Today, in editorializing about Scozzafava’s collapse, the normally astute editors of The Wall Street Journal join the ranks of those chronically infatuated with equating the supposed extremism of the right with that of the left. This apples-to-oranges nonsense is made only worse by the editors’ absurd acceptance of the “litmus test” argument about supposed conservative rejection of those who don’t “agree with them on every issue.”

Unfortunately, this kind of analysis is something that could be found in a not-so-good high school student newspaper, and is deserving of some questions for the WSJ editors:

First, please name any major conservative politician, pundit, talk radio show host or blogger who has ever seriously said – or even implied – that a Republican candidate need agree with them on every issue. Please be specific.

Second, who is it – specifically – that is as “bloody-minded and intolerant of all dissent as the hard left is at the Daily Kos,” and on what issue or issues in particular? Because comparing a conservative’s intolerance of politicians who fail to support our soldiers, or who appease terrorists, or who confirm extreme activist judges, or who constantly embrace big government spending, or who support economy-killing environmental policy, or who “negotiate” a form of socialized medicine… with those on the left’s intolerance of those who don’t do enough of these things is absurd.

Third, which “right-wing blogger or talk show host” prefers “having Democrats in power because it drives up their own ratings,” specifically? Rush? Sean? Levin? RedState? National Review Online? Who?

Fourth, who is calling for a candidate in Illinois, California or Connecticut to sound like Tom DeLay, specifically? And, what if some conservative did? Which specific principles, issues, or policies advocated by Mr. Delay would be worthy of trading for a coveted congressional or senate seat?

Fifth, Democrats did not drive Joe Lieberman out of the party in any practical sense. He still caucuses with them and still votes with them on most issues not involving middle east policy. And even if the ant-war left crazies did force him to run as an Independent Democrat, how is that comparable to the Hoffman-Scozzafava situation? Scozzafava isn’t even close to a Republican much less a conservative. Lieberman was the Democrats’ VP candidate just 6 years prior to his switch. He is – on most issues – liberal.

This is the fallacy of the “litmus test” argument. It’s ridiculous to suggest that having even a bare minimum of standard of a belief in liberty, limited government, fiscal responsibility, strong national security, respect for life, American exceptionalism and a general sense of getting the government to leave us the hell alone is some kind of litmus test.

Until conservatives stop comparing that which is not comparable – and stop trying to “make nice” in an environment where our way of life is under attack – the Republican Party and the health of our nation will flounder.

In the convoluted world of the Voting Rights Act, about which Chief Justice Roberts famously said, “It is a sordid business, this divvying up by race…” (see LULAC v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)), it is never surprising when high-minded liberals use racism to combat supposed racism. Rare, however, is it that the Department of Justice or a Court is so blatant about it.

Welcome to Kinston, N.C. The city overwhelmingly voted to eliminate party affiliations for candidates in local elections. Given the state of each of the political parties these days, one might give the city the benefit of the doubt that this decision is a good, healthy thing.

But, Kinston must pre-clear any actions it takes regarding voting and elections with the Department of Justice pursuant to the Voting Rights Act. And the Department said, “no.” That, in and of itself, is not all that surprising (troubling, but not surprising). What is quite startling is the language the Department uses. According to the Washington Times:

The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.

That’s right… “white voters… will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats.” Well, this is fairly common theory among abusers of the Voting Rights to political ends, but it usually isn’t said in such clear language.

Read More →

In 2010, Texans either will lead the nation forward according to conservative principle and under conservative leadership, or they will put their trust and faith in the ways of Washington. In the last several weeks, current Texas Governor Rick Perry and U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison - each vying for the Texas Governorship in 2010 - have each made significant public statements that make their positions crystal clear. Perry is for Texas. Hutchison is for Washington.

This past Friday, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled “Fiscal Conservatism and the Soul of the GOP,” centered around an interview of Governor Perry. In that article, the Governor outlines his view of the current state of affairs and of the appropriate path forward… for Texas and for the nation. It is absolutely rich with solid, well articulated conservative position. For example, he acknowledges that the reason the GOP has “been hurting” is that “they spent too much money. They acted like Democrats.” He gets quite specific, stating “When they passed that pharmaceutical bill for everybody forever—I mean, one of the most expensive entitlement programs that this country’s ever seen before—we started on the road to hell.” Amen.

He blasts Obamacare - calling it “one of the scariest policies.” He touts tort reform. He notes the absurdity of focusing on a flawed immigration plan as a way to “win” hispanic votes, and shows an understanding of that community which represents more than one third of his state demographically. He recognizes good people to follow and miserable people to follow. For example, stating, “I love Sarah Palin… [s]he is substantially more the face of this country than some other people who might want to be…” He points to Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom,” and the more contemporary book by Amity Shlaes, “The Forgotten Man,” as books currently occupying his thoughts. On the other hand, he notes the squandered opportunities by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and he rightfully calls Senator Voinovich (R-OH) a “piece of work,” in response to the Senator’s idiotic and misplaced dismissal of southern conservatives. Finally, he calls out the Obama administration directly, saying, “[t]o me, this is one of the great Frankenstein experimentations in American history. We’ve seen that movie before. It was from 1932 to 1940.”

In short, Perry “gets it.” He swatted issue after issue out of the park - relying on limited government conservatism to make the case for Texas and for the nation, and possibly more importantly, unabashadly calling people out who fail to stand on principle and praising those who do.

Now let’s take a look at a recent op-ed by the Senior Senator from Texas - in which she makes the case for blowing your brains out while sitting around a table with a bunch of Washington insiders rationalizing their way to mediocrity and obsolescence while bowing down at the altar of the national government. Overstatement? Well, go ahead and waste a few minutes of your life reading the uplifting masterpiece she “wrote” (we know some staffer wrote it, but her name’s on it…) in the Austin American-Statesman a few weeks ago. Ok - feel inspired yet? Uh-huh.

Read More →

The Senate confirmation hearing, committee vote and floor vote have come and gone. Judge Sotomayor is now a member of the United States Supreme Court. May God bless her, guide her and grant her restraint in her rulings.

That said, it is difficult to be optimistic. Justice Sotomayor has expressly, and flippantly, embraced the idea that judges do, and seemingly should, make law. She puts race and sex above reason. And, she was nominated by a President more concerned about empathy than judgment.

Her nomination was an important one – even as conservatives, including a few Republicans, have been fighting a war on multiple fronts, from health care to economics, national defense to abortion, and much more. But the composition of the Supreme Court has as much or more effect – especially in the long run – on our ability to live free from the strong arm of government as any of the branches or levels of our federal (that is, national, state and local) system… which should tell you all you need to know about the state of things.

Justice Sotomayor’s confirmation also raised the issue of the current courtship of the Hispanic population by both democrats and republicans. The media and many democrats will try to make this an anti-Hispanic vote – and indeed, already are trying to do so. So, it was incumbent upon Republicans, at this critical moment in history, to make the case against Sotomayor based on her views, not her race, and to, perhaps more importantly, begin to establish a clear standard for all future nominees.

How did they do? On the whole, they fared much better than expected (partly because we expect so little), but not as good as they should have. Overall Grade: C+.

The Great: A+… Candidate Marco Rubio, and, surprisingly, John McCain.
The Good: B… Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Jon Kyl, John Cornyn and a few others
The Bad: C… That same leadership did not extend to a Republican Conference-wide, all-hands-on-deck effort to make the case loudly and clearly
The Ugly: F… Race and the National Rifle Association.
The Pathetic: No grade warranted… Lamar Alexander, Lindsey Graham and the other Republicans who discarded principle to vote to confirm

Read More →

In the coming days, the Senate will debate the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, culminating in a vote later this week. It appears that a majority of Republicans will oppose her nomination, but in doing so, they must have a consistent message explaining why. Interestingly, they need look no further than John McCain.

Yesterday, in announcing his intention to vote against the confirmation of Judge Sotomayor, the Senator outlined - as clearly and succinctly as anyone has - the conservative rationale for opposing her. His entire statement can be found here, but it is summed up nicely in his closing paragraph:

“Judicial activism demonstrates a lack of respect for the popular will that is at fundamental odds with our republican system of government. And, as I stated earlier, regardless of one’s success in academics and in government service, an individual who does not appreciate the common sense limitations on judicial power in our democratic system of government ultimately lacks a key qualification for a lifetime appointment to the bench. For this reason, and no other, I am unable to support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.”

THAT is the argument. Her openly activist views do, in fact, disqualify her for the Court. It is not, as some have wrongly stated, enough that she is “qualified” in the academic sense. And it is critical that Republicans echo these sentiments loudly and clearly - because doing so will both beat back false accusations of anti-hispanic bias, and begin to clarify the Republican threshold for Judicial nominees.

It is also critical that the remaining uncommitted Republicans stay on the team. Currently, 27 Republicans are committed no-votes. 6 Republicans (Alexander, Collins, Graham, Lugar, Martinez, and Snowe) have already displayed their disrespect for the Constitution by announcing their support for Judge Sotomayor. That leaves 7 uncommitted members. They are: Barasso, Bond, Ensign, Enzi, Gregg, Murkowski, and Voinovich.

Read More →

Next week, the U.S. Senate will vote to confirm Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. We know this will happen – and it is, as her supporters like to remind us, expressly because elections do have consequences. Democrats have 60 Senators and the President is a Democrat.

But how Republicans handle the vote is critically important – both with respect to their ability to unify behind a coherent set of guiding principles, and because failure to express clear opposition to Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy will leave open the door for those who oppose her to be labeled racist and anti-hispanic.

Just as Senate Republican leadership was beginning to come together to make the case – behind the efforts of Sens. McConnell, Sessions, Kyl, Cornyn and others – along comes Lamar Alexander. The third-ranking Senate Republican this morning joined John McCain’s lap-dog (Lindsey Graham, if you had to ask…) to stick a knife in the back of Republicans, the Constitution and Conservatism by announcing his support for the nominee.

The man in charge of the Senate Republican Conference message – yeah, that’s right – is absolutely killing the message… a message that should resonate with many Americans… that Judges cannot make the law, that race should not inform an impartial judiciary and that the Constitution must be respected and followed.

Read More →

Several years ago in a Senate Judiciary Committee Mark-Up, in a very different time, Sen. Lindsey Graham made a wise-crack to his Democrat colleagues along the lines of “well, one day, when Democrats get back in power… I mean, not in my lifetime… (laughter).”

Well, it didn’t take long, Senator. Here we are. And in a moment of clarity - you remind us, yet again - of the cancer in the Republican Party that is responsible to bringing us from 55 members to 40 in a little over two years. You are a pathetic excuse for a Senator… Incapable of maintaining an ounce of principle in your decisions - and giving up the game that your motives are entirely political.

You needn’t reach any question beyond that of whether Judge Sotomayor would be an activist judge. While she (unconvincingly) tried to sound like Justice Scalia at her confirmation hearing, when the spotlight was not on her in years past, she, by her own arrogant comments, mocked the idea that Courts should not make law. Everything else is academic.

A vote for Judge Sotomayor is a vote against the Constitution and against conservatism.

Senator Graham, you have made your position crystal clear.

NOTE: It should be noted how bad Graham’s vote truly is in light of the fact two old bulls, Senators Grassley and Hatch, in particular, found it necessary to vote against the President’s nominee. Mike gamecock Devine has posted on this topic here and throughout his diary.

The Confirmation Hearing for Judge Sotomayor has begun in the United States Senate Judiciary Committee. We will hear a series of opening statements - and then, likely, a couple of days of questions for the aspiring Supreme Court Justice.

This is a real test. But the test is not for Ms. Sotomayor. The test is for Republicans.

In the 1990’s, President Clinton had two opportunities during his tenure to replace Supreme Court Justices - and his picks were the obviously liberal and activist judges, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. These two Justices received precisely 3 and 9 Republican “no” votes, respectively. That was pathetic, given the extent to which Republicans then knew full well that each of these Justices would often times ignore their role to interpret the law in order to seek an outcome based on some other rationale… say, “empathy,” or what is “in their hearts.”

Today and in the coming days, Republicans can choose how to approach the confirmation question of Judge Sotomayor and their decision will say a lot about whether the Republican Party, as a whole, has any fight left in it…

There is no good reason to for any Republican - or any Senator who values the Constitution and the role of judges to, in the words of Chief Justice John Roberts, “call balls and strikes” as an umpire - to vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor given her very public pronouncements on the role of activists judges and her quite apparent penchant for ruling on issues of race with a personal or policy purpose in mind rather than basing her decision on the law and believing her race and sex make her a better judge.

The world is watching, yes. But, conservatives who believe the Republican Party has lost its way in recent years are watching this hearing particularly closely… to see whether Republicans are on the right road - whether they have an ounce of core beliefs that can serve to provide backbone and a will to fight.

This is an easy test. Let’s see if they pass it.

In preparation for the upcoming Senate confirmation debate, supporters of Judge Sonia Sotomayor are stooping to a new low… According to McClatchy Newspapers, they are going after the Connecticut firefighter at the center of one of the nominee’s most controversial rulings - the one recently overturned by the United States Supreme Court in Ricci v. DeStefano.

This is not unusual. It is the M-O of liberals… they’re all for the “little guy” as a political poster-child, but they simply don’t bat an eye at running over him if it’s necessary to accomplish their agenda.

Mr. Ricci, whatever his past may reveal, is a private citizen who had his day in court… but not just any court, he had his day in the United States Supreme Court, and he won. And now liberal special interest groups want to go after HIM - personally - simply because Judge Sotomayor wrote a lousy opinion with her colleagues and now is getting repudiated for its foolishness.

Republicans should object strongly to these types of personal attacks… and so should Judge Sotomayor.

Below are the last four pre-hearing “daily” questions offered by Senator Cornyn. These, and all those offered to date, are critically important questions for someone seeking confirmation to the United States Supreme Court. She should answer them.

Next week, we will find out if she will.

July 10, 2009: What is Judge Sotomayor’s judicial philosophy?
July 9, 2009: What is the proper role of judges in defining marriage and the family?
July 8, 2009: What limits does the First Amendment impose on campaign finance regulation?
July 7, 2009: Should constitutional interpretation resemble common law decision-making?

To view all twenty questions posed by the Senator, click here.

Read More →