Category: political challengers

Categories
media and media people political challengers too much government

The Story of Our Time

The election season is heating up and challengers are making headway. So, here comes the name-calling by media hot-heads. The boiling point was quickly reached when Keith Olbermann called a Tea Party candidate a liar and a traitor, declaring that the challenger should be arrested and jailed.

This is, sadly, not unexpected.

In the 20th century, what was once considered radical and extremist became mainstream. The common sense wisdom of America’s founders was thrown out for imported philosophies like socialism and “dirigisme.” The leading intellectuals at the start of the century, many educated in Germany, took home doctrines of limitless government and added a can-do American spirit, creating Progressivism and then the New Deal.

Big Government went from the thing most feared to Our Friend.

Then, in England, a socialist noted that this alleged Big Brother could be awfully cruel, the opposite of fraternal. An Austrian economist explained how even well-intentioned government, if unlimited by a rule of law, could send us all down the road to serfdom. A backlash began.

Though increasing numbers of intelligent, concerned citizens began to doubt and then decry the growth of government, government continued to grow. And establishment opinion called supporters of limited government “extremists” and “radicals.”

Now, as government spending lurches beyond all sanity, it’s the establishment that appears extremist.

Expect a few skirling kettles to boil over this season. And then boil dry — and empty. Like the establishment’s big government philosophy itself.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
Common Sense insider corruption political challengers

Vote Absurdly If You Wish

Today is Election Day, with primaries or runoffs in 12 states. Let’s hope at least a few incumbents fall, from both parties.

Most Americans would cheer that. But we’ll then hear TV talking heads and pundits in the press tell us how crazily we’ve voted.

In 1994, ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings condescendingly reported that “The voters had a temper tantrum last week. . . . Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”

Were our choice so limited, I’d say give the two-year olds a shot.

Jennings’s snooty attitude has been echoed again and again this year. Mike Allen, Politico’s chief political writer, said after Utah’s Senator Bennett flamed out in a GOP convention, “There was no reason for his state to turn on him. Nobody delivers for Utah the way he does.”

Allen went on to rant about Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s unpopularity in his home state: “Voters are not thinking . . . the idea of Nevada kicking out Harry Reid is absurd! He’s the #1 senator: #1 out of 100. Nobody delivers for Nevada like Harry Reid.”

Apparently, Mr. Allen knows best. Utah and Nevada voters? Fools, the lot of them — for not liking all the presents their big-shot politicians delivered for them.

Common sense, on the other hand, has it that anyone who votes to please the Washington press corps is truly crazy.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Incumbents and Upstarts

Guess who said this: “My gosh, these people in Washington are running the country right into the ground.”

According to the New York Times, it was Senator Orrin Hatch who voiced that lament — “despite having lived and worked [in Washington DC] for the last 34 years.”

Those old-timers! They retain all the advantages of incumbency, but pretend to be exempt from criticism when the results of their habits become clear.

That’s why last week’s primaries auger well: Seems that being the establishment’s favored candidate — or a longtime incumbent — does not even guarantee winning a nomination.

In Pennsylvania, the unprincipled Democrat-turned-Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter sought to avoid getting clobbered in the GOP primary. Instead, he got clobbered in the Democratic primary — despite the support of the Democratic Party establishment.

Likewise, in Kentucky, Rand Paul wrested the GOP nomination for the U.S. Senate from Secretary of State Trey Grayson, the party-backed candidate, with a 23 percent margin.

Paul, who explicitly allies himself with the Tea Party movement, was soon engulfed in controversy over the 46-year old Civil Rights Act, which outlawed racial discrimination in public accommodations. Meanwhile, Congressman Sestak’s charge that the Obama White House offered him a federal job in an attempt to keep him out of the race, possibly a federal crime, dampened the news of his triumph.

Still, it seems clear: the voters don’t want “Those people in Washington” running the country into the ground.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Anything Wrong With That?

Did President Barack Obama offer Pennsylvania Congressman Joe Sestak, now the Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, a high position in our federal government in exchange for not running against Arlen Specter?

Sestak didn’t take the deal, if indeed one was offered. But months ago, Sestak said, unequivocally, that a job had been offered. He has since clammed up, especially after defeating Specter last Tuesday.

Back in February, a White House spokesman denied any such deal was proffered. But, Sunday, on CBS’s Face the Nation, chief White House spokesman Robert Gibb’s declared, “I’m not going to get into it, but people who have looked into it assure me the conversations were not inappropriate in any way.”

A ringing defense! And after such an exhaustive search for the truth . . .

On ABC’s This Week, George Will offered context. “Politics is a transactional business,” he said, and offered his judgement: “I don’t see a thing wrong with it.”

Yes, well, Will has a point. Many businesses are “transactional” — banking comes first to mind. But there are honest transactions . . . and less-than-honest ones. I wouldn’t want the president of my bank hiring or promoting his girlfriend to, say, prevent her from finking on him to his wife.

Government employees have jobs to do — jobs that carry out legitimate governmental functions. If not, those jobs shouldn’t exist. If so, they should be staffed on the basis of merit, not political expediency.

I thought that was very simple, basic common sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Will Tea Party Politics Change Party Politics?

Rand Paul’s supporters weren’t alone in celebrating his big win. The AP headline read: “Democrats relish Paul’s GOP win in Ky. Senate race.” Sen. Robert Menendez, Chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, chortled over the “stark contrast between Rand and his opponent, state Attorney General Jack Conway.” He thinks Paul’s easier to beat come November than the establishment opponent Paul clobbered.

That used to be the rule. The more radical a candidate, the more likely to be trounced by the status-quo alternative.

But something’s different this time, right?

Not long ago Rand’s father Ron Paul was regularly ridiculed for being too extreme and “nutty.”

Now it’s the centrists who look nutty. Or, as Rand put it, “The tea party message is not . . . an extreme message. What is extreme is a $2 trillion deficit.”

Across the country in Washington State, a state representative is being challenged by Tim Sutinen, who is running explicitly under the “Tea Party” banner. A local paper quoted Sutinen as advising the legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and renegotiate state employee contracts.

The Democratic incumbent showed less glee than his Kentucky colleagues: “Those folks that represent the tea party are obviously good folks who have a view of government and they are frustrated. A lot of people are frustrated about the economy.”

My reading? It’s not just the economy. Continued dishonesty and self-dealing by politicians even in the midst of the crisis — that’s what’s frustrating.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
local leaders political challengers too much government

Tea Party Talking Points

Amy Kremer, director of the Tea Party Express, one of the many organizations that try to steer the Tea Party movement, appeared on The View, recently. She stayed on point, talking sense, on the whole:

  • The movement is all about fiscal issues, limited government, responsibility, and free markets. No social issues, she said.
  • “We have no leader, the leaders are all across the country.” Sarah Palin is not the Tea Party’s leader.
  • The Tea Party is non-partisan, crossing “all party lines,” with independents, Democrats, Republicans and libertarians participating.
  • Tea Party folk are most angry at the GOP because “there’s no denying that the spending started under Bush.”

Ms. Kremer ably steered the conversation away from the traps that The View folk might have liked to see her fall into. Co-host Joy Behar appeared quite pleased that Kremer acknowledged Bush-era Republicans as responsible for starting this current trend in over-spending.

So, good talking points. Other Tea Party folks should emulate her. I say this in part to reiterate points I made on Townhall not long ago. To seriously tackle our massive fiscal problems, the Tea Party will have to confront spending across the board, including a Sarah Palin/John McCain-style foreign policy.

How is it that people from across the political spectrum can work together in this movement?

It’s simple: No one but a fool would flirt with government insolvency and ruin.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall political challengers term limits

Competition in Michigan

Michigan’s career politicians are pushing to more than double maximum tenure in the state house and almost double it in the state senate.

Michigan currently caps service at three two-year terms, or six years, in the house and two four-year terms, or eight years, in the senate. Thus the “combined limit” on both chambers is 14 years. The new law would allow lawmakers to serve up to 14 years in a single legislative seat. This of course would drastically weaken term limits and severely crimp electoral competition.

Now, term limits help make possible such refreshing political campaigns as that of Leon Drolet, director of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance and a former state representative. He is vying for Michigan’s 11th state senate seat, now open because the incumbent is prevented by term limits from standing for re-election. Another former state representative as well as a current one are also running for the seat.

I bet that when one of these challengers gets elected — and certainly if it’s Drolet, with his strong anti-tax, anti-pork message — incumbents will keep moaning about the loss of “experience” wrought by term limits.

But Drolet has experience, too — fighting governmental assaults on the liberties of citizens. His co-authoring of a constitutional amendment to curb government’s power to grab private homes through eminent domain is relevant.

It’s just that ample experience in helping restrain government power isn’t the kind that certain politicians applaud.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Pardon the Vote

Over the weekend, Utah Republicans defeated three-term incumbent U.S. Senator Robert Bennett at their state convention. Two more conservative candidates, both with support among Tea Party activists, now move on to a primary election to decide the eventual GOP nominee.

Senator Bennett’s defeat marks the first U.S. senator to be denied re-nomination in Utah in 70 years.

The strangest part of this, though, is the strange reaction of much of the media. The morning paper says Bennett was as conservative as any rational human being could possibly desire . . . citing Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine.

Kathleen Parker, the liberal Washington Post’s idea of a conservative, lectured before the vote that “Tea Partyers risk losing some of their strongest voices.” Tea Party supporters seem determined to decide for themselves which voices speak for them.

Parker also smeared Tea Party folks as an anti-intellectual rabble, characterizing Bennett’s long tenure in Washington to be “as disadvantageous as having an Ivy League degree. Those out-of-touch elites, you know.”

Touchy. Very out-of-touchy. Forgotten by the maven? Bennett’s old pledge to serve only two terms.

Bennett had been seeking his fourth term.

E.J. Dionne called the Utah result a “non-violent coup.” Yes, just exactly like a coup — except for that voting part.

For those counting coup right now, establishment folks are receiving a whacking. No wonder they bristle.

Expect more.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

If This Be . . .

Joe Klein, author of Primary Colors and contributor to Time magazine, is very defensive about criticism of the current administration and Congress.

Of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, he says the two talk “borderline sedition.”

Nice hedge, that word “borderline.”

But he’s merely repeating something he wrote last year about Senator Tom Coburn. The Oklahoma senator, responding to the Democrats’ extremely unpopular (and later successful) machinations to enact a form of national medical insurance, said that he understood why some would give up on their government. For this, Klein dubbed Coburn’s comments “borderline sedition” as well as “hate speech.”

How do I see it? Well, to note that Congress is unresponsive to Americans (and thus a cause for hopelessness) is not even close to sedition. It’s to recognize the obvious.

I’m not saying it doesn’t incite a kind of rebellion. But remember: In America, rebellion against those in charge is not just allowed, it’s been institutionalized.

The institution is called “elections.”

The current unrest in America — exemplified, at present, by the “Tea Party” protests — seems to be very much a patriotic thing. If the bulk of Democrats and Republicans get targeted as deserving to go, then the means to their removal is obvious. It comes next November, and in November 2012.

And it does not mean that restive American critics of unconstitutional government and habitual over-spending are not “loyal to the most important American ideals.” It means they understand these ideals better than does Joe Klein.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

Categories
political challengers

Merging or Diverging?

We live in interesting times. Strapped for cash, local and state governments are cutting spending and raising taxes. The federal government, with its chummy relationship with the Federal Reserve and our money supply, along with a shopaholic’s addiction to debt, continues to spend at record rates.

In this context, perhaps it is not so shocking that Congressman Ron Paul, known for being tight-fisted on spending, and for his push to audit the Fed, is basically even in a head-to-head match-up with President Obama. A Rasmussen Poll ticked Obama at 42 percent against Paul at 41 percent.

Interestingly, only 66 percent of Republicans chose Paul. It’s independent voters who are nearly 2-to-1 for Paul over the President.

Why do Republicans hesitate? Paul is a severe critic of the Republican Establishment, especially the GOP’s recent fondness for undeclared wars.

Meanwhile, the Tea Party movement is being courted by Alaska’s Sarah Palin and Minnesota’s Michele Bachmann. Representative Bachmann went so far to say that the GOP and the Tea Parties are merging.

I hope not. The main unifying feature of Tea Party protests remains out-of-control federal spending and borrowing. The GOP did nothing to curb this problem when it was in charge.

Both parties created the problem, as Rep. Paul points out. That’s why the Tea Party will be more effective as an independent political force, rallying Americans to hold both parties and all public officials accountable.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.