I also thought of an editorial the Washington Times published last Friday, WOLF: Mitt defends Mitt while Newt upholds conservatism. While reflecting upon the debate performances of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, Dr. Milton R. Wolf made an interesting observation. Whereas Romney defended himself, Gingrich defended Conservatism. Instead of tacitly accepting the validity of the Liberal narrative and Liberal beliefs, Gingrich advocated Conservative beliefs. As Limbaugh observed in today’s show, when he does this, Gingrich serves as a vessel for the Conservative cause.

RUSH:  Newt is a vessel.  The heads of your party, you want the people that run the party that you’re a member of to get the message, stop making fun of you, stop impugning you, stop thinking you’re a bunch of hayseed hicks.  You just to want save the country. You want somebody that’s gonna have fire and brimstone to go out and beat Obama.  You don’t want people that are afraid to campaign.  I know exactly what this victory in South Carolina was all about.  The Republican primary voters are this audience.  I know exactly what’s going on here. I’ve known probably longer than 25 years.  But the people who make this country work are sick and tired of being blamed, falsely accused, attacked, called bigots and racists and sexists and homophobes and all these other horrible, rotten things, selfish, greedy.

They’re seeing their futures robbed. Their party doesn’t seem to have the guts to do anything to stop it.  They see their party leaders wanting to get themselves in charge of it all.  This guy (a caller), if I’d-a let him go on, he’d say, “We don’t care if Newt were married ten times right now. We don’t care if Newt had married a horse right now.  The message is what we want sent.”  We want this party to figure out how to represent us.  We think we know how to beat Obama, and it’s not with McCain.  It’s not by going after the independents.  It’s not by saying we want to compromise and cross the aisle and work with those people who are destroying this country as it was founded.

We don’t want to work with those people.  Those people have been laughing at us and making fun of us and impugning us, and we don’t want you being friends with them.  They are taxing us.  They are preventing our attempt to acquire wealth. They are spending our children’s future away.  Why do you want to make nice with them?  Why do you want to work with them?  Why do you want to compromise with them?  Why don’t you want to beat them?  That’s what we want.  Ergo, somebody comes along and shows how it could be done, and they go, “Yeah, right on, mama, keep it coming.”  That’s all Saturday was.  And it was a result of a couple big days prior to Saturday in the wake of South Carolina. (from here)

We want Conservative politicians to beat the Liberals. Nonetheless, for decades Conservative politicians have not stood up and defended Conservative beliefs. Why not? Well, consider how Wolf ended his column.

If the conservative values of limited government, individual liberty and constitutional fidelity are to prevail, they must be defended unceasingly, passionately and unapologetically. We must demand this of our candidates and our leaders.

I don’t suffer from the delusion that any political candidate is perfect. History has yet to produce such a mythical species, so we’d be fools to hold out for one now. Instead, I subscribe to the Milton Friedman idea that electing the “right” people is nice but a far more effective strategy is to make it politically profitable for even the wrong people to do the right things. Let’s make it politically profitable for our candidates to vigorously defend conservatism by rewarding with our votes those who do. (from here)

We have not made it politically profitable for our candidates to vigorously defend Conservatism? Sounds stupid, does it not? Yet that is the simple truth. Instead of trusting Conservative politicians, we have let the political establishment and the mainstream news media define these people. Instead of doing a little homework, we have believed their lies. That’s how the Liberal establishment removed Gingrich as the Speaker. That’s how the Liberal establishment macacaed Senator George Allen. That’s what the Liberal establishment has done to a whole host of Conservatives and the Republican establishment has quaked in terror — hiding in “moderation”, and We the People have stood silently, acquiesced, and let it happen.

Fortunately, times have changed. We the People finally want to resist the Liberal establishment. So now at last we have a choice of Conservatives. In the presidential race, we can choose between Speaker Newt Gingrich and Senator Rick Santorum. In Virginia’s U.S. Senate race we can choose between Senator George Allen and Delegate Bob Marshall. And we can ask which has been the more steadfast Conservative.

I recommend you research all candidates, particularly the ones the establishment would have you ignore. Do a little homework. Check out Senator Rick Santorum and Delegate Bob Marshall for they too have fought the good fight, and they have fought well.

With respect to the subject of Islam, I suppose some will find Boudica BPI Weblog a bit hysterical. Nonetheless, even though Islam has only one undeniable virtue, some how some way Islam has spread. Thus, much of the world suffers under a code of honor that demands rigid and too often irrational order.

Yet as persistent as Islamists may be, Islam can be halted and turned back by determine defenders. In fact, determination is the key ingredient in defending against any kind of tyranny.

Via Hudson Valley Patriots

Complacent Conservatism Is Allowing America To Slide Into The Abyss

John Hawkins writes: Conservatism is more relevant than ever to American life, but much of the conservative movement has grown complacent, lazy, rigid, and out-of-touch. Too many conservatives went to D.C. to make a difference and hung around to make a few bucks. Too many conservatives have given up on moving America to the right and are now content to just hold the line so we don’t move any further backwards. That’s one of the dirty little secrets on the Right; real grassroots Tea Party conservatism FRIGHTENS a lot of conservatives, especially the ones in D.C. It’s not so much because they disagree with the sentiment, but because they’ve become so demoralized that they instinctively recoil from any meaningful effort to move the country to the right, rather than just stopping the movement to the left. (continued here)

In his latest Cuccinelli Compass, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli focuses on the presidential debate.  In addition, he comments on the rules to get on Virginia’s ballot for the March 6th presidential primary.

The Presidential Debate

December 26, 2011

Dear Fellow Virginians and Friends,

While I’m taking a break for Christmas, given that the Iowa caucuses are so close, I thought it would be a good time to jot down some reflections on the Presidential debate I had the privilege to be part of earlier this month.

Also, you’ve probably heard by now that only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified to be on Virginia’s Presidential primary ballot on March 6th.  I’ll address this very unfortunate circumstance toward the end of this Compass.

Three weeks ago, while many of you were at the Republican Advance, I was in New York participating in a Presidential debate on FOX as one of the three questioners with Mike Huckabee as moderator.  While I was very sorry not to be able to attend the Advance, the presidential debate was a spectacular experience, and a successful one.

When even the New York Times writes that our debate was the most substantive debate so far, you know you’ve achieved something, given how much they like us Republicans!

The format was not really a debate, it was more of a forum.  The candidates were up one at a time for 11 straight minutes with no other candidates on stage with them.

Each of them could watch the show live, so they each saw one another on stage.  That meant we had to come up with different questions for each candidate.  Those of you who watched would have noticed very little overlap in questions.  The only exception to this rule was our ‘quickie’questions sometimes used at the end of a candidate’s time slot.

For example, if they still had 20 seconds of their 11 minutes, we might ask them who their favorite founding father was (no coke vs. pepsi questions).  Gingrich said George Washington, Perry said Madison.  Two good Virginia answers.

Giving all the candidates the same amount of time had only been done once before that I know of, and that was during the South Carolina forum I attended on Labor Day.  Senator DeMint, Congressman King, and Professor George were the questioners at that event where each candidate had 22 minutes.  That forum was my own model during our discussions about how to structure our debate.  I hope this type of forum will be used more frequently in the future as it is an excellent way to give voters a great deal of information about candidates in a short amount of time.  It’s also a way that our candidates can shine, rather than be torn down by questioners from MSNBC, The Washington Post, etc., all of whom want the GOP candidate to lose anyway.

The debate prior to ours was a foreign policy debate on CBS, and Congressman Paul got a grand total of 89 seconds.  Why should he have even bothered to show up?  And how rude is it of CBS to invite him to come and then ask him almost nothing?

I understand the logic of spending more time with frontrunners, however, I found that the time with non-frontrunners provided a helpful perspective when thinking about whether I wanted either of the frontrunners as my nominee.  In other words, there was great value to equal time… not to mention it was fair, which doesn’t hurt either!

The order of candidates was drawn at 4 p.m. for the 8 p.m. debate, and it went Gingrich, Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, Paul, then Romney.  Afterwards, they each had one minute for a closing statement.

As I mentioned, Governor Huckabee was the moderator and he’s such a nice, down to earth person, he did a great job making all participants comfortable while still moving things along.

The two other questioners were the Attorneys General of Oklahoma and Florida, Scott Pruitt and Pam Bondi respectively.

The entire debate can be seen without commercials by clicking here.

We focused on federalism, the Constitution and executive power.  As Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the wrap-up comments at the close of the show, we talked more about the Constitution in that one debate than all the previous debates combined!  I think she was quite right.

So, if you are one of those that lament the lack of constitutional discussion, this was the debate for you!

I found it interesting that in all the post-debate punditry, no one asked me who did the best.  The answer might surprise you.

I thought that Rick Santorum did the best, and he came across as friendly and nice while doing it (he’s been dinged for appearing sour in other debates).

Separately, Rick Perry had his best performance so far.  And while even he would acknowledge he’s not a champion debater, it was good to see him do well.

I thought both frontrunners – Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney – underperformed, at least relative to the high expectations people have developed of both of them.

For my own questions, I pressed Gingrich on how he would filter out his many big-government ideas.  He basically responded that he wouldn’t filter them out.  I got the sense that he thinks every idea he has is a great one, yet his history makes clear that such is not the case.  For example, did you know he wanted to get rid of the work requirement in welfare reform in the 90′s?

He referred to the work requirement in welfare reform as, are you ready for this? “Right wing social engineering.”  Sound familiar?

During our debate, I was trying to get some confidence that a President Gingrich wouldn’t use government to pursue every idea he had.  I got no such confidence.  Actually, quite the opposite.  He came across as another big-government conservative… whatever that is.

It will probably shock all of you to know that I asked Mitt Romney about his 2006 Massachusetts health care bill.  (That’s a joke for our newer subscribers)

Romney conceded that it had driven costs up in Massachusetts and that he had not foreseen what the Massachusetts legislature would do with the law later (Really? Is it really hard to foresee the Massachusetts legislature running hog wild with a new entitlement/mandate?).

However, a more subtle aspect of my back-and-forth with Governor Romney related to comparisons between the 2006 Massachusetts health care law and the 2010 federal health care law.  Most people did not pick up on the significance of how Romney positioned his 2006 health care law vis-à-vis the 2010 federal health care law.

Romney basically took the position that the Massachusetts law was good, but the federal law was bad.  His rationale was very surprising, it was that President Obama ‘went too far’with the federal law.

Think about that.

Let’s retain the logic, but restate it.

The 2010 federal health care law was a bad law, but the 2006 Massachusetts law did less of the same thing, so it was a good law.

When he made his statements, I was struck by what a proudly ‘democrat light’position it was.

As someone who tries very hard to campaign and govern as consistently as possible with a constitutional conservative philosophy, the philosophical argument Romney made is a non sequitur.  It doesn’t make sense to me to say pursuing a state takeover of health insurance is a good thing, but pursuing a national takeover of health insurance with a few more bells and whistles is a bad thing.

As you can tell, I didn’t think that either Gingrich or Romney did particularly well.  Mind you, they both come across well, neither did badly, but neither of them met expectations.

Another interesting element was Congressman Paul’s discussion of Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.  He takes the position that these programs are unconstitutional, and that the Supreme Court has been wrong in concluding otherwise.  So I asked him if he’d sign a budget that provided funding for these programs that he believes are unconstitutional.

Somewhat to my surprise he said “yes.”  To clarify, I restated part of my question to get more explanation from him.  Interestingly, he basically said, ‘look, these things have been around a long time, and even though they’re unconstitutional, we’d have to work our way out of them, as cutting them off cold turkey would be too disruptive to too many people.’

Given the fact that Ron Paul is the standard for consistency in the race, one expects to hear him say ‘it’s unconstitutional, so we need to end it tomorrow.’  But he took a very practical approach, something that I don’t think some Republicans want to credit him with being able (willing?) to do.

Given his view of the constitutionality of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, his forward-looking explanation seemed very reasonable in accounting for all of the impacts that governance consistent with his views would entail.

Participating in the debate was a great experience.  I got to know Scott Pruitt, Pam Bondi and their staffs better as we worked together to prepare.  I also got to spend some more time with Gov. Huckabee, who is just such a pleasure to work with.  And I also got to work with a bunch of the folks at FOX, producers, the “brain room,” etc. who were just great to work with and from whom I learned a lot.  Finally, I came away with positive impressions of all of our candidates.

There are definitely some good people in this race, but I can’t help hoping that a new conservative candidate gets in the race.  Given the schedule, it’s entirely plausible.  For a good article on this possibility, check out Virginia’s own Sabato’s Crystal Ball.

A Note On The Virginia Ballot

As I noted above, it now appears that the only two candidates that will be on Virginia’s ballot on March 6th: Governor Mitt Romney and Congressman Ron Paul.  While I’m glad for them, it screams out for making our ballot more accessible.

I have had the opportunity to talk to a number of the candidates and their campaigns in the last month or so, and the Bachmann folks tell me that Virginia is the third hardest ballot access state in the country.  I personally don’t think that’s a good thing.

To get on the ballot, a presidential candidate has to collect 10,000 legitimate signatures across Virginia – county by county and city by city – with at least 400 legitimate signatures in each congressional district.  Virginia’s State Board of Elections recommends that campaigns come in with over 15,000 signatures, including over 700 from each congressional district given what a high proportion of signatures typically fail some requirement or another.

I would throw out for consideration that we should lower our requirements to 100 legitimate signatures per congressional district.

Let’s face it, absent a serious write-in challenge from some other candidate, Virginia won’t be nearly as ‘fought over’as it should be in the midst of such a wide open nomination contest.  Our own laws have reduced our relevance.  Sad.

I hope our new GOP majorities will fix this problem so that neither party confronts it again.  I for one would like Virginia to be heard from in our nomination process, and I’m sure you would too.

Holidays

Hanukkah began last Tuesday at sundown, so Happy Hanukkah to all of our Jewish readers, and I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas yesterday!

Sincerely,

Ken Cuccinelli, II
Attorney General of Virginia

UPDATE

If you are interested in what Cuccinelli had to say in A Note On The Virginia Ballot, please check out the post previous to this one, AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE SHOOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT UPDATED WITH OTHER VIEWS. In addition to providing my thoughts on the issue, I reference both news and blog articles.

Let’s consider Speaker John Boehner’s last “success”. The Democrats offered up what they call a tax cut (see WHEN WILL WE TRY TO PUT AN END TO SUCH DECEIT?), and the Republicans in Congress said no. So Boehner sent his members home. Then with “unanimous consent” (not one of our spineless congressmen came back to object), Boehner passed this “tax cut” bill all by himself. Boehner took all the well-deserved criticism upon himself.

Think about it. All by himself, Speaker John Boehner represented all 435 members of the House of Representatives and passed a “tax cut” bill. Doesn’t that make Boehner bold, brave, and strong? Then why do we see stories like this?

• Payroll tax deadlock ends as US House caves from a paper in the United Arab Emirates
• The GOP’s slip is showing from our own Washington Post
• Republicans Give In from the Atlanta Journal Constitution
• Payroll tax deadlock ends as House caves from the Chicago Sun-Times
• Payroll tax cut, a crucial victory for Obama from the Hindu (an Indian newspaper)

Obviously, some people just don’t know boldness, bravery, and strength when they see it. Boehner is bold, brave, and strong. What should concern us is the nature of Boehner convictions. Was that legislation good for our country? Does Boehner want to gather more power to himself or does he want to keep his oath?

THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION: Article. VI., Clause 3

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Think about long and hard about this. Speaker John Boehner did not have the votes. The House of Representatives would not vote for this bill. So Boehner sent the House of Representatives home for Christmas. Then, by himself, he passed the same bill, and not one member returned to object — not one. Yet any one of them could have stopped Boehner. Any single one of them.

What is the problem with these people? What led Boehner to understand he could pass this reeking piece of legislation? Is it because he knows his members lack the conviction to stand up and fight? Have we — because we too lack core convictions — elected people whose only purpose is in the service of their ambitions?

Elections matter, but they matter only if each of us cares enough to stand up and fight for what we believe.

Pity me. I get email from Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Pity you. If you come to my blog, I post that nonsense occasionally. Just so you see how stupid this is, I even included the links. We need to understand what we are up against.

Friend –

With the 2012 elections less than a year away, Republicans are relentlessly working to disenfranchise voters nationwide. Up to 5 million voters could be affected with voter suppression laws targeting minorities, seniors, and students around the country.

We will be announcing a major voter protection initiative led by Assistant Leader Jim Clyburn to ensure every American who has the right to vote is able to vote. But we need your help to get going.

We need $100,000 to kick off the DCCC’s Voter Protection Fund. Please contribute $3 or more by Midnight Friday.

Your generous contribution will go directly to our aggressive Voter Protection initiative and send a powerful message to Republicans that we will not allow them to assault voting rights across the country.

Our democracy is at stake. To win the Majority we need Democrats to be able to get out and vote. Frankly, I lose sleep over the possibility that Republicans’voter suppression could swing the 2012 election. We must fight back against the Republicans’undemocratic election strategy and show grassroots Democrats are united and stronger than ever.

We need your support to ensure we have the resources for the major voter protection initiative we’ll be announcing led by Assistant Leader Jim Clyburn to ensure every American who has the right to vote is able to vote.

Stand with us by contributing $3 or more right now to help us kick off our Voter Protection Fund.

Thank you,

Rep. Steve Israel
DCCC Chairman

P.S. Republicans are working tirelessly in deliberate and calculated efforts with state governments nationwide to assault Americans’ voting rights. We can’t let them get away with it. Contribute to our Voter Protection Fund today >>

So here is a question for you? What exactly is it that Republicans want to do to suppress the vote? Well, they want to make certain we have the right to vote and only vote once. Google “voter suppression laws”. What is the top article? It is the ACLU with So You Think You Can Vote? What is their complaint? People won’t go to the trouble to properly document their identity.

With identity theft running rampant and people crossing our borders who do not belong here, don’t we all need to be able to prove who we are?

When we get on an airplane, it’s okay for the TSA to invade everyone’s privacy with X-Rays and pat-downs – including little children — but it is too much trouble to get a proper photo ID to vote? If you are a Democrat, I guess it is.

Can you guess which states do not require a Voter ID? Well, here is the current situation, and here (Debate heats up over voter ID laws) is article from USA TODAY.

Keep one thing in mind. Democrats do not want to do Voter ID the right way. They do not want any Voter ID.