A Capitulation, Not a Compromise: Thanks To Three Senators, Republicans Have Lost An Opportunity.

By Pat Toomey.

Note from author of Gop For Liberty:
Pat Toomey, a Republican with libertarian leanings, is currently seeking the nomination of the Republican Party for the Pennsylvania Governor's Race In 2010.

The three Republican senators who struck a deal with the Democrats are touting the Senate’s stimulus bill as a bipartisan compromise. In yesterday’s Washington Post, Sen. Arlen Specter even labeled the $838 billion package cobbled together late last week the “moderates’ compromise.”

But the surrender of three liberal Republicans does not make a bill a compromise. Dig into the details of the Senate bill, and it’s obvious that this isn’t a compromise but a capitulation.

Sens. Specter, Collins, and Snowe tout the spending cuts they were able to wrangle from the Democrats, but they neglect to mention all the additional spending that has been added over the past week through amendments. The ink on the House bill was not yet dry when Senator Specter himself introduced an amendment to add $6 billion in spending for the National Institutes of Health. The bill is stuffed with pork projects and spending programs that don’t even pretend to be about economic growth. One has to wonder how the “moderates” can defend $1.5 billion for carbon-capture projects, $1.3 billion for NASA, and $75 million for the Smithsonian Institution, among many other earmarks, as “stimulus.” In the end, the so-called compromise bill actually costs $18.7 billion more than the bill passed by the House.

And while the moderates croon about the bill’s tax cuts, very few of those cuts are pro-growth measures that will encourage Americans to invest and produce. In fact, some are only refundable tax credits—meaning checks issued to people who don’t pay federal income taxes. There is a more accurate term for this kind of tax cut: spending.

Thanks to Specter, Collins, and Snowe, the Republican party lost the opportunity to pass a true compromise bill that would have encouraged economic growth. By unanimously voting against the stimulus bill, House Republicans empowered Senate Republicans to demand substantive, pro-growth amendments. After all, without 60 votes in the Senate, President Obama would not have been able to pass any bill, good or bad.

If Senate Republicans had united as their counterparts in the House did, President Obama would have had no choice but to include Republican proposals to cut income-tax rates, along with taxes on businesses and investment. These measures would have encouraged workers to be more productive, freed American businesses currently laboring under one of the highest corporate-tax rates in the world, and encouraged investors to support our ailing financial markets.

To be sure, Republicans would have been forced to accept a large dose of spending, but Democrats would have been similarly forced to accept tax cuts they refused to include in the current bill. That is what a real bipartisan compromise would have looked like—not this $800 billion–plus spending spree that tosses a couple of crumbs to Specter, Collins, and Snowe.

The Senate’s compromise bill is as fundamentally flawed as the original version. While its supporters claim it will create millions of jobs, they neglect to mention all the jobs it will destroy. The money for the bill has to come from somewhere—and that will be straight out of the private sector, where it could have been invested far more efficiently and productively, creating jobs in the process. The subsidies for “green jobs” will, perversely, end up destroying jobs as the country is forced to waste money producing overpriced, inefficient energy.

Whether we are talking about the original House bill, the original Senate bill, or the so-called compromise bill, the stimulus is based on the backward and discredited idea that the country can spend itself out of a recession. It didn’t work for the United States during the Great Depression, it didn’t work for Japan during the 1990s, and it won’t work now.

President Obama’s own economists admit that many of the programs in the bill will do little to stimulate the economy, and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, confessed that Democrats are using the stimulus to check off their Christmas shopping list. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel said. “And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Even the Democrat-controlled Congressional Budget Office predicts the stimulus bill will actually hurt the U.S. economy in the long run. According to the CBO, the massive amount of new debt will crowd out private investment in the future and hamper economic growth.

Senator Specter cites John F. Kennedy, who said: “In politics, nobody gets everything, nobody gets nothing, and everybody gets something.” In this case, the Democrats get almost everything, and the American taxpayers get to look forward to generations of debt. We have three “moderate” Republicans to thank for that crowning achievement. Let’s remember who they are.

—Pat Toomey is the president of the Club for Growth.

Libertarian Republican Meg Whitman Starts Run For Governor Of California

Self described "Libertarian" and registered Republican, Meg Whitman former CEO and President of eBay Inc, announced today February 9, that she has formed an exploratory committee for a campaign to win the Republican nomination for California governor in 2010.

Former California Gov. Pete Wilson, who lead California through an eight year economic recovery through his terms, will be campaign chairman. The co-chairs of the exploratory committee are Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), chief deputy Republican whip, and fellow Republican representative Mary Bono Mack (R-Palm Springs), along with state Sen. Tony Strickland (R-Thousand Oaks), state Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher (R-San Diego), Republican whip, and former State Assemblywoman Sharon Runner of Lancaster.

“After careful consideration and with tremendous loyalty to our Golden State, I have formed an exploratory committee, the first step in the process of running for governor in 2010,” Whitman said. “California faces challenges unlike any other time in its history — a weak and faltering economy, massive job losses, and an exploding state budget deficit. California is better than this, and I refuse to stand by and watch it fail. Now is the time for people across the state to join in a cause for change, excellence and a new California.”

Whitman, 52, retired from eBay, which has grown to be a cultural free market phenomenon, in March 2008 after a decade with the company. During Meg's time with eBay the company grew from a start up with 30 employees, 300,000 users and $4.7 million in revenue, to a global behemoth with operations in 38 countries, more than 15,000 employees, almost $8 billion in revenue and more than 300 million registered users, including more than 12 million eBay users in California alone.

Whitman, in the coming weeks, through speeches in Silicon Valley, Orange County and at the California Republican Party Convention in Sacramento, will offer a vision for the Golden State, she said.

Michael Steele Elected RNC Chairman

From The Washington Post:
The Republican National Committee elected Michael Steele as its first African American chairman today in Washington, a decision that came after an excruciating series of ballots that displayed a level of drama rarely seen in national politics.

On the sixth and final ballot Steele bested South Carolina Republican party Chairman Katon Dawson 91 to 77.

In picking Steele, who had previously served as the chairman of the Maryland Republican Party, the state's lieutenant governor, and the GOP nominee in the Maryland Senate race in 2006, the party regulars seem to be acknowledging the need for new -- and different -- faces at the top of its food chain.

"The winds of change are blowing at the RNC," said current chair Mike Duncan who stepped aside after losing votes on each of the first three ballots.

After five ballots, the race came down to Steele and Dawson. Republican party strategists in attendance at the meeting openly fretted about the possibility of electing Dawson, who had acknowledged his membership in a whites-only club, and the signal it would send to a country that had just elected Obama as the nation's first black president.

Of Obama, Steele offered the president congratulations for his victory but also sought to send a message to the Democratic chief executive; "How do you like me now," Steele asked.

It was -- interestingly -- former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell who ultimately swung the race to Steele when he dropped out before the fifth ballot and endorsed the former lieutenant governor. The move was somewhat unexpected as Blackwell had staked out the turf as the most socially conservative candidate in the field while Steele had had to beat back rumors that he was not sufficiently conservative.

Steele faces a massive challenge to rebuild a party that faces significant organizational, financial and messaging hurdles.

The Democratic National Committee is up and running and will have the benefit of the 13 million person strong email list that Obama built during the primary. Democrats also have the luxury of controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress.

Steele will provide a charismatic face at the top of the GOP but will be tested to show an ability to raise the money necessary to compete with the DNC in 2009 races (governors contests in Virginia and New Jersey) as well as the critical 2010 midterm elections.

Black Republican Macho Sauce Releases Fiesty Video About Obama Inauguration

Prominent Young Black Republican Macho Sauce, has jsut released a new video with his thoughts on the Obama inauguration and the reaction by the black community:


Be warned. This video contains very graphic language which may be offensive to some. But once again, Macho Sauce makes his point. And he does it well.

Nancy Pelosi To Reverse House Fairness Rules

From Human Events.

Nancy Pelosi is planning to re-write the House rules today ensuring that the Republican minority in congress is unable to have any influence. The fairness rules were originally written by Republican speaker of the house, Newt Gingrich, when he enacted his "Contract With America".

Changes to the House rules would make it nearly impossible for Republicans to offer alternative bills, amend Democrat bills or even the guarantee of open debate accessible by motions to recommit for any piece of legislation during the entire 111th Congress. The retraction of the rules will also greatly reduce the transparency in Congress and politician's personal accountability.

In reaction to Pelosi's effort Republican House leaders is sending an objection letter to Pelosi.

"January 5, 2009

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House
H-232, U.S. Capitol
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

We hope you and your family had a joyful holiday season, and as we begin a new year and a new Congress, we look forward to working with you, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and President-elect Obama in tackling the many challenges facing our nation.

President Obama has pledged to lead a government that is open and transparent. With that in mind, we are deeply troubled by media reports indicating that the Democratic leadership is poised to repeal reforms put in place in 1995 that were intended to help restore Americans’ trust and confidence in the People’s House. Specifically, these reports note that the Majority, as part of its rules package governing the new Congress, will end six-year term limits for Committee chairs and further restrict the opportunity for all members to offer alternative legislation. This does not represent change; it is reverting back to the undemocratic one-party rule and backroom deals that the American people rejected more than a decade ago. And it has grave implications for the American people and their freedom, coming at a time when an unprecedented expansion of federal power and spending is being hastily planned by a single party behind closed doors. Republicans will vigorously oppose repealing these reforms if they are brought to a vote on the House floor.

As you know, after Republicans gained the majority in the House in 1995, our chamber adopted rules to limit the terms of all committee chairs to three terms in order to reward new ideas, innovation, and merit rather than the strict longevity that determined chairmanships in the past. This reform was intended to help restore the faith and trust of the American people in their government – a theme central to President-elect Obama’s campaign last year. He promoted a message of “change,” but Madame Speaker, abolishing term limit reform is the opposite of “change.” Instead, it will entrench a handful of Members of the House in positions of permanent power, with little regard for its impact on the American people.

The American people also stand to pay a price if the Majority further shuts down free and open debate on the House floor by refusing to allow all members the opportunity to offer substantive alternatives to important legislation -- the same opportunities that Republicans guaranteed to Democrats as motions to recommit during their 12 years in the Minority. The Majority’s record in the last Congress was the worst in history when it came to having a free and open debate on the issues.

This proposed change also would prevent Members from exposing and offering proposals to eliminate tax increases hidden by the Democratic Majority in larger pieces of legislation. This is not the kind of openness and transparency that President-elect Obama promised. This change would deprive tens of millions of Americans the opportunity to have a voice in the most important policy decisions facing our country.

Madame Speaker, we urge you to reconsider the decision to repeal these reforms, which could come up for a vote as early as tomorrow. Just as a new year brings fresh feelings of optimism and renewal for the American people, so too should a new Congress. Changing the House rules in the manner highlighted by recent media reports would have the opposite effect: further breaching the trust between our nation’s elected representatives and the men and women who send them to Washington to serve their interests and protect their freedom.

Sincerely,

Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio), Republican Leader
Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), Republican Whip
Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), Conference Chairman
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter (R-Mich.), Policy Committee Chairman
Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wyo.), Conference Vice-Chair
Rep. John Carter (R-Texas), Conference Secretary
Rep. Pete Sessions (R-Texas), NRCC Chairman
Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), Chief Deputy Whip
Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rules Committee Ranking Republican"


Please call and e-mail your representatives as soon as you can and let them know exactly how you feel about the voices of Conservatives all over this country being drowned out by a Democratic majority. These rule changes must be voted on and it is important that you let your congressperson know exactly how their constituents feel about this.

Republican Congressman Anh Cao Comes From Strong, Libertarian Like, Self-Relient Background

Anh Cao knows communism. Anh "Joseph" Cao fled South Vietnam as a boy in 1975 when a Communist invasion threw the last remnants of U.S. influence out of the country. He, like many anti-Communist Vietnamese refugees, also became a Republican.

On December 6, 2008, Anh Cao defeated incumbent William Jefferson, an African American in a primarily black district, in a total congressional surprise to most. Cao was virtually unheard of until that moment.

Here is an excerpt from the Huffpo's latest blurb about Cao:
Cao (pronounced "Gow") is the first Vietnamese American elected to Congress,but only the fourth Asian American to join the House as a Republican. A child of refugees, his father served as an officer in the South Vietnamese Army, fighting communism alongside American troops. It's all too easy to portray Cao as a Vietnamese American with conservative views that stem from a legacy of anti-communism. Here, the obvious comparison can be made with right-wing Cuban Americans of southern Florida. But Cao's New Orleans East -- home to the largest concentration of Vietnamese Americans of Louisiana -- is no Little Havana. And Cao is no Republican ideologue. A political independent until only recently, Cao, who once trained as a Jesuit seminarian working with the poor in Latin America, described his politics as "walking the middle line" in a recent New York Times article.

But by holding fast to the middle, Cao isn't merely playing it safe as the first House Republican to represent New Orleans since Reconstruction. The middle line is proxy for the nuanced political and racial location that Vietnamese Americans of New Orleans occupy, a location that doesn't quite conform to traditional left-to-right political ideologies. Indeed, the Vietnamese Americans of New Orleans pride themselves on self-reliance, yet they also demand government accountability, especially when confronted with injustice. They seek to advance themselves politically and economically, yet seem to do so without sacrificing solidarity with other racial groups, particularly neighboring African Americans. Nowhere were these values more clearly on display than in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Less than six weeks after the storm, the Vietnamese Americans of New Orleans East returned to their homes, doing so over the objection of local and federal officials. Their leader was Father Nguyen The Vien, a political firebrand and head of Mary Queen of Vietnam church (MQVN). "Before the storm, I guess you could call us libertarians," Father Vien said. "Our attitude toward government was: 'you don't bother us, we won't bother you.' But Katrina changed all that. We had a responsibility to speak out." And so with each step of the rebuilding process, the priest and his congregation battled those who stymied their efforts: foot-dragging FEMA officials, The Waste Management Corporation that sought to dump Katrina debris in their backyard, city leaders all-too-eager to sell off New Orleans East to developers. Through it all, the priest was surrounded by a coterie of experienced community organizers, policy wonks and attorneys.


Finally! Someone to speak the conservatism that the Republican party has been lacking! Enough with the religious right and the wing nuts. Let Cao speak for the real Republicans that are left in this country so we can begin rebuilding our party.

Things are looking up in GOP land.

Chambliss Wins Senate Seat Vital For Preserving Conservative Convictions

Saxby Chambliss, a first term Republican senator from Georgia, won the hotly contested and absolutely vital senate seat in the Georgia run-off election which took place yesterday December 2, 2008. With 95% of precincts reporting, Chambliss holds a margin of 58% to incumbent Jim Martin's 42%, a win of almost blow-out proportions.

The seat was absolutely vital to conservative interests, in the Republican party's effort to prevent the Democrats from obtaining a 60 seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate. This victory also give Washington Republican's s optimism as it does the brakes on the Democratic momentum that had been building.

Republicans were gearing up for the election in true Republican form. There was a superb grass roots effort to get out the vote, and Sarah Palin hosted a slew of Chambliss rallies in the state yesterday. All four of Palin's rallies crowds were estimated to be in the thousands.

One theory for the blow-out this time around, is a poor turnout on the Democrats behalf. Without the allure of Barack Obama, I guess those Dem's found better things to do.

Makes one wonder, just how many uninterested, uninformed and otherwise inactive voters came out on November 5th just to check off the name Obama and how different those results would have been had only people really interested in the political process would have voted.

An Alameda County CA Judge Comes Through For Ron Paul Republicans

Read the story in it's entirety at the SFgate


An Alameda County judge has thrown out a lawsuit contesting the election of a handful of supporters of libertarian Republican Ron Paul, a former presidential candidate, to the county's Republican Central Committee.

Alameda County Superior Court Judge Frank Roesch dismissed the lawsuit brought on by the Republican Central Committee and committee Chairman Paul Cummings of Oakland, a former Democrat, seeking to overturn the election of a group of Paul supporters. The opposing group won 12 of the committee's 30 seats in the election held on June 3, 2008, and Cummings alleged that seven of them did not meet the party membership requirements for candidates.

Cummings contests that Judge Roesch "got the law wrong".

The lawsuit was the result of an attempt to win control of the committee by passionate supporters of Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman from Texas who sought the party's presidential nomination this year and who urges major reductions in government and overseas spending as well as a stricter interpretation of the Constitution.

One of the defendents, Stanley Livermore, had this to say. "We're looking forward to getting involved with the Republican Party and helping the party to stay on track".


I have one important question for Mr. Cummings. Why on earth, in such a tumultuous time for the Republican party, would he be considering blackballing a sub-group of his own party from a committee?? If the Republican party has learned anything from the bumpy last two elections, it should have been that we need new ideas and fresh blood in our party. Any supporters of the Conservative cause should be welcomed with open arms.

I for one applaud the 7 men who stood up for what they believed in and refused to back down from the political establishment. Bravo Fellas!

Chuck Norris to Obama: Now That You Work For Me

This is letter written by Chuck Norris that was first published on the Human Events wesbite:

Dear President-elect Obama:

First, congratulations on your victory. The historical magnitude of your presidential win is nothing short of stupendous and a colossal fulfillment of the American dream (an achievement embedded long ago in the equality clauses of the Declaration of Independence).

It's likely no big surprise that I don't see eye to eye with you politically. Actually, I stand in stark opposition to most of your politics. Still, I realize that we must learn to work together if we are to see our country get back on track. After Election Day, I asked myself, "How can I work for our new president to help better America?" Then a thought occurred to me. The first question that should be answered is: How will you work for me? After all, "We the People" of the United States employ you, correct?Continued

So here are a few ways you might begin to gain the respect of those who oppose you and to show that your campaign pledges to bridge the divides were not empty promises to get you into office. And these requests I make are based upon the inaugural oath you will make Jan. 20, "I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of president of the United States and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." No doubt these won't be my only requests through the years, but they serve as a good beginning:

-- Use and cite the Constitution. If that constitutional oath ("preserve, protect and defend") is the central duty of your job description, then I assume we will be hearing often from you about exactly how you are doing just that. There is no replacement for strict adherence, application and defense of the Constitution. And it's high time that presidents quit reciting the presidential oath tritely and then abandoning its tenets when they enter the Oval Office. You should be quoting from the Constitution publicly as often as a preacher quotes the Bible to his congregation -- at least weekly. If you take this oath and challenge seriously, you will limit the powers of federal government, reduce taxes (for everyone), encourage the freedom of religion and expression (even in the public square), and stand up for such things as our right to bear arms. The American public and the government have lost their grip on the content and role of the Constitution, but if you daily choose, you can help to re-educate and model its usage for them.

-- Protect American life. Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." Those are powerful and enlightening words. Of course, such a role was created and secured in the very fabric of our nation -- in the Declaration of Independence. The commitment to protect life should serve as the basis for all you do, even as a foundation for your national defense strategy. I'm sure the first of your secret briefings this past week on our global security threats have opened your eyes to the extensive onslaught of our enemies. Don't allow your pride, partisanship, personal bias or political abilities to jeopardize the safety of Americans lives. As commander in chief, you are called to preserve American life. Quite frankly, that is why I'm surprised that a man such as you, who professes to fight for minorities, would not recognize the clear value of a human life in a womb. Federal law should not decree the sacrifice of one human life for the preference of another. Both lives should be protected. Otherwise, what do Jefferson's 1809 words mean? As president, you are called to protect (not destroy) human life; it is the "first and only legitimate object of good government."

-- Lead more from the center. It's been pointed out by countless pundits, and your track record is clear: You have one of the most liberal records in the Senate. You've had the liberty of voting and fighting for an agenda "from the left" as you've tried to persuade state and federal lawmakers to do the same. But if you continue to lead our country down a more liberal road, you will follow the peril of Bill Clinton, who stepped into office and initially tried to lift the ban on gays in the military and extend abortion rights, only to prompt the creation of a more balanced and strong Republican Congress in the 1990s. Don't underestimate the resurrecting power of the conservative voice. You observed in last week's election how three states across this union voted to protect marriage in their constitutions (the 28th, 29th and 30th states to do so -- California, Arizona and Florida).

We will be watching who you choose to be in your Cabinet. We will discern how you lead Pelosi and Reid. We will be observing those you select as candidates for Supreme Court justices. The election is over. No more promises. No more words. You might work well in a team, but this time, you don't have congressional members to hide behind. You're on your own -- leading the pack -- and the whole country is watching. I, especially, am watching. So make sure you lead more from the center.

One of your 300 million bosses,

Chuck Norris


editors note:
BRAVO CHUCK NORRIS!! BRAVO!!

OK You Guys, Jokes Over. Bring Back The REAL Republican Party! Its Conservatism Stupid!

I can't believe all the yammering going on within the Republican Party after our big loss on game day this year. I have heard so many of my fellow Republican friends, blame the lose on John McCain's inability to distance himself from Bush.

I say... ummm... no.

As a diehard Republican (who admittedly leans a bit to the Libertarian side), I can tell you what sunk McCain was his inability to distance himself from his own party (lead by George Bush). Republicans have been getting a bad wrap lately and I really don't even wonder why. We used to be the party of small government, personal responsiblilty and individual freedom. Now we are seen as the party of big expensive wars, the party that will turn the other cheek to big corporate corruption and irresponsibility and the party that tell you who you are allowed to invite in your bedroom.

From The North Florida Daily News
"In 1980, the Regan Revolution was launched on conservative principles. Reagan clearly stated the need for decreased taxes, a slimmer government, free people conducting themselves in freedom and self-discipline, a strong defense, and government simply regulating what was mandated in the Constitution. Reagan won.

In 1984, when the Gipper ran for reelection, he was clobbered by every media outlet in the nation. All he did was campaign on the need to continue his policies. In case you forgot, he lost only Minnesota and the District of Columbia. Eleven electoral votes."

If we, as a party, ever expect to get out of this hole and reclaim our stake, we must get back to our roots. And we have to do more than just talk about it. We have to prove it. We must use the next 4 years working our asses off to prove that we haven't lost our Republican values.