Via Instapundit comes word that the federal government’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to purge the federal government of Republican civil servants all in the name of purify the federal bureaucracy.

You can read the OPM memo here.

It is a typical Washington process that many political appointees are able to take jobs within the civil service once their political appointment expires — usually at the conclusion of one administration. What often happens as well is Congressional staffers, before an election or shortly thereafter, will move over to the Executive Branch placed into the civil service, in effect, by appointment.

So, for example, when George Bush became President in 2001, a number of Clinton political appointees became civil service employees. As a result, they became subject to civil service hiring and firing rules, which meant they could no longer be replaced simply for having been a Democratic appointee.

Barack Obama is changing that. He intends to purge all Republicans from the federal bureaucracy retroactive to five years ago.

Read More →

In the wake of the House vote for President Obama’s government takeover of health care, some conservative commentators are asking what may have been had House Republicans decided to follow Rep. John Shadegg’s (R-AZ) advice to vote present on the Stupak-Pitts amendment.  The amendment prohibits the federal government from spending any funds to provide abortion under the plan’s public option and prohibits anyone receiving a federal subsidy from purchasing a health insurance plan that covers abortion.

Sixty-four Democrats voted with Republicans in passing Stupak.  The argument says that had Republicans voted “present” or “no” on the amendment, it would have failed.  The theory is that those sixty-four Democrats would have abandoned the final bill without the prohibition included, effectively killing the overall effort to socialize the nation’s health care system.

But that thinking represents the triumph of hope over experience.  It supposes that Nancy Pelosi, who has shown herself to be nothing if not a cold-blooded and ruthless political operative, would not take any other necessary steps to find the votes necessary to pass the bill.  The only reason Stupak was allowed to come to a vote in the first place was because Pelosi was willing to shiv two-thirds of her caucus to get the bill passed.  Pelosi, and Obama, would have moved any obstacle, made any promise, and broken any number of arms to get the White House a “victory” on health care, however hollow that victory may ultimately turn out to be.

Read More →

With news that RINO DeDe Scozzafava has dropped out of the race in NY-23, and with Republican Bob McDonnell seemingly cruising to victory in the Virginia governor’s race, all eyes are turning to New Jersey.  Republican Christopher Christie is slightly ahead in the polls, with the trend going his way.  A victory for Republicans in deep blue New Jersey would send shock waves through the country that would be felt right up to the doors of the White House.

And New Jersey is winnable.  Independent candidate Chris Daggett appears to be fading, as voters who were considering him begin to get cold feet.  The majority of Daggett’s voters say Christie is their second choice, and he stands to gain three to five percent in the polls just from Daggett’s support.

Enthusiasm for incumbent Governor Jon Corzine remains non-existent, no matter how many times President Barack Obama visits the Garden State on his behalf.  New Jerseyans are not happy with Corzine’s performance as governor, and they know that Obama is not on the ballot.  None but the most die-hard Democrat is coming out to vote for Corzine.  Christie is winning among independents by double-digits.

With victory so close, it’s time for conservatives nationwide to step in and help push Christie over the top. 

Read More →

I have written about John Feehery before. He is the former Bob Michel and Denny Hastert employee who had to be bumped aside by the insurgents of 1994 before the GOP could take control of Congress and then weaseled his way back into power in Hastert’s office. Then we lost power. Hmmmm . . .

Feehery is the guy who gave Bob Michel and Bob Dole credit for the conservative revolution of 1994 and told Rush Limbaugh to shut up or the GOP would stay out of power.

Feehery’s wife is the Deputy Chief of Staff to Charlie Crist’s errand boy, Senator George LeMieux. In other words, he is most definitely not a conservative.

So let’s compare and contrast Feehery. It’s like he wants to be Andrew Sullivan in his inconsistencies.

Here is Feehery from October 21, 2009:

But in both races, conservative independent third-party candidates are running insurgent campaigns that just may give the election to the Democrats.

In fact, the Club for Growth, a nominally Republican-leaning but actually Republican-slaying organization, is pouring money into the third-party candidate in the New York race, attacking the Republican candidate. The third-party challenger has no chance of winning, so this seems like a conspiracy to give the Democrats another seat in a Republican district. Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) weighed in, endorsing Scozzafava, making that very point. . . .

The hard-rock conservatives don’t seem to be in much of a mood to make accommodations to a broader base. And that could spell doom for Republicans as they try to take back the House and make inroads in the Senate.

The very same John Feehery today in James Oliphant’s Los Angeles Times article:

But John Feehery, a Republican strategist in Washington, said Hoffman may well have won the election even if Scozzafava had stayed in.

“That means that even in the Northeast, the country has become much more conservative than it was only 10 months ago,” Feehery said, suggesting that the Obama’s administration’s spending policies were responsible.

It is men like John Feehery who claim to be top GOP consultants, but will say or do anything as the wind blows, who have gotten us into the mess we are in. HIs opinion should count for what it is: crap.

By the time you read this, a lot of ink and air time will have been spent on this Politico article suggesting that the Republicans tremble when conservatives like Rush, Hannity, Beck, or even me says something.

Eric Cantor went on the record saying, “We need more voices.” I and everyone else I’ve talked to read that as being critical of the present voices, but his office tells me that “The question was does Rush, Beck, and others hurt, and Eric’s point was we need their voice and others. And he furthered that in the same quote by saying the party in power is trying to demonize voices, yours, ours, Rush’s, And no matter whom, we shouldn’t let them.” Good to hear, but it really didn’t read as a defense the way it was presented by the Politico.

In fact, what the GOP needs right now is leadership. Talk radio and places like RedState are filling a void because the GOP is behaving spectacularly crapulently. Lindsey Graham is collaborating with cap and traders. Pete Sessions and the NRCC are throwing their money down the rat hole that is the Scozzafava campaign. John Cornyn tries to shut out conservative hispanics in favor of squishy, but well tanned governors. The strategy is to be more like the Democrats. It is disappointing.

A question for those who want more voices — what should they be saying?

It is true the Republican brand still sucks. But “conservative” is becoming quite popular. The message of freedom and liberty still resonates. What the Republicans really fear is loss of control. They do not like that conservatives from outside the Beltway are more and more in the drivers’ seat.

But there is more to this story. This is something ignored by most people today. This story is, whether intended or not, a coordinated hit out of the White House. We know the Politico does this. It runs as full stories the hit jobs of the various parties.

And not only do we see the Politico running this as a hit job for the Democrats, but we see a few Republicans willing to go on record as useful idiots.

Read More →

This is rather inside the baseball, but it is also very important.

The Senate is about to vote for cloture on S. 1776. This legislation is the first vote in the Obamacare battle on the floor of the Senate.

Basically, the bill would bribe the doctors’ lobby into supporting Obamacare to the tune of three-quarters of a trillion dollars. Importantly, the Democrats are claiming Obamacare will reduce the deficit because they are putting most of the deficit ballooning in this piece of legislation. This will add trillions of dollars to the deficit.

Unfortunately, some Republican Senators who say they will vote against S. 1776 do support calling for cloture, i.e. cutting off debate.

But the media is reporting the Democrats do not have the votes on their side for cloture. Any Republican who supports cloture is, in effect, assisting the Democrats in passing Obamacare.

CALL YOUR SENATOR RIGHT NOW. TELL HIM TO OPPOSE CLOTURE ON S. 1776.

IF WE LOSE THIS BATTLE, OBAMACARE WILL MORE LIKELY THAN NOT BECOME A REALITY

Bob Corker explains why opposition of S. 1776 is in the country’s best interests.

The Politico has an article out today on tea party activists getting involved in their local political parties. I’ve been preaching on this for a while.

The reporter, Alex Isenstadt, interviewed me for his article and gave me the last word. I’m partial to my quote:

For some, supporting insurgent campaigns or waging primary bids just isn’t a strong enough signal to send to a Republican Party that has abandoned core conservative policies.

Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the influential conservative blog RedState, has urged Tea Party activists to “put down the protest signs” and stage takeovers of local Republican parties.

“Grassroots activists need to start infiltrating the party,” said Erickson. “The only way to start getting [the establishment] back is to start pounding them with every fist we have.”

I am told quite reliably that in a meeting today on Capitol Hill, Republican Senators began to rapidly move toward concessions on health care because they are afraid they cannot hold their members. Some Republicans are now thinking of supporting a government program.

Go to the action center and start calling.

Already, Senate Democrats are looking to pass healthcare by attaching it to unrelated legislation — the back door Brian Darling has repeatedly warned us about.

Republicans are starting to waver on this.

Call now. Tell the GOP to stand firm in opposition to the Democrats’ health care plans.

[UPDATED:] I’m hearing this evening from both some Senators in the room and staff that the fears of GOP caving are overblown and we should not be concerned.

In a disappointing sign that the House Republican Leadership has not earned and does not deserve to retake the majority in the House of Representatives, a bunch of people are confirming for me today that the House GOP has decided to sign on with ACORN and endorse Dede Scozzafava in NY-23.

As I reported the other day, Scozzafava has repeatedly been backed by ACORN in state legislative elections in New York. Scozzafava maintains a voting record the Working Families Party, ACORN’s political arm, supports.

Likewise, Scozzafava has serious issues on the personal front. To top it all off, Scozzafava would have voted for TARP, the bailouts, the stimulus, etc.

Doug Hoffman, the conservative candidate, would caucus with the Republicans. He is endorsed by Fred Thompson, the Club For Growth, and conservatives across the nation. Scozzafava was encouraged by the Democrats to run as a Democrat.

That the GOP would support a candidate who is more aligned with the Democrats on core issues than the GOP signals the GOP is in this to win at any cost, damn the principles. It is exactly that attitude that caused voters to send the GOP packing.

Republican Presidential contenders like Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, and Sarah Palin should charge up to New York and support Doug Hoffman — he may not have an “R” next to his name, but he is a better representative of the party of Lincoln and Reagan than Dede Scozzafava could ever hope to be.

And Hoffman can win.

Does Carly Fiorina care what Republicans think at all? The very day after rejecting the option of taking day trips or making video addresses to Republicans gathered for the state party convention in Indian Wells, Carly Fiorina has begun making day trips to raise money. While this is a natural step for somebody who refuses to reach into her own deep pockets to fund her campaign, this does represent yet another stumble for a campaign that can’t seem to go a day without making a mistake.

It’s no wonder that polls show her running against Barbara Boxer no better than Chuck DeVore, despite Fiorina’s wide reputation of being a pro-abortion “social moderate.” One would think that a candidate who, in the public eye, neutralizes Boxer’s key issue of abortion would do better in the polling, but Fiorina’s failure to achieve anything in the polls is a testament to her failure to campaign effectively and to reach out to the Republican base. Republicans would be critical to her fight against the united front of the Democrat party, the unions, and the press. If she can’t get us on her side, she can’t win.

So why, then, does she snub us and instead turn to the deep pockets? Does she intend to run as a Schwarzenegger-ite “post-partisan?” Does she even have a plan for victory? Even Meg Whitman showed up to Indian Wells, made good speeches, and earned respect even from supporters of other candidates. She put pressure on her opponents, and Steve Poizner did not impress when he replied.

Senator Boxer will have to make a mistake if a Republican is going to beat her in 2010. I doubt Carly Fiorina is capable of applying the pressure to Boxer it will take to make that happen.

I’ve never heard of the guy, but apparently Ed Schultz is an MSNBC host. It should come as no surprise that he is engaging in a level of hyperbole that MSNBC, CNN, and the rest of the MSM gang would be blowing up as the lead story had a Republican done it.

Look, if you will, at what they do every time Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, or Glenn Beck says something “controversial.”

Schultz, talking about healthcare, went after Eric Cantor, who he no doubt hates because Cantor is Jewish. Parlaying his Cantor hate into his hate of the GOP, Schultz said, “Hold it right there! The Republicans lie! The want to see you dead. They’d rather make money off your dead corpse. They kind of like it when that woman has cancer and they don’t have anything for her.”

Hey Ed, why don’t you hold it right there. We all know that if any conservative host had said this it would be assailed on the front page of the New York Times.

Of course, the problem here is we don’t know whether this is media bias against Republicans or if it is because the media, like me, does not know who the hell this Schultz guy is.

There are two candidates who have a chance to win the Republican nomination for Senate in June 2010. One is Chuck DeVore. One of our Fighting Four candidates this primary season, he announced last November his candidacy to defeat Senator Barbara Boxer. Term-limited from his state Assembly seat, he’s committed to victory.

The other is Carly Fiorina. A political novice, never having run for office before, she doesn’t even know if she’s running for this office yet. In big, black letters her own, brand-new website asks “Coming Soon?” It’s no wonder she won’t even fund her own campaign. Why spend that money when she might not even run?

Chuck DeVore is on Facebook. Chuck DeVore is on Twitter, and he’s active on both. Carly Fiorina’s webpage has placeholder, non-functional links to both services. She may, or may not, show up to engage Republicans, and will do so only when it’s convenient for her.

We have two choices in June, but only one candidate is there for us and committed to fighting Barbara Boxer, the dumbest member of the US Senate. The clear choice is Chuck DeVore. I hope we can give to him and good conservatives like him to help him fight for us and win.

Some people say that Republicans have made mistakes when it comes to Hispanic voters.  They point out that Hispanics are a growing part of the population, and assert that GOP opposition to amnesty for illegal immigrants is driving Hispanics away. 
 
The talking point has been commonly used to dismiss Republican views in major policy debates, including most recently the GOP concerns about how illegal immigrants benefit from the House health care bill.

Most of the people who make these claims are Democrats.  And they are right – Republicans do need to change some things to win the Hispanic vote.  But our position on amnesty is not one of them.

A false choice is often presented to Republicans:  support amnesty or offend Hispanic voters. 

Read More →

Tonight on his site Flash Report, which is a nice source of California Republican political news, Jon Fleischman announced that he is pulling the proposal to close our state’s Republican primaries.

Right now, anyone who Declines To State a party preference is allowed to vote in our primaries, with the exception of Presidential primaries. But Fleischman had made a proposal, which the party was set to vote on in Indian Wells late this month, that would deny non-Republicans the chance to vote in our primaries. People would have to join our party to have a say in who represents our party.

However two hours ago he wrote this:

After consultation with many fellow supporters of my proposed change in the California Republican Party Bylaws, I made the very difficult decision just a few minutes ago to withdraw the change.

To make a long story short, while I am confident that the votes were there to pass the change at the convention, the matter was becoming extremely divisive due to a lot of misinformation being spread about the proposal, and its effects.

I am disappointed to hear this, and I hope that we don’t pay for it in June.

In the wake of the public furor over President Barack Obama’s pending speech to school children next Tuesday, defensive Democratic surrogates and administration officials have maintained the President’s address will be a valuable education tool and aims to challenge students to “work hard in school” and “meet short-term goals like behaving in class.”

But the original prepatory material for Obama’s school house stump speech raised a few parents’ eyebrows and left others convinced the principle aim was nothing short of indoctrination.

The Department of Education told teachers they might “extend learning” and stimulate discussion by instructing students to “write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president.” And to ensure the students hold themselves accountable, the teacher should collect the letters and redistribute them at a later time – presumably when the President’s approval rating has dropped another 10 points.

In a letter to school administrators announcing Obama’s back-to-school speech, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said Obama’s special address will seek to inspire students by impressing upon them the necessity to complete school.

“During this special address, the president will speak directly to the nation’s children and youth about persisting and succeeding in school. The president will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning.”

White House officials say Obama’s telecast will be the first speech by a sitting president to stress academic achievement since 1991, when President George H. W. Bush spoke to students from Deal Junior High School in Washington, D.C.

Democrats, of course, sang a far different tune when a Republican was preparing to address the nation’s school children.

Then-House Majority Leader Dick Gephardt (D-Missouri) said, “The Department of Education should not be producing paid political advertising for the President.”

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 →

The carnage is not complete, but the end is written and unavoidable. The long, slow death spiral of the Democrats’ statist agenda has begun, and the crash to earth will play out over the next year in sickeningly slow motion.

It is done. Bank it like a fracking gold brick, because it *is* gold.

We can’t formally and officially take charge until we make our net 80 gain in the House and they’re sworn in the first working day of January, 2011. Yes I said net +80. Remember where you heard that, kids. Anyway, we might as well get our transition team in place, because there is a heck of a lot of damage to undo, as quickly as we can.

This morning I wish only to cover the “foreign policy” portion of our transition team.

Read More →