DrewMcKissick.com - Conservative Campaigns, Opinions & Activism

Time for the GOP to adopt the "Schumer Doctrine" on judges

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 15:53:33 +0000

It seems that every time we have a contentious judicial nomination process, especially for the Supreme Court, a great fuss is made over not asking certain questions. More to the point, we're told that nominees should not answer questions that could disclose how they may rule on certain issues in the future.

Hogwash.

The problem with this notion is that the federal judiciary has grown ever more powerful over the years versus our other branches of government. Further, the Supreme Court is held to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution actually "means" at any given point in time - information that's surely useful to the people that document is meant to govern.

This being the case, it's ludicrous to suggest that the US Senate, to say nothing of the American people, should not have a good idea "what" these would be solons will say the Constitution means once they're given a lifetime appointment.

Can you imagine a candidate for President telling voters that he can't answer specific questions about incredibly important (even constitutional) issues, and that they shouldn't even be asked such questions, but rather we should just trust that they're a wise, experienced and empathetic person? (Insert laughter here...)

Historically, the importance of our judicial nomination process began to change as more judges began to see their role in our federal system differently than had been previously understood. In short, many of them began to think of themselves less as "umpires" and more as "players" in the game of politics and public policy. This in turn causes political tensions to increase as voters see their voices being ignored, (witness the issues of abortion, gay marriage and property rights).

This growing judicial supremacy is the primary reason nominations have become more contentious affairs, since people rightly recognize the judiciary's increased role in public policy. The result is a nomination process that's far less casual and far more like a political campaign.

Liberals were quick to promote this new reality, given their reliance on the judiciary to enable the expansion of government and the invention of new rights (while ignoring some of the old ones). Which meant that the nomination process became more important to them.

In June of 2001, with a Republican in the White House, NY Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer declared that the judiciary was too important (presumably to liberals) for a Republican to be allowed a free hand in making judicial appointments. He declared that experience and qualifications were nice, but ideology would be the determining factor.

But when it comes to a public fight over ideology, Republicans have a clear opportunity.

A recent Gallup poll found that Americans who self-identify themselves as conservatives (40%) comprise the largest bloc in American politics, more numerous than independents, (35%), and twice as large as self-identified liberals, (21%). The same poll also found that Democrats are more split ideologically than Republicans, with conservatives making up a fifth of the Democrats' base of support, and a full third of independents.

This makes a strategy of highlighting judicial liberalism a political opportunity for Republicans. It's time to ask some hard questions on critical issues - and demand some answers.

What does Sotomayor believe the Second Amendment means? Does she agree with last year's Supreme Court decision in the Heller case that it guarantees an individual right to bear arms? Does she believe that Roe vs. Wade was a sound legal opinion? Does she see a "right" to privacy in the Constitution?

What's her opinion of the Kelo decision and the "taking" of private property from one citizen and giving it to another? Does she believe the Constitution should force one state to recognize gay marriages performed in another state? Does she believe that the Supreme Court is the sole arbiter of what the Constitution "means"?

There's no political downside for Republicans to be aggressive in seeking answers to perfectly reasonable questions that any voter would expect a candidate for a two-year term in Congress to answer. How much more so for a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court?

In other words, it's time to adopt the "Schumer Doctrine".

Republican opportunities in the Sotomayor nomination

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:23:06 +0000

When it comes to the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, Republicans have an opportunity to do something that would benefit both themselves and the nation. That is, they should use the process as a chance to hold forth on the meaning of the Constitution and the proper role of the judiciary in our political system and society.

Three main areas are ripe with opportunity for Republicans if they have the nerve to play hardball.

First, the notion that “empathy” should play any role in American justice.

Obama previously stated that he wanted judges that had “empathy” when it came to how they made their decisions. But empathy is merely a euphemism for justifying politically liberal results.

It is a legal pseudo-philosophy that inherently means being un-empathetic to someone else’s claims based on nothing more than one’s own feelings, as opposed to applying the law as it is written and leaving elected legislators to channel society’s collected empathy.

Would liberals say it was OK for judges to be empathetic to rich people or large corporations vs. minorities? Of course not, nor should they. Empathy is always biased, which is antithetical to blind, impartial justice, and American’s instinctively recognize it as unfair.

The second area to focus on is social issues. And several really big ones stand out.

On the subject of race, Sotomayor seems to be comfortable with what has come to be known as identity politics. In 2002, she stated that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

If she holds that view when it comes to judging, what other aspects of our government and society does she believe it applies to?

Perhaps her position in the recent Ricci vs. DeStefano case can shed some light on that. The case was brought by a white firefighter who was denied a promotion after passing a test created to determine who was to be promoted. Given that no minorities passed, the city decided that no one would be promoted. Ricci sued, lost in district court, and the verdict was upheld by Sotomayor and several colleagues on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.

In delicious irony, the Supreme Court will likely rule on the case (and probably overturn Sotomayor’s decision) just prior to her confirmation hearings. This tees the issue up perfectly for Republicans.

On the subject of gun rights, just this past year we had the first Supreme Court decision in history ruling that the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual” right to gun ownership, (DC vs. Heller). Where does she stand on that opinion?

If her position in Maloney vs. Cuomo is any indication, she doesn’t believe that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments. How’s that for “mainstream”?

Given that there are at least half a dozen Senate Democrats from decidedly “red” states that could be made vulnerable if seen to support someone who was against gun rights, Republicans can use this issue to make their lives miserable.

On property rights, in the case of Didden v. Village of Port Chester, her position approved the taking of private property from one citizen and giving it to another via government condemnation policy. Meaning she’s all on board with the Supreme Court’s highly unpopular Kelo decision. Private property is about as American as apple pie, and another no-brainer for the Republicans.

And her position on the pending issue of gay marriages, and whether or not one state can be forced to give legal recognition to a gay marriage performed in another state should be examined. A majority of voters in well over thirty states have passed referendums defining marriage as one man and one woman. The GOP needs to highlight and underscore this issue big-time.

The third area to focus on is her judicial philosophy.

America needs a debate on the unconstitutionality of judicial activism, but to enable that debate they first need to see its nature. The more the American people see and understand judicial activism and its implications, the more discredited it will become.

Sotomayor’s shown herself to hold ideas that suggest an undemocratic view of the law and the Constitution. In a 2005 speech at the Duke University Law School, she stated that the “Court of Appeals is where policy is made”. The White House has tried to downplay the comment, suggesting she was taken out of context, but the problem is that it’s on YouTube for everyone to see, (in all of its glorious context).

In reality, it seems to have been a case of someone saying what they actually believed in an unguarded moment, which for a liberal is to say they “misspoke”.

And that’s not all she’s had to say on the subject. After becoming a federal judge, she wrote an essay entitled “Returning majesty to the law and politics: a modern approach”.

In it she states that, “The public expects the law to be static and predictable. The law, however, is uncertain and responds to changing circumstances.” And: “Our society would be straightjacketed were not the courts, with the able assistance of the lawyers, constantly overhauling the law… Much of the uncertainty of the law is not an unfortunate accident: it is of immense social value.”

This is classic “living Constitution” garbage, which is liberal shorthand for “the law means what we say that it means”. It’s an advocacy of the Supreme Court as our “supreme legislature”, composed of unelected, unaccountable, policy making oligarchs. Radical, liberal judicial activism defined.

Given that presidents generally nominate judges that have the same philosophy that they do, what does this tell us about Obama? What should it tell those independents and moderates who voted for him?

These are exactly the kind of questions that the Republicans need to focus on.

Sotomayor is not the target. The target is an American public badly in need of an education on the Constitution and the role of the judiciary in our political system.

It’s a task the Republicans should take on with gusto.

***

Cross-posted at Conservative Outpost

Having the courage to say "stop"

Drew Mckissick — Mon, 04 May 2009 18:40:48 +0000

It's been more than a little amusing lately to watch politicians, interest groups and media types criticize Gov. Mark Sanford for saying “no” to spending an additional $700 million in federal “stimulus” money on anything other than state debt reduction.

This money represents less than 10 percent of the entire tab (including tax cuts) of federal dollars headed to South Carolina, yet you would think it was our entire budget, from critics’ reaction.

And keep in mind that many who are now criticizing the governor opposed the federal stimulus bill to begin with — the same bill that these funds will come from. (I’ll not name names to protect the guilty.)

The controversy is also amusing because our country’s fiscal policies are so insane that about all you can do anymore is laugh.

Politicians in Washington are playing a multi-trillion-dollar game of kick-the-can, and we’re busy criticizing a governor who has the nerve to say “stop” in his little corner of the 50 states over a fraction of that amount.

Anyone with a fifth-grade education can do the math and tell that this country is on a path to bankruptcy, yet people continue to ignore the facts and argue over how much easier we can make it on ourselves at the moment by spending more before the tab comes due.

But ignoring the hard reality of the numbers doesn’t make the problem go away.

The federal government currently pays out more than $412 billion each year just in interest on the money we’ve already borrowed; President Obama’s new spending plan will add an extra $1 trillion in annual interest over the next decade.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that Obama’s budgets will add more than $9 trillion to our national debt by 2019 — putting our total debt close to $20 trillion.

As one commentator put it recently, it’s “fiscal child abuse.” Our government is using unborn children like a pre-approved credit card with no spending limit.

Even if everyone agreed that all this massive new spending would be done responsibly (I hear you laughing), is it really more important than our kids having a country they can afford to live in?

The other point to consider is what we’re arguing over — federal money for state and local expenses that we should be taking care of ourselves.

And yes, it all comes from the same taxpayers, but all we do is empower Uncle Sam even more when we just accept — and expect — that he’ll give us back some of what he took in the first place. And it always, always, always comes back to us with strings and mandates, written in a one-size-fits-all fashion that is never the best fit for the 50 states and thousands of local governments impacted.

Would that our politicians spent less time trying to “get our share” from Washington and more time reducing the “share” that goes up there in the first place.

Despite what some suggest, it’s no sure thing that other states will get the money if we don’t spend it. As I understand it, new legislation would be required to send it elsewhere.

Yet the critics continue. They’re like the kid who tries to justify bad behavior by telling mama that “everyone else is doing it.”

They claim that if we don’t spend more, XYZ is going to happen — children, sick and old people suffer, etc. But how much more will those same groups suffer when Uncle Sam’s money runs out (or the economy crumbles) due to a mountain of debt?

How much better off would we be if we used this money (which we’ll have to help pay back anyway) to reduce our own state debt, making more money available each year hereafter? Sure, it doesn’t solve our national debt crisis, but it does reduce the liability of state taxpayers.

We can’t just continue to be a part of the problem and expect — or hope — that it will all work out down the road. Eventually, someone has to stand up and take the politically unpopular (but responsible) position and say “stop.”

Our governor should be commended for that.

(also ran in The State)

One-hundred Days of Barack Obama: A Review

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 20:39:37 +0000

Barack Obama has now been in office for one-hundred days, a length of time the media first began to use to measure early presidential success back in the first administration of FDR. This is appropriate, given our current President's ambition to increase the size, scope and cost of government beyond the wildest dreams of the man who laid the foundations of the modern welfare state - and American statism in general.

For his part, Obama is "pleased, but not satisfied" with what they've accomplished. From a conservative standpoint, the view is, shall we say, quite a bit different.

Herewith, some of the "highlights" (or lowlights) of the first one-hundred days of the Obama administration.

Cuts in Missile Defense: So far, Obama's moved to cut back on US ballistic missile defense by 20%, and hinted to our adversaries that we might be willing to leave parts of Europe out to dry if they'll "talk" with us, all while North Korea moves forward with missile R&D, Iran tries for "the bomb", nuclear Pakistan's government is looking shaky...and Israel decides to start buying more missile defense systems.

Cuts in National Defense and New Military Hardware: So far, Obama's administration has moved to slash new purchases of the F-22 fighter (replacement for aging F-15), the Navy's newest destroyers...and defense spending in general. Of course this happens in the middle of the War on Terror...an increasingly dangerous world...and at a time when "The One" says we need to increase government spending to "stimulate" the economy. I guess defense spending doesn't "stimulate" enough to suit him.

Lax Enforcement of Immigration Laws: Obama's administration has shown little concern about enforcing our country's immigration laws thus far...and has even backed off of last year's crackdown on workplace enforcement. And, of course, Obama plans to make another push for amnesty for illegal aliens - which will only encourage more illegals to come here in the future.

Pushing the Pending Health-Care Nightmare: Make no mistake about it, Obama and crew are and will continue to push towards nationalization of America's health care system, (meaning socialized medicine). Period. The most important lynchpin of such a system is the notion of a "single payer"...meaning the government, (like Canada!). They'll try and convince everyone to buy-in to the idea because it will be "free", or at least that's what they'll be comfortable having the average American think. In the meantime, the new "single payer" will run what's left of the private health-care market into the ground...leaving only the government. Currently, Obama's buddies on Capitol Hill are arranging to have their health-care "reform" proposed and voted on in such a way as to prevent Republicans and moderate Democrats from having any voice in the debate. DMV style health care, here we come.

Bailoutapalooza: Obama has continued with bad ideas begun under the Bush administration - that being having the government bailout private companies that are failing. In other words, government subsidization of failure. Even worse, much of this spending has been undisclosed. So far, the Federal Reserve and the FDIC have spent the equivalent of the entire 2007 federal budget without having to disclose where the money has gone. This is In addition to the hundreds of billions of dollars to companies like AIG, General Motors, Chrysler, etc., not to mention our banks. And now "A" has/is inevitably led to "B" - as in the government making decisions about personnel, board structuring, compensation, and product development for otherwise private companies. And now, just as the banks who took some bailout money are having second thoughts and want to get out from under these new restrictions by giving it back, Obama's administration is saying "no". These bailouts were structured from the very beginning to bring about greater government control of private enterprise. Suckers.

Stimulapalooza: Obama gave us the "stimulus" bill, which spent more than 1 trillion dollars (when you include interest) in "new" spending...which means it grew the government. The bill which was rushed to the floor in Congress with little to no time for anyone to actually read, (and if anyone tried they were said to be trying to stonewall the bill). And, as anyone who knows government history knows, when government gets bigger and more expensive, it tends stays that way. Even the bi-partisan Congressional Budget Office recognizes that the true cost of the bill would be over 3 trillion dollars if (as is likely) the "stimulus" programs become permanent.

Debtapalooza: Obama's proposed budgets would add over 9 trillion dollars to our national debt - which is already over 10 trillion. Meaning that, in ten years time, Obama's budgets add about as much to our national debt as has been accumulated from George Washington to George W. Bush. This means about an extra 70,000 dollar tab for each new child to go along with their birth certificates.

More Earmarks: After trying to fool voters into thinking he would be more responsible with their money and campaigning against wastful earmarks in the federal budget process we get...drum roll please...a budget full of wasteful earmarks. In fact, this budget had over 9,000 earmarks...the second most in US history.

Ending Welfare Reform: Another travesty of the recently passed "stimulus" bill - it abolished the 1996 welfare reform policies, which ended perverse old federal welfare funding models to states which rewarded increases in welfare rolls...which beget, of course, more people on welfare. Now that's gone...old model coming back...with an additional $800 billion tacked on to boot. Liberal retreads we can believe in.

Land Use Policies: Not content with just being President of the United States, Obama wants to set the course for local housing and zoning policies all across America. This is sure to use the old tried-and-true DC practice of forcing state and local governments to comply by tying compliance to some other government funding that they're already dependant on. Bottom line, more of your local zoning board decisions will be controlled by decisions made in Washington.

Making Union Corruption Easier: For years conservatives have worked to make labor union finances more transparent, and they had some success with regulations put in place by the Bush administration. Well, so much for that. Obama's folks just moved to drop Bush era disclosure requirements on union finances as being "unfair and burdensome". Put that down as payback for Union support for Obama. But just explain that to union members who've had their dues pilfered by corrupt union leaders. Meanwhile, he wants to get rid of the secret ballot in votes on union organization.

The Apology Tour: Obama spent a good bit of time traveling the globe apologizing to foreign heads of state for America's past sins...at least as he (and I suppose as he thinks they) see them. He told the Europeans that Americans don't "appreciate Europe" enough. Said that we were "arrogant". And suggested to the Mexicans that their gun violence problem is somehow our fault because most of their guns are bought in the US, as if that's the cause of their problems.

Calling Conservatives "Extremists": Obama's Department of Homeland Security released its infamous report that suggested that conservatives (ex. pro-lifers or those concerned about big government) were "extremists" and that our military veterans were subject to being "recruited" by them. Political disagreements are one thing, but using the power of the government to brand your ideological opponents as "extreme" and suggesting that they're a potential national security threat is reprehensible.

Dropping the "War on Terror": Yep, in case you missed it, we're no longer at war. The Obama administration has banned the phrase "War on Terror" from government communications. Now it's the "Overseas Contingency Operation". Nothing like keeping people focused on what we're up against, huh?

Closing Guantanamo: Not that we didn't see this one coming...but that doesn't make it any less a big mistake and a threat to our country. The last thing we need to do is bring the hundreds of terrorist there onto US soil...put them in US prisons...and make them more of a potential danger to the American population. Not to mention making it easier for them to claim rights that our Constitution was never intended to give.

Publicizing Our Interrogation Procedures: Whatever was going through their minds when they decided to release secret CIA memos that detailed the techniques used to interrogate terrorist prisoners from the War on Terror, it certainly wasn't our country's natonal security interests. By making this information public, they have given our enemies a better understanding of what they'll face if they're captured...and how to deal with it. Making it less likely that we'll find out what we need to know from them when the time comes.

Flirting with the Idea of Prosecuting Bush Officials: This goes to the same point. It doesn't make the country safer to open the door to public investigations of members of the Bush administration just because Obama and liberal Dems don't like how they kept the country safe. All it does is give sop to the rabid liberal base who put them in power and who want a few "Bush scalps" to hand on their walls. It also opens the door to a cycle of one administration after another going after their predecessors over what amounts to disagreements over public policy. Worse yet, it leaves the members of our intelligence services wondering just how safe they'll be from future prosecutions if some new guys get elected, change policies, and decide to go after people who did things the old way. That's not how you keep a nation safe.

Air Force One Photo-Op: In what had to be one of the biggest lapses in judgment in recent history, the new wizards of smarts in the White House decided that they didn't have nice enough photos of Air Force One, so they sent the 747 to New York City to circle mid-town Manhattan and the Statue of Liberty to get some good shots. In the process of having a 747 buzz the city at about 1,000 feet, they scared the bejeezez out of the folks in downtown New York. (You can see video of people running for their lives here)

Obama's Gift to Conservatives...

The public does seem to be paying some attention to what's going on. In one of Rasmussen's latest polls, they found that support for a "free market economy" in the country is now at 77%...up seven points since December. It would seem that you would have to take this as a response by the public to what they see as over-reaching. The number of people who prefer a "government run economy" is down to 11%, from 15% a few months ago.

As for the public's impression's of Obama after 100 days:

* 35% Strongly Approve while 31% Strongly Disapprove of his performance as president.
* 73% expect government spending to go up during the Obama years. This marks one of the biggest changes in perception about the president since he was elected. Last November, just 54% expected Obama would preside over a growth in government spending. (Surprise!)
* 20% expect their taxes to go down during the Obama years while 36% expect a tax increase.
* 69% say Obama is politically liberal.
* 35% believe the president is governing on a bipartisan basis while 46% say he is acting as a partisan Democrat.
* 55% of voters say politics in Washington, D.C. will be more partisan over the next year, while 29% say it will be more cooperative.

And then there's news that the latest congressional generic ballot poll (asking people which party they'll support for Congress in 2010) has Republicans ahead for only the second time in five years, (leading Dems 41% to 38%).

One thing that I think we can reasonably conclude from how things have gone so far is that Obama has awakened something among conservatives. He has given them a new sense of purpose. Witness the recent slew of Tea Parties all across America.

By McCain defeated and Bush gone, many conservative Republicans now feel liberated in that they can pursue their own ideas and policies. We've got a growing free-market of ideas among conservatives who feel empowered to go their own way. And the great thing about free-markets is the best ideas tend to rise to the top.

That can only mean good things for the future of the conservative movement.

***

(Many thanks to the folks over at Heritage for the work they do in compiling facts and figures)

Cross-posted at Conservative Outpost

An open letter to Michael Steele

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 19:12:48 +0000

Dear Michael,

Keep quiet. That's the best advice anyone could give you right now.

For someone who was presented to his party as a "great" communicator, you have developed one serious case of foot-in-mouth. To make it even worse, your offending remarks have been aimed at the core of our party, in terms of both people and principles.

First, there was all this silly "hip hop" this and "baby" that. OK, we get it. You're trying to present a more "with it" image in your first few weeks. That would have been fine for a while, but now it's getting old.

Then there was the Limbaugh thing. Telling D.L. Huggy Bear (or whatever) that Rush was "incendiary" and "ugly"? Michael. Wake up. If you for a moment even think such thoughts (which is bad enough and says a lot about you) you don't say it. (That's the kind of thing Fritz Hollings used to do)

And now we have the GQ interview. You believe in "individual choice" on abortion? That it should be left up to states? As a previous candidate for elected office I know you've attended a few pro-life events where the phrase "It's a child, not a choice" was used... And haven't you ever read a copy of the Republican Party platform? At all familiar with what's known as the "pro-life" plank?

You wanted to be Chairman of the RNC. Now you are. And with that job comes the demand that you have the common sense NOT to take shots at the base of the party, (given that one assumes you don't have some hidden army of volunteers and donors that you can replace the base with anytime soon).

It's time to put a sock in it. Go back to your office. Close the door. Repeat out loud, "I'm Chairman of the REPUBLICAN Party...I'm Chairman of the REPUBLICAN Party...". Do it a couple hundred times each morning before you start work.

In fact, it's time for you to cease and desist from interviews period for a while. No TV. No Radio. No newspapers or magazines. No blogs. It's not as though you're the only person that can answer any questions that call for a Republican response. Let the guys on the Hill do it. Or better yet, a few governors. I know someone in the communications shop has their contact info.

In case you haven't noticed, all of these issues have made the wrong people upset. You see, when we elect a Chairman, if he "upsets" anyone, it's supposed to be liberals and/or Democrats. Maybe even the occasional so-called "moderate Republican".

Again, stay away from the media. You're not a contract guy for Fox anymore. And, even though we're all Republicans out here, quite frankly we're getting tired of seeing you pop up everywhere. At the rate you're going I almost expect to see you wrestling with Chuck Schumer to get in front of a camera - which is saying something.

Focus on the job. We're in a minority situation, and you've got twenty-one months until the next election. Even less to recruit top quality conservative candidates and raise money. And even less than that to do what really needs doing - building the technological infrastructure this party needs to leverage the efforts and activities of its supporters into every state and county of this country.

You're not done for, despite the rumors. But you're not exactly doing yourself any favors.

If you take this advice and focus like a laser beam on the fundamentals, you can be a hero. If not, you'll be the goat. It's in your hands.

Yours truly,

Drew McKissick, former RNC member

Smoking Bans and the Nanny State

Drew Mckissick — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:43:48 +0000

It didn't take long for those crusading for bans on public smoking to seize on the surgeon general's statement that there is no "safe" level of second-hand smoke as a rationale for such bans in the name of health concerns.

But to what extreme do you take the notion of "no safe level"?

Isn't it a lot like saying there's no such thing as a safe bacon double-cheeseburger? Could it be said that there is no such thing as a "safe" level of plaque in our arteries from eating fatty foods, and therefore fatty foods should be banned, or taxed (or their manufacturers sued)?

Given that far more Americans die from heart-related illness every year than from lung cancer, why pick on smoking? Because it annoys some people, that's why. I don't care for it either, but I tolerate it, much as you would tolerate being exposed to fat guys in bathing suits at the beach. (There ought to be a law!)

A recent Rasmussen poll found that 62 percent of adults think that there should be a nationwide ban on smoking in all public places. At the same time, however, only 18 percent supported a tax on soft drinks. So much for health concerns.

Those crying out for smoking bans would do well to consider how government control and influence grows. In a word: incrementally â€” and usually irreversibly. First this under the pretext of that, then this is later used as a precedent to expand influence into another area altogether.

In other words, those who favor a smoking ban but not a tax on their soft drinks are fooling themselves if they think their guilty pleasure isn't the next ox to be gored. You can hear the logic now: High-calorie drinks = fat people = health problems = increased medical costs ... so raise the taxes! And how much more so if we get that wonderful government-run health care liberals want?

If we ban smoking in public places, does anyone really think that banning smoking in cars with passengers, or homes with other occupants, will be far behind? How about a ban on taking your kids to McDonald's too often?

If the people pushing smoking bans really had any intellectual consistency, they would push for outright illegalization of all tobacco products. But they won't because a) the government wants the taxes that come from tobacco and b) they know they can't get enough people to move that far too quickly. But make no mistake: This is exactly what's on the minds of many of the proponents of such bans.

An inch today. A few more tomorrow.

What happened to taking it upon yourself to effect social change rather than looking for government mandates? What happened to personal responsibility?

Why not approach the management of your favorite establishments and let them know you can no longer patronize them if they allow smoking? If you're an employee, why not seek jobs only where you won't be exposed to smoke if it bothers you? And vice versa for those who want to smoke. Soon the social marketplace will sort itself out.

The mere fact that many businesses and restaurants already have non-smoking policies is evidence of that fact.

But too many people want to take shortcuts, and as a result, we're living in a nanny state.

Don't allow the bullies to lull you into complacence on this issue just because they're going after something that you may dislike anyway. Don't stand idly by while one group of people is being pushed around. You may be next.

We've got a nation of whiners who have decided they don't want to let the power of the free market sort out things that annoy them personally, so they look to government. But beware giving that power to government, especially on so thin a pretext, because it will soon extend to some area of your life that annoys someone else.

Then you'll be wondering what happened to common sense. And your freedom.

(originally ran in The State)

The need for Republican Party reform

Drew Mckissick — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:55:11 +0000

Julius Caesar once said that the only thing necessary to conquer the world was men and money. Add message to that list and you've got the fundamentals of politics - as in organization, fundraising and communications.

And our party has problems in at least two of those areas.

The first problem is principles, which goes to our message and not adequately communicating our conservative philosophy - or living up to it.

In spite of what some others may insist, our conservative philosophy is not the problem. In fact, if anything, a failure to abide by that philosophy while in power has helped lead to our current situation. The need is for a better application of our philosophy to the issues of the day and translating that into a political message that's relevant to the average American.

Unfortunately, we got off base with big-government conservatism, or "active" conservatism, as some in that camp prefer to style it. The problem with big government conservatism (apart from its obvious philosophical flaws) is that there are always big government liberals that will shamelessly outbid you every time, (because they know it's not their money anyway). It will never work, nor should it.

We do know what does work however. Reagan showed the way, as did the GOP majority in the mid â€˜90's with the Contract with America. Simply put, be true to our conservative principles. There's no rationalizing any other approach. And it has the virtue of being politically viable.

Next is the "mechanics" or infrastructure part of our problem - as in our party has been out organized, out raised and completely bested technologically.

There are no excuses, only reasons. And it all comes down to leadership.

We haven't invested in the new tools of political infrastructure as we should. We've been too unwilling to adapt such technology due to a fear of loss of control and centralization. We have too many leaders that resent grassroots input; too many who are so stuck in the mindset of the last war that they didn't prepare for the next one, and too many who just have a financial stake in doing things the old way.

This has to change. Yesterday.

Unfortunately, politics doesn't occur in a vacuum. We have determined opposition with ideas that are diametrically opposed to ours, but who are doing a superior job of using the new-tech tools of democracy to package their ideas, ID their supporters and get them to the polls. Further, their methods better allow those supporters to feel a part of the process. Very important.

The point here is that these things are the fundamentals of politics. They don't change. But how they get accomplished is always evolving. And we are WAY behind the evolutionary curve.

The national Republican Party is the vehicle where much of this work should have been done to build the political infrastructure to enable success from the local level all the way to the national level.

But the problem is not just with the national party. It's pervasive at the state levels, local levels and within the leadership of much of the conservative movement itself. We've all been caught flat-footed. It's time to recognize it and call it what it is and determine that we will do whatever it takes to make sure it never happens again.

What's so maddening is that it doesn't have to be this way. There is no legitimate reason why we can't (or shouldn't) have the same assets and advantages as our opposition. Not money. Not a lack of available technology to make it happen. Not a lack of grassroots support. Only a lack of leadership.

That this is the case is a scandal no conservative should tolerate. We're not playing tiddlywinks here. The consequences of inaction are all too real. And they're not just limited to the jobs that certain people won't get, or the issues that won't get addressed, but also the policies that are likely to come from a liberal dominated government; policies that, like the Great Society, could drag down liberty and individualism for years to come. Not to mention the judges that will be appointed to the federal bench will represent a generational loss to the conservative movement.

In a lot of ways, a political party is like a bus. Every few years it pulls over to the side of the road, people get on and off; we argue over a destination and fight over the steering wheel - and then off we go for a few more years. In recent years the people behind the wheel have drifted off in the wrong direction and let the bus get outdated. We need to modernize the bus and get the right people behind the wheel and steer back in the direction of our principles.

To do that, we need the right leadership. At all levels.

The conservative blame game

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 16:14:24 +0000

It has been said that nature abhors a vacuum, but you can't prove it by the space between the ears of some in the Republican Party today, or in the conservative movement for that matter.

Take columnist Kathleen Parker for example, who in her most recent column lamented the presence of "oogedy-boogedy" religious conservatives within the Republican Party and derisively referred to them as the "low brow" crowd.

She went on to suggest that such people should just keep their faith to themselves; essentially saying they should either cease to have their values informed by their faith, or cease to cast ballots on the basis of their values. Of course, this seems rather selective, as one could just as easily ask her and others in the socially liberal camp to do the same.

Given that an AP/IPSOS poll demonstrated that 40% of the Republican coalition was comprised of evangelical conservatives, (Parker's "low brow", "oogedy boogedy" set), and, assuming she's interested in GOP electoral success, it would seem that math isn't exactly her strong suit.

One should note that the cultural views she seems to have a problem with are nothing new in this country. In fact, they've been around since before this was a country. What's new, (or newer), in American politics are the cultural liberals who demand that people (via government) actually sanction their behavior.

Keep in mind that while the GOP was busy losing the recent elections, gay marriage was rejected in three more states, (even California) - an issue that has won thirty out of thirty-one elections across America. Not exactly a national outcry for social liberalism.

By the way, Ms. Parker is the same "conservative" columnist that was celebrated by the mainstream media for her denigration of Governor Sarah Palin. The same who, just a week prior to the election, penned probably one of the most sexist columns written by a supposed "conservative" woman that I've ever seen, in which she suggested that the only reason McCain picked Sarah Palin as his running mate was because he had the hots for her.

Anyone this vapid no longer merits serious attention.

Then there's Mike Huckabee, who's pushing a new book that takes some real classy potshots at other members of the conservative movement, especially libertarians who happen to believe in small government and sound money. This is the same strain of American thought that Reagan once referred to as the "heart and soul" of conservativatism.

Of course Huckabee's probably the guy who's most responsible for making John McCain the Republican nominee this year, not exactly a big help to the movement.

And let's not forget those from the McCain campaign itself (OK, not exactly a bastion of conservatism) that committed some of the most blatant C.Y.A. in recent election history by trying to blame Sarah Palin for McCain's loss while the ballots were still being counted. The anonymous smears attempting to portray her as some backwoods rube where not just low class, but telling as to where this crowd was coming from to begin with.

What everyone needs to understand is that the biggest part of the GOP base is conservative all across the board, meaning in terms of social policy, economic policy, foreign policy and the size and scope of government.

Moreover, the same can be said of the American people. When you break it all down to its constituent parts, a consistent conservative approach to government, economics, taxes, foreign policy and culture is where the largest plurality of the American people are...and where the GOP needs to be.

Any one conservative group that calls for the others to be subordinated and/or assigned blame for Republican loses is not only wrong, but ignoring reality.

The blame for the GOP's current situation lies with those that have forgotten this truth. Those that went on spending binges with tax-dollars that would make drunken sailors blush; those who pushed for amnesty for illegal aliens; those who decided to subordinate social and cultural issues in elections to the point where some conservatives wondered what was in it for them anymore.

These are the people who don't deserve to be anywhere near a leadership position again.

In the end, this is all a tempest in a teapot fomented by some very small people doing the equivalent of jumping up and down and yelling "look at me!" They won't matter.

But the conservative movement will matter. It will go on, and it will grow. It will do so precisely because it's rooted and grounded in the reality of the human condition and the values upon which our country was founded.

We believe that the chief ends of government are to protect individual life, liberty and property. We believe in lower taxes, sound fiscal policy, smaller government, strong national defense and the traditional culture and values that have made the United States the greatest nation on the face of God's green Earth.

So to those who would seek to marginalize one faction of conservatives at the expense of another, let me just say that there are more of us than there are of you. Meaning there are more of us in this party who would consider ourselves "comprehensive conservatives". And we're not going anywhere.

Election post-mortem: lemons and lemonade

Drew Mckissick — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 01:55:58 +0000

As the old saying goes, "when life gives you lemons, you make lemonade".

Herewith, a list of some of the lemons from the recent election and the lemonade they could offer.

Election return lemons: the race is over. Obama won. The liberals have two out of three branches of government...with the third (the judiciary) hanging in the balance. Those are pretty big lemons.

Lemonade: conservatives have an opportunity to re-focus our message on our principles and define ourselves in stark relief to the inevitable liberal overreach...and then be positioned to catch those folks in the middle who will soon come down with a case of buyer's remorse.

Strategy lemons: McCain's strategy of "reaching out" failed, (reliable red states turning blue?). Lemonade: "reach-across-the-aisleism" as a strategy is now thoroughly discredited. Good riddance.

Our path is clear: sharpen the differences between ourselves and liberals. Give the public reason to support us by offering a clear, principled vision for conservative governance that applies our principles to the problems of the day. As Ronald Reagan suggested, we have to hold our conservative banner high and define the differences between ourselves and the opposition in bright, bold colors - not pale pastels.

More lemonade: we got Sarah Palin out of the deal.

Tech lemons: we got our tail whipped with new political applications of existing technology. This is important because the Republican Party apparatus serves as the political vehicle of choice for the conservative movement. But the vehicle needs servicing - big time. The other guys are driving a Corvette, and we're in an Oldsmobile. Time to upgrade.

Lemonade: we can do like the Japanese used to do; take a competitor's existing product and make it better, fast and cheaper...then take their market share.

Lemon: McCain ignored the social issues and lost. Lemonade: he lost in large part because he ignored the social issues.

Socially conservative issues faired well at the ballot box...demonstrating that people do vote on the basis of issues when they are actually AWARE of the issues, (note to McCain staff).

Amazingly, we went through pretty much an entire presidential campaign where our guy did little to nothing to highlight the culturally offensive positions of his opposition. Here you had a guy that's been rated as the single most liberal member of the US Senate with issue positions that weren't just to the left of the American public, but to the left of Ted Kennedy and Barbara Boxer, and it was left to third party groups to raise the issues. Go figure.

If the public doesn't hear the candidate himself make these distinctions, they don't have as much credibility. And, for whatever reason, McCain wouldn't make an effort. It was like taking a knife to a gunfight. When you've got clear advantages on key, salient social issues, you USE them.

Meanwhile an amendment to ban gay marriage passes, (of all places), in California - and by the same margin as Obama's national popular vote total, 52% to 48%.

Economic lemons: the liberals will now be completely in charge of spending. Lemonade: the liberals will now be completely in charge of spending.

We lost an election when the economy seems ready to head even farther downhill...and you can bet it will when it gets its pending dose of unbridled liberal economics. Now they'll have to deal with the political consequences.

More lemonade: The 2010 elections will set the table for the redistricting that will follow the next national census, resulting in new lines for congressional, state house and state senate seats that will impact the political landscape for a decade. If there's a good time to bounce back, that's it.

Legislative lemons: the liberals want to raise taxes, kill conservative talk-radio, end secret ballots for union elections, overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and pass the pro-abortion "Freedom of Choice Act"; and that's just for starters. Lemonade: These are all issues that were NOT highlighted in the campaign, (either by them, or our own candidate unfortunately). Not the kind of "change" that most independents voted for. We can oppose with abandon and be there waiting for them when they "come home".

And the best lemonade of all? We have another stunning example of what doesn't work; and several historical examples of what does - which should make our decision about what to do next a good bit easier.

10 things you should know about Barack Obama

Drew Mckissick — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 02:56:03 +0000

Knowledge, as they say, is power. Well, if you still lack enough information to decide which of the candidates for President will do the most damage to your values, prepare to be empowered.

Consider the following...

Unbridled liberalism: With Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid in charge of the White House, the House of Representatives and the Senate, Americans will be riding in the equivalent of a car with three gas pedals and no brake. Not a recipe for a safe ride. The only way to stop is to get into a crash.

And, to whatever degree you may feel Obama to be more moderate than the current Democrat leadership, (however you got that idea), make no mistake about who will be calling the shots - the newly empowered Democrat leadership. And there's no way Barry will buck his own party's base so soon after them having given him the White House. For all the bi-partisan blather, Obama has no record whatsoever of "reaching across the aisle" and working with Republicans... much less conservatives.

Obama's relationships: He spent years working side by side with William Ayers, a former domestic terrorist who regrets that he didn't "do more" back in the good ol' days; and he spent over twenty years listening to the "sermons" of Jeremiah Wright condemning his country and the white people in general. Remember what you've always heard about running with dogs and coming home with fleas?

The Supreme Court: Obama voted against the confirmation of both Justices Roberts and Alito, and said that he thinks Clarence Thomas is the worst of the current Supremes. The next President is likely to appoint at least two justices to the high court, to say nothing of dozens of appointments to the circuit and district courts. A lifetime of liberalism on the bench. In a country where the judiciary continues to assume greater control over our culture and how we live our lives, (witness: gay marriage), any hope of overturning Roe v. Wade will be lost.

Unbridled abortion: For decades the pro-life movement has worked to change abortion laws at the national and state levels with a good degree of success, especially on issues such as clinic regulation, parental notification, partial birth abortion and mandating health care for infants surviving abortions. Obama has promised that his "first act as President" will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would have the practical effect of overturning all such laws with the stroke of a pen. He's also likely to support attempts to eliminate the "Hyde Amendment" and other government policies preventing taxpayers from having to subsidize abortion via Medicaid. In fact, abortion, as a "reproductive service", would likely be covered under any proposed Obama reform of our health care system.

Endorsements: Obama has been endorsed by Planned Parenthood, EMILY"s List, the Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgender Caucus, the National Abortion Rights Action League, the National Organization of Women, ACORN (of course), and the liberal teacher's union, the NEA. Then there's George Soros, Jane Fonda, William Ayers (worth mentioning twice), Jesse Jackson and Rossie O'Donnell. Not exactly a representative sample of traditional American values. What do they know that you don't?

Taxes: The Obama campaign's definition of "rich" keeps changing. First, anyone making less than the magic figure of $250,000 (net or gross, no-one really knew) was going to get a tax cut... then, in a few speeches, it was $200,000... and now VP nominee Joe Biden has said it will be $150,000. Who will be "rich" by the time they pass their first tax bill? To say nothing of the insanity of raising taxes going into a recession... or that the people they'll raise taxes on create the jobs for everyone else. Aside from the games he's playing with talk about income taxes, what has been less talked about is his plan to raise the tax rate on capital gains from the current 15% to 25%...and dividends taxes from 15% to 39%. Oh, and don't forget the Death Tax, which currently falls to zero in 2010, that he wants to raise as high as 55%.

Sex-Ed: As a state senator in Illinois, Obama vote to extend compulsory sex education from the twelfth grade all the way down to kindergarten. When defending himself on the issue he said it was "absolutely the right thing to do".

Free speech: He, and the Democrat leadership, want to revisit the "Fairness Doctrine", (which was removed in the mid â€˜80's), that requires broadcast radio and TV stations to "balance" all opinions and be accountable to the government's notion of equal time for opposing views. The point? To eviscerate the one place where conservatives have dominance - talk radio.

Guns: Obama supported the recently overturned DC gun ban - before he was worried about scaring voters who like their guns and he had to be against.

Gay rights: He supports adoption of children by homosexuals; supports allowing homosexuals to openly serve in the military; supports the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, (which defines marriage, for federal purposes, as the union of one man and one woman), and he opposes amendments to state constitutions and the federal constitution that would do the same.

Official English: Obama opposes making English the official language of the United States, saying, "Understand this: instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English... you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish".

An abbreviated list to be sure, but enough to give you pause. Consider yourself empowered. What you do with that power is up to you.