Tag Archives: 2012 Election News

Executive Order Creates Election Commission

Obama_signingPresident Obama signed an executive order last week creating the nine member Presidential Commission on Election Administration, a move he signaled as a priority during the State of the Union speech.

The Commission, co-chaired by Bob Bauer, who was Obama’s lead counsel in his 2012 campaign, and Ben Ginsberg, who held the same role in the Romney camp is tasked with studying polling locations, voter access, voting machine technology and much more.

The executive order defines the mission of the panel as follows:

“The Commission shall identify best practices and otherwise make recommendations to promote the efficient administration of elections in order to ensure that all eligible voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots without undue delay, and to improve the experience of voters facing other obstacles in casting their ballots, such as members of the military, overseas voters, voters with disabilities, and voters with limited English proficiency.”

Though a very small percentage of polling locations experienced delays on Election Day 2012, locations with arguably the highest turnout in the nation had few problems to note. Minneapolis, for example, had some polling locations with more than 100% turnout, yet Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie reported the day ran smoothly. Ritchie said of the estimated 3 million people statewide (MN had an estimated 76% voter turnout), “I think people had a really good experience.”

The debate about long lines and extensive wait times rears its head every few years, but the math simply doesn’t add up. Following the 2010 census, in accordance with a law enacted by Congress in 1975, polling locations were reviewed in each state and redistricting took place. Each Congressional district, state senate district and other districts were evaluated and potentially changed, and then approved by the states. The redistricted lines are based on census numbers so that each polling location has approximately the same number of residents, and therefore, approximately the same number of eligible voters.

Though the President’s new commission intends to study and recommend changes related to the “number, location, management, operation, and design of polling places,” “ballot simplicity and voter education,” and the “efficient management of voter rolls and poll books,” there is no mention of any attempt to dissuade voter fraud. In fact, the stated purpose of the commission is to “improve the experience of all voters.” As we have learned in the last few election cycles, not all voters abide by election laws.

Voter fraud is rampant in the United States. For a few examples, click here: EJ Haust Voter Fraud and here: Voter Fraud Still an Issue

Each state has authority over its election practices including ballots, technology, and polling locations, but the recommendations of this new commission are “intended to serve as a best practices guide for state and local election officials…” according to Josh Earnest, Deputy Press Secretary for the White House. That could prove valuable to activists seeking to make voting controlled by the executive branch.

Though the commission won’t have authority to directly override state election rules, its recommendations could conceivably be used as a tool by the Department of Justice to use when persuading judges to impose changes at the state level. The President is essentially giving credibility to a group of nine of his friends to create a “study” that will later be seen as the authority on election best practices. What Secretary of State, governor, state legislature, or judge will have the instinct to deny recommendations by this panel of experts?

The commission is required to submit its final report 6 months following its first public meeting. It will have staff, though none of the nine members will have a salary. All members will be allowed reimbursement of travel expenses.

Follow me on Twitter!

MN Democrats Trying To Make Voting Easier

imagesAs if the state with the highest voter turnout in the country, nearly 76% in 2012, needed improvement, Democrat legislators in Minnesota are considering proposals to make voting even easier.

Flying under the media radar are two bills aimed at getting even more people to the polls at election time, allowing for early voting and modifying the absenteee voting process. While media attention swirls around the proposed gun control legislation, making its way through committees are proposals that open the floodgates to more fraud and mistakes, and lack any additional oversight or methods for battling Minnesota’s flawed vouching system.

Currently, Minnesota has no identification requirement for a non-registered person if someone whose name is on the registration rolls agrees to “vouch” for that person. The “voucher” signs a statement promising that the person without identification of any kind is eligible to vote. Verification of new voter registrations is not done until weeks after Election Day.

MN Senate File 535 aims to make “early voting” as easy as Election Day voting, and includes allowing vouching during the early voting time period. Early voting is done without election judges or poll watchers. Instead, a ballot board consisting of 2 people, one from each major political party, are responsible for the accurate handling of early voting ballots.

The prevailing reason democrats say Minnesota needs early voting is to make it more “convenient” for voters.

“The reason I think it’s so important is because people already think we have it… people want the convenience of early voting,” said author of SF 535 Democrat Senator Sieben.

Lucy Nieboer, Co-chair of Minnesota Public Interest Research Group at the University of Minnesota said that many students have trouble making it to the polls on Election Day. She spoke of her own difficulty with 2 part time jobs and a full class schedule. Despite her busy life, she found time to register more than 7,000 students last fall and spent nearly 3 hours in the Elections Sub-comittee meeting yesterday.

Several other testifiers in favor of the bill also cited convenience as the primary reason for their support of early voting. None of those in favor addressed the vouching system or adding safeguards against potential fraud or mistakes.

MN Senate File 564 would completely change the absentee voting process in the state and even allows for “permanent absentee voter status,” which means a voter could be sent an absentee ballot each election year without proactively requesting one.

Both bills were “laid over” for possible inclusion in an omnibus bill expected within weeks.
_______________________________________________
More on voter fraud:
Not Just Possible, Voter Fraud Is Easy
But… There Is No Voter Fraud, Right?
Vote Early Vote Often (with video)

To combat voter fraud in Minnesota, click here.
______________________________________________
Follow me on Twitter!! www.twitter.com/erinhaust

Should America Pay Detroit’s ‘Bacon Bailout’ for Obama Election Support

Should America pay for Obama Bailout Bacon for Detroit $200 million deficit because of voter election support?

When President Obama visits the Detroit area Monday, December 10th, should he bring a plane fill of election bacon payback for loyal Detroit voters?

City Councilwoman JoAnn Watson is demanding America give the city bailout “bacon” to erase Detroit’s $200 plus million deficit as a quid pro quo for Detroit’s overwhelming presidential election support of Obama. “Elections have consequences,” she believes. So should you prepare to heat up the frying pan and get that bacon ready for Detroiters at your pocketbook’s expense?

In a Tuesday, December 4th City Council Meeting, Councilwoman Watson reminded those in the council chambers that , “After the election of Jimmy Carter, the honorable Coleman Alexander, he went to Washington, D.C. and came home with some bacon,” she also emphasized, That’s what you do!”

Is that what this nation has come to, that cities can spend exorbitantly more than they take in on fat union retirement pensions, salaries and bonuses, and obligate their citizens and the children to a bleak monetary wasteland? The financial aftermath is then left to the state or the nation to be the financial cleanup crew because city officials refuse to demonstrate budgetary leadership?

As much as its Detroit officials claim they want to get their financial house in order, the city public unions demand more, the city cannot afford to tax more, and the citizens are left with escalating crime and deescalating essential city services.

It actually gets worse. Much worse!

If you are a Detroiter and you are in desperate need of a police officer to respond to a crime, or a fire fighter to address a raging fire nearby or at your home, your best response time is a guesstimate. Detroit residents that need rapid EMS services would be better off asking a neighbor or friend to drive them to the nearest emergency room, because EMS response time is totally abysmal according to a recent 2004 city audit.

In fact, the Detroit News suggests from that same study, that in addition to very substandard communication equipment, “Detroit is the only major American city that does not allow a firefighter or a police officer to aid a victim before the ambulance arrives.” If you are one of the fortunate Detroiters that do receive EMS assistance, two Detroit hospitals have shuttered their doors and EMS staffing has been slashed. Sorry, but good luck with that.

So where does that leave Detroiters and many other urban cities as well as states like California and Illinois with huge multi billion dollars bailouts and have informal requests into Washington for tax payer federal bailouts?

It leaves the nation grappling with the hard truth that former presidential candidate Mitt Romney attempted to highlight during the 2012 campaign. America’s mainstream media as well as liberal and many moderate Republicans skewered him for telling the truth about the quid pro quo that exists in this “You earned it and I want it nation.” This is the new political landscape that is strangulating America’s self initiative and individual responsibility.

Romney was clear and honest when he stressed, that Obama promised, “Gifts” to minorities, young voters, and women.” Everything is free and the Christmas tree and all that is under it are up for grabs in Obama’s new America.

Romney went on to affirm, “It’s a proven political strategy, which is give a bunch of money to a group and, guess what, they’ll vote for you,” So why was he vilified by the same liberals who have their free abortion pills, free government bacon, free illegal immigration rights hands stuck out?

Here’s a clue that any reasonable as well as responsible doctor would say to a patient that came into their office suffering from a bloated condition of being overweight, and suffering from high blood pressure and eating too much fat; “Go on a diet!

That’s right America, these cities like Detroit that come into America’s waiting room need to be sent a message from 300 plus million citizen doctors. “Our long national nightmare is over!” The prescription is clear, no more financial payouts to cities that spend beyond their means, and whose appetites are larger than their financial ability to pay for the meals they consume.

Here a suggestion for Detroit city councilwoman Watson, stop demanding to stop eat bacon and go on a financial vegan diet. Before you shop at America’s bank, check out your own earning ability and what you can place in your own account. Be tough with the public unions that bleed cash strapped Detroiters dry.

Tell the unions that the gravy train is over, and let Michigan’s Treasurer Andy Dillon do his job to examine the city’s financial books. If need be let the state take over Detroit’s fiscal operations and wring out the misfeasance and habitually mismanaged city government operations.

This is the real message that should be sent back from Obama and his White House Santa Claus enablers who promised lots and lots of free stuff for a simple vote. Instead give them the lump of coal in their Christmas stocking, but for the right reasons.

You see, if Detroiters like JoAnn Watson and Mayor Dave Bing were smart, they would take that lump of coal, and apply tremendous financial responsibility pressure to it over time. Eventually, the lump of coal that appeared nearly worthless will be transformed into a glittering diamond!

That is the Christmas story that Detroiters must hear and that Washington must tell so that the handout government and the nation will eventually have diamonds all over America.

Detroit, America chooses a bacon-free diet for you. Now, it is your choice: lump of coal or a priceless diamond. It’s all what you choose to make of it.

________________________________

(Click – let me know what you think )

Gallup Results Present Problems For Both Agendas

Gallup has released some interesting poll findings showing that both sides of the aisle have their work cut out for them if they’re going to keep Americans happy.

Released Thursday, the Gallup results show that only 37% of Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, while 62% want to see measure that will halt illegal immigration.

And, 70% want the tax code simplified to lower rates and an elimination of deductions and loopholes, while less than half (47%) support Pres. Obama’s proposal to increase taxes on those households with incomes of $250,000 or more.

Not good news for liberal politicians seeking to open borders and raise revenue.

Conservatives have challenges, too. Fully 88 percent of Gallup respondents support saving the biggest entitlement programs, while 72 percent says there needs to be spending cuts.

As the fiscal cliff looms, while sequestration means massive cuts to the nation’s military, only 29 percent favor this.

So, it seems that Democrats don’t have popular support to pursue their push to raise taxes, and Republicans don’t seem to be pushed by Americans to support legislation that calls for amnesty.  The alternative Dream Act from Sen. Marco Rubio, which already splits the conference, is a prime example.

Lastly, Americans want to see a simpler tax code and spending cuts, but don’t want government messing around with their Medicare.

Let the political maneuvering, on both sides, begin!

Originally posted at CNS News.

Sen. Mike Lee and Senator-Elect Ted Cruz: ‘Our Ideas Work, Their Ideas Don’t’

Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Senator-Elect Ted Cruz (R-TX) were adamant about two things when they addressed The Federalist Society’s discussion about constitutional law and the Supreme Court yesterday: “our [conservative] ideas work, their [ liberal] ideas don’t.”  Furthermore, our ideas have been winning the argument, which explains why law schools are limiting the amount of speakers – invited by Federalist Society – chapters that can come and articulate such views across the country.  Both men viewed that we must return to the government our Founders envisioned, and must guard against the progressive regulatory state advocated by our adversaries in Congress.  With the re-election of Barack Obama and the full implementation of Obamacare – the stakes couldn’t be any higher to keep the Madisonian experiment alive.

Sen. Lee first remarked about his election to the U.S. Senate in 2010, after beating incumbent Republican Bob Bennett at the state party convention.  Then, he went into rather humorous anecdotes about how security didn’t recognize him as a senator for the longest time during his first session in Congress.  However, he looked forward to two events this year that he thought would transform government, and make it more palatable to the Founder’s vision.

The first event was on June 28, the day of the Obamacare decision, which he received – along with most conservatives – warmly at first.  The court was articulating a position defining limits on the Commerce Clause – making this the third time in the last seventy-five years where the Supreme Court has done so.   However, as the reading of the opinion continued, more wind was blowing in liberal sails, as the senator described it.  The Court rewrote the law.  To make a long story short, the penalty was constitutional under the taxing authority, which was a position that wasn’t argued by the government.  Concerning the Medicaid expansion provisions, the Court ruled that the government had unjustly coerced states into accepting stipulations on the program’s funding, and that the Secretary for Health and Human Services cannot cut off the revenue stream – which funds the program – to states who refuse to expand coverage. In all, it was a limited purpose victory.  The second event was on November 6, which we know did not turn out well for conservatives.

Sen. Lee agreed that we won the argument for a limited proposal victory, but we also lost a lot too.  It showed that the Court can rewrite laws, and we lost the opportunity to write laws of our own choosing.  The checks on Congressional power was stipulated by judiciary and political restraint.  The judicial restraint has been compromised.  They seem, as Senator Lee put it, “unwilling” to exercise that check on power.  Second, the political check is rendered useless since Congress can pass unconstitutional laws, but if the Supreme Court can rewrite it – then what’s the purpose of that check on government power.

Sen. Lee believes that the Court acted in a manner where everyone got a little of what they wanted – but ended up hurting the American people as a result. Nevertheless, he feels that America’s best days are ahead.

Senator-Elect Ted Cruz also reiterated anecdotes on the campaign trail.  His win is almost a miracle.  He was polling sub 5%, and within the margin of error when he first began.  This highlights the trials and tribulations of any statewide campaign, especially one where you’re outspent three to one in a $ 50 million dollar primary, as in the case of Cruz, which is somewhat of a well-known characteristic within political circles.  It can be nasty, and Cruz’s opponent, David Dewhurst, dished out $35 million dollars in attack ads – but failed to clinch the nomination.  Why? He didn’t have the grassroots infrastructure needed to win.  This is the way politics should be decided, according to Senator-Elect Cruz.

Cruz is a good friend of Sen. Mike Lee, and thanked him for his early support in the beginning of his candidacy for the U.S. Senate.  In the wake of conservatives’ devastating defeat on Nov. 6, he said we much ask ourselves what went wrong, and what does this mean for the future of conservatism?  He was steadfast in the view that what conservatives have done in politics – we must now do in the law.  First, we must win the argument, which conservatives are doing – albeit very slowly.

The Senator-Elect was amused by the fact that the media was detailing how Republicans lost in 2012 because they weren’t like Democrats.  If they had acted, like the political left, things would’ve been great.  Well, conservatives lost because we didn’t make the argument.

The president said that he inherited a bad economy, and that it was all George Bush’s fault.  This message was pervasive. However, Cruz said that President Obama forgets history.  Between 1978-79, unemployment was in double-digits, interest rates were at 22%, gas lines around the block, and the Iranian hostage crisis – which probably left then-President Jimmy Carter regretting leaving peanut farming. But, Ronald Reagan won in a landslide in 1980.  He reduced taxes, regulations, and the scope of government, which led to an economic boom.  Again, playing into the narrative of these two men being “our ideas work, their ideas don’t.”

However, there’s a reason why Obama voters believe this economy is still Bush’s fault.  Why?  Mitt Romney’s campaign team didn’t respond.  Concerning the fatuous ‘war on women,’ the Senator-Elect vociferously denied Republicans want to curb or deny contraceptives to America’s women.  He doesn’t know a single Republican who thinks that way.  He quipped that he has two daughters, and he’s glad he doesn’t have seventeen.  However, you cannot own, change, or destroy a damaging narrative, if you don’t respond. First, win the argument, then you win the election – which is what Senator-Elect Ted Cruz and Sen. Mike Lee plan to do in the U.S. Senate.

Jon Corzine’s ‘Global’ Disaster

There was a breaking development that occurred on The Hill today.  A member of the financial sector made a poor decision, bankrupted a company, and was formerly an elected official.  No, it wasn’t Mitt Romney – it was former Democratic Governor of New Jersey Jon Corzine.  Corzine, who hedged against the European debt crisis, incurred losses in the billions, which lead to the collapse of MF Global.

One mystery that plagues this investigation is Mr. Corzine’s David Copperfield act that wiped $1.6 billion from Global’s client fund, which occurred days before the whole firm crumbled.  Dina ElBoghdady of The Washington Post reported about this episode in financial malfeasance that cost people their jobs, and their savings – but it wasn’t too important since they relegated the piece to page 18 in today’s edition.

Furthermore, it took Ms. ElBoghdady six paragraphs to even mention that Mr. Corzine was a Democrat because they party of progress doesn’t dabble in such unscrupulous activities like this.  The report about Mr. Corzine’s epic failure at MF Global was released today by the House Financial Services oversight subcommittee, but didn’t mention any felonious activity conducted on behalf of the former Democratic governor.   They’re going to leave that to other prosecutors, who have launched their own investigations.  In all, “farmers, ranchers, and ther customers may never get back over $1 billion of their money as a result of [Corzine’s] decisions, Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Tex.), the House panel’s chairman, said in a statement.”

So, if Democrats and liberals hate Mitt Romney for being a rich man who devours companies, then shouldn’t they be picketing outside Corzine’s residence castigating him for his negligence?  If any Republican acted as horribly as Corzine has done in managing a firm, like MF Global, this would be on the front page – and dominating the news cycle for weeks on end.

Jon Corzine is worse than a vulture capitalist.  He’s an incredibly incompetent manager of people’s resources, which explains his failure as a governor.

Government Stands In The Way of Energy Independence

In a striking blow for the environmental left, the International Energy Agency released a report last Monday detailing how the United States is on track to outpace Saudi Arabia in oil production.  This surely puts the Obama administration in a bind concerning their green energy monomania that has dominated their energy policy for the past four years.  Heritage compiled a nice butcher’s bill of the president’s green energy investments.  However, the most important part about this development is that it proves that the United States can be energy independent, and we have the resources to achieve that feat.  However, the boot of government is trying to centralize and control those resources to expand their dependency agenda.  It’s hard to oppose someone when they have their finger on the power switch.

Elisabeth Rosenthal wrote in the New York Times on Nov. 12 that “the United States will overtake Saudi Arabia as the world’s leading oil producer by about 2017 and will become a net oil exporter by 2030…that increased oil production, combined with new American policies to improve energy efficiency, means that the United States will become “all but self-sufficient” in meeting its energy needs in about two decades — a “dramatic reversal of the trend” in most developed countries, a new report released by the agency says.” However, it’s hard to meet that goal when the government decided to cordon off 1.6 million acres, worth about 1 trillion barrels worth of oil, for conservation

 Thomas J. Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), reiterated that exploration and development of federal lands is a necessity to meet our goal of energy independence. When I asked him about how this report will effect the narrative disseminated by government officials and left-wing enviroementalists, Pyle said, “unfortunately, it seems part of the divide.  Those who want restrictions have their best success in manipulating policies on public lands – the very places where they don’t live and work. High prices also get people’s attention, but then it becomes a blame game – politicians always point the finger at everybody but themselves and oil companies are probably the only group besides lawyers who are less popular than politicians.  But we are making headway!”

Dan Kish, Senior Vice President for Policy at IER, claimed that the political left will respond by trying “to federalize hydraulic fracturing regulation, which is being done by states in a very professional and knowledgeable way.  Take fracking away, the oil and gas production drops. They also always seek to drive up the costs of activities so as to make them uneconomic, and there is no shortage of levers they use for that.   Since the myth of energy scarcity is their justification for federal programs the like, this doesn’t fit the agenda.  They will fight it by trying to scare people.”

They’ve already begun with Jacob Weissmann’s asinine Nov. 13 piece in The Atlantic. Basically, he says that we can’t drill our way to independence, Saudi Arabia is just too good at this oil production stuff, and we need to conserve to “insulate ourselves from rising gas prices.”   Sadly, Weissmann never factored in oil + increased coal production, since we are the Saudi Arabia of coal.  Also, natural gas via The Marcellus Shale is another major area of energy development.

Weissman isn’t looking at it through a larger scope.  In 1.6 million acres alone, we have 1 trillion barrels worth of petroleum.  In 1944, we were estimated to have about 20 billion in proven oil reserves, but we’ve produced 176 billion barrels between 1945-2010.  Concerning coal, we have enough to power our country for 485 years.  We have the resources to become energy independent, but government feels otherwise. As Pyle and Kish told me before, the War on Energy isn’t about conservation. It’s about control.

Democrats Want To Go Off The Fiscal Cliff

During the president’s Nov. 14 news conference, he channeled the Sandy response as a “metaphor” for how the federal government should operate. “It’s been aggressive and strong and fast and robust and a lot of people have been helped because of it…that’s a pretty good metaphor for how I want federal government to operate generally, and I’m going to do everything I can to make sure it does,” said President Obama.  This is American liberalism.  The ignorance they have towards how government should operate still pervades their ranks today.  Government isn’t suppose to move fast, be aggressive, or be robust. It’s functions are few and defined, as stipulated by Madison – who championed the experiment of limited government that is the bedrock for our republic.

As such, we know the president wants to raise taxes on the job creating and investing class.  It’ll inhibit economic growth, and it’s effects on the overall economy will probably be de minimis at best.  All of his other policies have produced the same insipid results.  Why should this be any different, especially when the president feels that a 3% hike on people making $250,000 or more will have a serious impact on the federal debt and deficit.  George Will reiterated a good example on This Week highlighting the 250k illusion a while ago reiterating that a Chicago school superintendent of twenty years experience, who is married to a Chicago police captain of twenty years experience is almost rich in the eyes of the president.  Nevertheless, according to liberals, tax increases will save us from the fiscal cliff.

As we approach the fiscal cliff, the perverse characteristic that pervades this debate is that liberals want us to go off into the abyss.  If we do, they’ll get the tax increases, they’ll get the revenue, and they’ll get the defense cuts all liberals lust for with disconcerting enthusiasm.  David Brooks, who wasn’t acting like a squish for once, reiterated this view last week on the PBS NewsHour and NPR’s All Things Considered.  Furthermore, and most importantly, liberals and their entitlement programs – the last bastions of progressive legislative achievement – will remain intact.

 

Demographics Poses A Challenge to Republicans, But It’s Not Unwinnable

Demographic shifts, Hispanic outreach, and how to make inroads with the youth have dominated conservative circles after a resounding Obama win last week.  It’s a discussion conservatives must have if they are to survive as a national political force.  Mitt Romney lost Hispanics, with almost 75% of them voting for the president, and young, single women.  Again, single women voted overwhelmingly for the president 67% to Romney’s 31%.  Some Republicans say that it was Romney’s disastrous ground game, while others say it was the party’s spring to the far right.  Regardless, the shifting demographics show that Texas, a reliably Republican state, could go blue if conservatives don’t expand their grassroots and outreach operations, especially in the Hispanic community.

Chris Wilson at Yahoo! News wrote on Nov. 13 that “the Census Bureau provides detailed estimates of population growth by race and ethnicity through 2050. The Hispanic population is expected to triple between 2008 and 2050, while the total number of white, non-Hispanic Americans will remain stagnant.”  As such, the largest bloc of guaranteed electoral votes for Republicans could go to the Democrats, which would be the death knell for the party.  They would be down, based on 2012 Electoral College, 142 electoral votes just coming out of the gate.  That is if Republicans surrender Pennsylvania to the Democrats, which may be in the works.  The state hasn’t gone Republican since 1988, and has become more of a money pit in national contests.

Yet, with all the talk about how Republicans should alter their strategies to win, which is oddly enough coming from liberal media outlets, it seems conservatives knew about these obstacles eons before Barack Obama came onto the political scene.  In fact, the AEI discussion of shifting political demographics, which was hosted back in August of 2011, seems to have been prophetic in their analysis of the changing American melting pot.

Ruy Teixeira [,senior fellow at the Center for American Progress,]  argued that trends would favor Democrats. To back his claim, he cited the growing Hispanic population and the decreasing influence of religion. Michael Barone [, of The Washington Exmainer,] agreed with Mr. Teixeira, but concluded instead that demographics of the preceding decade would not necessarily continue in the same direction. In one example he referenced lower inflow of Mexican immigrants to U.S. due to economic problems.

However, it’s undeniable that the Millennial generation is the most liberal generation, who will soon give Democrats a +20 party identification advantage by 2020.  Furthermore, Americans who identify themselves as secular are the fastest growing ‘religious’ group in the U.S.  By the mid-2020s, they’ll constitute almost 25% of all adults in the country, which may make some aspects of Republican social policy unpalatable.

This is not to say that we should liberalize.  We just need to be smarter, and target certain demographics who are more malleable to the conservative cause that will produce the results we need to win.  Hispanics is where Republicans and conservative should focus their energy.  However, we must tread carefully in our messaging because they’re the Democrats’ demographic to lose at this point.

Originally posted at The Young Cons.

Repeat After Me: We Didn’t Lose Because of Social Issues

I admit that I really haven’t become much of a social conservative until about the last eighteen months.  I mostly took libertarian position on issues like gay marriage and abortion – some of which I still maintain.  However, being an adoptee and seeing the utter rot inherent on the political left, especially when it comes to abortion – I found my libertarian ‘pro-choice’ position untenable.  Yes, I still think government regulation of the market inhibits its full potential, thereby making it a perverse action on behalf of the state.  It’s immoral for government to curb systems that lead to greater economic freedom and liberty for its citizenry.  Yet, I was also disturbed with government being in the home – and regulating social behavior amongst consenting adults.

Then, the 2012 election happened. The Democrats decided to manufacture a false narrative called the ‘War on Women,’ a consensus concerning taxpayer-funded abortion was in the works, and a thirty-yeard old liberal activist named Sandra Fluke burst onto the scene demanding free birth control.  Unsurprisingly, all of this coalesced into an orgy of depravity called the Democratic National Convention, which should have been more appropriately called Abortion Fest.  Even ABC News’ Cokie Roberts was unnerved by the abortion-centric rhetoric exhibited by liberals during the DNC.

Every decent American should, since the Democratic Party platform endorsed taxpayer-funded abortion.  However, that wasn’t an extreme position.  Republicans protecting life, even in the cases of rape and incest, was apparently the extreme position, despite the fact that such circumstances are responsible for less than 1% of all abortions.  If anything, albeit in a grotesque way, that encapsulates the “safe, legal, and rare” characterization Democrats have used to describe abortion.  A phrase that wasn’t included in their party platform in2012, although it’s been used in prior elections.

Nevertheless, after hearing Rebecca Kiessling‘s story – she was conceived during a rape – and the litany of botched abortions performed by Planned Parenthood, I’ve shifted more towards the pro-life camp.  As an adoptee from South Korea, I have no backstory concerning my conception.  I could be a product of rape.  I just don’t know.  Regardless, every life deserves a chance.  My birth mother surely exuded this virtue.  She gave me up for a better life here in the United States.

However, this brings us to the heart of the matter. Should we boot social conservatives from the movement and the Republican Party?  The answer is NO!  Yes, what Mourdock and Akin said imploded their senate campaigns, but Denny Rehberg failed to unseat Democratic incumbent  Sen. Jon Tester in Montana.  Rick Berg failed to secure his senate bid in North Dakota.  George Allen lost in Virginia.  Tom Smith got smoked in Pennsylvania.  Connie Mack won’t be going into the upper chamber representing Florida.  Are social issues responsible for all of these failed senate bids?  No. By the way, Mourdock lost to a pro-life Democrat.

Now, while Mourdock and Akin win the creepy award for 2012 ( no one likes 60+ year old men talking about rape), everyone seems to blame the people who vote reliably Republican and listen to liberals on how to reform the party.  An interesting op-ed piece was published in The Wall Street Journal on Nov.11 by Sarah Westwood, who is a rising sophomore at George Washington University.

The article articulately details the grievances that the more liberal wing of young Republicans have with the ‘Old Guard.’  Westwood states that Republicans need to do a better job reaching out to younger voters, which is true, but we also need to reach out to Hispanics and single women as well.

As a member of this all-important demographic [young voters], I know that neither I nor (almost) anybody else coming of age today supports the Republican social agenda. That’s the way the country is moving—so just deal with it. Modernize and prioritize.

Though it may be painful, though it may be costly at the polls in the short run, Republicans don’t have a future unless they break up with the religious right and the gay-bashing, Bible-thumping fringe that gives the party such a bad rap with every young voter. By fighting to legally ban abortion, the party undercuts the potential to paint itself as a rebel against the governmental-control machine.

Embracing a more liberal social agenda doesn’t require anyone to abandon her own personal values; it’s possible to keep faith and the party too. But the evangelical set essentially hijacked the Republican Party in the 1970s; now we need to take it back. Thawing the icy attitude of our most vocal, radical voices—including the raucous right (a la Limbaugh)—could let a fatally fractured party put the pieces together again.

The GOP won’t survive if it doesn’t start courting young voters. Simple math dictates that the Republican Party can wrest power away from the left only if it builds an army of fresh young members into its base. Democrats are the ones doing that now.

It seems Westwood wants to liberalize the party, return it to the Rockefeller/Thomas Dewey days, and ensure electoral disaster.  Conservatives gladly put an end to their reign after the Goldwater insurgency in 1964.  No, Goldwater didn’t lose – it just took sixteen years to count all the votes.  Nevertheless, who said we were fractured?  Our party was firmly behind Romney.  The problem was Romney’s ground game ( Project ORCA) failed miserably to maximize turnout in key states.  Yes, our coalition needs to expand to remain competitive, but it rests with smart messaging, not moderation.

And concerning purging Limbaugh – you must be insane if you think marginalizing any conservative in the media is a smart move.  If anything, we need more conservatives fighting the liberal media on a daily basis.  Westwood is right that Republicans need to change tactics and maximize outreach to expand out base of support, but moderation and becoming more liberal isn’t what’s going to bring us success at the polls.  Concerning the ‘old guard,’ Westwood is right that some folks need to go.  Karl Rove is on my list.  However, we must also factor into account that youth turnout probably won’t be as high in 2016 when Obama isn’t on the ballot.

Conservatives, like myself, take pride in staying ‘stop!’ in the face of changing times.  We say ‘not so fast’ to liberals – asking them about the efficiency within these government programs, especially if they come with a high price tag.  Coupled with inquiries about a bill’s constitutional basis and long term effects – it’s this form of inquisition that has usually been effective in demolishing liberal programs for decades.  We take pride, and idolize the Madisonian principles of limited government that was the original bedrock for our fledgeling republic.  And they’re the principles we need to resurrect after this egregious expansion of the state under the Obama administration.  This, coupled with aggressive prioritization of winning Latinos, is where we need to start.

We need to admit that in 2012 we were outplayed, outsmarted, and outmaneuvered.  But kicking out social conservatives would make the Republican Party even smaller, according to Erick Erickson. Furthermore:

Mitt Romney won about a quarter of the hispanic vote and a tenth of the black vote.

Those numbers may not sound like much, but in close elections they matter.

A sizable portion of those black and hispanic voters voted GOP despite disagreeing with the GOP on fiscal issues. But they are strongly social conservative and could not vote for the party of killing kids and gay marriage. So they voted GOP.

You throw out the social conservatives and you throw out those hispanic and black voters. Further, you make it harder to attract new hispanic voters who happen to be the most socially conservative voters in the country.

Next, you’ll also see a reduction of probably half the existing GOP base. You won’t make that up with Democrats who suddenly think that because their uterus is safe they can now vote Republican. Most of those people don’t like fiscal conservatism either — often though claiming that they do.

If you really need to think through this, consider Mitt Romney. He is perhaps the shiftiest person to ever run for President of the United States. He shifted his position on virtually every position except Romneycare. Of all the politicians to ever run for office, he’d be the one most likely to come out and, after the Republican convention, decide he’d changed his mind. He’d be okay with abortion and okay with gay marriage.

Had he done that, he’d have even less votes.

Erickson noted, “the problem is social conservatives have gotten so used to thinking of themselves as the majority they’ve forgotten how to speak to those who are not and defend against those who accuse them of being fringe, most particularly the press. Couple that with Mitt Romney’s campaign making a conscious decision to not fight back on the cultural front and you have a bunch of Republicans convinced, despite the facts, that if only the social conservatives would go away all would be fine.”  That’s simply not true.
In one last point against liberalizing the party, this is the second time in a row that Republicans have nominated a moderate candidate, who was handily beaten in the general election. Full stop.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

 

Changing Demographics Threaten Republican Texas

 

Yes, demographics talk will dominate the political discourse – and it should worry us.  Immigration, as an issue, and Republican ineptitude to convey  a sensible policy to ameliorate our perceived anti-immigrant leanings, ruined the Californian Republican Party forever.  Furthermore, New York and Pennsylvania are, to coin a term from Senator-elect Ted Cruz, “unalterably” Democratic.  Based on the last presidential election, we’re already down 104 electoral votes coming out of the gate – and with Texas’ demographic realignment, we could see the Lone Star state revert back to it’s Democratic leanings.  Thus, the largest bloc of guaranteed electoral votes for Republicans would either swing to the liberals, or be up for grabs.  That would be 142 electoral votes Democrats would lock up just because their people showed up to vote.  Not only is that unacceptable, but it’ll spell the end of the Republican Party winning presidential contests.

Ted Cruz, who was featured in Ryan Lizza’s  Nov. 19 piece in The New Yorker, has a grim warning.

If Republicans do not do better in the Hispanic community,” he said, “in a few short years Republicans will no longer be the majority party in our state.” He ticked off some statistics: in 2004, George W. Bush won forty-four per cent of the Hispanic vote nationally; in 2008, John McCain won just thirty-one per cent. On Tuesday, Romney fared even worse.

“In not too many years, Texas could switch from being all Republican to all Democrat,” he said. “If that happens, no Republican will ever again win the White House…if Texas turns bright blue, the Electoral College math is simple. We won’t be talking about Ohio, we won’t be talking about Florida or Virginia, because it won’t matter. If Texas is bright blue, you can’t get to two-seventy electoral votes. The Republican Party would cease to exist. We would become like the Whig Party. Our kids and grandkids would study how this used to be a national political party. ‘They had Conventions, they nominated Presidential candidates. They don’t exist anymore.’ ”

As Republicans plan to have a long discussion on how to court Latinos more effectively:

…Ted Cruz argues that Hispanics can be won over by appeals to traditional values of hard work. “I’ve never in my life seen a Hispanic panhandler,” he said, as we rode out of San Antonio. “In the Hispanic community, it would be considered shameful to be out on the street begging.” He added, “They have conservative values. Hispanics don’t want to be on the dole. They’re not here to be dependent on government.” He rejected the idea that Republicans needed to go back to the Bush-era policies on immigration. “I think those that say that, for Republicans to connect with the Hispanic community, they need to adopt amnesty and not secure the borders, I think that’s foolishness.”

Many Republicans in Texas suggested that the fact that Cruz is Hispanic is enough for him to win votes in that community. To prove the point, some mentioned Quico Canseco, a Republican who won a Texas House seat in 2010 in a Democratic district by running as a Tea Party conservative, and whose reëlection bid this year was closely contested. His district is sixty-six per cent Hispanic and spreads some six hundred miles, from San Antonio to the western edge of Texas. It includes most of the state’s border with Mexico. Like Cruz, Canseco, both in 2010 and in 2012, ran as an opponent of the kind of immigration reforms championed by George W. Bush. A few days before the election, when I interviewed Canseco, who is the son of Mexican immigrants and was born in Laredo, a border town that is ninety-six per cent Hispanic, he gave no hint of moderation on any of the immigration issues that have become so important to conservative Republicans in the past few years.

However, that’s just one congressional district.  Like women, Hispanics aren’t a monolithic voting bloc.  Cubans tend to vote Republican, although Mitt Romney lost this demographic by two points this year in Florida.  That should alarm all of us.  What inroads we have left with this demographic are crumbling rapidly.  Puerto Ricans lean Democratic – and Tejanos lean Republican due to their history in the state’s roots, according to Lizza.  It may be a multi-tiered outreach project.  If so, that’s great.   So, let’s dial down the secession petitions – and work on our comeback.

Romney’s Presidential Hopes Dashed By Less Than 500,000 Votes

Ouch! From Richard Nixon to Al Gore, candidates who have suffered defeats in close presidential elections, either in the Electoral College or popular vote, probably have felt the feelings of disappointment, shock, and frustration that Mitt Romney is experiencing right now. While President Obama secured re-election with a majority of the popular vote and an Electoral College landslide, analysis done by Jim Geraghty at National Review and Michael Patrick Leahy at Breitbart detialed some numbers in key states to show just how close Mitt Romney was from becoming the 45th President of the United States.

Geraghty wrote yesterday that:

…according to the results this morning on the New York Times’ results map:

Florida: 73,858

Ohio: 103,481

Virginia: 115,910

Colorado: 113,099

Those four states, with a collective margin of, 406,348 for Obama, add up to 69 electoral votes. Had Romney won 407,000 or so additional votes in the right proportion in those states, he would have 275 electoral votes.

Obama’s margin in some other key states:

Nevada: 66,379

Iowa: 88,501

New Hampshire: 40,659

Similarly, Leahy over at Breitbart crunched these numbers.

Despite losing the popular vote 51% to 48%–not a landslide for Obama by any means, but on the other hand not the “neck and neck” outcome many predicted–Mitt Romney would be President today if he had secured 333,908 more votes in four key swing states.

The final electoral college count gave President Obama a wide 332 to 206 margin over Romney. 270 electoral college votes are needed to win the Presidency.

Romney lost New Hampshire’s 4 electoral college votes by a margin of 40,659. Obama won with 368,529 to Romney’s  327,870.

Romney lost Florida’s 29 electoral college votes  by a margin of 73,858. Obama won with 4,236,032 to Romney’s 4,162,174.

Romney lost Ohio’s 18 electoral college votes by a margin of 103,481. Obama won with 2,697,260 to Romney’s 2,593,779

Romney lost Virginia’s 13 electoral college votes by a margin of 115,910. Obama won with 1,905,528 to Romney’s  1,789,618.

Add the 64 electoral college votes from this switch of 333,908 votes in these four key states to Romney’s 206, remove them from Obama’s 332, and Romney defeats Obama 270 to 268.

Overall, voter turnout was down, from 131 million in 2008 to 122 million in 2012. Obama won 7.6 million fewer votes than he did in 2008, and Romney won 1.3 million fewer than McCain in 2008.

Romney improved his vote total’s over McCain’s by the slightest amount in three of these four states, but in Ohio, he actually had 81,000 fewer votes than McCain in 2008.

Could things have been different if ORCA actually swam – you bet!  However, it didn’t.  All I will say is that it would have been a lot closer than the result produced last Tuesday night. Furthermore, it shows how the axiom “if it isn’t broken, why fix it” should be re-applied to Republican campaigns – and how we should never again centralize the local operation of getting out the vote, especially when HQ was located in the far reaches of Boston, Massachusetts.
For decades, presidential campaigns were successful setting up infrastructures in each respective state, and in each respective voter precinct conducting strike lists to increase turnout.  Volunteers would give their lists to the local HQ who would attempt to contact the voters who haven’t shown up.  It’s worked – and we shouldn’t mess with it, even though the preparation beforehand is cumbersome.  We tried it the digital way, and look what we got.
Originally posted on The Young Cons.

How Immigration Ruined The Californian Republican Party

As we on the Right continue to ponder how we got handily beaten by a president with a dismal record, one of the areas that are salient in our rebuilding efforts rests with Hispanic voters.  About fifty thousand latinos turn eighteen every month, making this a key demographic Republicans must become competitive if we to survive as a political force.  Losing Latinos to Democratic candidates 73%-24% spells certain doom for the party.  This doesn’t mean we sell out on our principles.  Supporting full amnesty is a fool’s errand.  However, we may have to accept certain provisions on future immigration proposals. Provisions that create pathways to citizenship by creating benchmarks for immigrants who have served in the military, achieved a certain level of education, and don’t have criminal records seems like a good starting point concerning our outreach with Latinos.

Sen. Marco Rubio’s alternative Dream Act is another area where Republicans can debate whether it is sufficiently conservative, or in dire need of revision.  Regardless, if we continue with our perceived anti-immigrant ways, we are destined to become a nationalized version of the Republican Party of California, which was destroyed when Prop. 187 was passed in 1994.

The bill, detailed by Nancy H. Martis of the California Journal back in 1994, goes as follows:

Proposition 187 bans illegal immigrants from public social
services, non emergency health care and public education. Various state and
local agencies would be required to report anyone suspected of being an
illegal immigrant to the state attorney general and U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS). The attorney general would be required to
maintain records and transmit reports to INS. Manufacturing, distributing or
selling false citizenship or residence documents illegal under existing
state law would become a felony. The proposal’s fiscal impact would be
felt three ways, the legislative analyst estimates. State and local
governments would realize savings from denying certain benefits and services
to persons who cannot document their citizenship or legal immigration status,
and this could amount to $200 million annually, based on INS estimates.
However, the state, local governments and schools would incur significant
costs to verify citizenship or immigration status of students, parents,
persons seeking health care services or social services, and persons who are
arrested. This could total tens of millions of dollars annually, with
first year costs considerably higher, potentially in excess of $100 million.
Finally, there would be a potential loss of federal funds up to $15
billion annually in federal money for education health and welfare programs
due to conflicts with federal requirements.

It was introduced by Republican assemblyman Dick Mountjoy and endorsed by Republican Governor Pete Wilson – which made it a key issue during his ’94 re-election bid.  While the bill passed, it had an overwhelming negative effect on the electorate.  First, it was the death knell for Republicans concerning statewide elections.  We never became competitive again, until Governor Schwarzenegger won his gubernatorial/recall bid in 2003.  The bill was declared unconstitutional, and killed with legal action.  The election of 1988 is still the last contest where California went Republican.  An ignominious footnote since the GOP was able to carry the state in 1960, ’68, ’72, ’76, ’80, and ’84.

The effects of Prop. 187 are still felt today – with the complete collapse of the two-party system in the state.

As Michael R. Blood of AP reported on Nov. 10:

Democrats hold the governorship and every other statewide office. They gained even more ground in Tuesday’s elections, picking up at least three congressional seats while votes continue to be counted in two other tight races — in one upset, Democrat Raul Ruiz, a Harvard-educated physician who mobilized a district’s growing swath of Hispanic voters, pushed out longtime Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack.

The party also secured a supermajority in one, and possibly both, chambers in the Legislature.

 […]
Republican voter registration has dipped so low — less than 30 percent — that the party’s future state candidates will be hobbled from the start.

Republicans searching for a new direction after Mitt Romney’s defeat will inevitably examine whyPresident Barack Obama rolled up more than 70 percent of the Hispanic and Asian vote, and 9 of 10 votes among blacks, essential ingredients in his victory. Women also supported Obama over Romney nationally and in California, where they broke for the president by 27 percentage points.

There is no better place to witness how demographic shifts have shaped elections than in California, the home turf of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan that just a generation ago was a reliably Republican state in presidential contests.

A surge in immigrants transformed the state, and its voting patterns. The number of Hispanics, blacks and Asians combined has outnumbered whites since 1998 in California, and by 2020 the Hispanic population alone is expected to top that of whites. With Latinos, for example, voter surveys show they’ve overwhelmingly favored Democratic presidential candidates for decades. Similar shifts are taking place across the nation.

Another sign of the times:

 Today, whites make up a little more than 40 percent of the population, while 2 in 10 residents are Asian and about 1 in 3 is Hispanic, according to the census.

[…]

Romney “implemented a winning election strategy for 1980,” University of Southern California professor Patrick James said in a statement issued by the school. “If you look at the demographics and voting proportions, the Reagan coalition would not win a majority today.”

Independents now outnumber Republicans in 13 congressional districts in California, a trend analysts predict will continue.

California counted more registered Republicans in 1988 than it does today, although the population has grown by about 10 million over that time. You’d have to go back to that year to find a Republican presidential candidate who carried the state, George H.W. Bush.

Surprisingly, Democrats continued to make gains in the state even at a time of double-digit unemployment, with polls showing that voters are unhappy with Sacramento and Washington. And it could get worse for the GOP. Republicans are trailing in two other House races in which the vote counting continues.

[…]

Still, Democrats believe they have the state’s demographics on their side with a message that appeals to a younger, more diverse population.

More than half the young voters in the state, ages 18 to 39, are Hispanic, according to the independent Field Poll. Thirty-five percent are Asian. If you look into a classroom in the Los Angeles area — tomorrow’s voters — 3 of 4 kids are Hispanic.

We shall see how California Democrats exert their new power.  If you’re a mentally competent person, I wouldn’t suggest taking a bet that the economic situation will improve.

While Heather MacDonald wrote in National Review that  while “a March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration,” Califronia proves that such perceived anti-immingrant measures can lead to disastrous results.

Then again, she did touch upon our image problem with Latinos:

Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.

spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”

And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.

Yes, we have work to do.  The fact that entitlement reform will be part of our outreach strategy makes me more optimistic we can win them over, or at least enough to win an election.  Republican immigration policy needs to be smart and comprehensive.  We can start by not passing anymore legislation that takes states off the table in national elections.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

Obama Won 108% of the votes in Ohio

(AP Photo/Tony Dejak)

I was recently doing some research on voter fraud in this election as a follow up to my previous blog on voter fraud when a friend sent me the following article from a site called Vision to America showing voter fraud in Ohio:

Let’s face it. Obama won the election. Just like Putin and Ahmadinejad did theirs. The only difference is that unlike Iranians and Russians, Americans won’t be gathering in the streets to protest their disenfranchisement at the hands of the corrupt Democratic Party machine.

First, he received over 99% of the vote in districts where GOP inspectors were illegally removed. Next, he won 100% of the vote in 21 districts in Cleveland. Well, he’s gotten another lucky break!
Mr. Obama won Wood County in Ohio this year. That’s right, Mr. Obama won the majority of Wood County’s 108% of registered voters. That’s not a typo.
In 2012, 106,258 people in Wood County are registered to vote out of an eligible 98,213.

Makes you wonder how much of this went on in every blue state.

« Older Entries