If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.
~Ronald Reagan, July 1, 1975
Self-identified Tea Party groups are supporting primary candidates against Republican incumbents Senator Joe Kyrillos, Assemblywoman Amy Handlin, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, Monmouth Freeholder Director Tom Arnone, Freeholder Deputy Director Serena DiMaso and Monmouth Sheriff Shaun Golden.
Normally I’d say to the challengers nothing more than, “Hey it’s a free country so have at it,” but to call America a “free country” now is becoming more cliché than reality, isn’t it? Between Democrat Obama’s view that he has a right to kill American citizens without due process of law and Republican John Roberts ruling that I can be “taxed” on ObamaCare for not buying it, it is becoming increasingly hard to know who to trust in matters of American freedom.
When people ask me nowadays if I’d like to see a third party in politics, I tell them I’d settle for a second one. The Democrats and Republicans are becoming that much alike.
So let me start by saying to Tea Party folks that I understand your frustration. I too feel the need to have political ideology inform political judgment rather than concerns over electoral identity.
The problem, my friends, is the “Tea Party” was never intended to be a third political party, and the local folks in Monmouth County are treating it like it is. There seems to be a need to serve a full slate of candidates without regard to whether the Republican in question should be challenged, and that makes you look more election driven than ideology driven.Art Gallagher | Filed under: 13th Legislative District, Bayshore Tea Party Group | Tags: "Ronald Reagan", Amy Handlin, Declan O'Scanlon, Joe Kyrillos, Karl Rove, Republican, Serena DiMaso, Shaun Golden, Tea Party, Tom Arnone, Tommy DeSeno | 39 Comments »
Scott Rasmussen’s column, Respecting Voters Matters More Than Policy, is a must read for all political leaders. Republican leaders and activists should print two copies…one for the refrigerator door and one for the bathroom mirror. A third copy to use as a bookmark for the bedside Bible is not a bad idea.
The Republican Party has won a majority of the popular vote just once in the last six elections. That dismal track record followed a party revival in the 1980s, when Ronald Reagan led the GOP to three straight popular vote majorities.
To understand what went wrong, it’s important to remember Reagan was an insurgent candidate who defeated the Republican establishment of his era. When Reagan left office, however, the old establishment reasserted control. They consistently nominated candidates for president who opposed Reagan in 1980 and consistently lost elections.
The difference is that Ronald Reagan believed in the American people and was skeptical of government. Today’s Republican establishment believes in government and is skeptical of the American people. That’s why most Republican voters today believe the party is out of touch with the base.
Consider Mitt Romney’s infamous comments about the 47 percent who are allegedly dependent upon government. After the election, Romney even said that President Obama won by giving “gifts” to these dependent Americans. The Republican establishment grumbles about makers versus takers.
Reagan had a different view. He asked, “How can we love our country and not love our countrymen?” When he passed a major tax reform bill, he was proud that it removed millions of low-income Americans from the income tax rolls. Reagan looked at low-income Americans and saw people who wanted an opportunity to work hard and get ahead. He saw a nation that was happy to extend a helping hand to all who were willing to work.
Read the rest of Scott’s column here.
Posted: November 24th, 2012 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: Elections, Republican Party, Scott Rasmussen | Tags: "Ronald Reagan", Rasmussen Reports, Scott Rasmussen | 3 Comments »
“I voted for Obama in 2008, but I’m not going to vote for him this time.”
By Adam Geller
We’ve all heard someone utter this phrase, or something close to it by now. Whether we are in the business of politics, analyzing polls and focus groups, or having a more casual conversation about the political scene, this is a statement that seems to come up more often as we draw closer to Election Day 2012.
Now, to be fair, there are plenty of folks who are saying, “I voted for Obama in ’08, and I will vote for him again in ’12.” As long as we are being fair, let us also acknowledge the fact that we have yet to hear anyone state that they voted for McCain last time, but this time they will vote for Obama.
So, the pressing question is the extent to which previous Obama voters will, in fact change their mind. How many mind-changers are needed to make a difference, and swing the election away from Obama?
The answer is: not that many.
Rather than add to the body of analysis that already exists on a state-by-state basis, I want to simply concentrate on the popular vote. In sticking with an analysis of the popular vote, I make every assumption that much of the movement that I describe herein would take place in the battleground states with which we are all familiar.
Let’s start with a reasonable, conservative (small c) theory: let’s assume that no more than one-out-of-ten 2008 Obama voters actually do, in fact, change their minds and this time vote for the Republican. Now, some may say that the actual number may be higher than that, but for now, let’s stick with a smaller safer assumption. Let’s also assume, for now, that turnout matches 2008 turnout.
First, let’s go back and look at the actual popular vote results. Recall that in 2008, the vote tally was:admin | Filed under: 2012 Presidential Politics | Tags: "Ronald Reagan", Adam Geller, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Buyers Remorse, George H.W. Bush, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, John McCain, National Research Inc., Polls, Ross Perot | 18 Comments »
By Jim Morford, cross posted at InTheLobby
When I was a youngster and things weren’t going well in the economy, the Democrats would always claim, “It’s Hoover’s fault.” Republicans, on the other hand, blamed Democrats for “getting us into war” citing Wilson, Roosevelt (FDR) and Truman.
Today, things have changed. Democrats blame Bush for both the economy and for getting us into war.
But who really should bear the responsibility, if not the blame, for the problems facing our country today? To be sure, there is enough blame to be shared by both political parties for landing us in the deeply troubled economy that haunts us today. Politicians of all stripes and at all levels of government have, through fiscal irresponsibility, over taxed and over spent the public’s money. Truly, the blame can reach beyond politicians to include skillful labor unions who have negotiated benefits beyond the ability of governments and private sector employers to pay for them. Additionally, an apathetic public – perhaps the greatest cause of all our woes – has allowed corrupt politicians, avaricious businesses and organized labor to loot the public coffers.
Since the days of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, our country has been on a Fabian path to statisim. Some are surprised that the Obama Administration has accelerated the pace.
In his most recent book, The Next Decade, geopolitical analyst and founder of Stratfor George Friedman presents a provocative and insightful look into the next decade. It’s a book well worth reading, as he sees a time of massive change and what the US will need to do to survive.
Before we jump headlong into speculation about the next decade, let’s take a look at the recent past to get some idea of whose policies and actions have put us where we find ourselves today.
From 1949 until 1995, the Democratic Party held majority control of the House of Representatives, thereby acting as a restraint on one-party dominance when Republicans sometimes had majorities in the US Senate and/or the White House. The philosophy of bigger and bigger government, embraced to greater and lesser degrees by both political parties, has dominated the country since the 1930s.
It was the relatively short period from 2003 to 2007 that the Republican Party controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Even during the “conservative” presidency of Ronald Reagan, at least one house of Congress remained in the control of the Democratic Party and government continued to grow.
The current and dramatic shift in political dominance in Washington did not just take place on January 20, 2009 when President Obama was sworn into office. The shift actually began on January 3, 2007 when the Democrats recaptured control of the US Senate. At that time, the Dow closed at over 12,600; unemployment stood at 4.6% and the economy under George W. Bush set a record of 52 consecutive months of job growth.
It was on January 3, 2007 that Barney Frank (D) became Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd (D) took over the Senate Banking Committee. 15 months later a meltdown occurred in the banking and financial services sector of our economy, notwithstanding President Bush’s urging repeatedly that serious reform was needed.
One of the most important responsibilities that a member of Congress has is to enact an annual budget for the federal government. However, the US Senate under the leadership of Harry Reid (D) has failed to pass a budget since 2009. The House, under Republican control since 2011, has twice passed budgets and sent them to the Senate, which for purely partisan reasons has failed to enact a budget bill. Unfortunately, Majority Leader Reid and his Democratic colleagues believe that partisanship is their primary responsibility, rather than fiscal stewardship and sound public policy.
The Federal budget cycle is governed mainly by six laws. Probably the most important of them is The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 that governs the basic practices of federal budgeting and spending. Because of partisan irresponsibility in refusing to enact a budget and to avoid government shutdowns, Congress gets along by enacting continuing resolutions. Doing so fails the test of fiscal responsibility. However, public apathy (cited above) allows negligent politicians to get away with it.
President George W. Bush was no fiscal conservative or effective small government advocate. During his eight years in office, he increased the federal budget by 104% and the national debt grew by $3.3 trillion.
The Obama Administration has accelerated the pace of spending and debt to unsustainable levels. Today, the national debt stands at over $15 trillion. The debt is dismissed by some as just money we owe ourselves, but the interest on that debt has to be paid out of tax revenues, or borrowed and added to the debt. That interest so far in 2012 is nearly $4 trillion. There are those politicians who see increasing taxes as the only answer to any problem. Others contend that the problem is not that government has too little in revenue, but that it is spending far too much.
Whether it is the fault of Republicans, Democrats or both, it is a useless exercise to simply blame. Rather, we must reverse course and get our fiscal house in order if we are to survive as a nation that resembles anything we have known up until now.
There are solutions, but no easy solutions. Our apathetic and dependant population “served” by corrupt and power-grasping politicians may result in our becoming more like Greece than the affluent land of opportunity we once were.
In a 2011 interview conducted by economist Donald Luskin, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan observed that he sees the United States as having crossed the threshold, a point of no return, at which we’ve taken on too great a government debt, and at the same time made too great a commitment to government control of the economy. Luskin wrote, “He told us that we won’t recognize America 20 years from now, and that we won’t like what we see.”
Jim Morford is former Associate Director of Government Relations for the NJ Education Association, former VP and chief lobbyist for the NJ Chamber of Commerce, former President of the NJ Food Council and is Executive Director Emeritus of the NJ Society for Environmental, Economic Development (NJ SEED). He is a partner in the Trenton-based consulting firm of Morford-Drulis Associates, LLC. The opinions expressed in this column are his and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of any clients or associates.Posted: April 26th, 2012 | Author: admin | Filed under: Economy, Statism | Tags: "Ronald Reagan", "Teddy Roosevelt", Alan Greenspan, Barney Frank, Bush, Chris Dodd, Democrats, Donald Luskin, Economy, FDR, Federal Reserve, Franklin D. Roosevelt, George Friedman, George W Bush, Harry Reid, Hoover, InTheLobby, Jim Morford, Obama Administration, President Barack Obama, republicans, Stratfor, The Next Decade, Truman, war, Wilson, Woodrow Wilson | 4 Comments »
….but it should be.
How’s that working out for you?
Posted: November 19th, 2011 | Author: Art Gallagher | Filed under: "Ronald Reagan", 2012 Presidential Politics, Barack Obama | Tags: "Ronald Reagan", Barack Obama, Dan Cirucci, Raintree.com | 2 Comments »
Hat tip Dan Cirruci