The debate over the O'Brien vs. Markey race for the third GOP Supreme Court nomination has, for the most part, been respectful. Oh sure, there are the usual hysterics because 20 years ago someone bought a ticket to a colleague's fundraiser, but these are minor and safely ignored. I like to think of the pro-Markey crowd as best represented by Kevin Rex Heine, who at least does his homework. [Someday, I'd like to meet Kevin and shake his hand.] That doesn't mean I agree with him, however. In fact, the more I study Markey's decisions, the more uncomfortable I am with the thought of her on the high court.
In a recent post, Kevin essentially made this argument: We don't know much about Colleen O'Brien because she is a circuit court judge, and there have been other judges or nominees, about whom we knew little, who disappointed us, e.g., Harriet Miers, David Souter, and Mary Beth Kelly. Therefore, we should not nominate Colleen O'Brien in favor of a candidate with a more readily viewable record.
I will address Kevin's observations about Mary Beth Kelly in a near-future article. At this point, I will only say that Kevin has questioned my writing about two of Jane Markey's decisions when his entire criticism of Mary Beth Kelly is based on one decision, ignoring the many opinions in which she joined with the rule-of-law majority. Harriet Miers was never confirmed, and Souter was put forth by the moderate northeastern wing of the party (i.e., John Sununu) in response to prior confirmation battles that got out of control due to the flyspecking and nitpicking over productive nominees.
Still, Kevin raises a valid point, but it doesn't carry the day. He is arguing, in essence, that we should reject an "unknown" circuit court judge in favor of a "known" appellate judge with a troubling record. That's not an exchange I'm willing to make, for a number of reasons. First, I do credit endorsements to some extent, particularly by respected and unimpeachable judges such as Chief Justice Robert Young. Second, I have met and talked to Colleen O'Brien and, frankly, I believe her when she says she is a rule-of-law judge. Third, as I have detailed here and here, at least some of Judge Markey's opinions don't square with her rule-of-law claims. Fourth, as I describe below, the decisions I discussed previously are not the only ones that concern me.
In People v Dowdy, a 2010 decision, Markey joined with two Democrat-appointed judges to find that Randall Dowdy, who pleaded guilty in 1984 to kidnapping, five counts of first degree criminal sexual conduct, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony, was not required to register with local law enforcement under the Sex Offenders Registration Act (SORA), because he happened to be homeless. SORA expressly states that its purpose is to "better assist law enforcement officers and the people of this state in preventing and protecting against the commission of future criminal sexual acts by convicted sex offenders" and to "provide law enforcement and the people of this state with an appropriate, comprehensive, and effective means to monitor those people who pose such a potential danger." Nonetheless, Markey and her Democratic colleagues on the panel found that sex offenders who happen to be (or claim to be) homeless do not have to register with law enforcement because they do not have "the security of a customary place of lodging."
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, in a 4-3 decision (Young, Markman, Kelly, and Zahra in the majority), holding that the Court of Appeals had erred by ignoring longstanding precedent (dating back to at least 1897) that, under Michigan law, every person has a "domicile." Moreover, apart from reporting a residence or domicile, SORA requires every sex offender to report to law enforcement in person four times per year, a requirement that "is unconditional and contains no exceptions or exclusions for homelessness." The evidence in the case showed that Dowdy failed to report for four years, or 16 quarters. This requirement was ignored by the Court of Appeals.
In summary, the Supreme Court found that "the Court of Appeals panel interpreted SORA in a manner contrary to the plainly expressed intent of the Legislature[.]"
As we have seen, Judge Markey's record includes decisions utterly contrary to the rule of law, in which decisions she has greatly expanded civil liability beyond that intended by the Legislature, ignored clear and unambiguous statutory language in favor of her own feelings as to what constituted "fair play," and, in Dowdy, ignored the clearly expressed intent of a statute in a manner not only contrary to the law but potentially quite harmful to public safety.
The reader may think we don't know enough about Colleen O'Brien, but I suggest we know more than enough about the troubling judicial decisionmaking of Jane Markey.
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label GOP. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
Friday, March 2, 2012
An Open Letter to Michigan Republicans
Dear Michigan Republicans:
To some extent, of course it matters. We have to be able to work together to accomplish our common goals, and our recent primary certainly did not bring us any closer together, but we have lost our focus on those common goals that unite us. No two people have complete agreement on every issue -- how boring would that be? -- but I have witnessed people getting absolutely roasted over any minor deviation from an author's credo.
Have you looked at Facebook lately? I don't blame the Santorum folks for putting a positive spin on things, but the vitriol directed at the Romney campaign is out of place. And Romney people, until now I didn't know you could be a sore winner.
And how can there be a split on the Credentials Committee vote awarding the at-large delegates? It's arithmetic! There is a right answer!
One thing in particular that needs to change -- elected or paid GOP leadership, including our national committee people and all members of the state committee, should not be endorsing candidates in a contested primary. If you don't know why, look at the current controversy surrounding the Credentials Committee and the announced endorsements of the 4-2 majority. Call it what you want, but it taints the process. The Party should be the Party of all the candidates, ready to leap into action to support the winner of the primary, not divided by pre-primary endorsements that suggest the deck is stacked or that give the appearance of impropriety.
We are fond -- very fond -- of referring to Ronald Reagan, and the tug-of-war over his mantle is sometimes amusing to watch. But one thing Reagan did was to articulate his vision of America. Not a set of legislative priorities, but a vision of what this country means and could be. Then the voters came to that vision. As Reagan said in his famous 1974 "The Shining City Upon a Hill" speech:
The good news is that this can all be fixed. Easily, in fact. It will take, however, an en masse commitment to truth, transparency, and togetherness. For one, the Credentials Committee should reconsider its recent vote, and the Santorum campaign should drop all challenges. There should be a voluntary 30-day moratorium on saying anything bad against any fellow Republican. Let's focus on the target-rich environment the Democrats have provided, okay?
And in the future, let's remember that things don't need to be rigged. Debate doesn't need to be shut down. We don't need to "get around" anyone. Our party is about fair, open, honest debate and an unswerving commitment to freedom.
Time to get back to basics, before it's too late.
The Wiz.
Stop it. All of it.
Just stop.
It is truly amazing how we pay
lip service to unity, then immediately turn around and try to tear each other
apart. This gives aid and comfort to the
enemy, and it stokes the mistrust that so characterizes our current political
process.
The negative campaigning, the
dirty tricks, the middle-of-the-night meetings that rewrite the rule book –
does it matter? In the long run (meaning
about six months from now), will any of this matter?
To some extent, of course it matters. We have to be able to work together to accomplish our common goals, and our recent primary certainly did not bring us any closer together, but we have lost our focus on those common goals that unite us. No two people have complete agreement on every issue -- how boring would that be? -- but I have witnessed people getting absolutely roasted over any minor deviation from an author's credo.
Have you looked at Facebook lately? I don't blame the Santorum folks for putting a positive spin on things, but the vitriol directed at the Romney campaign is out of place. And Romney people, until now I didn't know you could be a sore winner.
And how can there be a split on the Credentials Committee vote awarding the at-large delegates? It's arithmetic! There is a right answer!
One thing in particular that needs to change -- elected or paid GOP leadership, including our national committee people and all members of the state committee, should not be endorsing candidates in a contested primary. If you don't know why, look at the current controversy surrounding the Credentials Committee and the announced endorsements of the 4-2 majority. Call it what you want, but it taints the process. The Party should be the Party of all the candidates, ready to leap into action to support the winner of the primary, not divided by pre-primary endorsements that suggest the deck is stacked or that give the appearance of impropriety.
We are fond -- very fond -- of referring to Ronald Reagan, and the tug-of-war over his mantle is sometimes amusing to watch. But one thing Reagan did was to articulate his vision of America. Not a set of legislative priorities, but a vision of what this country means and could be. Then the voters came to that vision. As Reagan said in his famous 1974 "The Shining City Upon a Hill" speech:
Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, “We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world.” * * *
Which of our candidates is describing this kind of vision of America? Which one of us is doing so? Has the polarization that grips the national political scene taken hold of the GOP here in the Enchanted Mitten?We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to do so. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall of Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when the economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and the return to the dark ages, Pope Pius XII said, “The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”We are indeed, and we are today, the last best hope of man on earth.
The good news is that this can all be fixed. Easily, in fact. It will take, however, an en masse commitment to truth, transparency, and togetherness. For one, the Credentials Committee should reconsider its recent vote, and the Santorum campaign should drop all challenges. There should be a voluntary 30-day moratorium on saying anything bad against any fellow Republican. Let's focus on the target-rich environment the Democrats have provided, okay?
And in the future, let's remember that things don't need to be rigged. Debate doesn't need to be shut down. We don't need to "get around" anyone. Our party is about fair, open, honest debate and an unswerving commitment to freedom.
Time to get back to basics, before it's too late.
The Wiz.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
The Wizard of . . . Politics?
After the GOP at Oakland University on November 9, I wrote:
Stay tuned!
Santorum: He does well on every question. They just won't ask him enough of them. If he was in the middle of the stage and got 10 questions, the dynamics of this race would change instantly.Now, after Iowa, there will be two more debates before the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries. The debates will surely feature more questions to Sen. Santorum, and we'll find out quickly if The Wiz is ready to branch out.
Stay tuned!
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
The Debate Ahead
Tonight, eight Republican presidential candidates square off again for two hours of highly structured questions and answers. This time, the debate takes place on the campus of Oakland University and will be televised by CNBC.
What to expect?
At a correspondents breakfast this morning, debate moderators Maria Bartiromo and John Harwood forecast that the debate would center primarily around jobs and the economy. The Michigan setting lends itself to that discussion, since the Enchanted Mitten is home to a reawakening automobile industry and a burgeoning renaissance of its own, courtesy of a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature.
Still, we won't escape more questions on the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations. Should this be a topic during this precious time? Good question, but here's why I think these questions will get asked:
1. This is television, it's about viewers and ratings. The prurient element is a big ratings-getter.
2. It's the topic of the day, especially with Cain's press conference yesterday.
3. The moderators will want to see whether the other seven will rise to the occasion (sorry about that) and try to take advantage of Cain's misfortune.
4. Voters are certainly interested in whether a candidate can handle a crisis, especially since Obama has demonstrated he cannot. These unconfirmed allegations may not be worthy of much, it's hard to say, but this is a situation where a nonsubstantive issue bumps up against the need to discern character, composure, and integrity.
We'll see how it goes.
What to expect?
At a correspondents breakfast this morning, debate moderators Maria Bartiromo and John Harwood forecast that the debate would center primarily around jobs and the economy. The Michigan setting lends itself to that discussion, since the Enchanted Mitten is home to a reawakening automobile industry and a burgeoning renaissance of its own, courtesy of a Republican governor and Republican-controlled legislature.
Still, we won't escape more questions on the Herman Cain sexual harassment allegations. Should this be a topic during this precious time? Good question, but here's why I think these questions will get asked:
1. This is television, it's about viewers and ratings. The prurient element is a big ratings-getter.
2. It's the topic of the day, especially with Cain's press conference yesterday.
3. The moderators will want to see whether the other seven will rise to the occasion (sorry about that) and try to take advantage of Cain's misfortune.
4. Voters are certainly interested in whether a candidate can handle a crisis, especially since Obama has demonstrated he cannot. These unconfirmed allegations may not be worthy of much, it's hard to say, but this is a situation where a nonsubstantive issue bumps up against the need to discern character, composure, and integrity.
We'll see how it goes.
Debate me? Debate you!
As the result of some extraordinary oversight, your faithful Wizard has snagged a media credential and will be blogging the GOP debate tonight. Stationed in the media center, I may have the opportunity to ask some of the candidates or their surrogates questions during the post-debate spin-o-rama.
Have a question you would like asked? Post it in the comments on RightMichigan or on The Wizard of Laws, and I'll see what I can do. Don't want your suggestion public? Email me at thelegalwiz@gmail.com
Here's a few I won't be asking:
Panelists at the Correspondents Breakfast
this morning in Rochester, MI.
Have a question you would like asked? Post it in the comments on RightMichigan or on The Wizard of Laws, and I'll see what I can do. Don't want your suggestion public? Email me at thelegalwiz@gmail.com
Here's a few I won't be asking:
To Michele Bachmann: If you had your life to live over again, would you live it as a blonde?
Again to MB: Have you ever been harassed by Herman Cain?
To Mitt Romney (from my son): So, Mitt, Mormonism -- what's that all about?As you can see, I could use a little help, so let me hear from you!
To all: Your hair -- gel or mousse?
To all: When you were on Oakland University's campus and saw the deer, was your first thought (a) How sweet; (b) Look, it's Bambi; or (c) Mmmm, venison?
Thursday, November 11, 2010
What's Wrong With The Macomb County GOP?
It's late. I'm tired. I just returned from the Macomb County Republican Party's Fall Convention. The sole purpose of this meeting was to elect 32 members to sit on the party's executive committee, along with 32 "statutory" members (the Republican candidates for state and local office in the last election).
The meeting was supposed to begin at 7:30 p.m. It started about 7:45. After it was called to order, one delegate jumped up and began yelling, "Point of order!" Huh? Point of order? At 7:46? Really? Eventually, he shut up while we said the Pledge of Allegiance and saluted the veterans on this, Veterans' Day.
Following the ceremonial aspects and a couple of short speeches from our Congresswoman and a state representative, the meeting disintegrated. One genius moved that the meeting adjourn promptly at 10 p.m. Not surprisingly, this motion passed! Dumbest. Motion. Ever.
In order to proceed with the sole item of business, it was necessary first to elect a chair of the convention. This did not take place until about 10 p.m., at which time another vote was held and the meeting time was extended until 11. By the way, the vote was not held until we had a vote over how to vote -- by secret ballot or by standing up or a show of hands or some other way. Secret ballot won, which of course meant another long delay.
Finally, with the chair chosen, order ensued, right? Wrong. The chair -- Stanley Grot -- promptly appointed a credentials committee, a rules committee, three parliamentarians, two sergeants-at-arms, and a nominating committee. I may have left out a committee or two, but you get the idea. He then asked the assembled delegates (almost 300), "Who wants to be on the executive committee?" (Did I mention this was the only piece of business to be conducted?)
About 80 people indicated an interest, so Grot had us all amble up to the front and fill out forms that magically appeared. The "nominating committee" then spent about 15 minutes whittling the 80 names down to 32 and presented them to the delegates as a slate for approval. In a fit of Pelosian legerdemain, the 32 chosen matched almost exactly the list of people Grot appointed to his "committees" in the first place. Since Grot's supporters outnumbered the survivors by this point, the slate was approved, and the meeting was promptly adjourned. Grot received the heartfelt congratulations of many sycophants, since he is now virtually assured to be selected by the executive committee as the new chairman of the Macomb GOP.
The outgoing chairman is Jared Maynard. There was some dissatisfaction with his leadership, but the day a party chair is unanimously loved has never happened. Nevertheless, the manner in which Grot and his pals operated during this meeting was reprehensible.
For example, the party's bylaws require that the delegates to the meeting approve the procedure for electing members of the executive committee. At the outset, Maynard proposed -- in writing -- a procedure that would have 2 candidates selected from each of the 13 county commissioner districts, with the chair choosing six more. This would have spread the representation throughout the county and allowed the districts to select their own candidates. This was voted down by a combination of Grot supporters, anti-Maynard types, and those who simply wanted to "do it the way we've always done it."
After Grot became chair of the meeting, he had his rules committee recommend a series of rules to be adopted by the convention, putting the whole nominating committee idea in among such controversial notions as adopting Robert's Rules of Order. There was no opportunity to vote on them individually, so the whole package passed, thus validating the procedure that was not only already in progress, but to any sentient being, concluded before the convention ever started. There was no way the nominating committee could sift through 80 applications and make any informed decision about the best 32 in 15 minutes. Even to read the applications in that time would have required reading 5.3 applications per minute, or about 11 seconds per application. There was only one set of these -- how could a seven person committee read, review, understand, discuss, and decide on 32 people out of 80 applications in 15 minutes? Of course, they could not. The entire outcome was predetermined.
Laughably, the Grot crowd opposed the Maynard-suggested procedures because they wanted everything to be "transparent." It was a total joke.
The Macomb GOP took a giant step backward tonight. I am certain that some of the people who will be on the executive committee have the ability to do a good job, but the leadership of this county party is in dire straits.
After this year's election, we should be consolidating our gains, expanding our outreach, and professionalizing our operations and image. This will not happen now.
On Nov. 6, Grot sent an email out to all of the convention delegates. Here's a part of it, unedited:
Perhaps this is what the GOP precinct delegates want. It's not what I want, and it's not wanted by any of the people I spoke with at the convention. This was raw, small-minded, parochial politics at its worst. What should have been a triumphant convention focused on 2012 degenerated into a sleazy power grab, undoing much of what was accomplished in the last election.
In the long run, will Grot's ascendancy mean anything? Will he so implode over the next two years that the delegates will come to their senses and get rid of him? Time will tell. In the meantime, however, a Grot chairmanship will severely damage the party. I cannot see myself contributing to it or doing anything to make this party more viable. My time and effort will be better spent on the state level or assisting with individual campaigns.
The Macomb GOP has long been afflicted by small thinkers, but this past year it seemed as if we had turned the corner. There were quite a number of new, exciting candidates with vision and high ideals. Our new leadership (if Grot is elected chair) will have neither.
The meeting was supposed to begin at 7:30 p.m. It started about 7:45. After it was called to order, one delegate jumped up and began yelling, "Point of order!" Huh? Point of order? At 7:46? Really? Eventually, he shut up while we said the Pledge of Allegiance and saluted the veterans on this, Veterans' Day.
Following the ceremonial aspects and a couple of short speeches from our Congresswoman and a state representative, the meeting disintegrated. One genius moved that the meeting adjourn promptly at 10 p.m. Not surprisingly, this motion passed! Dumbest. Motion. Ever.
In order to proceed with the sole item of business, it was necessary first to elect a chair of the convention. This did not take place until about 10 p.m., at which time another vote was held and the meeting time was extended until 11. By the way, the vote was not held until we had a vote over how to vote -- by secret ballot or by standing up or a show of hands or some other way. Secret ballot won, which of course meant another long delay.
Finally, with the chair chosen, order ensued, right? Wrong. The chair -- Stanley Grot -- promptly appointed a credentials committee, a rules committee, three parliamentarians, two sergeants-at-arms, and a nominating committee. I may have left out a committee or two, but you get the idea. He then asked the assembled delegates (almost 300), "Who wants to be on the executive committee?" (Did I mention this was the only piece of business to be conducted?)
About 80 people indicated an interest, so Grot had us all amble up to the front and fill out forms that magically appeared. The "nominating committee" then spent about 15 minutes whittling the 80 names down to 32 and presented them to the delegates as a slate for approval. In a fit of Pelosian legerdemain, the 32 chosen matched almost exactly the list of people Grot appointed to his "committees" in the first place. Since Grot's supporters outnumbered the survivors by this point, the slate was approved, and the meeting was promptly adjourned. Grot received the heartfelt congratulations of many sycophants, since he is now virtually assured to be selected by the executive committee as the new chairman of the Macomb GOP.
The outgoing chairman is Jared Maynard. There was some dissatisfaction with his leadership, but the day a party chair is unanimously loved has never happened. Nevertheless, the manner in which Grot and his pals operated during this meeting was reprehensible.
For example, the party's bylaws require that the delegates to the meeting approve the procedure for electing members of the executive committee. At the outset, Maynard proposed -- in writing -- a procedure that would have 2 candidates selected from each of the 13 county commissioner districts, with the chair choosing six more. This would have spread the representation throughout the county and allowed the districts to select their own candidates. This was voted down by a combination of Grot supporters, anti-Maynard types, and those who simply wanted to "do it the way we've always done it."
After Grot became chair of the meeting, he had his rules committee recommend a series of rules to be adopted by the convention, putting the whole nominating committee idea in among such controversial notions as adopting Robert's Rules of Order. There was no opportunity to vote on them individually, so the whole package passed, thus validating the procedure that was not only already in progress, but to any sentient being, concluded before the convention ever started. There was no way the nominating committee could sift through 80 applications and make any informed decision about the best 32 in 15 minutes. Even to read the applications in that time would have required reading 5.3 applications per minute, or about 11 seconds per application. There was only one set of these -- how could a seven person committee read, review, understand, discuss, and decide on 32 people out of 80 applications in 15 minutes? Of course, they could not. The entire outcome was predetermined.
Laughably, the Grot crowd opposed the Maynard-suggested procedures because they wanted everything to be "transparent." It was a total joke.
The Macomb GOP took a giant step backward tonight. I am certain that some of the people who will be on the executive committee have the ability to do a good job, but the leadership of this county party is in dire straits.
After this year's election, we should be consolidating our gains, expanding our outreach, and professionalizing our operations and image. This will not happen now.
On Nov. 6, Grot sent an email out to all of the convention delegates. Here's a part of it, unedited:
Now for the good news: I intend to be nominated for permanent chair to conduct the Macomb county convention for that evening only. There will be a democratic and honest process of selecting 32 people that will serve on the Macomb County Republican Party’s executive committee. Once elected these 32 people together with 32 statutory members will get together at some point and elect Macomb County officers for a two year term. Next, let me be very clear that I am not supporting anyone individual to be our next Macomb County Republican Chairman. Very viciously some people started making phone calls spreading lies that I have a favorite in the race for our next Macomb County Chairman. It is filthy bold trickery which I believe does not belong in any campaign for any office. If you happen to receive any trashy literature or any outrageous phone calls or you have any doubts about the correctness of information, please contact me immediately.This portion I have quoted professes ideals and intentions that are the exact opposite of what happened at the convention tonight. The executive committee was selected by an undemocratic, dishonest process that was given the indicia, but not the substance, of fairness. Moreover, to send out an email that uses terms like "filthy bold trickery" and phrases like "I am not going to get in the gutter and throw mud" reflects an utter lack of professionalism.
Most of you already know who I am, what I stand for, and what my values are. I am not going to get in the gutter and throw mud simply to satisfy personal ambitions. I encourage all of my supporters to be positive, discuss issues, and concentrate on what we really need to accomplish for our County, State, and Country. This type of filthy campaigning does not meet my moral standard or serve our Conservative Republican cause well.
Perhaps this is what the GOP precinct delegates want. It's not what I want, and it's not wanted by any of the people I spoke with at the convention. This was raw, small-minded, parochial politics at its worst. What should have been a triumphant convention focused on 2012 degenerated into a sleazy power grab, undoing much of what was accomplished in the last election.
In the long run, will Grot's ascendancy mean anything? Will he so implode over the next two years that the delegates will come to their senses and get rid of him? Time will tell. In the meantime, however, a Grot chairmanship will severely damage the party. I cannot see myself contributing to it or doing anything to make this party more viable. My time and effort will be better spent on the state level or assisting with individual campaigns.
The Macomb GOP has long been afflicted by small thinkers, but this past year it seemed as if we had turned the corner. There were quite a number of new, exciting candidates with vision and high ideals. Our new leadership (if Grot is elected chair) will have neither.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
The Michigan GOP - A False Dilemma and A Positive Vision
An article in the Detroit News today about "the battle for the heart and soul of the Republican Party," posits the false dilemma that there is an ongoing struggle "pitting social and religious conservatives who unflinchingly tout an anti-abortion, anti-gay, family platform at the expense of most everything else, against the traditional fiscal conservatives and moderates who would rather focus on a smaller, less intrusive government that takes less from taxpayer wallets and finds ways to create jobs."
Why are these positions inconsistent with one another? Why can't we be anti-abortion and anti-tax? No reason. Can you favor traditional marriage and at the same time believe in smaller government? Of course you can. These are not mutually exclusive views. In fact, they are compatible, consistent, and extremely attractive to the average voter.
If Americans truly wanted pro-abortion, anti-family, fiscal liberals in office, why would the Democrats spend every waking minute of every campaign trying to persuade voters they are pro-family and believe in lower taxes and fiscal responsibility? They do so because they recognize, even if Republicans don't, that when one candidate is perceived as considerably more conservative than the other, the conservative wins; likewise, when the candidates are perceived as ideologically close, the Democrat tends to win.
In every Presidential election since 1968, the Republican has won when he was perceived as being significantly more conservative than the Democrat. Think about the elections won by Democrats -- Carter in 1976, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Obama in 2008 -- and think about their opponents. Gerald Ford was not considered particularly conservative, George H. W. Bush had squandered his huge popularity by breaking his "no new taxes" pledge, and John McCain seemed to go out of his way to avoid conflict with Obama.
Remember too that after McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, his campaign surged, and he led Obama in the polls until the financial crisis hit, which McCain then bungled beyond repair.
Now think about the elections won by Republicans during the same time frame -- Nixon in 1968 and 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Bush 41 in 1988, and W in 2000 and 2004. In each case, the Republican was not only more conservative than the Democrat, but went out of his way to emphasize the ideological gap.
Here in Michigan, there is ample evidence of a socially conservative electorate. In 2006, Republican candidates for Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General received 42.3%, 56.2%, and 53.8% of the vote, respectively. That same year, Prop 2 on affirmative action was passed with 57.9% of the vote. In 2004, the marriage amendment passed with 58.6% of the vote.
These socially conservative proposals outpolled the Republican candidates, clearly demonstrating that there is a core conservatism among Michigan's electorate. Instead of rejecting this dimension as too narrow or divisive, we should be embracing it as a unifying force for our party.
Similarly, Gov. Tinkerbell and the Democrats in Lansing have shown us (again!) the extreme folly and disastrous consequences of tax-and-spend liberalism. Isn't that also a unifying force?
When people talk about Republican "outreach," exactly to whom are we reaching out? And how? By piecemeal "initiatives" designed to placate various constituencies? By ridiculous legislation focused on minutiae? By "moving to the center," which means nothing more than compromising our principles and values and becoming more liberal? These are prescriptions for electoral disaster. How many elections do we have to lose before we realize that being Democrat-lite will not work?
If we truly want to recover our balance and restore sanity to Lansing, we need a clear, forcefully articulated vision of life under a Republican government.
Ronald Reagan combined social and fiscal conservatism with a strong defense posture, and he did what the GOP needs to do now. He did not fall into the trap of trying to pass off a set of proposals as ideology. He created and persuasively described his vision of America, and he let the voters come to him and to the GOP, which they did in record numbers.
Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are natural allies. Candidates who embrace both are destined for greatness. We cannot expect every Republican to be in lockstep on every single issue, but we can and should expect Republicans to share our core beliefs in individual freedom, personal responsibility, low taxes, small government, and the sanctity of innocent life.
The solution to the false dilemma is a positive vision. What exactly are we trying to accomplish for Michigan and her citizens? The candidates who best articulate such a vision will unite the party, end this talk of division, and lead us into the future.
Why are these positions inconsistent with one another? Why can't we be anti-abortion and anti-tax? No reason. Can you favor traditional marriage and at the same time believe in smaller government? Of course you can. These are not mutually exclusive views. In fact, they are compatible, consistent, and extremely attractive to the average voter.
If Americans truly wanted pro-abortion, anti-family, fiscal liberals in office, why would the Democrats spend every waking minute of every campaign trying to persuade voters they are pro-family and believe in lower taxes and fiscal responsibility? They do so because they recognize, even if Republicans don't, that when one candidate is perceived as considerably more conservative than the other, the conservative wins; likewise, when the candidates are perceived as ideologically close, the Democrat tends to win.
In every Presidential election since 1968, the Republican has won when he was perceived as being significantly more conservative than the Democrat. Think about the elections won by Democrats -- Carter in 1976, Clinton in 1992 and 1996, and Obama in 2008 -- and think about their opponents. Gerald Ford was not considered particularly conservative, George H. W. Bush had squandered his huge popularity by breaking his "no new taxes" pledge, and John McCain seemed to go out of his way to avoid conflict with Obama.
Remember too that after McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate, his campaign surged, and he led Obama in the polls until the financial crisis hit, which McCain then bungled beyond repair.
Now think about the elections won by Republicans during the same time frame -- Nixon in 1968 and 1972, Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984, Bush 41 in 1988, and W in 2000 and 2004. In each case, the Republican was not only more conservative than the Democrat, but went out of his way to emphasize the ideological gap.
Here in Michigan, there is ample evidence of a socially conservative electorate. In 2006, Republican candidates for Governor, Secretary of State, and Attorney General received 42.3%, 56.2%, and 53.8% of the vote, respectively. That same year, Prop 2 on affirmative action was passed with 57.9% of the vote. In 2004, the marriage amendment passed with 58.6% of the vote.
These socially conservative proposals outpolled the Republican candidates, clearly demonstrating that there is a core conservatism among Michigan's electorate. Instead of rejecting this dimension as too narrow or divisive, we should be embracing it as a unifying force for our party.
Similarly, Gov. Tinkerbell and the Democrats in Lansing have shown us (again!) the extreme folly and disastrous consequences of tax-and-spend liberalism. Isn't that also a unifying force?
When people talk about Republican "outreach," exactly to whom are we reaching out? And how? By piecemeal "initiatives" designed to placate various constituencies? By ridiculous legislation focused on minutiae? By "moving to the center," which means nothing more than compromising our principles and values and becoming more liberal? These are prescriptions for electoral disaster. How many elections do we have to lose before we realize that being Democrat-lite will not work?
If we truly want to recover our balance and restore sanity to Lansing, we need a clear, forcefully articulated vision of life under a Republican government.
Ronald Reagan combined social and fiscal conservatism with a strong defense posture, and he did what the GOP needs to do now. He did not fall into the trap of trying to pass off a set of proposals as ideology. He created and persuasively described his vision of America, and he let the voters come to him and to the GOP, which they did in record numbers.
Social conservatism and fiscal conservatism are natural allies. Candidates who embrace both are destined for greatness. We cannot expect every Republican to be in lockstep on every single issue, but we can and should expect Republicans to share our core beliefs in individual freedom, personal responsibility, low taxes, small government, and the sanctity of innocent life.
The solution to the false dilemma is a positive vision. What exactly are we trying to accomplish for Michigan and her citizens? The candidates who best articulate such a vision will unite the party, end this talk of division, and lead us into the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)