Confessions of a Political Junkie

• Home
• About Me
• RSS

Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Erick Erickson's ruminations from inside the vast right wing conspiracy.

• 
   

RedState

RedState is my full time job. It is the largest right of center blogging community on the internet. It's also the most widely read right of center blog on Capitol Hill and most quoted right of center blog in the media.
www.redstate.com

WSB Radio

In 2010, I started the Erick Erickson Show on WSB Radio in Atlanta. WSB Radio is the nation's most listened talk radio station and broadcasts from Atlanta, GA. It's also the flagship station for Neal Boortz and Clark Howard. The show airs weeknights from 6pm to 9pm ET. If you can't listen live you can check out the podcast via iTunes.
iTunes Podcast
Alternate feed options available at www.wsbradio.com

Social Networks

You can track me down on Twitter and Facebook, both at ewerickson.

Twitter: www.twitter.com/ewerickson

Facebook: www.facebook.com/ewerickson

Also on Instagram at, you guessed it, ewerickson.

More Than One ‘I’ In Coalition

There has been much ink spilled and bytes consumed in the past week over that tea party letter asking Republicans to, in effect, shut up about social issues. This is a problem that both sides have had in the past.

And let’s be clear here, it is not that these groups wants social issues ignored. They just want socially conservative issues ignored. They’re cool with repealing don’t ask, don’t tell — just ignore the judiciary usurping the role of the people or their legislatures dealing with gay marriage.

Some social conservatives have wanted federal government involvement in their issues at the expense of fiscal integrity and some fiscal guys have wanted government involvement in their issues while ignoring life, gay marriage, etc.

As Baseball Crank noted the other day, there is more than one “I” in coalition. Both sides must work together as best they can and it is inappropriate for either side to want to shut up the other side.

The fact is I completely agree with Jim DeMint. You cannot be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative and vice versa. The libertine sensibilities of many a fiscal libertarian will lead the country to social ruin causing government spending to bail out society and the spend-thrift nature of many Republican pro-life statists will lead the country to bankruptcy.

As a Christian, I recognize that the smallest possible government is in my best interest because all men are sinners and the less of them in charge of me the better off I will be. I just wish the secularists would understand that no society can survive undermining the traditional several thousand year old preference for the heterosexual nuclear family and life.

Now, I know many of you disagree with that and I cannot persuade you otherwise, but I do think there is common ground in this disagreement. It goes back to the idea of federalism, recognizing it no longer exists, and committing to restore it.

Our founders did not intend, nor did any governing coalition or black robed master at the Supreme Court intend, for this nation to have a national common morality. Unfortunately, in the twentieth-century our black robed masters decided over time that we must.

Ideally in this country, if you want gay marriage and abortion in California you should be able to have it. If I want real marriage and no abortion in Georgia I should be able to have it. And ultimately when California collapses in on itself those of us who upheld the nuclear family can fight over the leftover land.

That is the way the country was designed and intended. The thugocrats at the Supreme Court decided they had a better idea and now you and I must both adhere to a common morality, which over time has favored a secular society of libertine morality, which many of us believe will ultimately cause the destruction of our society. But that’s neither here nor there.

What is here is that whether you are for fiscal or social issues, neither side can afford to shut up when the folks in Washington insist that federalism is out and black robed thuggery and bureaucratic fiat are in.

it is both naive and ridiculous for any group on the right — and by the way more and more surveys are showing that tea party members are rather socially conservative — to tell social conservatives to shut up when ultimately social conservatives have been, by black robed tyrants, forced against their will to fight at the federal level instead of the state level.

Certainly, given the times we are in, fiscal issues are of paramount importance. But many of us remain concerned about the daily slaughter of children in this country as well as the constant undermining of real marriage and the nuclear family. And just as you and I both know that the nation cannot survive our profligate spending, I also know our national cannot survive the destruction over a few decades of the social structure put in place over several thousand years, ordained in the sacred texts of major religions, and shown throughout history to provide the most stability in society.

So we’re forced to work together as a coalition with a large swath of common ground. But for those of you who ultimately care not one whit about social issues, you are going to need to join those of us who do and fight like hell to restore federalism instead of just saying let’s have it without any recognition of the fact that we no longer do have it.

————————–
UPDATE: I have to say, having posted this now a couple of hours ago, there is a great deal of wailing and gnashing of teeth from the libertarian set. Let me put this another way, saying “no taxpayer funded abortion and weed for everyone” is all well and good until it happens. Then the rest of society is forced to pay to pick up the pieces of the potheads. Therefore, you have much more government in the end.

Likewise, saying “no taxpayer funding of abortion, but hands off my uterus” sounds terrific (for some), but for the fact that the issue should be handled at the state level and we are forced to deal with it at a national level. So yeah, I guess you can be a social liberal at the state level, but it seems pretty damn hard at the federal level to take that position with all of the implications therein.

And that leads me to the final point — in elected politics the “fiscally conservative social liberal” is as real as a unicorn.

Dear John Boehner and Eric Cantor

Hi guys,

Just a short note. If either of you support as Chairman of the Energy & Commerce Committee any of the damn fools who supported killing the incandescent lightbulb we’re going to have problems.

That rules out Fred Upton. Sorry guys. I’m told you’ve been leaning toward him. But sorry. That may rule out some of the others too. But still — how many people have been put on the unemployment line in Pennsylvania alone because of that decision? More than a few hundred.

Oh, and Jerry Lewis and Hal Rogers? I know you guys are thinking of leaving Jerry in place, but he has been part of the problem. Just because he’s suddenly whistling a different tune, doesn’t change that. And Rogers will start a fight with the tea party movement you don’t want to have because you’ll wind up like the guys in the Senate.

Just saying . . .

Thanks,
Erick

Freshman House Republicans Need Some Good Discernment

This morning’s Politico has an article on the number of leadership posts that the incoming class of 2010 is demanding be set aside for freshmen. Two slots on the Elected Leadership Committee (ELC), which basically means they will sit at the leadership table and participate in the discussion, one class president (largely irrelevant), and importantly, two coveted slots on the Steering Committee which makes committee assignments and decides chairmanship races.

These two steering slots need to be filled with hard core conservatives who can be trusted to not just go along with whatever decision Speaker Boehner and Majority Leader Cantor make. And currently, the Appropriations Committee controls too much of the committee (Jerry Lewis, Hal Rogers, Ken Calvert, Steve LaTourette, Tom Cole, etc.), and this cannot be expanded.

Specifically, Politico mentions that Alan Nunnelee of Mississippi is interested in serving on the steering committee. This cannot happen. Nunnelee chaired the Appropriations Committee in the Mississippi State Senate, and looks to be the second coming of Thad Cochran. Once an old school appropriator, always an appropriator, and the burden is on Nunnelee to prove that he will be different at the federal level.

Politico does not mention Jeff Denham of California as being interested, but I could see this being the very type of position he would be interested in. Denham would be terrible on the committee, blending in as a conservative publicly and taking the leadership line privately. He was a real problem in the State Senate.

Others of concern for any of these positions: Bob Dold, Charlie Bass (heaven help us!), Steve Womack, and bank lobbying tax hiker Steve Stivers.

Who can be trusted on this most insider-of-insider committees? Tom Graves (he should be considered a freshman), Jeff Duncan, Justin Amash, Renee Ellmers, Tim Huelskamp, and Allen West for starters.

The class of 2010 are right to be operating as a block, but they need to be discerning within their ranks as to who is the real deal and not to vote for them just because they’re nice or articulate or good looking or funny or whatever other ridiculous consideration these popularity contests come down to.

Reform of the Steering Committee is Fundamental; each member should get one vote. But it also matters who the members are. The class of 2010 need to make their votes count.

Morning Briefing for November 18, 2010

———————————————————————-

Malicious Mendacity in the Tea Party Movement [UPDATED]

Here’s a rule of thumb — if engaging the tea party movement, focus on the local groups, not the big groups. Tea Party Express has one heck of an impressive track record this year at the national level and they need to be commended for that, but all things being equal it is the local groups that have the volunteers, get out the vote efforts, phone bankers, etc. And I think a number of the national group leaders would tend to agree.

But here is another case in point for bypassing a lot of the national tea party groups. The Claremont Institute, a well respected organization that has one heck of a constitutional history course, is hosting an event for new members of Congress.

The organization is being attacked by a tea party group as being filled with and held by “Washington Insiders.”

For the record, the Claremont Institute is on the opposite coast of the United States from Washington and composed of some of the wingiest wingers in the entire wing-o-sphere.

This handwringing about “Washington Insiders” is verging on paranoid.

One tea party group is giving out the private cell phone numbers of freshmen congressmen to pressure them to avoid competing orientation programs, etc.

Certainly there are legitimate concerns and there must be caution, but Good Lord people, by the time all the cards are on the table we’re going to have all the tea party groups labeling their competitors as Washington Insiders.

This is nuts.

——————-

UPDATED: Just got off the phone with a friend of mine who tells me that the tea party event in question had actually been an event set up by Congressman John Shadegg and others. The tea party group was invited to participate because it had scheduled an event on the same day. The groups merged.

Then the Claremont event invitation went out three days after the announcement of the Shadegg/Tea Party event. Shadegg’s group invited the Claremont group to share facilities, etc. since everyone would be there together. Chip Saltsman and the others involved refused, instead trying to pitch their even as somehow more official.

It sounds like Satlsman and the rest really were trying to do some not-quite-authentic event filled with the types of Washingtonians you wouldn’t want, but ultimately the tea party group handing out the private cell phone numbers of members of Congress remains out of line in my book.

Trust me, as a guy who has no hesitation putting up phone numbers and asking people to call, I would never give out someone’s cell phone number. That’s just wrong and, frankly, creates ill will.

Morning Briefing for November 12, 2010

———————————————————————-

Here it comes

Saul Anuzis has announced he is going to run for RNC Chairman, challenging Michael Steele.

“We cannot be misled by our victories this year,” Anuzis wrote in an announcement posted on his blog. “Chairman Steele’s record speaks for itself. He has his way of doing things. I have mine.”

Anuzis, clearly hoping to emerge as the choice of the anti-Steele forces within the 168 member Republican National Committee added that “I will NOT strive to be the voice or the face of our party” — seeking to draw a direct contrast with high profile (and gaffe prone) current chairman.

I’m sure we will hear more official announcements. There are lots of rumblings of other challengers. One name I’m hearing that I dismiss is Nick Ayers, head of the Republican Governors Association. I suspect you’ll see him running a Presidential campaign, not the RNC.

Morning Briefing for November 15, 2010

———————————————————————-

Ken Paxton Should Be the Speaker of Texas’s House

It has always bothered me when conservatives win elections but “moderate” Republicans end up running the leadership. In case you haven’t noticed, it happens all the time – once behind closed doors, the leadership does not reflect the elected Members nor the people who elected them. It is time for that to change and one place to start is Texas.

For those of you unfamiliar with what’s going on, there is a fight going on over the next Speaker of the Texas House. It really boils down to two choices: the current Speaker, moderate and Democrat supported Joe Straus, and conservative Ken Paxton.

As arguably the most powerful figure in Texas politics during the legislative session, the Speaker appoints Committee Chairs and those chairs set the agenda. As a result, liberal chairmen can keep conservative reforms from being voted on. This is exactly what happened the last legislative session when Speaker of the House Joe Straus swept into the Speaker slot on the backs of 65 Democrats and 11 Republicans (infamously known as the “Straus Eleven”). Yes, you read that correctly. A Republican Speaker that only had 11 Republicans vote for him. The reward for the Democrats loyalty was handing 14 committee chairmanships to liberal Democrats out of the 32.

These weren’t just any committees either. Democrat Rene Oliveira chaired the Texas House Ways and Means Committee in the 81st Texas legislature. On top of that, Straus handed the Chair of Calendars to Brian McCall – one of the most liberal Republicans in the Texas House, having received a rating of 27% from the Young Conservatives of Texas. The Chair of Calendars is the second most powerful leadership position in the Texas House because he sets the legislative calendar. If you want to kill conservative legislation, put a liberal in as the Chair of Calendars.

But it gets worse. During the 81st legislative session, Straus and his lieutenants burned conservative Texans over and over again.

• Straus lieutenant, Vicki Truitt, lead a push to increase Texas’ gas tax.
• Straus’ Elections Chair Todd Smith killed Voter ID in committee.
• Todd Smith authored and passed McCain Feingold type election law, only to have it vetoed.
• No hearings were allowed on spending limits
• Legislation to provide business tax exemptions to small businesses wasn’t allowed

Straus was recently given a 100% rating from NARAL in Texas and was honored by Planned Parenthood (where his wife sits on the board). He stumped for the poster child of the Left in Texas, Democrat Patrick Rose, this fall while not giving one dime to Republican challengers across the state. The ironic twist in all that is 22 Republican challengers won, including Jason Isaac, Patrick Rose’s opponent.

Possibly one of the most damning pieces of information against Straus is the percentage of Republican bills that were killed under his “leadership”-32%. 32% of Republican bills killed under a Republican Speaker while only 3% of the Democrat bills were killed. Elections have consequences. At least they should. Under former Republican Speaker, Tom Craddick, almost 50% of Democrat bills were defeated in final votes compared to 4% of Republican bills.

On Empower Texans Fiscal Index, the committee chairmen Straus appointed had an average rating on the Fiscal Index of 54%, abysmal by any standard.

Ken Paxton, on the other hand, received a 100% rating from Empower Texans. In contrast to Straus, he received a 0% rating from NARAL, a 97% rating from the Young Conservatives of Texas and an A+ from the NRA. Rock solid, you say? It gets better. Paxton sponsored legislation that would create stronger spending limits in Texas government in 2005, 2007 and 2009 and was lead author on cutting-edge transparency legislation in 2007.

What is troubling to me, though, is to see newly elected Republicans like Stef Carter and Cindy Burkett [updated: Ms. Burkett says she is taking no position at this time] and a rock solid conservative like Sid Miller amongst others endorse Straus right out of the gate and now that Paxton is in the race for Speaker, refuse to withdraw their endorsements.

This race already has some controversy. Last week Bryan Hughes (R) of Mineola voiced his opposition to Straus after he was threatened by an unnamed member of the Speaker’s leadership team. Representative Leo Berman filed an ethics complaint, tainting Straus pledge cards with the specter of bribery.

The Texas Speaker Race will provide an early preview of the consequences for betraying the conservative grassroots coalition that rocked the November 2nd vote. The 2012 primary season is not that far away.

With a host of issue before the next legislative session, with redistricting taking place and Texas in line to get another 4 seats in the United States House of Representatives, the question must be asked: who should be in charge of this process? Straus? Or Paxton?

The answer is clear.

Morning Briefing for November 16, 2010

———————————————————————-

Next Page »