The presidential primary in South Carolina has intensified and my name is being tossed around a lot.

I have complimented several of our candidates when they spoke out on conservative issues, but the media has suggested that I favor one over the others.

I’m writing today to make sure you know exactly where I stand.

I do not have a favorite in this race and I will not endorse a candidate.

I’ve gotten to know each of the candidates over the past year and they are all far superior to Obama. My view reflects what I’ve heard from Republican voters across South Carolina who remain divided in this race.

Sure, Senator DeMint was an early supporter of Mitt Romney in 2008 (endorsing him way back in 2007, before the primary really got off the ground), but he’s decided to hold onto his endorsement of a candidate this time.

However, Senator DeMint endorsed an idea. Take a look at the second half of his email this morning:

For those of you in South Carolina, I encourage you to watch the Fox News debate tonight and vote this Saturday for the candidate you believe will fight the hardest to stop the massive spending, bailouts, and debt that are bankrupting our country. We need a president with the courage to tell Americans that our government must do less, not more.

The 2012 elections could be our last chance to restore America’s greatness so we must defeat President Obama and elect more conservative leaders to the House and Senate.

Please continue to pray for our country and the year ahead. Our future depends on it.

For Freedom,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator

Perhaps Senator DeMint sees the writing on the wall. It’s very likely Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee this year. And perhaps expending political capital on a long-shot candidate isn’t worth it.

But he spent most of last week praising the libertarian ideals within the Republican Party.

Not endorsing Mitt Romney, while praising the libertarian wing within the GOP, is quite a statement..

It was rumored for months, and it seems the rumors are true. The Washington Post reported on Saturday that Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (who is seen as a potential future Presidential candidate) is using the redistricting committee as a weapon against House Republicans in an effort to help Democrats take back the House and re-install Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

From the article:

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s redistricting commission will release a plan in coming days to attempt to harness the Washington area’s surging — and largely Democratic —population growth over the last decade to help Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives.

How far O’Malley (D) is willing to go to achieve that goal is now the question.

According to interviews and drafts of two leading proposals obtained by The Washington Post, O’Malley and a cadre of the state’s top Democratic lawmakers are engaged in a secretive, final round of negotiations over whether to go further than expected and try to unseat not one but potentially both of Maryland’s Republican congressmen.

At a minimum, the maps make clear that O’Malley will seek to oust Western Maryland’s 10-term Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R) by moving a swath of liberal Montgomery County voters into the traditionally conservative 6th Congressional District.

WaPo got their hands on two proposals, which you can see here. It appears, however, that the actual proposed district plan is a hybrid of the two aforementioned plans. Here is a link to the PowerPoint proposal acquired byWaPo.

The 1st District (Eastern Shore Counties, part of Harford, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties), represented by former Republican State Senator Andy Harris, picks up more Republican voters by dumping Anne Arundel and stretching West to Carroll County. Originally, Democrats wanted to take out Harris and replace him with Frank Kratovil, who defeated Harris by less than 3,000 votes in the 2008 election. Doing so would mean a major change in the lines of the Democrat-held districts which slice-and-dice Baltimore city, so it appears they scrapped that idea.

Where a majority of the proverbial “screwing” happens is in Western Maryland, where Democrats have targeted 10-term incumbent Roscoe Bartlett, a peculiar-but-likeable Congressman, whose non-interventionist stance on foreign policy is due largely to his strongly-held religious beliefs. He also sides with Democrats on many civil liberties issues and on alternative energy. (Side note: Dr. Bartlett is a brilliant inventor and scientist, who holds a number of patents on inventions which improved breathing devices used by astronauts, pilots, and fire/rescue personnel.)

The Hill reports this morning that Bartlett is the top target for Maryland Dems:

Bartlett’s new district wouldn’t be a slam-dunk for Democrats if he ran — he has an unorthodox voting record, including support of some Democratic positions on renewable energy and civil liberties, and the new district leans Democratic, but not overhwelmingly so. But the 85-year-old might choose against running in his first tough race in decades.

Democrats had pondered targeting both Republicans, but that would have forced a complete rejiggering of the current map and could have put some of their own incumbents at risk.

Tough race, indeed. If you overlay the old State Senate districts onto the new proposed Congressional Districts, you begin to understand exactly what the Democrats want to do.

It seems as though the entirety of the Montgomery County addition to the proposed 6th District is currently represented by Senate Democrat Leader Rob Garagiola, who spent part of the 2010 cycle campaigning in Frederick County for the Democrat candidate for State Senate. There’s very little doubt that he plans to run if (merely a formality, when) the new districts are approved by the legislature in a special session this year.

Full Disclosure: I worked on a State Senate race in Mid-Maryland last year (the district sits squarely in the current 6th Congressional District). Maryland is a tough landscape for Republicans, but they routinely capture between 30% and 40% for state-wide candidates.

Reason would suggest that – were redistricting handled proportionately, rather than politically – Republicans would hold 3 Congressional Districts. That’s not the reality. And it appears from the proposed map that Maryland Democrats aren’t finished screwing over Maryland Republicans.

UPDATE: The Maryland GOP released a statement on the Democrat redistricting plan:

In response to the release of Governor O’Malley’s partisan, Democrat-designed congressional map that outrageously gerrymanders the state of Maryland, Maryland Republican Party Chairman Alex Mooney made the following statement:

“This map is an insult to the people of Maryland. It ignores the people’s plea for a fair map that respects geographic boundaries and protects minority rights,” said Chairman Mooney. “Governor O’Malley and his stacked partisan Democrat committee have created a map with the singular goal of carving up the Western part of Maryland and defeating Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett,” Mooney said. “Not only does the map target one individual, but it also features not one or two but eight districts that look patently ridiculous.”

“County boundaries and communities of interest were not given their due regard in this map. As a result, this map further violates minority groups who have been traditionally underrepresented in the state’s congressional delegation,” Mooney continued.

“Governor O’Malley has once again failed to live up to the ‘One Maryland’ talking point he uses during election years. I urge the General Assembly to reject this attempt to carve up and divide both the rural areas of our state and black communities to maximize the Democrats partisan advantage,” concluded Mooney.

National Review columnist Mark Steyn makes an excellent point this morning:

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

Steyn essentially argues that we’re kidding ourselves if we think the debate in Washington is really going to change all that much, what with Senate Republican leadership willing to capitulate to Democrats at the drop of a hat.

I recorded a program for Fairfax Public Television over the weekend, and at one point the moderator asked me about the debate over cutting spending in Washington and the refusal of conservatives to accept raising the debt ceiling without taking serious measures to curb spending.

I dug deep and was able to come up with something like this:

For the better part of 70 years, both political parties in Washington have been content to increase spending and create debt. During that time, only a small minority actually called for decreasing spending and actually meant it. Let’s say it was about 10%. But you can’t do anything with such a slim minority.

After the 2010 elections, Republicans took control of the House, and among their ranks are a substantial number of conservatives. They don’t make up a majority of the Caucus — I don’t think — but they’re vocal. And those who were elected last November “don’t know how Washington works,” so they’re less willing to accept compromise than Members who have been in Washington for several terms.

So, over the course of the last 70 years, we’ve had compromise, compromise, compromise… more spending, more debt. And where has that gotten us? Right here. In a mess.

And who’s contributed to the mess? 90% of the ruling class in D.C.

On this public access program, I was asked why conservatives wouldn’t give in and agree to raise taxes or accept any proposals from the Democrats, to which I responded — it hasn’t been working! True conservatives have been shut out of the debate for decades. As far as I can tell, conservatives who want to cut government spending have about 70 years worth of catching up to do.

The time for compromise on the right has passed. It’s time to make significant cuts to government spending.

And what’s with this notion of compromise for the sake of compromise anyway? To paraphrase Erick Erickson, sometimes the evil party and the stupid party come together to do something that’s both evil and stupid all for the sake of compromise and bipartisanship.

What good is it if both parties sell us down the river just so they can say they worked together to do it?

We’ve finally changed the debate in Washington from “What can we spend?” to “What can we cut?” — It’s the first time in probably forever that this sort of debate is taking place in Washington.

Conservatives should stand their ground and fight for their principles now more than ever.

Professors at the University of Cincinnati James L. Winkle College of Pharmacy are using their school-issued email addresses to lobby students to sign a petition in favor of repealing Senate Bill 5, which was passed this year to curb collective bargaining efforts by Ohio public employees. If the petition garners enough signatures, SB5 will appear on the November ballot in the form of a referendum.

States like Ohio have had to trim millions of dollars in expenses due to tough economic conditions. One way conservatives are balancing state budgets is by cutting back the Big Labor largesse by compelling public sector employees to contribute more to their own benefits and restructuring collective bargaining arrangements.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and other unions are protesting all over the country, and they’ve launched a repeal effort in Ohio called “We Are Ohio.”

Andrea Wall, the Assistant Dean of the School of Pharmacy & Alumni Affairs, sent the following message to students on behalf of a few professors this morning: (Emphasis added.)

Are you a registered Ohio voter in Hamilton or Butler Counties?  Would you be interested in signing a petition to place Ohio Senate Bill 5 (SB5) on the November ballot? If so this message is for you!

Ohio Senate Bill 5, restricts the rights of all public employees (Teachers, Police, Firemen, Professors, etc.) to fully participate in collective bargaining through their respective unions.

Today May 31, Drs. Cavanaugh and Cluxton will be collecting signatures on the petition in the hallway outside room 331 from 12 n until 1pm.

To sign the petition you MUST BE a registered voter in Ohio counties of Butler or Hamilton and have voted at least once in the last 4 years.   By signing the petition you are exercising your right to vote on Senate Bill 5.  Signing the petition is NOT a vote for or against SB5 it merely places the bill on the ballot in November for a vote.  If SB5  is on the ballot you can be sure that both sides on the issue will provide considerable information for you the voter to decide what is best for Ohio.

The forwarded email is signed by Robert J. Cluxton, Jr., PharmD, MBA under the closing “WE ARE OHIO,” a reference to the left-wing lobbying organization that is pushing the effort to repeal SB5.

The message is curiously worded: By signing the petition you are exercising your right to vote on Senate Bill 5.  Signing the petition is NOT a vote for or against SB5 it merely places the bill on the ballot in November for a vote.

It appears as though the professors in question understand they are using their school-issued (and by extension, taxpayer-funded) email addresses to lobby against SB5. They carefully suggest their message is not for or against the collective bargaining bill, but only those who want to repeal it are pushing this effort.

Dr. Cluxton signs the message with his entire title, including the James R. Winkle School of Pharmacy and his on-campus P.O. Box.

The email was sent out and the petition signatures will be collected during school business hours, which suggests taxpayers will be bankrolling their Big Labor efforts.

Would conservative professors be allowed to use the same listserv to lobby on behalf of a conservative cause? Is it appropriate at all to use this taxpayer-funded platform to lobby for or against anyissue?

As a conservative university student, you have the responsibility to report these leftist abuses on campus. If you encounter an abuse like this one, don’t hesitate to contact CampusReform.org by reporting aleftist abuse here or by finding your Regional Field Coordinator (RFC) here.

UPDATE I: I stumbled upon this 2008 Huffington Post column by Greg Lukianoff, the President of theFoundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Lukianoff noted prior to the 2008 Presidential election that students at the University of Oklahoma were warned about forwarding political commentary through their university email accounts. Lukianoff writes:

If you’re a student at the University of Oklahoma and you enjoy The Huffington Post, beware: Your school has forbidden you from forwarding any of the fabulous political content you may find on this site.

Sounds crazy, but sadly it’s true. Students at the University of Oklahoma have been warned not to use their university e-mail accounts for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary” during this election season.

Meanwhile, anyone who has an actual opinion on the election should think twice about expressing it on a bumper sticker at the University of Illinois, or in their dorm window at University of Texas at Austin. In fact, students who hung an Obama sign in their window at UT Austin were threatened with expulsion.

The good news is that after being confronted by the press, angry students and faculty, or outside organizations, each of the above universities has now backtracked from their original censorship of huge swaths of political speech like bumper stickers, window signs, and e-mails.

One question Lukianoff posed was: Can the partisan speech or expressive act in question reasonably be construed as the official stance of the university, as opposed to the individual opinion of a student, student group, faculty member, or staff member speaking as private citizens?

Had Dr. Cluxton not used his faculty email address and private listserv, the answer to this question would beabsolutely not. But because of his actions, he has seemingly blurred the lines between the speech of a private citizen and that of a university official.

UPDATE II: The University of Cincinnati News Record reported the story yesterday:

One UC student agreed with the view of CampusReform.

“I feel that this is a gross misuse of school resources,” said Ryan Printy, a graduate student in the College of Pharmacy who also ran as a Libertarian candidate for Ohio’s 32nd House District last November. “The professors used the College of Pharmacy email listserv to promote their own personal political agenda.”

Whether or not university policy allowed the email, it is highly unethical for the professors to use school resources in such a manner, Printy said.

“We are a pharmacy college, not a political science program,” Printy said. “Our professors should be using school resources to promote pharmacotherapy and patient care, not their own personal political agendas.”

John McNay, chapter head of the AAUP at UC, disagrees with Printy’s and CampusReforms’s assessment.

“It is important to recognize this announcement didn’t do that,” McNay said. “It made graduate students aware of a ballot petition and the opportunity to vote and encouraged students to educate themselves on the issue to make up their own mind.”

The university listservs, McNay said, are basically announcement boards that professors can notify students of information on — including the signature collection.

Professor McNay is being intellectually dishonest. As I argued above, only people who want to repeal SB5 would sign the petition. While the email didn’t specifically ask students to vote to repeal SB5 (if the petition gathers enough signatures to appear on the ballot in November), there is no conceivable reason why an advocate of SB5 would sign the petition.

Additionally, the professor in question signed the email “WE ARE OHIO,” which is the anti-SB5 organization behind the petition drive. Professor McNay is covering for his colleague’s inappropriate use to the listserv and his taxpayer-funded email address.

Shame on them.

Note: The Leadership Institute is a 501c(3) organization and does not support or oppose specific candidates or legislation. If you are interested in learning more about the Leadership Institute or Campus Reform, contact your Regional Field Coordinator.

This post first appeared at MatthewHurtt.com.

I discussed last week the maxim: All gains are incremental; some increments aren’t gains. This is just one of the more than 40 “Laws of the Public Policy Process” developed by Morton Blackwell, founder and President of the Leadership Institute. A movement conservative, Blackwell has trained over 100,000 conservative activists since he first got involved in politics in the ’60s.

Aside from the training the Leadership Institute provides, I believe there is some real wisdom in these “Laws.” So much so that I’m going to write about more of them in the days and weeks ahead. The first few are directed toward my libertarian friends, who – to their own detriment – sometimes reject the two-party system in their goals. Electoral success often eludes the most die-hard libertarian.

I want to say, there’s hope. But we must reject the “Sir Galahad Theory of Politics” - I will win because my heart is pure. Electoral success isn’t based on who’s right or who’s wrong. To make policy, you have to get elected.

And that brings me to Blackwell’s 13th Law:

13. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Most immediately, the words of one of my favorite Rolling Stones songs comes to mind. “You can’t always get what you want.” In life and in politics, this is true. Undeniably so. You can’t get the perfect candidate. You can’t get the perfect policy. You can’t get the perfect circumstances. And even if you could, there are many others vying for a piece of the same success as you — and they don’t want the exact same things you do.

Even amongst Democrats or Republicans or tea partiers, there is no singular platform or goal. Sure, each national party has a “platform,” but even then the issues are prioritized by individual members. Realistically, politics doesn’t play out on a left-right axis; it’s multi-dimensional, with social issues and fiscal issues as the X- and Y-axis, respectively… with perhaps a Z-axis for level of intensity. And to an extent, elements of the ideological “left” and “right” loop around and the differences fade. Fascism is an example of where the left-right lines blur.

The point is, there are an infinite number of combinations to produce a candidate, a policy, or a set of circumstances.

If everyone who’s engaged is trying to get a piece of the pie, then there are countless hands shaping and changing these factors. I hate the “C” word - compromise – but it’s the norm in politics, not the exception.

This is most evident in today’s debate over the budget. (SPOILER: It’s an NPR link!) Last week’s debate over the continuing resolution showed that both sides were willing to give up some to keep the government open. It wasn’t perfect for Republicans, but any level of cuts should be a win in our playbook. Remember, the natural direction of government throughout history has been toward larger government.

Any shift in the opposite direction is a shift against history… and a win for conservatives. We have to pick and choose our battles. Which ones can we win? Which ones are worth fighting? Not every disagreement on policy should be a showdown where we can only accept 100% of what we want.

Republicans control one-half of the Legislative branch. There’s not a Republican in the White House, and Harry Reid is not the Republican leader of the Senate. That’s the reality.

There will be plenty of opportunities for Republicans to take the Senate next year. And – with a good candidate – we can retake the Presidency. If and when this happens, we will have more clout to advance a limited government agenda.

What I do not advocate is that we elect Republicans next year and then forget why we elected them. We can’t put them in charge and then not hold them accountable. But they have to be in charge for us to get any more than a few billion dollars in cuts in a continuing resolution.

And that will be good. It won’t be perfect. But what is perfect from one conservative to the next? Remember, we don’t all believe in exactly the same ideology. Sure, there are overarching themes and goals, but there are no two conservatives who agree on every single issue.

And that brings us to the naughty “C” word. Reagan paraphrased: Someone with whom I agree on 80% of the issues is my 80% friend, not my 20% enemy.

What’s better, Democrats pushing irresponsible and reckless economic and social policy? Or Republicans pushing less destructive policies? By “punishing” Republicans for spite, conservatives actually continue on the destructive path. It was William F. Buckley, Jr. who said, “The wisest choice [in an election] would be the one who would win… I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.” I wrote about this at length for RedState.

I’m going to wind this down before it becomes too rambly, but I cannot stress enough that any rightward shift, any spending cut is a small victory for conservatives. The important battle will be over the budget. We must keep our powder dry and our political capital safe for what will be a very tough battle. We must be willing to pick our battles wisely.

Matthew Hurtt is often accused of being too conservative, too liberal, and too moderate. He describes himself as a “pragmatic conservative” and is rabidly right-wing on many issues. ]]> http://www.redstate.com/matthewhurtt/2011/04/11/the-good-the-bad-and-the-perfect/ This post originally appeared on The Leadership Institute’s CampusReform.org and was written by Brittney Morrett.

Is it ever ok to discriminate based on race or gender?

The hosts of the Affirmative Action Bake Sale said no. But some members of The George Washington University (GWU) multicultural community said yes.

On Monday, March 28, the GWU chapter of the Young America’s Foundation (GWYAF) and the GW College Republicans (GWCRS) hosted an affirmative action bake sale. The satirical event took place in the Mid-Campus Quad from 11am-3pm and University Police were present. Baked goods were sold and the group raised $47.00 for the troops at the event.

A price list posted charged different amounts based on the race of the patron. The point was to show how offensive it is to base anything, like admissions, on race.  The prices were as follows:

Asians – $1.25 (Asians being the most negatively affected by affirmative action), Whites – $1.00, Latinos – $.75, Blacks and Women – $.50, and Native Americans – $.25.

However, all baked goods were sold at the “Human Special” of $1.00 regardless of race, gender, background, or belief. Some of the homemade signs held by the students said, “Affirmative Action is Racist” and “Racism is Always Wrong.”

The most interesting part of the event was not the actual bake sale. It was who attended and what they said.

At 12:00pm the GW NAACP and the Black Student Union (BSU) staged a protest. An e-mail organizing the protest that circulated through several listservs on behalf of the GW NAACP and BSU said the following,

“We will be meeting Monday, March 28th @ 11:45am at the Multicultural Student Services Center (2127 G St). We ask that everyone participating wear black business causal [sic] attire.”

The majority of protestors did wear black and carried various signs. Some of the protestors also used the “raised fist” which is a salute used by left-wing activists such as socialists, communists, and black nationalists.

There were also GWU employees in attendance on behalf of the protest. One, Karyn Pomerantz, is a research scientist at the School of Public Health and Health Services. She is the faculty advisor for the Black Public Health Student Network (BPHSN).  At the event she handed out flyers for the Progressive Labor Party (PLP).  The PLP’s full title is the Revolutionary Communist Progressive Labor Party.  She is shown holding a sign that says “BPHSN Supports Equality! Don’t buy racist cake.” A copy of the flyer she handed out is below.

The official blog of BPHSN wrote a story decrying the bake sale. In a comment on the blog Pomerantz calls on President Knapp to ban organizations such as YAF from campus for “building racism.”

Tim Miller, the Director of the Student Activities Center, was in attendance observing the majority of the event but refused to comment. Also in attendance was Michael Tapscott, Director of the Multicultural Student Services Center (MSSC); George Rice, Associte Director of the MSSC; and Harbinder Sohi, Senior Secretary.

Ms. Sohi did confront the students hosting the bake sale, but the rest of the MSSC staff stayed on the sidelines. A sign carried by the counter-protestors stated, “GW Multicultural Student Organizations.”  When Tapscott was asked if that meant that all of the GW Multicultural Student Organizations supported the counter-protest, he said he didn’t know and declined to comment further.

The majority of the event was civil, although some protestors did accuse the students supporting and hosting the event of being racist. At the conclusion of the event, there were several baked goods left over. GWYAF and GWCRs offered them for free to anyone in the vicinity. The student leader of the GW NAACP told the protestors that they had better not take them.

Despite some hostility directed toward  GWYAF and GWCRs at the event, there is talk of the GW NAACP and BSU working with GWYAF and GWCRs to host a joint event that addresses the issue.

Click here to see video from the event.

Do you want to have an Affirmative Action Bake Sale on your campus? Contact your Regional Field Coordinatorfor assistance and advice.

I am under no impression this post will be comprehensive; however, the following is something I believe the Conservative movement should consider when playing in electoral politics. I have been reminded on a number of occasions that the only people who make policy in America today are those who are elected to office – be it local, state, or federal.

I should say it again because I think it bears repeating: The only people who make policy are elected officials.

And while public sector union protests or tea party rallies tend to make headlines and can certainly drive the debate, throngs of concerned people – angry or upset for whatever reason – do not make law. We are, at all levels and with very few exceptions, a representative republic. You and I elect people to represent us on city councils, county commissions, state legislatures, and in Congress. And in any debate, we must define the terms, so that we each approach the issue from the same understanding. Guaranteed, we’ll come to different conclusions.

My final paper as an undergrad was entitled: “From Buckley to Goldwater: American Conservatism as an Intellectual Movement from 1945 to 1964.” Growing up, I remember reading about William F. Buckley, Jr. and Barry Goldwater, and they have and continue to shape my political ideology.

Beyond left and right, liberal and conservative, I believe that many Americans are split between the two. For instance, most of my friends are economically conservative, or “market liberals” as the Cato Institute suggests. We believe, more or less, that government should get out of the way of the market – that less regulations allow market forces to provide economic opportunity. When given the choice, I think most people want the easiest path to consumption of goods and acquisition of wealth and resources. And whenever government sets up a roadblock through regulation or some other way, it hinders that progress.

As it relates to social issues, I tend to consider myself more libertarian, or even “liberal” for those who are unfamiliar with the first “L” word. If people are able to make economic decisions on their own, then perhaps they are equally able to make other decisions: what to eat, what to ingest, how to take care of themselves, and a whole host of other so-called “social issues.”

But I digress. (This happens sometimes. I’ll try to stay on track.)

Buckley said two things that are increasingly important in this debate for conservatives:

1. Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

In an ideal world, things work the way we want. I have a libertarian friend who does not recognize the fact that Social Security is a program in the U.S. His “ideal world” conflicts with reality because, in fact, Social Security does exist. Some of my libertarian friends believe the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was never actually ratified, regardless of the fact that Congress has levied an income tax since its “ratification.” Their belief clearly conflicts with reality. And it prohibits them from engaging in serious debate. We cannot debate policy issues of the day without recognizing certain political realities. Things that just are. The end result is ultimately no compromise and no progress.

2. The wisest choice [in an election] would be the one who would win… I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.

This is sometimes boiled down to: “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.” Notice the statement is not: “Support the most conservative candidate.” Conservatives do themselves a disservice by ignoring arguably the most important part of the sentence: who is electable. Charles Krauthammer, a pragmatic and intellectual contemporary conservative, had this to say leading up to the November election last year:

Tuesday in Delaware was a bad day not only for Republicans but also for conservatives. Tea Partyer Christine O’Donnell scored a stunning victory over establishment Republican Mike Castle. Stunning but pyrrhic. The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama’s social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda.

Bill Buckley — no Mike Castle he — had a rule: Support the most conservative candidatewho is electable.

A timeless rule of sober politics, and particularly timely now. This is no ordinary time. And this is no ordinary Democratic administration. It is highly ideological and ambitious. It is determined to use whatever historical window it is granted to change the country structurally, irreversibly. It has already done so with Obamacare and has equally lofty ambitions for energy, education, immigration, taxation, industrial policy and the composition of the Supreme Court.

That’s what makes the eleventh-hour endorsements of O’Donnellby Sen. Jim DeMint(R-S.C.) and Sarah Palin so reckless and irresponsible.

Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican. What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That’s batting .667. You’d rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate?

Castle wasn’t only electable. He was unbeatable. Why do you think Beau Biden, long groomed to inherit his father’s seat, flinched from running? Because Castle, who had already won statewide races a dozen times, scared him off. Democrats had already given up on the race.

Now, those are Krauthammer’s words, not mine. I firmly believe that Christine O’Donnell can play an important role in post-November 2010 conservatism. I also believe Sarah Palin plays an important role. (Do I want to see her elected President? No.) And finally, I have tremendous respect for Senator DeMint. He is arguably the most effective conservative Senator in Congress today.

But the fact remains, November may have looked entirely different for Republicans under different circumstances. What could Republicans have done with 51 Republican Senators? Wasn’t it Reagan who said something to the effect: The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

This is where I get accused of “going soft” or becoming a moderate, but those accusations simply aren’t true – and they’re made by people who are too shallow to understand electoral politics. Sure, we can debate the issues over drinks one night, but at the end of the discussion, we haven’t changed policy. I would rather have a Scott Brown or Mike Castle in office – who will more or less vote with us 40% – 80% of the time than a dream candidate who will never get elected.

And I do draw the line in the sand. There are some issues where I will not compromise. The fact remains: We can govern responsibly with who is elected, or we can be out of power and have all the right ideas.It’s not enough to just have the right ideas. We have to implement them.

Most recently, this concept reared its ugly head in the race for RNC Chairman. Certain conservative elements sought to unravel the debate because of the roughly $20 million in debt accrued by former Chairman Michael Steele in an election year where we made significant gains in both the House and the Senate.

As the RNC met to select the next Chairman, some found this debt inexcusable and irreconcilable. How could Republicans consider tackling the national debt with debt of its own on the books?

Then rose the National Committeeman from Virginia, Mr. Morton Blackwell, who has long been respected in conservative circles. His Republican resume is long, beginning somewhere in the late ’50s but most notably his first major achievement was being elected the youngest delegate for Barry Goldwater in 1964. From there, he served in the College Republicans, wrote direct mail, and even spent some time on the Regan ’80 campaign and in the Reagan White House before joining the Leadership Institute full-time as its President in 1984.

Along the way, he was personally responsible for the political careers of people you may have heard of: Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, and Terry Branstad, just to name a few. (Yes, another digression.)

Morton rose to defend the actions of the previous RNC Chair during the 2010 election cycle. He argued that it was not uncommon for an organization to accrue some debt, particularly in the wake of such success. Now, most of the success from the RNC standpoint was overshadowed by the poor management, but Morton made an excellent point.

While Morton is just about as conservative as they come, he stopped short of being an unreasonable reactionary, and cooler heads prevailed in that debate.

Likewise for tea party types and libertarians (who overlap, but are not necessarily the same group). In electoral politics, we have to win elections to advance policy. Sure, we could run as far to the right as possible in a primary and find someone with whom we agree with on most issues, but elections aren’t always won by who is right. What good does it do us to elect unelectable candidates?

This post isn’t an endorsement of a Mitt Romney-esque candidate. The flip-side of not electing a too far-right candidate is not to elect someone who stands for nothing, someone with no ideology. There is a balance.

I’m sure I’ll continue this musing at a later date. I’m interested in what you have to say. Click the box below and write your thoughts. And pass this link to a friend.

Click here to read the Amendment.

Tennesseans rally against a state income tax in the early 2000s.

Senate Republicans were quick to applaud the vote. In a statement, the Caucus announced:

The proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 18, specifies that the legislature as well as Tennessee counties and cities shall be prohibited from passing either an income tax or a payroll tax, which is a tax on employers that is measured by the wages they pay their workers.  A payroll tax has been proposed as a way around an income tax.  An effort to impose a local payroll tax was defeated by voters in the City of Memphis in 2004 but was proposed again in recent years by elected officials in Shelby County.

The most serious attempt to pass a statewide income tax was in 2002, when the proposal received 45 of the 50 votes necessary for passage in the House of Representatives.  Last year, eight state lawmakers co-sponsored legislation to implement a state income tax.

“In these tough economic times, Tennesseans need jobs and don’t need to be worrying about having to pay a state income tax,” added Sen. Kelsey.  “It’s time to let the people vote on the issue and put this matter to rest.”

The resolution would allow Tennesseans to vote to prohibit the income tax in three years.  Prior to that, it will need to pass the House in the coming weeks and to pass the Senate and House by a two-thirds vote in two years.

I applaud Senator Brian Kelsey for his hard work and for Democrat Leader Jim Kyle for also voting for the measure. Tennesseans have – on a number of occasions – made their voice heard on this issue. According to Wikipedia, there are only nine states with no income tax.

Watch the video of the Senate vote here.

The measure now moves to the House. Upon passage, it must pass the General Assembly in the next Session by a 2/3 vote before going onto the ballot in the following gubernatorial election cycle.

This post originally appeared at MatthewHurtt.com. However, its national importance compelled me to post here, as well.

It’s disheartening.

And while I could write volumes about how the “tea party” is less of a policy-based movement and more of an emotional reaction to the concept of “big government,” I’ll focus my efforts on this post to Entitlements, which will be the downfall of our nation.

And I’ll start with this: I don’t want my Social Security. Uncle Sam, you can keep the payments I’ve already given you over the course of the last eight years. I don’t want them back. In fact, I’ll even let you continue take 10% of what I’m currently paying into Social Security as my part to keep funding this monstrosity for the legions of Baby Boomers who are retiring in the next twenty years. (And that 10% is negotiable.)

Can I just opt out, please? I’m 24 and under no illusion I’ll reap the “benefits” of this program when I retire.

We can’t afford this. Tea party, are you listening?! We can’t afford to continue this ponzi scheme. If Bernie Madoff and Bob McLean couldn’t get away with it, why can the federal government?

I, for one, am glad Republicans are looking through the budget and cutting things. But these cuts are miniscule when compared to the actual size of the entire federal budget. Need a visualization? This path is unsustainable. For those of you who like charts, the Heritage Foundation has a lot of pretty ones. In the 2010 fiscal year, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security made up over 40% of the total federal budget.

Americans need tough love if we want to come out of this looming fiscal catastrophe on any semblance of sound footing. Obama’s “Deficit Commission” proposed raising the retirement age for Social Security…very slowly. The average life expectancy in the United States in 1935 when Social Security was established hovered at about 62 years of age. Today’s life expectancy is about 78 years of age, which adds 16 years of Social Security payments to the average retiree.

Immediately, Congress should raise the retirement age of Americans under the age of 18 or 21 to 78 and tie Social Security payments to average life expectancy. Of those between 21 and 30, raise the age 20 72 or 74 or so and cut the losses. Between 31 and 40, 70. Cut the losses.

Most importantly, allow people to opt out. I’m under no illusion that I’ll get any Social Security payments, and I don’t plan on relying on the government for retirement income.

As former Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said, we’re a nation of whiners. Cutting federal spending is going to hurt. A lot. And people aren’t going to like it. At all. But we have to do it.

Call your Congressman or Senator today and tell them to get serious about Entitlement spending.

–

This post first appeared at MatthewHurtt.com.

Senator Mooney (District 3) served three terms in Annapolis representing parts of Frederick and Washington Counties. He was first elected in 1998 as the youngest state senator, and he quickly gained the reputation as one of the most conservative members of the Maryland General Assembly. Mooney became a staunch defender of conservative values and was “tea party” long before average Americans rose up against big government and high taxes.

During his time as state senator, Mooney was an excellent fundraiser, raising over $2 million in contributions from his first election through the most recent election cycle.

Unfortunately, the combination of both staunch conservative values and fundraising ability meant that liberal Democrat Senate President Thomas V. “Mike” Miller, Jr. targeted Mooney every election cycle since his first victory in 1998.

Maryland Democrats redrew the lines after the 2000 Census, eliminating the more conservative parts of Washington County and replacing those precincts with Frederick City precincts. After a court battle, the new precincts included a higher ratio of Democrats to Republicans. In 2002, he faced Delegate Sue Hecht. By the time the votes were counted, Mooney trounced Hecht by roughly ten points. By 2006, Mooney’s margin had slimmed to just four points against a relative unknown candidate.

Both times, Senate President Mike Miller poured countless thousands of dollars of support into the coffers of Mooney’s opponents or paid for mailers on their behalf. And both times, Mooney’s fundraising ability matched dollar-for-dollar, allowing Mooney to achieve electoral victory.

In 2008, District 3 voters elected Barack Obama over John McCain by a margin of ten points. Senator Mooney realized the shifting political winds in his district might affect the turnout of his next election. Frederick County has increasingly become a “bedroom community” of Washington, D.C. Frederick County shares a border with Montgomery County, and I-270 is a substantial route for commuters from Western Maryland and Pennsylvania who work in the District.

The 2010 election pitted Mooney against longtime Frederick City Mayor Ron Young, who ran on a platform of fiscal conservatism, despite having raised taxes and fees dozens of times while in city government. Young raised pennies compared to Mooney’s campaign war chest, but Senate President Mike Miller poured more than $300,000 in mail, radio, and television advertising for Mooney’s opponent, leaving him to campaign door-to-door and make phonecalls.

Mooney and his campaign team knocked on over 20,000 doors, made nearly 10,000 phone calls, and strategically dropped Republican-targeted literature to several thousand voters. Mooney’s GOTV efforts in the week leading up to the election saw dozens of volunteers address and stuff nearly 15,000 personalized letters to voters throughout the district.

On Election Day, The Frederick News-Post called the Mooney-Young race “too close to call.” In total votes cast on Election Day, Mooney led by a few hundred votes cast. Young, however, picked up tremendous support during early voting, which was established in Maryland to benefit Democrat voters. As hours turned into days, it became apparent that Young bested Mooney by just a few hundred votes.

As the campaign manager, I was and still am very proud of the efforts of my candidate, my campaign staff, and our wonderful volunteers — but this post isn’t about that. It’s about what comes next.

In the weeks following the election, Mooney mulled over his options. With a desire still to serve and a commitment to advancing Republican causes in an increasingly blue state, Mooney sent a message to the members of the various Republican Central Committees throughout the state.

Mooney touted his fundraising abilities, his previous electoral success, and his ability to recruit and train good candidates. Mooney cited four state senate races where Republicans lost by less than two percent of the vote – his own race as a prime example. I personally found at least 12 House of Delegates races where Republicans lost by less than a thousand votes or merely a few percentage points.

As convention-goers were wined and dined by various candidates and counties on Friday night, Mooney outlined his plan to make electoral gains in Maryland. He set an ambitious goal of raising $500,000 in 2011. He tiered the fundraising figures: Chairman – $250,000; 1st Vice Chair – $75,000; 2nd Vice Chair – $50,000; 3rd Vice Chair – $25,000; National Committeeman/woman – $50,000/piece.

Two rounds of voting commenced for the race for MDGOP Chair on Saturday morning. On the first ballot, five candidates vied for the top spot: Bill Campbell, former candidate for Comptroller, garnered 48 votes (8.16%); Mike Estevé, Maryland College Republicans Chairman, received 29 votes (4.93%); Sam Hale, founder of the Maryland Society of Patriots, managed 52 votes (8.84%); Mary Kane, former candidate for Lieutenant Governor and Secretary of State under the Ehrlich Administration, pulled 183 votes (31.12%); Alex X. Mooney, outgoing State Senator, won 276 votes (46.94%).

Since no one candidate had a majority of the votes, the convention held a second round of voting. Between the first and second rounds, three candidates dropped out of the race. Mike Estevé withdrew his nomination and asked his supporters to fall in line behind Mary Kane. Bill Campbell withdrew his candidacy and chose not to publicly announce support for any other candidate. Sam Hale withdrew and enthusiastically threw his support behind Mooney.

I sat in the back of the room and furiously tallied the votes to predict the outcome. Three minutes passed while county Central Committees re-voted. From what I understand, Congressman-elect Andy Harris and prominent Maryland Republican Ellen Sauerbrey both worked the floor in favor of Mooney. Harris and Mooney served together in the state senate, and Sauerbrey has been a longtime supporter of Mooney, dating back to her campaign for Governor in 1998.

Chair Audrey Scott gaveled the audience to order and began to call each jurisdiction alphabetically. It soon became very apparent to me that Mooney would emerge victorious. Entire counties threw their support behind Mooney. Mooney received 362 votes to Kane’s 219. Several voters abstained, but Mooney ultimately received about 62% of the vote.

The room erupted in applause as the excitement reached a boiling point. Mooney supporters waved placards and shouted in excitement. Party members elected a conservative firebrand with a proven track record and the ability to raise money.

Only time will tell what Mooney will be able to achieve over the next four years as Chairman. I am confident he will couple an unrivaled ability to raise money with an aggressive recruitment and training process for prospective Republican candidates. Mooney believes strongly in equipping candidates with the finances as well as the political technology to win elections. Look for Leadership Institute training to be mandatory for all Republican candidates in Maryland for the next four years.

Red Maryland has a good recap of the convention here.

Matthew Hurtt served as Senator Alex X. Mooney’s campaign manager for the 2010 election cycle. He no longer works in any paid capacity for Senator Mooney or the Maryland GOP. This is a subjective account of the events and represent only the author’s opinion. Matthew Hurtt can be reached at Matt [dot] Hurtt {at] gmail [dot] com.