I was watching Morning Meeting on MSNBC this morning. Before one of the commercial breaks, the teaser asked if Obama was losing “the Health Care messaging war” (or some other overblown thing). Without watching the next segment ( I had to go to work), I could easily answer the question: Yes.

He’s losing the War because he’s falling into the classic Democratic blunder(and, no I don’t mean anything about a land war in Asia). He, and the Democrats in Congress are, once again, treating the American people like children. They’re not telling us why their new plan is a positive change to the status quo, only that is (Anyone remember being told, or telling their children to eat their vegetables “Because it’s good for you!”). We’re not being told what the ramifications of the new system will be. How much will cost? What will lit mean to people who already have coverage? We’ve heard nothing about their decision making. There hasn’t been time for alternatives studies, analysis, public hearings…it’s like the Obama Administration was excited after a day at everyone favorite amusement park, Bailout World, and decided to make an abrupt stopover in Health Care Reform Kingdom instead of driving the new Government Motors car packed with Bailout-weary kids home. It’s the kind of spontaneity one would expect from a sitcom Dad trying to win points from his cynical kids, not a President of the United States trying to fix one of the most challenging issues of the past five decades.

This is an opportunity for Republicans. Not an opportunity to terrify America with campfire stories about the evil boogieman, SooOOOooocialism like so many other “conservatives” have. But an opportunity to treat us like adults.  Republicans need to be ready to give us the details about Obama’s plan and tell the American people, in no uncertain terms, why it is an inadequate solution.  Republicans must provide real analysis of the European systems with which liberals (and, to be honest, Europeans themselves) are so enamored and explain why they would not fit our needs.

Most importantly, we Republicans should prepare our own plan.  A plan which which meets America’s health care while limiting the expansion of government. Not  the plan we’ve precently released, a plan which falls back on old, tired, 20th Century Republican suggestions, but a plan that addresses the real health care problems faced by the American people.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

As I can now number the days until I turn 40, I’m starting to realize the generation that is coming up behind me. The Millennials, the generation born after 1980 or so, is starting to enter adulthood and take their place on the world stage. What I’ve noticed is how more tolerant this generation is on social issues and how much they are hungry for change. If Generation X, my generation, is the one that is cynical and suspicious of life, then this generation is defined by hope.

Hmmm…hope and change. Sounds like the theme of a certain presidential candidate.

Which is my point. It was this young group that voted overwhelmingly for President Obama last year and the Republicans were caught short handed in trying to reach this new group of adults. There has been much talk about how the future for the GOP is very bleak if it can not reach the Millennials.

But what I am noticing is that a new generation of Republicans are coming forth and demanding that the GOP change its ways. Maybe the most famous of these twentysomethings is Megan McCain, the daughter of the Senator John McCain. But there are others who are making some noise. Ian Tanner, a Republican blogger in Ohio and Martin Rybicki who blogs at the Progressive Republican both write with a passion that might be lacking in my own age cohort. All of them basically say the same thing to older Republicans: change or die.

And now we have a young Republican from Minnesota who is making that same case for change. Madeline Koch writes in the Minneapolis Star Tribune that the GOP must find ways to reach her generation and to do that it means changing their stance on some issues such as gay marriage:

We want gay marriage. Though we may not all be willing to march in the Pride parades or even send fiery letters to our congressmen about it, most of us believe that gay couples deserve the right to be legally wed. I can guarantee you this: The issue of gay marriage is not going to go away, and unless you start shifting within the Republican Party, you will not gain our support.

Read the entire article. She is not simply calling for the GOP to be nice to gays, but to change their tone and sell their stregnths.

As I enter middle age, I reflect my own generation in being wary that the GOP will change its ways. But I am thankful that there are young firebrands out there who are full of hope and optimism that are working to make the Grand Old Party a better place.

Hats off to the Millennial Republicans.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

From the Washington Times:

The latest shots in the war over the Republican Party’s ideological future will come Thursday morning in a battle over who will head the Republic National Committee’s Rules Committee, according to RNC members.

Tensions have been mounting over party philosophy and direction to degrees not seen in years by the Republicans’ national governing body as its 168 members from 50 states and six territories gather here for the first summer meeting convened by the new national chairman, Michael S. Steele.

At issue is who emerges as chairman of the 56-member Rules Committee — a moderate backed by Mr. Steele or one of the two conservative candidates.

Some members say the outcome matters because the winner assumes a powerful post that could tilt the 2012 presidential nomination playing field, while others say panelists wish to free themselves from the national chairman.

The contestants in Thursday’s election are Jim Greer of Florida, considered a moderate; and Bruce Ash of Arizona and Curly Haugland of North Dakota, both viewed as conservatives. RNC members and panel alumni once shy about blasting each other in public have drawn unusually stark battle lines. Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

By Richard Ivory

Editor’s Note: The following was originally posted at Hip Hop Republican.com on July 29, 2009.

Recently, at a packed house during the National Association for Colored People (NAACP) Convention held in New York City, New York, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele spoke about a joint- venture with the RNC & the NAACP. The hope is to find common ground in addressing some of the major problems facing both Blacks and Urban America.

Michael Steele began his speech with a litany of sobering statistics on the fate of Blacks in America. As he ended the speech he noted that instead of reading a recent study he was actually quoting John F. Kennedy from the 1960’s, sharply underscoring the fact that while there may be an African-American President, there is still much that has not been done for African-Americans.

The NAACP working with the RNC will indeed be a unique change of course given the often testy relationship between the two institutions. It is not without precedent given that many of the NAACP’s first defenders and early founders were registered Republicans. The future relationship between these two groups will be an interesting one to watch. Will it fade out as soon as Steele leaves his chairmanship? Will other RNC Chairmen participate in future events? Can the two groups work together on an urban agenda that encourages self empowerment? Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

There has been much weeping and wailing at the demise of the New England and/or Northeastern Republican and rightly so. What was once the geographical base of the GOP is nearly extinct.

But then again, it might be a bit to early to start writing an obituary. Dierdre Scozzafava, a Republican New York State Assemblywoman garnered the support of a number of GOP county chairs in her upstate Congressional district, which means she will run as a Republican in a special election to replace outgoing Representative John McHugh, who is being tapped by the President as Secretary of the Army.

So, why is this big news? Because back in 2007 she was one of four Republican lawmakers in the Empire State to support a marriage equality bill legalizing same-sex marriage and she ran for re-election in 2008 and won.

In an era where it seems that you can’t win in the GOP unless you are sufficiently homophobic, this is big news indeed.

It also might be that the 23rd Congressional District Republicans learned the lessons from the 20th Congressional District elections between Democrat Scott Murphy and Republican Jim Tedisco. Tedisco didn’t support gay marriage and ended up losing narrowly to Murphy. As the Advocate reports a few people wondered if a more moderate Republican would have won:

…although Tedisco lost by a razor-thin margin, the GOP’s Monday morning quarterbacks concluded that moderate state senator Betty Little “would have crushed Murphy,” according to one Republican insider.

It will be interesting to see how the race turns out. But in thinking about this, I have to believe that moderate/progressive Republicans have to do more than wish her well. We need to find ways to support this fellow moderate who can help moderate the entire GOP. I would suggest that those who care about the future of the GOP consider giving a donation to her campaign or writing a note of support or join her fan page on Facebook. We have to do more than just sit back and watch. We need to support inclusive Republicans.

Go, Dede, Go!

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Now that members are beginning to announce their votes we can start tracking the total projected vote. The current count of yes and no votes are as follows, the remainder being undecided. Obviously we can assume most or all Democrats will vote yes but until they announce I won’t count them.

We’ve also got a pool going in the replies. Feel free to chime in.

YES: 20 votes (15D, 5R)

NO:Â 21 votes (all R)

Democrats are currently 21-0 on the nomination (trending for 60-0)

Republicans are currently 5-21 on the nomination (trending for 8-32)

Assuming these margins more or less stand up then we’d have a 68-32 vote in support.

Just for reference on the two Bush nominees the votes were as follows:

Alito: Republicans were 54-1 in favor, Democrats were 4-41 against.

Roberts: Republicans were 55-0 in favor, Democrats were split 22-22.

So it looks like the GOP will come about in between those two standards.

By contrast, on the two Clinton nominees, the GOP voted heavily in favor (40-3 and 34-9)

Sad the way things have shifted.

I’ve got a list of the yes/no votes by state over on The Moderate Voice

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Yesterday marked the official resignation of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin. Speculation still abounds as to the reason behind her abrupt announcement some three weeks ago. Palin hasn’t been very illuminating for her part. Some people say that she is resigning because she couldn’t handle the pressure, or she wanted the big money that would come with a speaking tour and a book deal. I am in the camp that believes she resigned with her eyes on the White House. I think she has big ambitions and no longer wants to be tied down to the great white north. I think she wants to hit the speaking tour, make the rounds on Fox News and get out there in the country so people don’t forget her.

I believe she miscalculated. During the 2008 race for the White House McCain and Palin constantly criticized Barack Obama for lack of experience, especially “executive” experience. Not that Palin ever had all that much experience to begin with, but now she won’t gather any more experience from now until 2012, while Barack Obama will have 4 years as President to put on his resume. The strange thing is though, the amount of support she seems to be receieving from her supporters. From the reports I heard there were people from all over the country at her resignation picnic yesterday to show their support.

I believe Mrs. Palin represents the Old Guard of the Republican Party. She is the Queen of the Religious Right and the GOP from President Reagan up to last year. I believe that those of that ilk see her as their last viable hope for glory. The Republican brand as it stands right now is dying. It’s a dying breed, the so called “Moral Majority” has dwindled to a white southern male minority. I believe looking at Palin as the future is really looking at the past. The days of the Religious Right Republican Party is over. The people spoke. The country is moving forward and the GOP is danger of being left behind. Eight years of mostly failed neoconservative policies has left the country searching for something else.

Barack Obama doesn’t really represent true change however he managed to get his name associated with the word and it won him the election. Thus far Obama has done nothing except support big business bailouts and the wars he promised to help bring to end. Obama has failed on many of his promises, especially to progressives. Obamacare is just a band-aid on a gushing wound. Yet through all of this Obama’s popularity ratings remain relatively high just because he’s not a Republican. I believe the nation shudders at the thought of putting another neocon in the White House.

This is why the nomination of Sarah Palin in 2012 may be a fatal wound to the Republican Party that we’ll never recover from. People don’t want the same stagnant ideas anymore, they want true change and true progress. People no longer want to support a party whose contenders all vie to be most like a popular President from the 1980s. Yes Ronald Wilson Reagan was a good guy and a good President for the most part, we need to as a party step back and let go of him. President Reagan is gone, he is no longer running, and his ideas have for the most part fallen from grace in the public’s eye. We need to harness our progressive roots, the roots of Teddy, Honest Abe and Ike. We need to get back to our founding principles. We need to stop selling our sould to giant corporations and get back to our trust busting roots. Obama is just another corporate candidate, if we can find an honest man in 2012 who stands for tolerance, peace, smaller more efficient government, and can’t be bought and sold by Wall St. we can take back this country. But first we need to take back our party. We need to take it back from the Religious Right. We can’t survive this vastly changing American demographic being the party of the white souther Christian male. We need to disassociate ourselves from the Religious Right. I am not saying the religious are not welcome I am just saying it alienates non-Christians. (Trust me, I am a non-Christian and I feel alienated.) We need to distance ourselves from the war hawks. We need to speak softly and carry a big stick, not beat our chest at the world and snub our noses at our allies. We shouldn’t back down from promoting our interests in the world, but we should never ever be the aggressor in a war.

And finally, we must take back our party from the big government corporatists who taken it over. We need a true maverick for 2012, and I will continue to search for one. I can say this, at the end of the day Sarah Palin is not a true Maverick. She is the 2000 version of George W. Bush. A blank canvas for neocons and big business to paint another masterpiece on. She is embodiment of the decaying stagnat GOP that we must change.

Sincerely,

Travis J. Frey

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I work part time as a pastor at a church near downtown Minneapolis. A few months ago, I went to the church one Saturday evening to do some work. The church has an alarm system and I tried to disarm it with my code only to realize that the code did not work. After some time, I was able to use another person’s code to shut the alarm off. Unfortunately, I was not able to prevent the police from coming to the church.

I came out of my office to see a white cop looking into the church. I came forward and explained the situation to him. He took my ID and went to his squad car for a few minutes. Everything checked out and he joked about not trying to set the alarm and went on his way.

In the back of my mind, I had feared such a situation because I am a black man. I don’t know why I felt that way, but I did. I feared the police would assume that I was breaking into the building. The church has had a history of breakins and I was worried that the policeman would think I was another thief.

Fortunately, that did not happen. Maybe the cop noticed I casually came out of the office, or that I wasn’t dressed like I was stealing something from a building. Whatever it was, he “profiled” me and judged that I wasn’t a threat.

I share this experience because I think that every black man has had that fear running in the back of their head when they encounter a white policeman. I think it comes from a dark history between the police and the black community. The police have not always been a friend to black males and so I think our antennas go up. Read more »

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Now that Congress postponed in late July putting forth a national health care plan, we have more time to think through this.

Below is how I see the national health care option argument as it exists today.

SITUATION #1

A majority of Americans, however slight the majority, would like to see the U.S. have some form of national health care plan option. Increased unemployment in Fall 2009 could boost those support numbers, as long as President Obama and Congress are seen as making a good faith attempt at economic stabilization.

SITUATION #2

With a Democratic president and a strong majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Democrats could pass a national health plan without any Republican votes. This assumes Democrats can reach agreement. The pressure will be on in late 2009 to either pass or to suspend the campaign for a national health care plan. The Republicans have been totally ineffective so far in making a case against Obamacare. Republican natural allies, the Democratic Blue Dogs, have found themselves doing all of the heavy lifting as Republicans have spurned almost all attempts at bipartisanship or even working closely with the Blue Dogs.

COUNTERARGUMENT

The predominate counterargument is conservative. The conservative argument is that government should not do for people what people should do for themselves. The argument is also made that there are publicly available options to provide a safety net to the uninsured and to those unable to afford medical care;Â business and the free market is more efficient at providing better and less expensive services than the government.

PREDICTION: The Democrats will come to some agreement prior to early 2010. While this will be too late for the 2010 Federal Budget Year, it will be a decision that conservatives and Republicans will be unable to roll back even should they do well in 2010 mid-term elections.

MY POSITION: I oppose a national plan. However, I believe that major reforms of the health care industry are not possible. The health care insurers like things the way they are (438% increase in profits since 2000), and they have invested heavily in funding non-reform with more than $440,000,000 given to Republicans since 2000 in campaign contributions.

THE CHALLENGE FOR OPPONENTS

– Democratic Blue Dogs: Generally agree that national health care reform is needed but are very sensitive to anything which increases the national debt, and which does not seem like actual reform. Blue Dogs have the greatest chance to shape the winning argument.

– Republicans: Chaos reigns within the party and they have no plan at all. Period.

– Conservatives: The traditional conservative argument does not hold up under close inspection: publicly available resources are largely non-existent. They have no credible argument — see example of Virginia below.

– Independents: Independents tend to take the Blue Dog position.

VIRGINIA & THE CONSERVATIVE MYTH

Virginia has much to be happy about. It has largely escaped the worst of the 2007-2009 Recession. It was, and remains, among the Top 3 most economically blessed states in the Union. And Virginia seems poised to grow in both wealth, affluence and influence. Virginia was just named the “Top State for Business” for the second time in three years.

Yet, Virginia has a health care issue. Many Virginians do not see the problem as pronounced as some other areas since 1 in 8 Virginians receive medical care through affiliation with current or past military service. Approximately 1 in 7 Virginians are not covered by health insurance of any kind.

The conservative arguments holds that where there is demand there will be a supply of service to meet that demand. It is also argued that private groups are already providing many of these services; a public health insurance plan would just hurt the efforts of these groups.

So how well does the conservative argument hold up? The common availability of public resources by private groups is largely myth.

Below is an example of the Free Clinic network in Virginia. A Free Clinic is a private, nonprofit, community-based or faith-based organization that provides compassionate, quality health care at little or no charge to low-income, uninsured people through heavy use of volunteer health professionals and partnerships with other health-related organizations.

After reviewing Virginia’s “safety net” health care network below, the nation’s second largest such network, you tell me how strong is the conservative argument of supply-and-demand, private providers work best.

===============================
Virginia – Population 7,700,000
===============================

– 1,061,000 uninsured Virginians.

– Total clinics statewide: 55.

– Virginia has the 2nd largest network of free health clinics in the USA.

– Virginia counties with no free health clinic at all: 30+

– Ratio of uninsured Virginians PER clinic: 20,000:1

– Efficiency: $5.40 of services provided for every $1 received; 75% private sector funding, many services are contributed.

– Eligibility for use: A family of 4 may earn no more than $25-31,000 (150-200% below the poverty level).

– Virginians can find a master list of free health care clinics online at http://www.vafreeclinics.org

Email this post

Spread the Word:

Email this post

Spread the Word:

By: Travis Frey

Hypocrites. The world is full of them. Most of them go into politics. Recent examples have hit TV lately. Mark Sanford, the cheating Governor of South Carolina is the most recent one and the most high profile. His fling down in South America has been talked about to death. Many conservative commentators have recently went on record to say that when a “liberal” or a Democrat cheats it doesn’t get near the coverage that it does when a “conservative” does it. I must say I partially agree. John Edwards cheated on his wife and I don’t think he really got hit as hard, though he did get rocked. However where I and Fox News crowd disagree is the reasoning for this. Sean Hannity and his ilk claim media bias, I don’t.

Personally, I believe it’s because Christian conservative Republicans are the “family values” crowd. They are the ones who try to push morality on the nation and preach morals and values in their campaigns. They go on and on about the immorality of premarital sex, condoms, homosexuality and abortion. Yet they seem to have the hardest time staying faithful to their wives. It’s hypocrisy and that is why they get hard for it. The media will swarm on hypocrisy.

Just ask John Edwards. No I am not talking about his extramarital fling, I am talking about his high style living. You see John Edwards was never part of the family values crowd, but he was a prominent soldier in the war on poverty. You see back during the Democratic primaries Edwards ran on the “Two Americas” theme. However many perceived him as phony because of his huge McMansion for a home and his 500 dollar haircuts. It’s hard to claim you understand the plight of the poor in this nation when you drop 500 big ones on a haircut. ON A HAIRCUT! Can you even imagine that? I go into Great Clips and it’s 13 bucks plus tip and I am like “oh man this is Bulls**t!” 500 dollars is ridiculous, but I digress.

Edwards campaign was essentially sunk after that. The media swarmed on him like sharks with blood in the water. Yet no one really cared that GWB came from a family of billionaires or that Mitt Romney is very very well heeled. Why? Media bias? No, GWB and Mitt Romney never ran on a platform of anti-poverty so no one really cared they lived the lives of fat cats.
The point is this, the media bias is a myth. The media’s only bias is sensationalism. No one would tune into a report that Mitt Romney lives in a mansion, but let him cheat on his wife. John Edwards cheating on his wife, big deal but not Mark Sanford big, Edwards getting a 500 dollar haircut, enough to sink his campaign.

Email this post

Spread the Word:

I think I’ve finally figured out the Obama healthcare plan.

First, he’s going to remove all the money from the healthcare industry. That way no one can afford to be a doctor, be a nurse, run a hospital, and research or manufacture new drugs. So there will be no healthcare in this country.

So if there is no healthcare to buy in the first place, than no one can say they can’t afford healthcare.

Second, all those other nations around the world who have been pointing to themselves as superior can start trying to develop their own new drugs, therapies and techniques. Thus, the little secret that our profit-driven healthcare system has been the engine of research and development for the world wide healtcare system will be exposed.

Suddenly over population won’t be a problem anymore.

Incredible! Obama and the Democratic congress are already solving two problems in no time at all! What will they think of next?

Email this post

Spread the Word:

According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, there will not be a vote on health care reform prior to the August recess. Reid seems to be accepting what everyone has already sensed, that it simply is not going to be possible to get a vote before the August recess begins.

President Obama doesn’t seem to agree on the subject though, he indicated that he will still be pushing for a vote in the next few weeks. I suspect that Obama knows that the vote isn’t possible but he needs to keep making a public effort to make things move.

At the same time I think Obama is starting to learn that the country isn’t a monarchy and you can’t just get things to happen by wanting them. During his last days in office President Truman commented that his successor, President Eisenhower, would find the job frustrating. As a military general he could order for things to happen and they would get done. As President you demand something happens and then nothing much does.

Reid did suggest that a vote in the Senate Finance committee could take place by the August 8th recess which would allow leaders to spend the recess merging that bill with the version of the bill that came out of the Health committee earlier this month.

That would then allow the Senate to work on passage of the merged version during September and perhaps leave some time for the two chambers to work on something before the end of session which is scheduled for sometime in late October.

But even that is a pretty tight timeline, and it is entirely possible that we could be seeing the conference committee taking shape after the first of the year, which would mean that it may be a year before we would see a bill pass all the way through Congress

Email this post

Spread the Word:

From Republicans for Environmental Protection:

By David Jenkins, REP Vice President for Government and Political Affairs, and South Carolina REP member John Wagner, published July 9, 2009, in the Greenville News

The Republican Party’s standing with the American public is at an alarming low. A recent Pew Research poll found that only 27 percent of voters currently identify themselves as Republicans.

There are many theories as to why our nation’s conservative party has fallen on hard times. Some blame the Bush presidency, others point to a lack of fiscal discipline, and yet others blame the party’s stance on social issues. The problem is more fundamental, however.

Too many Republicans who proudly and loudly profess to be conservative have lost touch with what conservatism means.

Some have become so blinded by partisanship or pet issues that they have become more reactionary than thoughtful. Others seem to have taken the libertarian path and ended up in an almost liberal place – a mindset that champions freedom while ignoring responsibility.

One consequence of these mistakes is that they have led many in the Republican Party to abandon originally conservative ideas such as resource conservation and environmental stewardship – and cede these issues to liberals by default.

This part of the Upstate is fortunate to be represented in Congress by Bob Inglis, a thoughtful conservative who fully understands traditional conservative principles and takes his stewardship obligation seriously.

The fathers of traditional conservative thought – such as British statesman Edmund Burke, American political theorist Russell Kirk, and the Carolinas’ own conservative philosopher/author Richard Weaver – emphasized prudent forethought, humility, a spirit of piety and responsible stewardship.

Weaver, in his classic conservative book, “Ideas Have Consequences,” pointed out that the root of man’s failures and society’s ills is people making unintelligent choices.

In order to be true to conservatism’s most fundamental ideas, one must resist hasty, shortsighted, selfish, or purely partisan judgments that do not contribute to the broader public good or protect the interests of future generations. In short, a genuine conservative is a good and thoughtful steward.

Congressman Inglis gets this, something of a rarity among today’s politicians. He is focused more on solving problems than scoring political points. He arrives at his policy positions through careful research, an honest assessment of the facts, and a commitment to conservative values.

Inglis has come under fire lately because he believes it is prudent to protect our atmosphere by reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Those who criticize Inglis for that position might be surprised to learn that he is following the lead of another thoughtful conservative: Ronald Reagan.

Reagan, when faced with mounting scientific concern about ozone depletion, let neither the doomsday ranting of then-Congressman Al Gore nor the scoffing of his fellow Republicans influence his decision. Instead, Reagan listened carefully to the experts, weighed the facts, and took prudent action to safeguard our atmosphere.

Today the ozone layer is healing, not because of Al Gore’s hype, but because of Ronald Reagan’s leadership. It was Reagan, not Gore, who pushed through the treaty to begin phasing out ozone-depleting chemicals used in aerosol sprays and refrigeration equipment.

Reagan was no less of a conservative because he let facts trump polarizing rhetoric and chose to act in the best interest of our children and grandchildren. He was exactly the kind of thoughtful conservative that our party and our nation needs.

So is Bob Inglis.

Email this post

Spread the Word: