Comments on: Beware populists in sheeps clothing

By: madnorskie

madnorskie — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 22:54:02 +0000

We should be choosing and electing candidates based on the principles they espouse and the policy proposals they put forth, and not based purely on electability.

Republicans poured money into the elections of Snowe, Specter, and others based on electability, subverting true conservatives who would not have switched party allegiance, or given cover to Democrats on Obamacare, or damaged the Republican brand by expanding the size and scope of government.

Erick and RedState have done a fantastic job of drawing a line in the sand with the Republican establishment, boldly endorsing conservatives seen to be underdogs, and soliciting support to help make them viable campaigns. Erick has also urged that conservatives become involved in their local parties in an attempt to influence who the party supports as candidates.

To be successful in this, we cannot be as the NRSC, making decisions based on who we are connected to or who seems at the moment to be most electable. As others have pointed out, we also cannot support those based purely on their success in private industry, but we must restrain ourselves from being so dismissive, as the party of limited government it should be self-evident that it is suicide to look only to professional politicians and bureaucrats for leadership.

As the races in 2010 unfold and 2012 nears, let us look for the candidates who can best carry forth the message of conservatism, those with policy ideas based on principle, and with a history of championing the causes of liberty, free markets, and American values. I firmly believe that if we do this, we will find our generation’s Reagans.

By: Moe Lane

Moe Lane — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:24:02 +0000

Please don’t launch personal attacks against site Contributors.

And, just to be clear: while this is a polite instruction from a site moderator, it is an instruction, and one from somebody who is indifferent to whether you think it’s fair, whether you think that I’m a big meanie, and to whether you think that my publicly correcting your behavior will have negative repercussions for this site.

By: Achance

Achance — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:02:55 +0000

was Governor of CA. He’d earned the everlasting enmity of the Left and all the mytholgy about his being merely a B-movie actor and being stupid because of his time at the SAG and his anti-communism in SAG and the movie industry generally. They never forget!

In any event, I’ve been subjected to all sorts of captains of industry holding elected or appointed offices. Sorry, most of the skills that might have made you money in the private sector doom you to failure in government. If you don’t know about running a government yourself, you’d better have some really good, trustworthy staff that DO know how to get a government to work and can help you avoid the pitfalls.

Frankly, the only way I’d support someone with no experience in government is if I knew the people around that person and had confidence in them.

By: hickorystick

hickorystick — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:31:24 +0000

on parade again. The ineptness of Republicans to be able to incorporate just anger and channel it into productive energy never ceases to amaze me. The complaints of Tea Party movement and Glenn Becks are legitimite. Achances mocking of the Wobblie song is telling. These men in Washington State area were working in lumber camps in squalid conditions, and were having their wages undercut by foreign workers brought to America to do this. I don’t agree with all their tactics, but their complaint was reasonable. The inability of Republicans understand and deal with their complaints resulted in a Washington district becoming Progressive . The Republican Party cannot remain solely centered on the status-quo. We must focus on accountability, transparency, and the Constitution
We must understand that the laborer and skilled worker cannot share in prosperity if he is continually undercut by workers of foreign countries who have sub-standard living conditions and work rules. These foreign countries do not bear the burden of rule-of law, democracy or decency to their people.
Republicanism is structurally a format for small units to voice their concerns and complaints and have it filter up through higher units to form a con-census as to what the party stands for. Their is a legitimate practice of higher levels to constrain passions; but to scoff at them and ignore them is foolishness. If individuals in the party are de-valued they will leave. This is poor practice being that the elected officials are selected in a democratic-oriented process. We need to get better at channeling energies and passions.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 05:29:36 +0000

All that free trade does is give the consumer more options and increase competition–it does very little to our employment situation, particularly in the long run, except in that it frees up labor to do different (probably better paid) work. Tax and regulatory policies have everything to do with that, and the sooner we can change that, as opposed to trade policies, the better!

By: ehosterman

ehosterman — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:56:53 +0000

sending jobs overseas, it’s our tax and regulatory policies. All you have to do is look back to Carter and Reagan. Under Carter we were told that America’s best days were behind us and we were losing our edge both economically and politically. Oil was running out and we needed higher taxes to help the unemployed an we needed higher taxes on energy to encourage conservation. What did Reagan do on taking office. He cut taxes and cut regulation (to some extent) and deregulated gas and oil production. What happened to our moribund economy, that couldn’t generate jobs? It took off on a 25 year boom. If you cut taxes and regulation, the productivity of the American worker will take care of everything else.
We haven’t lost our manufacturing edge, we’re just taxing and regulating it to death. That isn’t something protectionism will solve.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:23:56 +0000

and spent time developing real policy proposals using radio and other forms of media. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a movie actor. Look how well that went.

By: aesthete

aesthete — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 02:06:06 +0000

The reason that we don’t have so many jobs in manufacturing anymore (in the US, anyways) is twofold: first, of course, free trade has had a hand in this, by both providing cheaper workers and by selling us less-expensive products (both of which drive prices down and are good for consumers). The second is that, in point of fact, we are not producing less (we’re actually producing far more output than we were during the golden age of protectionism), but rather, are producing smarter, by mechanizing the process and otherwise making the workforce more efficient. Also, manufacturing is on the decline, but mostly because northern (read: unionized) manufacturing centers are drastically getting the axe. The Southern right-to-work states that can support manufacturing are actually experiencing moderate levels of growth (or at least, they were before the recession). Also, it is worth noting that non-unionized manufacturing jobs aren’t particularly rewarding, and it is also worth noting that the recessionary spiral that you mention (where you just can’t get out) is largely an artifact of orthodox Keynesian thought, and has never actually occurred in any free-market country with reasonable/non-insane monetary policy. Protectionism is not vital to nat’l security, as contracts for military manufacturing could easily have as one of their terms that all of their production must be done in the US. Essentially, protectionism just gives our crappy industries another reason not to get more competitive, which is a bad thing, when you think about it.

By: publiussteve

publiussteve — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:19:26 +0000

I don’t know much about Ganley, but I’m not sold on Portman. First the 2007 Bush-Kennedy amnesty bill should not be labeled as “so-called amnesty” as it is in this post when it was in fact a mass amnesty bill.

I’m concerned by a statement Portman made on Fox News Sunday in June 2008 implying support for amnesty when (pitching McCain) he said “we couldn’t get comprehensive immigration reform through the United States Congress.” Many politicians including Democrats will not openly admit they favor amnesty, but what about “comprehensive immigration reform” (CIR) the popular D.C. euphemism for amnesty…does Portman oppose CIR and why isn’t immigration even listed as a category on his campaign website?

Finally, when Portman was in Congress (in 2001), he voted to reward illegal immigrants with amnesty by voting in favor of a four-month extension of Section 245(i).

By: madnorskie

madnorskie — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:49:15 +0000

You didn’t state it specifically, but your assertions were clear.

I don’t know enough about either candidate to know which I would support, whether one is more electable than the other, or whether one will stick to conservative principles. Portman could very well be an excellent candidate, both electable and conservative, and if so he deserves our support.

However, I do know, that if we turn our backs on those who have little political or government experience, but who are “just” successful business people, or B movie actors, we will continue to end up with Republican politicians who are better politicians than conservatives.

…and I should add, that if you have been in the Republican establishment for the past several years and have been contributing to the debasement of the party, you should be pressed harder than the rest to prove that you are deserving of our continued support.

By: Kevin Holtsberry

Kevin Holtsberry — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:34:18 +0000

Care to explain how I said Portman was best because he was a lifelong politician? Read it again. I didn’t.

But answer me this. So if you are a successful business person and speak at a few tea parties you are automatically the best candidate for a US Senate seat? I should just assume that Ganley can win and isn’t a crank because he made money selling cars? Because he opposes “sending jobs overseas” and loudly opines on immigration?

Portman is right on the issues but, call me crazy, I think fundraising, campaign experience, and a record of success counts for something.

By: Third Street

Third Street — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:19:54 +0000

which is a non-starter, is he wrong? ‘Cause up until the second half of the last paragraph I can’t say I see anything in SirGladiator’s post that I disagree with. And I am neither a Paulian, a Buchananista, nor a protectionist.

It’s been demonstrated throughout history that protectionism doesn’t work. But we’re learning a very hard lesson right now that pursuing the other extreme, of sending everything but service jobs out of the country, is also disastrous. This country cannot survive on $10-per-hour jobs. This country cannot survive the destruction of its manufacturing base.

The frightening thing about this recession/depression is that there is no historical precedent for the situation we are now in. Unlike the last time we faced a crisis this severe — which would be 70 years ago — we have largely eliminated a manufacturing base to rebuild from. We have nothing concrete upon which to stage a recovery. The realities of the global economy combined with the homicidal policies of Obama are ensuring the good-paying jobs leave this country as quickly as possible, and nothing is going to bring them back. Why should we expect to see single-digit unemployment in this country again?

I support Rob Portman because he’s a good candidate and he can keep that seat. He can help close the gap in the Senate and stop the bleeding, which will hopefully stabilize the patient. But where we go for a transfusion, I have no idea.

By: madnorskie

madnorskie — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:19:47 +0000

I have to say, the tone and assertions that Kevin uses is precisely what is wrong with the Republican establishment today and seem to run counter to what Red State is trying to accomplish, the reshaping of the Republican Party back to a conservative base.

I don’t know much about either Portman or Ganley, but to begin with the assertion that one is the obvious choice because he is a lifelong politician and bureaucrat, while the other has “done nothing but run a successful business” runs contrary to conservative and Red State principles. After 8 years of professional Republican politicians and bureaucrats ruining the Republican brand, I think we need pay attention to principles, message, and policy ideas over whether or not one has “sufficient” government experience.

Kevin, if your ilk have done enough damage, it is time to get some principles or get out of the way.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:49:51 +0000

By: zbigreddogz

zbigreddogz — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:44:36 +0000

Go back to your Ron Paul rally.

Oh, and take a course in Economics.

By: SirGladiator

SirGladiator — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:42:19 +0000

I don’t know all that much about Portman really, and I know absolutely nothing about the other guy, but I think there are several really valid arguments to be made in favor of supporting a new guy. I know a lot of Conservative folks not only don’t care about the jobs being shipped overseas, but actually LIKE it, because they imagine that there are all these other jobs taking their place. Two things, first, those jobs aren’t proving to be as easy to replace lately as witnessed by the unemployment rate. But that could be temporary, maybe when the economy turns around employment will go back to normal and everything will be fine on that score. The other thing though, is that the jobs that are being sent overseas were really good paying jobs, Manufacturing jobs, and they tend to be replaced by service jobs, and last I checked those didn’t pay nearly as well. So folks may have to work two jobs to make as much, or even less, than they used to make working at one.

But I know there are people that don’t care about any of that either, maybe you just want to believe so badly that sending jobs overseas is good that no evidence to the contrary will ever matter to you, that’s your right as an American. All that really matters in the context of this Senate race isn’t who’s right and who’s wrong, but what do the people believe is right or wrong. And the people of Ohio definitely do NOT believe that sending American jobs overseas is a good thing. Their economy is even worse than the national average, they are hurting badly thanks to the Bush policies, and they aren’t going to be too anxious to put one of his economic guys in charge of the economy again. Nominating a new guy, one who sounds pretty awesome judging by the fact that he’s been a major Tea Party guy, sounds like an excellent idea for victory. Now, I do agree with the other folks who said that the establishment man can spend WAY more money than a regular American can, no doubt that is true. But how much money do you need to counter the argument the Democrat will make ‘This guy gave us the Bush economy, do you want him in the Senate?’. It doesn’t seem like you can buy your way out of that one in Ohio, even if you had 100 million dollars. A tea party guy with no ties whatsoever to the economic crash seems like he would be a much better guy to run to me. Just a thought.

By: Richard Mullins

Richard Mullins — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:35:13 +0000

for awhile they were palatable. When they started to show there true colors, it showed why nobody wants to deal with them. I think little blurb by Bay Buchannan will backfire on Ganley.

By: peg_c

peg_c — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:27:30 +0000

I’ve never liked her and couldn’t exactly say why. I just am not a fan of Buchanans period.

By: Achance

Achance — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:11:44 +0000

Hallelujah I’m a Bum

Oh, why don’t I work like other men do?
How the hell can I work when the skies are so blue?

cho: Hallelujah! I’m a bum, Hallelujah bum again,
Hallelujah! give us a handout and revive us again.

Oh, I love my boss and my boss loves me,
And that is the reason I’m so hungry.

Well, springtime has come and I’m just out of jail,
Without any money, without any bail

Oh why don’t you save all the money you earn?
Well if I didn’t eat, I’d have money to burn.

Oh, I like my boss, he’s a good friend of mine,
And that’s why I’m standing out in the breadline.

I can’t buy a job ’cause I ain’t got the dough
So I ride in a boxcar ’cause I’m a hobo.

I went to a house and I knocked on the door,
The lady said, “Scram, bum, you’ve been here before!”

I went to a bar and I asked for a drink,
They gave me a glass and they showed me the sink.

Oh why don’t you work like other folks do?
How can I get a job when you’re holding down two?

Whenever I get all the money I earn,
The boss will be broke and to work he must turn.

I went to a house and I knocked on the door;
A lady came out, says, “You been here before.”

I went to a house, and I asked for some bread;
A lady came out, says, “The baker is dead.”

When springtime does come, oh won’t we have fun,
We’ll throw up our jobs and we’ll go on the bum.

By: the_invisible_hand

the_invisible_hand — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:07:11 +0000

If we are to have a future as a viable national party the path you lay out in selecting candidates is essential.

Protectionism, populism, and isolationism are the property of Democrats and we should stamp them with it like a scarlet letter.