, we essentially have a situation where elected officials who come from the 20% liberal faction of the country have been given absolute power. Aside from that small check (when Kennedy votes "right") on the Supreme Court, there is absolutely nothing to slow liberal policies down aside from the possibility of outrage of the American public generating enough political fear among members of Congress that it causes them to lessen the effect of some of what they're trying to impelement.
Absolute-power scenarios rarely come in American politics. In the 1990's, under Clinton, the Republicans had control of Congress and slowed down much of what he wanted. Even in the 1993-94 period when he had a Democratic Congress, the majority in the Senate was not as large as they have now, and there were a lot more conservative Democrats then -- Richard Shelby, of Alabama, for instance -- now a conservative Republican -- was actually a Democrat at that time. In the early part of this decade, when Republicans had control, they didn't have a large enough margin in the Senate to stop filibusters, and the moderates had enough seats in the Senate that conservatives actually only had about 45-49 seats, not enough to pass things, let alone stop Democrat stalling tactics.
As a result of this rare power, liberals are trying to push through a number of far-left initiatives while they can. Cap and Tax and Government Health Care, which could ONLY be enacted under this current liberal control, are the two biggest examples that could represent a fundamental change in how this government does business -- simply becuase they would be so hard to undo. Other items -- such as undoing the Defense of Marriage Act, abortion-on-demand, etc -- are coming down the pike as well. Not to mention liberal judges, uncountable "special czars", a liberal foreign policy, and other things that are the result of Obama's direction.
All this led this blog to think what if we were operating in an alternative political universe that was exactly the opposite of what we had now? What if the conservative Senator was elected President, and conservatives controlled the Senate with 60 seats, and just 3-4 moderate Republicans? What policies would be implemented? What would be the long term effect on the country?
Imagine this -- imagine if Congressman Paul Ryan (albeit a Congressman at the moment, not a Senator), who many see as a rising star, became President? What if the Arlen Specters and Charlie Crists of the world were unseated by the Pat Toomeys and and Marco Rubios of the world? what if Steve King took the place of Tom Harkin, and Michele Bachmann took the place of Al Franken? What then?
Here are a few thoughts:
- The United States would continue the policies of George W. Bush overseas. We'd resume calling the war the "War on Terror", and we'd take the battle directly to the terrorists. We'd stand behind freedom fighters in Iran and stop upholding dictators in Honduras. We'd do more than send a ship chasing around the North Korean vessel, and threathen North Korea with annihliation if they dared attack Hawaii or South Korea. We'd win the war in Iraq and Afgahnistan, and actually increase spending on the military. We'd stop the closing process at Gitmo and call back the terrorists from Palau. We'd resume real military tribunals and stop the notion of terrorists having hearings in U.S. courts.
- When Souter, Ginsburg, and Stevens moved on, we'd appoint people like Janice Rogers Brown, Diane Sykes and Edith Jones to the United States Supreme Court. We'd then have a court which would uphold the rights of the President to fight foreign wars, including the terrorists. Roe V. Wade would be overturned, ending the notion that the right to kill a baby is protected in the Constitution. McCain-Feingold would be ruled unconstitutional, and freedom of speech would return. The Second Amendment would be upheld, not only in DC but nationwide. The Tenth Amendment would be upheld and power would be returned to the states. Eminent Domain would again be illegal under the Constitution.
- Rather than adopting Government Health Care, we'd be on the road towards a true free market in health care, where consumers had control rather than insurance companies, places of employment, or the government. Choice would expand, competitiveness would increase, and costs would drop. The quality of care would increase. Individuals would have control over their own health care, and the only government involvement would be basic safeguards such as portability, preexisting condition coverage, and basic emergency room care.
- Rather than adopting the Cap and Tax program, we'd have a real energy policy which pursued a multi-pronged strategy of dealing with our energy needs. While wind and solar would be welcomed, we'd actually drill for oil whereever it could be found, including offshore and on the north slope of Alaska. We'd pursue reasonable environmentally "green" friendly ideals without adopting policies that relied on junk science. We'd recognize that temperatures are actually dropping, not increasing, and stop the arrogant belief that man actually can have the kind of impact on the environment that liberals think it can have -- either positively or negatively. We'd end the trend towards government telling people how to live and what to buy and how much energy to consume -- but rather, we'd promote nuclear energy, clean coal technology, and other altnerative energy sources instead. As a result, gas prices would plummet back well under $2, home energy costs would drop, the price of an airline ticket would drop, and therefore, humans would travel more, spend more money, and the economy would get a boost.
- Rather than a massive expansion of government, we'd see budget reform implemented. Zero-based budgeting would be adopted, where every program, each year, started with 0 dollars and had to justify every dime it would receive from the government. Over time, the budget deficit would go away and we'd begin to pay off our debt. The effect of this would be to create more money for government to return tax dollars to the people and perform tasks that government was created to do -- the military, highways, etc.
- Massive government bailouts would cease. Banks, car companies, and any other big business would be allowed to fail. The President would no longer meddle in the affairs of private business. American capitalism and opportunism would then take hold, and over time, within a few years, the voids created by companies folding would be met by new companies with better products and services.
- Entitlements would be reformed or reduced. While present-day seniors would be protected, Social Security would be reformed long term so younger people could opt out of the system and instead, keep their own money to build their own retirement account or, do things like, buy a house or pay off debt. The result would be the payroll tax -- a regressive tax that hurts low income people as well as small business owners, particularly the self employed -- would be gradually phased out, meaning that people making about $30,000 or less -- and couples making about $50,000 or less, would only pay a small income tax and therefore be able to save and invest and protect their families and businesses into the future.
- The tax code would be replaced by a simple tax such as the Fair Tax or a Flat Tax, which would be capped constitutionally. The only time we'd increase taxes is in the case of a war. This would put accountants out of business, but reduce costs dramatically for businesses, individuals, and promote the free market economy.
- Regulations would be reduced or eliminated except where to promote safet, protect consumers and investors, and where it was necessary to encourage competition. Rather than overregulation, fraud would be discouraged by harsh penalties and protection for whistleblowers.
- A Constitutional Amendment would be passed that would outlaw gay marriage, or at the very least, prevent the Full Faith and Credit Clause from applying to gay marriage.
- Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Human Cloning would not only be defunded, it would be banned period.
- Abortion would either be returned to the states, or, perhaps, a Human Life Amendment would be given to the states, recognnizing unborn children as having equal protection under federal law.
- Education policy would be returned to the states, and free market economics and competition would be promoted where possible. Vouchers and other forms of school choice would be encouraged and promoted -- not just in DC but elsewhere, implemented by states. Rather than huge federal mandates, the only federal involvement would be student loans in certain cases, or other policies which would encourage more choice in education. The focus would be on the education of children rather than the promotion of unions and a narrow agenda.
- Speaking of unions, card check would be a thing of the past and unions would be limited in their power, returning to their intended state of simply protecting the worker. People would be free to work and union membership would be deemphasized.
- Government involvement in business would be limited. Rather than being a stifling effect through taxation, regulation, and such, government would only serve as a help to promote enterpreneuers through small business loans and enterprise zones to encourage development. Rather than bulldozing towns such as Obama wants to do in Flint, Michigan, we'd pursue policies which reduced the tax burden to zero to give the American Spirit a chance to work in areas that people previously thought were hopeless.
- Churches would have their freedom of speech restored, and be free to participate in political efforts, as the tax penalties for churches speaking about candidates would be taken away.
- We'd have a national discussion about faith and family, and restoring basic moral values and absolutes, rather than the continued progression towards moral relativism, where family means anything and faith means nothing. People would be encouraged to pray in school, pray at the workplace, and talk about their faith openly. God and Jesus would be welcomed, not shunned, while other faiths would still be respected in the tradition of America.
This is a long list but is a broad one. The list would be longer if conservatives were elected nationwide at the state and local level as well. But, that's another post.
For conservatives currently fighting the good fight on blogs, in campaigns, and in non profit organiztaions and tea parties, this is the kind of nation we are fighting for. While this may seem far away right now, and indeed it is, the fact is that conservatives out number liberals 2-1 in this country, and if approached with reason, facts, and kindness, many of the moderates will side with conservatives.
The problem is, we've never had a large enough collection of leaders who not only preach this message, but act on it. Everytime we've had power -- we've largely blown it. When we've had it and used it well -- such as with Reagan and tax cuts and fighting Communism, or Bush with the terrorists and promoting freedom -- the country embraces conservatives. It is when we fall for the lie that liberalism is the way to go or that compromising principles is the same as governing that we fail.
The good news is that in difficulty comes opportunity. There are leaders on the horizon that are well poised to be the generals in a new conservative army. We have Fox News. On the radio, we have Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Gleen Beck, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Fred Thompson, and others. In Kansas, we have people like Sam Brownback, Todd Tiahrt, Jerry Moran, Tim Huelskamp, Mary Pilcher Cook, Jeff Colyer, Anthony Brown, Kris Kobach, Lance Kinzer, Ty Masterson, Kasha Kelley, and others. In other states, we have people like Sarah Palin, Bobby Jindal, Haley Barbour, Paul Ryan, Mike Pence, John Thune, and others. We have candidates on the horizon as well, such as Michael Williams and Eliazabeth Ames Jones in Texas; Pat Toomey, in Pennsylvania; Marco Rubio in Florida.
Of course, there are many questions still be to be answered. Will these conservative candidates and public figures be unfraid to not only run on conservative ideas, but actually act on them, and attempt to convince voters that these policies are right? Rather than "voting for their district", will conservative elected officials in tough districts actually vote their conscience and then convince their electorate why they are right? Will supposedly national conservative leaders (like John Cornyn and Mitch McConnell) endorse principled conservatives like Marco Rubio rather than backing perceived "popular" people like liberal Charlie Crist? Will these leaders actually recruit conservative candidates and promote a conservative platform, so the term "Republican" actually means something besides a mere party label? Will conservative candidates have the courage to run, and create more boats in the rising tide of American conservatism? Will conservative activists have the courage to say no to liberal tactics, and get online on places like Facebook and Twitter, and fight the liberal lies? Will the Tea Party particpants actually get involved with and donate to conservative campaigns and run for office themselves?
All of these questions -- and more -- remain to be answered. The conservative movement depends on it. The ability of conservatives to achieve governing numbers like liberals have now depends on it. The future of Kansas depends on it.
Indeed, the nation's future depends on it.
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Saying NO to RINO's
Perhaps as much as anywhere in the country, the infamous "split" within the Republican Party has always been quite pronounced in Kansas, particularly in Johnson County. Despite years and years of trying, particualrly by conservatives, there has been little to no ground made up in terms of unifying the so-called "conservative" wing with the so-called "moderate" wing of the party.
There is a reason for this. The reason is because in most cases, the so-called "moderate" Republicans are not really Republicans -- they are what has come to be known as Republicans In Name Only -- meaning that if they were in a Democratic area they'd be Democrats, but because Kansas is a red state, they have to remain with the Republican label if they have any real hope of getting elected. The truth is, they are actually as liberal as Democrats, thus making any attempt at "unifying" with conservatives completely meaningless for the basic fact there is very little -- socially, fiscally, or otherwise -- that they can agree on.
As evidence of this, over the years, some of these "moderates" have included people who are now Democrats -- including Cindy Neighbor, Lisa Benlon, Ron Wimmer, Mark Parkinson, Paul Morrison, etc. Each of these figures was once a moderate Republican hero, touted as someone the party could rally behind as some kind of moderate voice -- when in fact, in each case, there was nothing moderate about them.
And therein lies the main part of the problem -- the term "moderate" has been abused and redefined as a word for liberals to hide behind in an attempt to conceal their real liberalism and in an effort to woo voters -- who are likely more conservative than they are on the issues but moderate in "appraoch" -- by appearing reasonable when compared to those right-wing radical Republicans who want to end all taxes and stop public education. At least, that's the standard RINO talking point.
In our eyes, the real definition of a "moderate" Republican is someone who is perhaps not as conservative on one or two issues, or perhaps not as "aggressive" in tone, but in large part, agrees with the fundamental tenants of Republicanism. For example, Bob Dole's voting record was quite conservative but many considered him to be a moderate voice. Bob Dole is a moderate Republican. Looking more nationally, someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas is a moderate Republican -- as she is largely conservative but takes a slightly more liberal position on a couple issues -- but is unquestionably part of the Republican fold. Looking locally, Lynn Jenkins is a moderate Republican.
That's far different from a RINO. And it is our belief that the party not only needs to stop trying to unify with RINO's but actively oppose them. This is due to the fact one, these people are destructive legislatively. Two, the party wastes too much time trying to cater to these people. Third, the cconservative message gets watered down and looks too inconsistent when we're always trying to bend over backwards for some RINO who we're never going to agree with.
All of this is to say that the voters are looking for a new message they can rally behind -- a consistent conservative message on both fiscal and social issues. That won't ever come when one is worrying about pleasing the Arlen Specters of the world.
Case in point -- the 8 Republicans who on Friday voted in favor of the cap-and-tax bill are RINO's. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is absolutely nothing consistent about being a Republican and voting for that bill. These people can absolutely be blamed for the passage of this bill, and in our view, should be treated just like Democrats -- meaning every single last one of them should draw a primary, because they are for all intents and purposes absolutely useless.
Here in Kansas, the same could be told for several members of the Johnson County delegation. The fact is, out of the 16 Republicans who we send to Topeka, up to six of them are never reliable for a vote on anything remotely conservative. As we covered earlier this year, it is these "moderates" that gave the state of Kansas yet another terrible budget despite all the economic signs pointing to the fact that more needed to be done.
One would think that such a dismal fiscal situation for the state would mean a "moderate" would actually moderATE and move away from the liberal spend-spend-spend dogma and vote conservative for once. But, see, as we said earlier -- they aren't moderates and they're not Republicans -- they're liberals, in almost every case.
Now, does this mean that there should be some litmus test on every issue? No. We favor a big tent here at Kaw & Border, but to us a Big Tent means tolerance for a different view on one or two issues. It does not mean being so big that a completely different political philosophy should be welcomed.
What we're advocating here is that conservatives and the Republican Party in general, particularly in this current state where Obama and company are driving every bad piece of legislation down our throats, recruit authentic conservative candidates who are committed to the party's principles. That doesn't mean they have to agree on every issue, but it does mean they hold a similar core philosophy.
Politically speaking, this means saying NO to RINO's. Not no to moderates -- but no to RINOs. This means, in primaries, recruiting conservative candidates against any RINO. Will everyone win? No. But as Newt Gingrich said the other day, a Rising Tide only can occur with enough boats in the water. Simply put, conservatives need to find boats in the water, and if they give them these candidates the support they need.
This all gets back to a fundamental point that too often, those who simply are involved in politics FOR the politics forget -- and that is that it's not just about wins and losses or about having an R or a D by your name. If the Republican Party is going to be successful, it can longer simply be a label for a candidate that vaguely means something to the right of the Democrats. The term "Republican" must mean something -- a set of core principles and values for which its candidates and officers will stive to uphold.
If conservatives and real Republicans do this, they will no longer be dependent upon the public's negative reaction to a Democratic line of mistakes -- but also proactive in giving the voting public something to vote for and be excited about. This will not only help Republicans get elected and stay elected, it will mean great things for the future of the state of Kansas and the nation as a whole.
There is a reason for this. The reason is because in most cases, the so-called "moderate" Republicans are not really Republicans -- they are what has come to be known as Republicans In Name Only -- meaning that if they were in a Democratic area they'd be Democrats, but because Kansas is a red state, they have to remain with the Republican label if they have any real hope of getting elected. The truth is, they are actually as liberal as Democrats, thus making any attempt at "unifying" with conservatives completely meaningless for the basic fact there is very little -- socially, fiscally, or otherwise -- that they can agree on.
As evidence of this, over the years, some of these "moderates" have included people who are now Democrats -- including Cindy Neighbor, Lisa Benlon, Ron Wimmer, Mark Parkinson, Paul Morrison, etc. Each of these figures was once a moderate Republican hero, touted as someone the party could rally behind as some kind of moderate voice -- when in fact, in each case, there was nothing moderate about them.
And therein lies the main part of the problem -- the term "moderate" has been abused and redefined as a word for liberals to hide behind in an attempt to conceal their real liberalism and in an effort to woo voters -- who are likely more conservative than they are on the issues but moderate in "appraoch" -- by appearing reasonable when compared to those right-wing radical Republicans who want to end all taxes and stop public education. At least, that's the standard RINO talking point.
In our eyes, the real definition of a "moderate" Republican is someone who is perhaps not as conservative on one or two issues, or perhaps not as "aggressive" in tone, but in large part, agrees with the fundamental tenants of Republicanism. For example, Bob Dole's voting record was quite conservative but many considered him to be a moderate voice. Bob Dole is a moderate Republican. Looking more nationally, someone like Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas is a moderate Republican -- as she is largely conservative but takes a slightly more liberal position on a couple issues -- but is unquestionably part of the Republican fold. Looking locally, Lynn Jenkins is a moderate Republican.
That's far different from a RINO. And it is our belief that the party not only needs to stop trying to unify with RINO's but actively oppose them. This is due to the fact one, these people are destructive legislatively. Two, the party wastes too much time trying to cater to these people. Third, the cconservative message gets watered down and looks too inconsistent when we're always trying to bend over backwards for some RINO who we're never going to agree with.
All of this is to say that the voters are looking for a new message they can rally behind -- a consistent conservative message on both fiscal and social issues. That won't ever come when one is worrying about pleasing the Arlen Specters of the world.
Case in point -- the 8 Republicans who on Friday voted in favor of the cap-and-tax bill are RINO's. No ifs, ands or buts about it. There is absolutely nothing consistent about being a Republican and voting for that bill. These people can absolutely be blamed for the passage of this bill, and in our view, should be treated just like Democrats -- meaning every single last one of them should draw a primary, because they are for all intents and purposes absolutely useless.
Here in Kansas, the same could be told for several members of the Johnson County delegation. The fact is, out of the 16 Republicans who we send to Topeka, up to six of them are never reliable for a vote on anything remotely conservative. As we covered earlier this year, it is these "moderates" that gave the state of Kansas yet another terrible budget despite all the economic signs pointing to the fact that more needed to be done.
One would think that such a dismal fiscal situation for the state would mean a "moderate" would actually moderATE and move away from the liberal spend-spend-spend dogma and vote conservative for once. But, see, as we said earlier -- they aren't moderates and they're not Republicans -- they're liberals, in almost every case.
Now, does this mean that there should be some litmus test on every issue? No. We favor a big tent here at Kaw & Border, but to us a Big Tent means tolerance for a different view on one or two issues. It does not mean being so big that a completely different political philosophy should be welcomed.
What we're advocating here is that conservatives and the Republican Party in general, particularly in this current state where Obama and company are driving every bad piece of legislation down our throats, recruit authentic conservative candidates who are committed to the party's principles. That doesn't mean they have to agree on every issue, but it does mean they hold a similar core philosophy.
Politically speaking, this means saying NO to RINO's. Not no to moderates -- but no to RINOs. This means, in primaries, recruiting conservative candidates against any RINO. Will everyone win? No. But as Newt Gingrich said the other day, a Rising Tide only can occur with enough boats in the water. Simply put, conservatives need to find boats in the water, and if they give them these candidates the support they need.
This all gets back to a fundamental point that too often, those who simply are involved in politics FOR the politics forget -- and that is that it's not just about wins and losses or about having an R or a D by your name. If the Republican Party is going to be successful, it can longer simply be a label for a candidate that vaguely means something to the right of the Democrats. The term "Republican" must mean something -- a set of core principles and values for which its candidates and officers will stive to uphold.
If conservatives and real Republicans do this, they will no longer be dependent upon the public's negative reaction to a Democratic line of mistakes -- but also proactive in giving the voting public something to vote for and be excited about. This will not only help Republicans get elected and stay elected, it will mean great things for the future of the state of Kansas and the nation as a whole.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Some Contrarian Thoughts on SM Park Deer Situation
Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam
Where the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day
Apparently, those famous lyrics from the Kansas State Song, "Home on the Range", no longer apply to Johnson County. Here, the deer will no longer play but instead be shot, the only thing roaming will be dozens of bulldozers building the next lifestyle center, and the only thing seldom heard will be the uninterrupted sounds of nature.
What brings us to this dripping sarcasm? The recent decision by the Johnson County Parks Board to have a "harvest" of deer in Shawnee Mission Park. The decision is to spend tens of thousands of dollars on training park police officers to sharpshoot deer. This isn't a small deal either -- they aim to reduce the amount of deer from 200 per square mile to 50 per square mile. So, you're talking about reducing the population by 3/4 in a public park.
There are many impassioned views on this subject, including those who are absolutely opposed to the hunt and those who are in favor of it. Neither side has the full array of facts on their side, in our view, but we at Kaw & Border do not believe the decision by the Board was a wise one for a host of reasons, including a failure to acknowledge how the county got to this situation in the first place, as well as the precedents set by allowing a hunt in a public suburban park.
First of all, we disagree that this is the wisest decision fiscally. Assuming for a second that there is indeed a huge deer problem at the park, and that hunting them down is the only option, is spending a bunch of money to train sharpshooters the best option, when the park could have charged trained/licensed hunters say, $100 a person, and actually made money? It seems that the parks board tried to split the baby between those who wanted a hunt and were crying the loudest for it and those who were concerned about safety, and now have a "solution" that really doesn't make much sense.
Second of all, is this really that big of problem to require such a drastic solution as a hunt in a public suburban park, previously thought to be free from hunting -- a "solution" which has - -and will continue to -- raise the emotions of thousands of Johnson Countians who are opposed to it because of the very real and understandable principle that hunting should not occur in a suburban park meant for recreation? Is there truly a public outcry for this, or are we making a decision based on a few loud complaints who are demanding a hunt? Is someone who chose to buy a home next to a large public park -- which has always had deer and will still have deer even after this hunt -- seriously credible when they are complaining about deer in their backyard? We've heard of NIMBYs, but that is taking it to the extreme.
Related to that point, did the county take a county-wide scentific poll to see what the public's overall view of the situation is? Making a decision based on a few dozen people showing up at a parks board hearing and a few passionate e-mails and calls seems to be caving into a mob mentality, no matter which side the mob comes from. This county is approaching 600,000 residents. A scentific survey of its residents -- all of whom pay for the park through tax dollars -- may have been warranted. Even if one assumes the problem is as dire as some make it out to be -- perhaps some scentific surveys could have beeon done as to the solution. Detailed questions could have been asked about whether the public feels there is a problem, how severe it is, and if there is, the proper method of dealing with it -- including the options of a sharpshooter hunt as has been enacted, a paid hunt through licensed hunters, or a relocation program. The questions would lay out the costs of each, and perhaps even inquire about the public's willingness to pay for a relocation program. They could even out lay out questions about how we got here in the first place -- such as "is the county developing too fast?" It would be interesting to know the results, and also important given the sensitivity of this issue, the long path it took to even get to this situation, and the long term solution it will take to ensure it won't happen again. Given that it is a LARGE PUBLIC PARK, which many people understandably value, it seems there would never be a better time for a public poll than now.
Third of all, on that very point, again assuming that this problem is as severe as they say it is, if the county was going to spend money, perhaps it should have explored a more humane solution than a hunt. Perhaps a relocation program, spread out over several years, to spread out the cost? This is a problem that took several years if not decades in occuring, perhaps it should take more than a couple years to solve it. Heck, we've now spent well over a year talking about the problem, perhaps the solution doesn't need to occur overnight either. If safety on Renner Road near 79th is an issue, why not simply reduce the speed to 30 mph for a while? That section of Renner is just to the north of where Lenexa has installed five roundabouts anyway, so the speed has been reduced already. Also, it's not as if deer are dying by the dozens here -- or as if there are massive public protests. Now, some will say -- the taxpayers shouldn't be paying for this and a relocation program is quite expensive. We'd like to see the reasons why -- but we see do the point about taxpayer dollars, being a blog that stands up for fiscal responsibility. Point is, we can take a step back and look at a better solution that addresses the problem while also not resorting to the drastic step of a hunt.
However, here is a contrarian thought: This is a public park with a problem brought on by publicly elected councils making poor decisions in terms of county development. So, whether we like it or not, if we believe in the notion of public parks as a county, then we have to be prepared to deal with any problem that arise from poor planning and that include spending money.
However, with more than half a million residents in this county, some of them quite wealthy, perhaps some of costs associated with a relocation program could have offset through the creation of a non profit entity that would raise money to relocate the deer. There are surely thousands of people opposed to the hunt and they could help fund the relocation program. Even those not absolutely opposed to the hunt might favor a relocation program, but the opposition seems to be cost-related. If these funds could have been raised in large part through private financing, then why not?
Fourth, and this gets to our main point -- the one thing we are not hearing in ANY of these discussions over the deer problem is perhaps the most important thing for county officials to know -- and that is a history lesson. How did we get here in the first place? Did the county overdevelop?
Let's assume for a moment the problem is as severe as they say it is -- that the number of deer in the park is unacceptable. Okay, fine. Let's deal with some other facts as well.
First is that this problem did not occur overnight. This is a problem brought on by years of poor planning and the lack of attention by the parks board, county officials, city officials, and developers who only care about making a buck.
Shawnee Mission Park has been there for decades, dating back to 1964 when it was developed. In 1964, Johnson County was a much smaller place. Yet, as the county has grown in size, and the population has creeped westward and southward, there has been amazingly little discussion about one, whether the park is sufficient to deal with a county whose population could eventually reached 750,000. Also, there was a stunning lack of discussion -- at least publicly -- about any potential problems that would stem from wildlife -- mainly deer -- essentially being forced to live in the park only, therefore gradually, over time, squeezing a large herd of deer -- previously spread out over several square miles -- into the one undeveloped area of land -- the park.
Rather than using any notion of a long term vision of overall county planning, which includes adequate park land to deal with the desires and needs of a citizenry, as well as the animals in the park, city and county officials instead did nothing, and have been in the pocket of developers who have gradually, over time, tried to develop every open green space available, whether the demand was there or not.
The most shining example of this -- with a direct impact on the deer problem -- is the "Blight in Lenexa" that this blog addressed back in April. About 20 years ago, long before this deer situation was on anyone's radar, the city of Lenexa decided they wanted to make Renner Road the next College Boulevard. So, they set aside enough land for 4.5 million acres of development for a city that at the time, only had about 35,000 people -- and still only has 43,000. The result, over time, through bulldozing and such, was the reduction of prime deer habitat. It used to be that a drive down Renner Road at the appropriate times would yield a few deer sightings between 87th and 95th streets, particularly along the wooded areas around 91st and Renner.
Now, rather than a few more acres of deer habitat, at 91st and Renner sits a half-built fitness center, now up for sale because it ran out of money, which stands as a fortress to failure -- failure to recognize that the demand isn't and may never be there for the vast development Lenexa envisions -- and a failure to any lack of REAL planning -- and no, not just planning that involved pretty designs from developers of massive retail complexes, but planning which took into account the needs of a growing population, the squeezing of deer habitat, and the possible problems that could arise from that.
Further point on the long term planning. These same surveys that show that there are 200 deer per square mile in and around the park -- could have likely shown a similar problem 5, 10, 15 years ago. It may not have been as severe, but the trend surely would have been there. Why not alert us to the problem then? It doesn't take a genius to realize this problem would get worse over time.
If the problem had been made known to the public, say, 10 years ago -- the county could have instituted a long term solution -- such as the establishment of a fund to help pay for a relocation program when the time came. As we stated earlier in this post, one benefit of being in a large, wealthy county is that there is a lot of money available for extra-curricular causes. One only need look at the many mega churches, expensive high end shopping centers, and neighborhoods of half million dollar homes to see that there is money available.
But, because the county didn't do that -- or didn't alert the public to it -- the public stayed ignorant. So now, several years later, in 2009, rather than having a ready-made long-term solution to a long term problem, our unelected parks board has come up with a poorly-planned, short term band-aid which doesn't address how we got here, and now establishes a precedent that hunting is okay in a public suburban park like Shawnee Mission Park.
Let's be clear here -- we are not opposed to hunting here at Kaw & Border. However, there is a big difference between a private landowner allowing hunting on his property and Johnson County, a large suburb, allowing hunting in a public recreational park mainly known for swimming, picnics, dog parks, and concerts. Let's keep in mind -- this will involve, for safety issues, the CLOSING of a public park for HUNTING. That may sound too "soft and fuzzy" type "Bambi talk" for some readers of this blog, but we don't live in rural Kansas or rural Missouri -- we live in a suburb and as such, the standards are and should be different.
To sum up, here are our thoughts:
1. We acknowledge there is a problem with the deer population at Shawnee Mission Park. We, however, do not feel that there is necessairly a need to reduce the herd as severely as they say.
2. Make no mistake, resorting to hunting in a public, suburban park is a DRASTIC step. Even if one is for a hunt of some kind, one should also acknowledge that this is a rather unusual step for a big suburb to take -- and perhaps look at the precedent it sets. Is this a one time thing or something we're going to do every 5 years?
3. Because it is so drastic, we should spend some time looking at how we got here in the first place -- overdevelopment, whether there is enough park land to match the current and future population of the county, failure to address this deer situation which began several years ago -- and perhaps learn from some of these lessons and adjust for the future.
4. We do not believe, as a matter of principle, that hunting should be allowed in a public suburban park. As we said earlier, this may raise the ire of those who think this stance is too bleeding heart, but we feel that the realities of a suburban community are different than those of a rural one. We are not opposed to hunting -- but we are in this particular instance.
5. We believe a detailed public survey would have been warranted -- which would have asked questions not only about the current situation, but everything surrounding it -- including whether Johnson County is overdeveloping and whether the park planning is sufficient, and even seeing how much sentiment there would be for a relocation program largely funded privately through donations.
6. We believe that a well-planned long term relocation program would have been the answer. Ideally, fundraising for this should have began several years ago (when the problem started to occur) to offset the cost, which we acknowledge is significant. However, we would have been okay with some public dollars being spent to address the critical parts of the herd now -- perhaps reducing it by 50 per square mile rather than 150 -- and then at the same time, establish a long term fundraising organization for a long-term relocation program to thin down the herd more.
7. We believe that the citizens of this county should pay more attention to the local boards who are in the pockets of developers who have no goal other than to build stuff. Building stuff is not a plan. "Lifestyle" centers do not make a community. A comprehensive plan does, something the public has signficant input in. More citizen participation in local elections and in local politics would help prevent these problems from happening.
In closing, we'll say this. The authors of this blog and family have been residents of Johnson County since the 1970's, so we take great interest in this issue, even though it's not as sexy as state and national politics. During these past 30 years, we have seen this county grow from the relatively small suburb with tons of room to the massive economic and development engine that it is, increasingly swallowed up by a shopping center here, a fancy new "smart corridor" there. Make no mistake, this is not all bad -- and we are, in general, proud of the progress and growth of Johnson County.
At the same time, however, we are increasingly concerned about the lack of leadership and planning. There is something to the notion of excessive suburban sprawl, and while we are not opposed to growth, we also believe that effective, balanced planning that takes into account all factors involved in a growing suburb is warranted, rather than the build-first, deal-with-consequences-later mentality our leaders seem to be employing.
This mentality is revealing itself in very public ways - we first saw the consequences of this with the God-awful City Center planning that has resulted in Lenexa becoming the joke of the metro area with it's half built blighted bulidings and ridiculous roundabouts. Now we have this problem at Shawnee Mission Park with deer, a problem that resulted from a stunning lack of attention over the past two decades, and had resulted in a drastic action that offends many while not addressing the real problems that caused it.
Unless attitudes are adjusted and current local leaders replaced, this type of problem will be the long term reality of our county.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
