Archive for February, 2010

CPAC 2010: A Recap

Tuesday, February 23rd, 2010

This year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), ended this past Saturday with a key note address by Fox News host Glenn Beck. Beck’s speech closed out what many call the “Conservative Woodstock”; three days of Conservative strategizing and speech-making. This year was no different.

Day one of the conference began with speeches by U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-SC) and hopeful Florida Senator Marco Rubio (R). Both men received resounding applause by the thousands of attendees in the audience. Rubio in particular, who many view as the future of the GOP, delivered a passionate address extolling his beliefs in the American dream, limited government, and the necessity of a free society.

CPAC’s opening day also saw two major surprise visits: one by Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) who was introduced by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and later former Vice President Dick Cheney, introduced by his daughter, Liz Cheney. Other headliners throughout the three-day conference included Rep. John Boehner (R-OH), Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), Newt Gingrich and former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft.

The conference this year also had its fair share of confrontations and interesting appearances. One of the most noteworthy was the hotel-lobby showdown between new media mogul Andrew Breitbart and liberal investigative journalist Max Blumenthal. The whole thing was, of course, caught on camera and went viral in a matter of minutes.

Also interesting was a speech in which Students for Liberty Executive Director Alex McCobin was tepidly booed for commending CPAC organizers for allowing GOProud, a gay Republican group to co-sponsor the event. McCobin summarized that “freedom is a single concept that we must defend at all times,” and that most students are socially tolerant while fiscally responsible. The majority of the crowd applauded and cheered in support.

However, later that same day, Conservative activist Ryan Sorba was roundly booed and forced to leave the stage after he denounced homosexuality as immoral. He even went so far as to respond to protests in the audience by saying “The lesbians at Smith College protest better than you do. Bring it.” Let’s just say McCobin was left with far more respectability than Sorba.

But while CPAC 2010 stood out for its underlying feel of Conservative resurgence and optimism (and of course, hope and change!), there was a definite inner struggle on display between the Libertarian presence and the traditional GOP. Although the divide has almost always been present within the Republican Party, the Tea Party movement and Ron Paul enthusiasm have only exacerbated it. And this year, it showed.

This year, Libertarian groups like Students for Liberty, Campaign for Liberty, and Ladies of Liberty Alliance and other Ron Paul supporters made their presence known. In fact, it would be fair to say that CPAC attendees could be divided into two distinct groups: the group that stood in line for hours to get an autographed copy of Anne Coulter’s latest book, and the group that stood in line for hours to see Glenn Beck.

Anne Coulter’s group also cheered and chanted “Cheney ’12!” when the former VP made his surprise appearance, while the Beck group shouted the same thing for Ron Paul. But the division was not necessarily a friendly one.

After Ron Paul won the straw poll by a landslide, many accused Paul supporters of stuffing or manipulating the ballot box. The D.C.-based Politico even reported that a conference worker “rushed over to reporters after the announcement to make sure they had heard the unmistakable boos when the screen first showed Paul had won the straw poll.”

Nor were many Conservatives pleased with Glenn Beck’s concluding address, in which he compared the current state of Washington to a morning hangover. And according to Beck, the Republicans contributed to the mess just as much as the Democrats.

Beck even went so far as to liken the Republican Party to an addict that has yet to begin the road to recovery: “The first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem,” said Beck. “I have not heard people in the Republican Party admit they have a problem and when I did hear them say they have a problem, I don’t know if I believed them.”

Ironic as it is however, Beck was extremely well-received. Rumors of protests proved to be unfounded and the boos were minimal at best- a far cry from the heckles Ron Paul was met with.

Yet the ideological division at CPAC should have been expected. In the wake of the Tea Party movement and strong losses in 2006 and 2008, the GOP has been undergoing some major soul searching; CPAC only shows that the searching continues.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Posted in The Homepage Feature, Uncategorized | No Comments »

The Tea Party Movement Has a Choice: Reasonable or Radical?

Wednesday, February 17th, 2010

In a recent op-ed in the Washington Post, E.J. Dionne posited the question, “So what exactly is the Tea Party movement and why has it risen up?” Disregarding the fact that Dionne is a little behind the rest of the country in asking that question, his answer is the same misguided response that many have come to expect from the left.

His argument is as follows: President Obama has really been a more moderate president; therefore the Tea Partiers can’t really be angry at his “socialist” policies. So, the movement is motivated by racism and radical anti-statism that blindly holds onto principle rather than facts.

While it is true that Obama hasn’t gone far enough to satisfy his far-left supporters, he has still supported and enacted policies that anger a lot of Americans. He supported the bailouts and the stimulus, took over General Motors, tried to push through what began as a very radical government takeover of the healthcare industry, and wants to raise taxes on wealthy. Not to mention the increase in federal spending and the out-of-control debt.

The passionate tea partiers however, do recognize that these policies began during the Bush administration. But they have also been carried on by Obama. That’s not the kind of change a lot of Americans were hoping for.

In light of that, a movement or uprising like the one seen today was inevitable, regardless of who is commander-in-chief. The Tea Party Movement is not a direct result of the man who currently holds the presidency, but of years and years of harmful and anti free-market policies. Obama’s election did not cause the movement; it just ensured its beginning. Thus, the liberal argument that the tea parties can be dismissed because they are only fueled by racial hatred is wrongfully dismissive and a sign of evasion.

Dionne’s second answer- that the movement is motivated by anti-statism that is a “profound mistrust of power in Washington”- is more accurate. But his reasoning is still misguided.

Dionne writes that “This suspicion of government is not amenable to “facts” — not because it is irrational, but because the facts are beside the point. For the anti-statists, opposing government power is a matter of principle.” Yes, standing up for limited government is a matter of principle, but it is not a position devoid of any facts.

On the contrary, people believe in limited government precisely because the facts of history say a limited government leads to a more prosperous nation. Furthermore, it is a fact that the Founding Fathers- federalists and anti-federalists alike- were all advocates of limited government.

The Tea Partiers are not blind to the facts; they understand better than most that ideas have consequences. Lack of economic freedom will weaken the economy, bailouts reward irresponsible behavior that will inevitably persist, and increased spending will eventually mean higher taxes.

However, amidst all the accusations and denunciations from the left, there is unfortunately, a glimmer of truth. Most recently, the Tea Party invited criticism by giving WorldNetDaily editor Joseph Farah a podium at their convention in Nashville, TN, to demagogue about Obama’s alleged lack of citizenship.  Then, they responded with resounding applause when former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO) said that Obama voters could not even spell the word “vote,” much less say it in English.

The Tea Party needs to stop making it so easy for the left and the media to criticize and denounce a movement that had very legitimate beginnings. To do that, tea partiers will need to do some serious soul-searching and determine whether they are a voice for Americans concerned about the deficit, or for Americans concerned about whether Obama was born in the U.S. The latter position will only confirm the characterizations of writers like Dionne, who say the movement is made up of racist, radical ideologues.

There’s still time to course-correct for the Tea Party movement. But for now, it looks as though it may be ill-fated to become what Reason Magazine’s Brian Doherty calls “personality cult anti-Democratic party populism.”

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Posted in The Homepage Feature, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Calling Out Supreme Court Critics

Monday, February 8th, 2010

The national media, it seems, is still fuming over the recent Supreme Court ruling in FEC v. Citizens United. Writing in last week’s Washington Post, E.J. Dionne said, “The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.”

So what precedents is Dionne referring to? Those would be Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. FEC. Both addressed corporate spending in elections, and both upheld restrictions that limited said spending in support of or against any specific candidate.

The 1990 Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case came about when the Chamber of Commerce wanted to sponsor a newspaper advertisement that supported a candidate for state office. They argued that because the chamber was technically a “non-profit ideological corporation,” it should be exempt from any restrictions.

When the case made its way to the Supreme Court however, the restrictions were maintained. In his majority opinion, Justice Thurgood Marshall found that in practice, the Chamber of Commerce more resembled a business than a political organization, and thus was bound to state campaign finance laws.

The second precedent, McConnell v. FEC, was a 2002 suit challenging the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, otherwise known as McCain-Feingold. Like the Michigan case 12 years earlier, the Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, specifically the portion that prohibited corporate spending during elections.

The decisions in these two precedents are now, for the most part, void; something that Dionne and his progressive colleagues mourn. This is where the hypocrisy comes in. Would Dionne be singing the same tune if media corporations and newspapers like his own Washington Post were subject to the same standards and restrictions that bound other corporations?

In each Supreme Court ruling and McCain-Feingold, media corporations were exempt from any restrictions; a fact Dionne manages to leave out of his scathing criticism. If he had been asked about free speech during the 2008 election, Dionne would surely have touted its importance, while the Post and numerous other outlets championed candidate Barack Obama.

What’s even worse, however, is the fact that outrage over the Supreme Court decision has now transferred into voracious attacks on Justice Samuel Alito, who vividly displayed his disagreement when President Obama said the court “reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.”

Of Alito’s reaction, Dionne says that “His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.” Judicial activist? Since when does adhering to the part of the First Amendment that says “Congress shall make no law…” warrant the label of judicial activist? But even more than that- Alito was right! Obama’s statement on foreign corporation is provably false.

Moreover, Dionne and others like him seem to think that the decision in Citizens v. FEC is wrong simply because it went against precedent. Should all cases then be decided a certain way simply for the sake of sticking to precedent? If that were the case in 1954, then the Supreme Court never would have ruled in Brown v Board of Education that desegregated schools were wrong.

They would have ruled based on the fact that in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson, the highest court in the land decided that segregation in public places was constitutional. From then on, the doctrine of “separate but equal” reigned supreme. That is, until the same court later reversed it- and courageously so.

The First Amendment is as clear cut as they come; there’s no room for misinterpretation. Free speech is free speech, no matter where it comes from. But if corporate spending in elections is such a big problem, then John Stossel has an easy solution: “There is a simple way to get corporate money out of politics: get the government out of our lives and economic affairs. If government has no favors to sell, no one will spend money trying to win them.”

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Posted in Exclusives | No Comments »

President Obama the Scold

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Posted in Wire Featured | No Comments »

A New Wave of Conservative Female Candidates: Starting in the 1st District in Arkansas

Monday, February 8th, 2010

Following the recent announcement from Democratic Congressman Marion Berry (AR-1) that he would not be seeking re-election in 2010, the Facebook world was aflutter with groups and posts encouraging conservative, Princella Smith to run for Congress in her hometown district; “Run Princella Run!” echoed on Facebook and through the Twittersphere.

Since American Maggie is interested in soliciting and providing a platform for fresh women voices within the Republican Party, I attended a reception hosted by the DC Young Republicans to hear a bit more about Smith’s candidacy.  The event was a mix of DC Young Republicans, Smith’s former co-workers, newcomers who wanted to learn more about her, and other conservative activists based in Washington, D.C.

Below is an exclusive interview with Smith before she starts her grueling daily schedule that now includes exploring a run for U.S. Congress in Arkansas’ First District.

Why are you considering running for Congress?

I am considering running for Congress because at this point in American and Arkansas history, we need a Representative who will go to Congress and fight on behalf of the people. We need to build a more robust economy and educational system. That sounds cliched and something that a lot of candidates say, but with Arkansas having a 7.7 percent unemployment rate, we need someone focused on bringing jobs to Arkansas and the 1st Congressional District – particularly the Delta region where there is a higher percentage of blue collar, and lower income workers who have been laid off. We need to improve our public school systems so that people have more opportunity to advance from lives of poverty and struggle.  Right now, we are in a situation where too many people are roaming without jobs and no place to go. We need a Representative who won’t go to DC and forget the interests of the people in Arkansas’ 1st Congressional District.

Can you outline your platform and what issues your campaign will stress if you decide to run?

If I decide to run, I will focus largely on three issues: jobs, education, and health care. Currently, the unemployment rate is 7.7 percent in Arkansas.  We need to focus on passing legislation that is going to encourage banks to give loans to small businesses, and will encourage more entrepreneurs to build businesses and other entities to bring companies to first district. In Arkansas, the economy is largely tied to agriculture. Therefore, farmers are going to be essential to jobs and a successful economic recovery plan.

Recently, the House passed a Financial Regulatory Reform Bill which allows the Federal Reserve to set salaries for businesses at all levels. This means that it is possible for small local stores in Arkansas to have their salaries set by the Federal Reserve. Over 90% of people employed in Arkansas are employed by small businesses, therefore it is important to support legislation that promotes small business growth to help rebuild the economy.

Education – We’ve got to improve our educational system. I was fortunate to live in Wynne, Arkansas where we had a good school system, but 20 minutes down the road, schools are sub par. Students often moved into our school system in order to attend a better school; this is unacceptable. We need to focus on teaching these kids on a higher level to prepare them to be productive citizens in the work place. I also plan to focus on tech schools and universities; not everyone will go to a four year university, but we have tech schools that train people with certain trades and skill sets.

Healthcare – Arkansas was among the states that hated the health care bill the most.  We have a high number of veterans, a large elderly population, and lots of single parents; those people, in particular, need a good health care system. We need to pass comprehensive health care that will not burden small businesses with the employer mandate, and not cost the elderly by cutting Medicare and Medicaid. We need legislation that will allow our citizens to have the choice and freedom to determine which doctors they go to and what health care services they provide.

How do you anticipate combating the charges of being too young or too inexperienced for the job?

We have several so-called “older” and so-called “experienced” representatives in Congress right now who are doing a horrendous job. I understand there is some merit to wanting someone who has more experience, but when the qualifications for running for Congress were outlined, the age was 25 – not 55, not 60.  I am not considering running for Congress because I’m young, I’m not considering running because I’m female, I’m not considering running because I’m African American. I’m considering running for Congress because I know Washington isn’t listening to small town America.  We need a Representative who will fight for small town America and small town American values and a person that is not entrenched in being an incumbent and being set in their own ways. It is good for Arkansas to have fresh blood, someone with new ideas, with new solutions without having the baggage of doing things the way they have always been done. As I’ve been making calls around the District, I’ve been pleasantly surprised at the number of people who are decades older who are excited about me possibly jumping into this race. They want someone new and fresh, and are excited to see someone from a younger generation that cares about the country and its future.

Who in the Republican Party is your role model?

That’s really hard, they’re on different levels. Mike Huckabee and Win Rockefeller. Both of those men boosted and encouraged me to get involved in politics. By allowing me to intern and work on their campaigns, they were very instrumental in encouraging me that a young person could really make a difference. I remember being extremely impressed that they paid so much attention to me.  I wrote speeches for Lt. Governor Win Rockefeller and watched him read them verbatim; for a 17 year old, that is a big deal. Those two men boosted my confidence level and really inspired me. Additionally, they were very good at reaching out to everyone in the state – including minorities, young people; they weren’t just concerned with their so-called sector or base.

Mary Matalin, Ed and Cathy Gillespie and Newt Gingrich have been instrumental in encouraging me on the national level as an advocate for young people and for understanding policy.

You previously worked for Newt Gingrich as his National Spokesperson. ?As a self-identified conservative Republican, did you support his endorsement of Dede Scozzafavva in the controversial NY-23 Special Election in 2009?

I totally understand what he was doing, I didn’t necessarily agree with it. What Speaker Gingrich was doing by endorsing Ms. Scozzafavva was assuring people that she would vote for John Boehner for Speaker. At that point, she was the individual the Republican Party in NY selected as their nominee. Newt Gingrich is a Republican; he has said he will always work to advance the Republican Party. And in that particular instance, he supported her because he thought we all needed to get on one team. At the end of the day, that is one more vote against Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. This is not a knock on Doug Hoffman.

As a Republican Party, we have got to stop this litmus test. I am a conservative, I’ll always support the conservative in an election, but at the end of the day if we have to choose between someone who agrees with us 60 % of the time vs. someone who disagrees with us 90% of the time, I would choose to support the person who agrees with me 60% of the time.  Requiring someone to agree with you 100% of the time is not only unrealistic, it is illogical.

What do you believe will be the defining issue of our generation?

Two fold: culture war in America. I am a social conservative, and I believe that the culture war that our generation will face will be beyond the two issues of gay marriage and abortion. We’re in a battle for strong families – to have strong men who lead our families, to have strong women who are great mothers to our children and to encourage a belief in God and a Higher power. You can see with your own eyes there are those who want to take God out of everything. And as a result, that adversely affects the laws and decisions we make. That’s something we’re going to have to change in our culture, I’m not sure it can be legislated.

Economics – We have to ensure that America remains a very strong, capitalist nation. We need to encourage incentives, innovation, and creativity – which have always been at the heart of the American culture. We need to encourage people to do the best at their jobs and take advantage of best jobs here. This goes hand in hand with freedom.

Please share your brief thoughts on each of the Republican leaders:

Sarah Palin – Courageous.

Michael Steele – Bold.  Unapologetic.

Is he good or bad for the Party? He is good for the Republican Party. We need people in our Party who tell the truth. I don’t agree with everything he’s done, and he has surely made mistakes. He is absolutely brilliant, when he measures his words.  And when he harnesses that energy and points it toward a certain political race and political issue, he is very effective.

Bob McDonnell – Hero and a true American. He is a nontraditional politician who really is the American dream of a Statesman. He served in military, grew up in the state which he now represents, and fought the bad guys as Attorney General. I have tremendous admiration for him and his wife Maureen.

Scott Brown – Game changer!

What do you do for fun?

I love being outside. I love running on trails in Arkansas, love to read, love watching and playing sports, particularly basketball.  And I love to eat!

******

Elise M. Stefanik is President and Founder of American Maggie.  She previously served in the Bush Administration’s Office of the Chief of Staff.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Exclusives | No Comments »