Redstate - Conservative News and Community |  |
- Open Thread: Kimmel on plastic bag ban
- Concern Trolling the Democrats #EERS
- Law of Sea Treaty A Back Door For Cap And Trade
- Daily Links – May 30, 2012
- GOP Supporters of Increased Revenue are Motivated by Support for Big Government
- In Artur Davis And Erskine Bowles The Democrats Lose Two Serious People
- “I’m Moderate David Dewhurst, and I Approve this Message”
- Silvestre Reyes (D, TX-16) defeated in primary.
- Jay Cost Talks Spoiled Rotten
- The Extraordinary Nature of the Texas Runoff
- Choose Your Path
- Time to do What We Can For Ted Cruz
- Morning Briefing for May 30, 2012
- Let’s tax wealthy foundations the same way we tax wealthy individuals
- The Texas Results Open Thread.
| Open Thread: Kimmel on plastic bag ban Posted: 30 May 2012 04:00 PM PDT In the above clip, late night host Jimmy Kimmel makes fun of one of the more ridiculous examples of nanny-statism in recent memory. Leave it to California to come up with these kinds of shenanigans. Consider this an Open Thread. |
| Concern Trolling the Democrats #EERS Posted: 30 May 2012 03:00 PM PDT Democrats frequently “concern troll” the Republican Party. The GOP cannot win in New England. It has drifted too far to the right. The GOP is purging moderates. Etc. Etc. Etc. They act as if they care and in fact are delighted by what they interpret as the decline and fall of the GOP. Meanwhile, more Democrats are leaving the Donks headed over to the GOP. They are losing the rust belt, Appalachia, and the South. Their gains in the west are not offset by their losses elsewhere. Blue collar Catholics are leaving. Tonight, I’ll spend some time concern trolling the Democrats. You can listen live tonight on the WSB live stream and call in at 1-800-WSB-TALK. The show is from 6pm to 8pm ET. Consider this an open thread. |
| Law of Sea Treaty A Back Door For Cap And Trade Posted: 30 May 2012 02:00 PM PDT Conn Carroll had an excellent piece at the Washington Examiner yesterday titled “Obama’s Lame Duck Plan To Pass Cap And Trade.” Carroll makes the case that Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) may use the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) as a back door to implement cap and trade regulations on United States citizens. Mike Brownfield of The Heritage Foundation (my employer) wrote a short history of LOST the day before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last Wednesday.
Carroll opines that the treaty may not be necessary. It may prove to be a back door means by which supporters of Global Warming regulations can have a United Nations sanctioned body impose binding regulations on the United States.
If one needs another reason to distrust any organ of the United Nations, one need to look no further than the recent story from the New York Post titled “U.N. endorses Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe as tourism leader.” Who is Robert Mugabe?
United Nation’s sanctioned bodies have a long record of atrocious judgement in general and anti-Americanism in particular. How can anyone expect the international bodies created under LOST to do any better? Furthermore, Steve Groves at Heritage worries that LOST would expose the U.S. to baseless Climate Change lawsuits. |
| Posted: 30 May 2012 01:00 PM PDT
Republicans, Democrats agree: No one cares about Obama's to-do list | Hot Air At Kimberlin Hearing: Walker Handcuffed, 1st Amendment Muzzled | IBD Never-Before-Seen Interview With The Late Andrew Breitbart | Mediaite NLRB Flouts D.C. Circuit Law | Workforce Fairness Institute
|
| GOP Supporters of Increased Revenue are Motivated by Support for Big Government Posted: 30 May 2012 11:57 AM PDT It's another week in Washington, and another story is out containing a plethora of quotes from Republicans who are willing to "put revenues on the table." Here are some quotes from today's article in Politico:
What a heartburn! With the exception of Susan Collins, these senators are considered to be members in good standing within the Republican conference.
Lindsey Graham wants to know how you pay off the deficit without using the tax code to raise some revenue? It's comments like this that reveal just how little many Republicans in the Senate have in common with conservatives. It's not about the deficit; it's about the size of government and its deleterious effects on our freedom and prosperity. The EPA, for example, only eats up about $8.5 billion a year, a paltry sum relative to other major expenditures. We will not balance the budget by eliminating the EPA alone. However, that $8.5 billion in direct taxpayer support is used to promulgate laws and regulations that remove hundreds of billions from taxpayers in the form of lower wages, costlier products, and market distortions. These government agencies, programs, and mandates also destroy hundreds of thousands of jobs. The same thing applies to the NLRB and many agencies within the Department of Energy and Interior Nonetheless, if we eliminated all of the harmful and unconstitutional discretionary agencies and programs while enacting free market entitlement reform, the budget would balance. A number of proposals have been offered to balance the budget within 5-10 years, most recently, the Lee and Paul budget plans. In fact, they balanced the budget alongside pro-growth tax reform. Yet, Lindsey Graham is correct in his assertion that we can't balance the budget without raising revenue – if the budget reflects his governing philosophy. Obviously, Graham is a strong believer in the current structure of government. That's why he (and the others mentioned above) voted against the Lee and Paul budgets. Yes, we will never balance the budget without raising revenue, if we desire to maintain the welfare and nanny-state. Then again, the ultimate desideratum of conservatism is not to balance the budget; it is to restore government to its constitutional size. The balanced budgets will naturally follow such reform. The debate within the party is not reflective of a divergence in opinion over tax policy. It ultimately boils down to the role of government. We believe that government needs to be fundamentally downsized. By extension, we oppose any new revenue because the current level of revenue is sufficient to sustain a constitutional government. Moreover, an increase in revenues will be used to fuel the growth of government. Many Republicans support the current structure of government. They merely desire to terminate "waste, fraud, and abuse." It's no surprise that they are enticed into the "balanced approach" in order to balance a budget that reflects their view of government. Cross-posted from The Madison Project |
| In Artur Davis And Erskine Bowles The Democrats Lose Two Serious People Posted: 30 May 2012 08:30 AM PDT
I've been harshly critical of The “Democratic Wing” of The Democratic Party for organizing itself as a Visigoth Holiday that eats out the sustenance of the productive citizens of the American Republic. Fairness demands that I recognize that not *every* Democratic occupies a similar biological niche to the intestinal parasite. Some even manage to remain Democrats for several years despite their ability to think over long time horizons and address the insidious threats that seek to undermine American greatness while the rest of their fellow partisans demand government-sponsored birth control, education and cradle-to-grave health insurance. It is of more than passing interest that both Erskine Bowles and Artur Davis have chosen to disassociate themselves from the current Democratic Party Presidential Administration.
When Erskine Bowles flatly rejected the speculation that he could succeed Timothy Geithner as Secretary of The Treasury, the Democratic Brand took a hit. Bowles was the liberal partner in the Simpson-Bowles Coalition to reduce the long term national debt. This refusal marked a major blow to the credibility of a President who got elected in 2008 promising to cut the current account deficit in half during his first term. If anyone in The Democratic Party had the chops to seriously engage this project, Erskine Bowles was he. He would have been a major upgrade to President Obama's cabinet over Timothy "I don't have a plan, but I know I don't like yours" Geithner. The difference between Bowles and Geithner on current account spending is the difference in gravitas between a serious adult and a "Choom-Smoking" teenager. Appointing Bowles would have given President Obama's agenda greater respect than it currently enjoys. It is a telling sign that Mr. Bowles will not work for Mr. Obama. Artur Davis used to serve as a Democratic Congressman from The State of Alabama. He attempted to become Alabama's first African-American Governor, but suffered a colossal political humiliation in the 2010 Democratic Primary. He was beaten down hard by a political apparatchik who went on to a similar defeat at the hands of current Alabama Governor Bentley. To Davis' great credit, he seemed to both learn and grow up after taking a professional smack-down. He has since moved to Virginia to restart his career as a more moderate politician. He authors a thoughtful blog and sometimes guest posts at National Review.com. Some have suggested he run for Congress as a Republican.* Davis, who understands the rigors of the job, and may feel personal qualms about switching sides, hasn't reached a definitive decision. I encourage him to consider carefully and decide well however he chooses. He still has the potential to redeem his defeat and become a great statesman and leader. He describes the goal of his blog below.
So the Democrats won't have the service of two of the smartest and most capable people in their party. Bowles and Davis don't win every election they run in and sometimes stray off the reservation. The Daily Kos crew wouldn't miss them for a heartbeat. Either one of them would tell Julia to grow up and accept personal responsibility. Neither would accept the likes of Brett Kimberlin as a political operative. They would both probably want to raise my taxes and add power to the Federal Government. From my perspective, either man is a mixed bag in terms of politics and policy. What each of these men brought to DC was a serious commitment to doing good deeds and improving the nation. When the Democrats lose people of this caliber, they become the party of the purblind and the myopic. They become addicted to subsidies and short term fixes. They hand out favors instead of justice and seek to eat the seed corn at their Bacchanalian Revels. People like Bowles and Davis at least offer the Democrats some sense of vision. Absent leaders of this caliber, the Democrats are increasingly blind. It becomes more imperative to vote against having them lead our nation. * – Moe Lane even wants him to switch. |
| “I’m Moderate David Dewhurst, and I Approve this Message” Posted: 30 May 2012 08:00 AM PDT It’s game time for the conservative movement. With the Wisconsin recall fizzling out by the day, it appears that the runoff between Dewhurst and Cruz will be the most important battle for conservatives this year. We must not sit this one out! Last night Dewhurst won by just 10.4 points, despite enjoying a bigger lead in the polls throughout the entire duration of the campaign. He garnered 44.6% to Cruz’s 34.2%. There will be a runoff July 31, which gives us plenty of time to make up the margin. I noticed that many supporters and detractors of Cruz expressed their surprise over the fact that Dewhurst still won by 10 points. After all, they contended, if Cruz is such an attractive candidate, why didn’t he come out on top? How is he going to make up the margin in the runoff? There are a few points to consider. First, although Cruz is a household name among conservative activists, he was an unknown quantity to most voters, even Republican primary voters. That’s why he was polling in the single digits for a long time. Dewhurst, on the other hand, is the sitting Lt. Governor for a decade who has full name recognition and the backing of the entire establishment, not to mention Rick Perry. He has unlimited personal wealth to go up on the air and distort his record and the record of his opponent. Ted Cruz has made steady progress throughout the campaign, and last night’s results reflect that upward trajectory. The votes cast on election day itself split 41.4% for Dewhurst and 38.1% for Cruz. More importantly, we must remember that moderate Republicans never run as moderates anymore, at least not in the primaries. While it is patently obvious to those of us in the field that Cruz is a conservative star and that Dewhurst helped grow government in the Texas legislature, that is not necessarily the narrative that is communicated to the majority of voters. In fact, Dewhurst has used all his money to evince a conservative image while painting Cruz as a pro-amnesty China-loving pinko liberal! Fred Upton is doing the same in Michigan, as he sends out think mailers every week painting his conservative challenger as a tax and spend liberal.
I love how establishment pundits make snarky comments about our candidates whenever the moderate Republicans do well in elections. They view the results as a vindication of their belief that our “extreme” candidates cannot win at the ballot box. The problem is that these guys never run as moderates. Far from it, they actually attempt to outflank the conservative challenger on the right. I doubt that most of the voters who selected Dewhurst would tell you something like this: “You know what? We need more moderates like Dewhurst who will vote alongside Mitch McConnell.” In fact, Dewhurst rolled up some of his widest margins in some of the most conservative counties in the country. Unfortunately, Dewhurst will continue his campaign of deception throughout the next two months. He’ll have millions of dollars to spend on TV ads running to the right of Cruz. You’ll never hear an ad from him with the following disclaimer: “I’m David Dewhurst, moderate from Texas, and I’m running for Senate because we need more moderates who will stand with Mitch McConnell against extremists like Cruz and DeMint.” Candidates that have chosen that strategy, like Dick Lugar and Bob Bennett, lost in a landslide. Fortunately, Dewhurst’s TV ads are not enough to carry the day for him on July 31. In a low-turnout runoff election, everything hinges on the most dedicated, high-intensity voters. We can overcome Dewhurst’s inherent advantage by building a ground game second to none in an effort to turnout all the devoted Republican voters. There is no question that the use of "Gravity" in the field for Cruz was a serious asset, and it will play a larger role in the runoff. We all need to pitch in to help the Cruz campaign with the GOTV effort for the next two months. But he will still need more donations to help cut Dewhurst’s advantage over the airwaves. This election, especially in a state like Texas, is too important to lose. As Senator DeMint said last night, “a Republican majority is pointless if it isn’t achieved with conservatives who will fight to stop the spending and debt.” Let’s win one more for the Gipper! |
| Silvestre Reyes (D, TX-16) defeated in primary. Posted: 30 May 2012 07:30 AM PDT It was a bit of a surprise, yesterday: long-term Texas Democratic incumbent Silvestre Reyes was taken down in a primary yesterday. Early reports are crediting the Campaign for Primary Responsibility (CPA), an ostensibly non-partisan anti-incumbent group, for the upset. Fortunately, Reyes is frankly a loss neither to our side (long-notorious PMA porker) nor the Left’s (heavy-handed War on Some Drugs booster). And alas, but the district is pretty heavily Democratic, so the news just guts the Democrats of one more experienced politician when they’re going to need every one they can get their hands on next year. Yes. This is my sad face. Moe Lane (crosspost) PS: A look at the Campaign for Primary Accountability’s (CPA) donation habits are… interesting. For a group that’s supposedly against entrenched incumbents acting in lockstep with their party leadership, you’d think that they would have found people other than Dennis Kuchinich (D, entrenched incumbent), Debbie Halvorson (D, voted lockstep) and/or David McIntosh (R, running in a primary with no incumbent*) to give money to. *That’s important to note. Dan Burton dropped out of that primary in January 2012. CPA ran an ad for McIntosh in April or May of 2012. One wonders why they continued to drop money in that race; after all, mission accomplished, yes? Well, perhaps they couldn’t get a refund. |
| Posted: 30 May 2012 07:00 AM PDT Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Pejman Yousefzadeh and Kevin Holtsberry are joined by Jay Cost to discuss his book Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and now Threatens the American Republic, the history of the Democratic party’s patronage system, and the state of modern Democratic politics. We’re brought to you as always byStephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show. Related Links: Follow Pej on Twitter The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| The Extraordinary Nature of the Texas Runoff Posted: 30 May 2012 05:59 AM PDT It is hard to overstate just how extraordinary Ted Cruz’s underdog entry into the Texas runoff is and just how the odds are still stacked against him unless conservatives rally quickly with lots of money. David Dewhurst has been Lt. Governor of Texas for more than a decade. He has massive name ID throughout the state. Ted Cruz started this race with a three or four percent showing in polling. More so, Dewhurst is a multimillionaire who can write large sums of money to fund his campaign. Ted Cruz cannot. Texas has several of the most expensive media markets in the country and the state is too large to go door to door across the state. Dewhurst’s political team is Governor Rick Perry’s highly successful (in Texas) political team. I know a number of them and consider them friends. They are formidable. To the chagrin of Texas tea party activists, Governor Perry himself is backing Lt. Governor Dewhurst publicly. All the stars aligned for David Dewhurst — a deep well of money to draw from, high existing name id, statewide incumbency, support from the Governor and his winning political team. Still, the tea party rallied behind Ted Cruz and got him into a runoff. Now, the variables are largely the same. Ted Cruz must raise a ton of cash quickly to compete. He has eight weeks. Media will be ridiculously expensive. He will have some of the biggest guns in Texas firing in his direction. One thing Ted Cruz has that David Dewhurst does not is the backing of the conservative movement and tea party activists. David bested Goliath. Ted Cruz will need your help to best David Dewhurst. |
| Posted: 30 May 2012 05:31 AM PDT This morning I talked about my video that just came out last night and the pushback that it received. Seems some were none too pleased that my video was basically saying you need to vote for Romney in November. I also talk for a bit about Live Action’s undercover experience with Planned Parenthood and question what the problem is. Totally listen and stuff. Today’s show will also be broadcast on FTR Radio at 11 am. This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now |
| Time to do What We Can For Ted Cruz Posted: 30 May 2012 01:46 AM PDT David Dewhurst and Ted Cruz are in a runoff in Texas. Cruz has long odds in the runoff, given the margin of Dewhurst’s victory. But it is very doable. Conservatives across the country, however, must unite today. This race must be a national priority for each and every conservative. It is not enough to pray for Ted Cruz, though that helps tremendously. We must put our money where our mouths are. David Dewhurst is a multimillionaire who covets this Senate seat. He has an expert staff of consultants who know Texas very well and aim to win. Many of them are my friends. But as much as they want Dewhurst to win, I want Cruz to win. We must do what we can for Ted Cruz. Stand with Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, RedState, the Club For Growth, and so many others. Support Ted Cruz for the United States Senate. Send every spare penny you can muster to Ted Cruz this very moment. |
| Morning Briefing for May 30, 2012 Posted: 30 May 2012 01:45 AM PDT
the Morning Briefing every morning at no charge. 1. Time to do What We Can For Ted Cruz2. Tim Noah's Sad Parade3. Let's tax wealthy foundations the same way we tax wealthy individuals4. Sex Selection Abortion in America
1. Time to do What We Can For Ted CruzDavid Dewhurst and Ted Cruz are in a runoff in Texas. Cruz has long odds in the runoff, given the margin of Dewhurst's victory. But it is very doable. Conservatives across the country, however, must unite today. This race must be a national priority for each and every conservative. It is not enough to pray for Ted Cruz, though that helps tremendously. We must put our money where our mouths are. Please click here for the rest of the post. 2. Tim Noah's Sad ParadeThe publication of Jonah Goldberg's new book The Tyranny of Clichés has brought forth a number of responses from liberals and progressives, many of them either essentially proving Goldberg's point or entirely avoiding grappling with the book's substance. The latest entrant is Tim Noah, now writing with The New Republic, who seeks to offer a companion to Goldberg's collection of liberal clichés with his own "conservative clichés." It is clear from the column that Noah either (1) did not read the book, (2) completely missed its point, or (3) simply could not come up with counter-examples of the same type. Please click here for the rest of the post. 3. Let's tax wealthy foundations the same way we tax wealthy individualsDown with the 1%! End the social injustice of gross income inequality! Smash the unfair fruits of capitalist oppression, in which a wealthy few take care of well-connected allies, instead of circulating their money into the economy for the 99% to get to touch! It's time we started taxing wealthy foundations at the same rate we tax wealthy individuals. Gates. Ford. Getty. Kellogg. Hewlett and Packard. Moore. Mellon. Rockefeller. Soros. These are not just the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%. Great wealth in the hands of a few is undemocratic, whether it's directly by a person, or given over to these private corporations that serve as embodiments of boundless ego. Tax them to fund a truly charitable social safety net for all Americans. Please click here for the rest of the post. 4. Sex Selection Abortion in AmericaIn the wake of Chen Guangcheng arriving safely in the United States, after years of persecution in China for his anti-abortion activism, The House of Representatives will vote tomorrow on H.R. 3541 (also known as the Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act – PRENDA), a bill to ban sex-selection abortions in the United States. Although the US has strongly condemned China for their sex-selection abortion practices, only four states (AZ, OK, PA and IL) currently have laws banning the procedure. Sex-selection abortions have long been an issue around the globe, most notably in China and India, and studies show they are rampant in the US. A series of videos, the first of which was released by Live Action this morning, exposes the role Planned Parenthood plays in America's sex-selection abortion problem. The first video, shows a woman visiting a Planned Parenthood facility in South Austin, Texas. The woman, undercover for Live Action, spoke at length with a Planned Parenthood employee about how to proceed with an abortion should she find out that she is pregnant with a girl. The employee's instructions included how to use local OB/GYNs to find out the sex of the baby and how to defraud Medicaid to pay for all the costs associated. She also advised the woman that many "regular" doctors would not provide an ultrasound should she indicate her desire to abort, as sex determination is usually made 5 months into the pregnancy and pretty much everything (including the brain) is already developed. Please click here for the rest of the post. |
| Let’s tax wealthy foundations the same way we tax wealthy individuals Posted: 29 May 2012 05:00 PM PDT Down with the 1%! End the social injustice of gross income inequality! Smash the unfair fruits of capitalist oppression, in which a wealthy few take care of well-connected allies, instead of circulating their money into the economy for the 99% to get to touch! It’s time we started taxing wealthy foundations at the same rate we tax wealthy individuals. Gates. Ford. Getty. Kellogg. Hewlett and Packard. Moore. Mellon. Rockefeller. Soros. These are not just the 1%, but the 1% of the 1%. Great wealth in the hands of a few is undemocratic, whether it’s directly by a person, or given over to these private corporations that serve as embodiments of boundless ego. Tax them to fund a truly charitable social safety net for all Americans.
… No, I am not sounding like an Occupier. In fact, the Occupations aren’t making this argument at all. If they believed what they want you to believe, they should. But they don’t make this argument, because they don’t believe what they claim to. They’d never tax the Ford Foundation, the Foundation to Promote Open Society, or the like because these foundations are, with unions, the life blood of the organized, radicalized left in America. To tax these foundations would cut into their Community Organizer paychecks, so they’ll never even propose it. So why tax “the 1%?” It’s because it’s a tax. This was never about “the 1%” or “the 99%.” That’s merely convenient rhetoric to be used to push the idea of higher income taxes. Much higher taxation is necessary to create the large, powerful socialist state in the United States of America. They will try for it by any means necessary. Right now it’s high incomes. Assuming they got their way, they would then move on to Old Money. That 1%, the “idle rich,” would be the new target in the form of a consumption tax, whether a VAT (with a law prohibiting publishing prices without VAT, of course), or just a national sales tax. It’s all about growing taxation to grow the state. There is no ideological consistency beyond that to be sought. The Occupiers are a movement that believed the wrong side won the Cold War, and so they intend to create the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics here in America. Until they get that, they will not dare raise logically consistent proposals that would harm their ability to push that greater agenda. The 1% argument is a means to the end. It must be ignored whenever the greater agenda is threatened. Wealth inequality is not inherently bad, and even less so income inequality. Even the Occupiers admit this with their selective calls for taxation. They’re not trying to shatter concentrated wealth. They’re only trying to fund the program of a radical, socialist ideological movement. |
| The Texas Results Open Thread. Posted: 29 May 2012 04:45 PM PDT Polls closing at 8 PM: results here. |
Today is May 30th. On this date in 1431, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake. Her final words were “do you smell something burning?” Also on this date, in 1997, Neil Young cancelled his entire European tour after having cut his finger while making a ham sandwich. Young makes some very complicated sandwiches. On this date in 1908, the man behind the bunny, Mel Blanc, was born. After the cord was cut, Blanc looked at the doctor and said “gee, you know, I knew I should’a taken that left turn at Albuquerque!” Also born on this date, in 1913, was jazz musician Pee Wee Erwin. He died in June of 1981, and was survived by a talking chair and a genie in a box. And finally, today is “
| You are subscribed to email updates from RedState To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
No comments:
Post a Comment