Long story short: The Romney campaign, through D.C. attorney Ben Ginsberg (and then-surrogate John Sununu), strong-armed the Rules Committee into changing a number of rules that would consolidate power with the campaign of the incumbent (thinking ahead to 2016, Romney’s second term). Once the changes made it out of committee and to the floor, there was considerable objection as John Boehner presided over the vote to approve the rules. Virginia was unanimous in our opposition.

But Romney didn’t win. And the rules changes won’t have their intended effect.

Morton Blackwell, Virginia’s Republican National Committeeman and a long-time Rules Committee member, led the fight in the lead-up to the battle and has continued to work to undo the damage from the 2012 Convention. In January, Blackwell penned a letter, which he posted here at RedState, urging the RNC to change the rules back to the way they were before the Convention.

The time to make that change is now. The RNC will convene in Los Angeles on April 10-13 for their Spring meeting. Blackwell will attempt to reverse the rules.

This week, he wrote an email to GOP Chairman Reince Priebus. Blackwell writes [emphases mine]:

Dear Reince,

You will recall that I have submitted a motion to be considered by the RNC to repeal all the changes which the RNC can reverse which were made by the 2012 Convention Rules Committee to the Rules of the Republican Party as forwarded to the Convention Rules Committee by unanimous vote of the RNC.

My motion would repeal all changes made by the Convention Rules Committee to Rules 1 through 11 and Rules 13 through 25.

Prepared with assistance I received from your Legal Counsel office and attached is a copy of the Rules of the Republican Party as they would stand if my motion passed.

The power grab initiated by Ben Ginsberg at the Convention Rules Committee outraged many RNC members and millions of grassroots Republicans across the country.  It caused thunderous opposition when the Convention Rules Committee report was presented to the National Convention in Tampa.

What Ben Ginsberg did was an abusive overreach which he achieved only because he represented himself (correctly) as the designated spokesman of the Romney campaign to the Convention Rules Committee.  There is general agreement that his power grab was a terrible mistake.  It repealed good reforms passed by the RNC Standing Committee over the previous four years and passed unanimously by the RNC the day before.  It hurt the Romney presidential campaign.  Ginsberg’s effort was to further centralize power in the Party and to make it more difficult for power and influence in the Party to flow from the bottom up.

What he did certainly hurt our presidential campaign in Virginia.

The wording of the new Rule 12, which he strongly supported, puts Rule 12 and Rules 26 through 42 beyond the reach of the RNC and its Standing Committee on Rules.  Nevertheless, it is highly important now that the RNC immediately show grassroots conservatives unmistakably that the national Republican Party rejects what Ben Ginsberg did.

You and I have had some discussion about my motion, and I’m happy that you said you agree 100% with me.  But it is not clear whether or not you support my motion.  Several people have told me that you believe that minor changes to a couple of the Rules will fix the problem.

That would not work.

We must clearly demonstrate that we entirely repudiate and reverse all that we can of what Ben Ginsberg did.  That precedent would strongly discourage the campaign of  future presidential candidates from using their immense clout to centralize power in the Party just before national conventions.  Nothing less will reassure the large numbers of grassroots conservatives that we are serious about welcoming them into participation in our Party.

Any amendment to the Rules must first pass in the Standing Committee on Rules, and then it must pass by a 75% vote of the entire 168 members of the RNC.

The influence of the RNC chairman is so powerful that no amendment to the Rules is likely without your personal support.  As national chairman, you have effective control over large sums of money essential for state parties and for Republican candidates, not to mention your control over RNC hiring and other powers.  Certainly no proposal you oppose could pass.  Your neutrality would probably defeat any proposed amendment which is in any way controversial.

I do appreciate the fact that you told me you would support a record vote on my motion.  I consider it very important that everyone knows how their representatives vote on reversing Ben Ginsberg’s power grab in Tampa.

One effect of my motion would be to restore the change passed by the 2008-2012 Standing Committee on Rules (and unanimously passed by the RNC) to provide for the election of the chairman of the RNC Committee on Resolutions, rather than fill that position by appointment of the national Party chairman.

Chairmen of the Standing Committee on Rules are elected, and election of the RNC Resolutions Committee chairman would be no great limitation of the national Party chairman’s power.

So I ask for your open, strong support of my motion when the RNC meets in April in Los Angeles.

The new Rule 12 was sloppily worded, and it would be helpful if you would let RNC members know in advance your interpretation of how it will work.  On its face, Rule 12 says proposed amendments to the Rules of the Republican Party first have to pass the Standing Committee on Rules and then must pass by a 75% vote of the entire membership of the RNC.

That would seem similar to the process by which the U.S. Constitution is amended:  The Congress approves an amendment, and then it goes to the state legislatures for ratification.  Before it is ratifed, 75% of the states must approve an amendment, and the states may not amend in any way what the Congress has proposed.

Would you rule, contrary to the amending process for the U.S. Constitution, that the RNC could amend, by majority vote, proposed amendments to the Rules submitted by the Standing Committee on Rules for RNC approval?  Would only final passage by the RNC require a 75% vote and amendments by the RNC to what the Standing Committee has proposed require only a majority vote by the RNC?

The email goes on to address a number of other issues pertaining to the Republican Party. Blackwell references a series of changes in the email, which he attaches. Those can be found uploaded to my Scribd account here.

I will travel with Blackwell to Los Angeles in April and provide updates via my Twitter account. Longer updates will be posted here on my RedState diary.

Matthew Hurtt is a grassroots activist  and freelance writer working within the Republican Party in Northern Virginia. Since 2009, he has trained thousands of activists nationwide under Morton Blackwell’s direction. In 2012, Hurtt served as an at-large delegate to the Republican National Convention from Virginia. Follow him on Twitter.

Recently, President Obama’s White House edited Reagan’s official White House biography to include a reference to Obama’s proposed “Buffett Rule.” Obama claimed at the Associated Press luncheon in April of this year that Reagan “could not get through a Republican primary today.”

The DailyKos last night picked up the Reagan strategy with this headline: “Ronald Reagan endorses Tom Barrett for Governor”

The post includes a clip of then-Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan’s Labor Day 1980 speech at Liberty State Park in New Jersey against the backdrop of the Statue of Liberty. You can read the full speech here.

Kos blogger “TheNewDeal00” (whose avatar is that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which is important later) hones in on one line:

“Where free unions and collective bargaining are forbidden, freedom is lost.”

Reagan was referring to the plight of workers in Communist Poland, whose struggle for bargaining rights began a decade-long fight to end Communist rule in Eastern Europe.

Never mind that “TheNewDeal00″ skips Reagan’s references to President Carter’s failed economic policies, staggering inflation, and the burdensome government regulations and high tax rates of the late-1970s. Those are inconvenient facts in this case.

But an important and overlooked bit of context by “TheNewDeal00″ in this speech is Reagan’s reference to his friend, former American Federation of Labor-turned-AFL-CIO President George Meany, with whom Reagan worked as President of the Screen Actors Guild.

In 1955, President Meany said, “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.”

From a September 2011 op-ed in the New York Times, Heritage Foundation Senior Policy Analyst in Labor Economics James Sherk writes (emphasis mine):

The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.”

Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized.

George Meany was not alone. Up through the 1950s, unions widely agreed that collective bargaining had no place in government. But starting with Wisconsin in 1959, states began to allow collective bargaining in government. The influx of dues and members quickly changed the union movement’s tune, and collective bargaining in government is now widespread. As a result unions can now insist on laws that serve their interests – at the expense of the common good.

Sherk concludes his op-ed with this advice from the AFL-CIO’s Executive Council in 1959 (again, emphasis mine):

“In terms of accepted collective bargaining procedures, government workers have no right beyond the authority to petition Congress — a right available to every citizen.”

President Obama and his allies on the Left love to use conservative icon Reagan to advance their cause, but they conveniently forget what progressive icon FDR thought about government unions.

From RealClearPolitics (again with the emphasis):

Roosevelt openly opposed bargaining rights for government unions.

“The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service,” Roosevelt wrote in 1937 to the National Federation of Federal Employees. Yes, public workers may demand fair treatment, wrote Roosevelt. But, he wrote, “I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place” in the public sector. “A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government.”

And if you’re the kind of guy who capitalizes “government,” woe betide such obstructionists.

Roosevelt wasn’t alone. It was orthodoxy among Democrats through the ’50s that unions didn’t belong in government work. Things began changing when, in 1959, Wisconsin’s then-Gov. Gaylord Nelson signed collective bargaining into law for state workers. Other states followed, and gradually, municipal workers and teachers were unionized, too.

Even as that happened, the future was visible. Frank Zeidler, Milwaukee’s mayor in the 1950s and the last card-carrying Socialist to head a major U.S. city, supported labor. But in 1969, the progressive icon wrote that rise of unions in government work put a competing power in charge of public business next to elected officials. Government unions “can mean considerable loss of control over the budget, and hence over tax rates,” he warned.

While FDR was a staunch supporter of private sector unions (like Ronald Reagan, and indeed like this post’s author), he philosophically opposed government unions. Even Milwaukee mayor and card-carrying Socialist Frank Zeidler opposed government unions in his later years.

The Left loves to use Reagan in support of their causes, but there are so many Big Labor icons from which to choose — why doesn’t “TheNewDeal00″ use the man for whom he dedicated his DailyKos avatar (FDR) or any number of labor leaders from the 1930s-1950s?

Wisconsin has long been a battleground for the Labor movement in the United States. It was the birthplace of collective bargaining for government unions in the 1950s, and — if Governor Walker is successful in next week’s recall election — it may well mark the beginning of the end for government unions.

Follow @matthewhurtt on Twitter.

The presidential primary in South Carolina has intensified and my name is being tossed around a lot.

I have complimented several of our candidates when they spoke out on conservative issues, but the media has suggested that I favor one over the others.

I’m writing today to make sure you know exactly where I stand.

I do not have a favorite in this race and I will not endorse a candidate.

I’ve gotten to know each of the candidates over the past year and they are all far superior to Obama. My view reflects what I’ve heard from Republican voters across South Carolina who remain divided in this race.

Sure, Senator DeMint was an early supporter of Mitt Romney in 2008 (endorsing him way back in 2007, before the primary really got off the ground), but he’s decided to hold onto his endorsement of a candidate this time.

However, Senator DeMint endorsed an idea. Take a look at the second half of his email this morning:

For those of you in South Carolina, I encourage you to watch the Fox News debate tonight and vote this Saturday for the candidate you believe will fight the hardest to stop the massive spending, bailouts, and debt that are bankrupting our country. We need a president with the courage to tell Americans that our government must do less, not more.

The 2012 elections could be our last chance to restore America’s greatness so we must defeat President Obama and elect more conservative leaders to the House and Senate.

Please continue to pray for our country and the year ahead. Our future depends on it.

For Freedom,

Jim DeMint
United States Senator

Perhaps Senator DeMint sees the writing on the wall. It’s very likely Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee this year. And perhaps expending political capital on a long-shot candidate isn’t worth it.

But he spent most of last week praising the libertarian ideals within the Republican Party.

Not endorsing Mitt Romney, while praising the libertarian wing within the GOP, is quite a statement..

It was rumored for months, and it seems the rumors are true. The Washington Post reported on Saturday that Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley (who is seen as a potential future Presidential candidate) is using the redistricting committee as a weapon against House Republicans in an effort to help Democrats take back the House and re-install Nancy Pelosi as Speaker.

From the article:

Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley’s redistricting commission will release a plan in coming days to attempt to harness the Washington area’s surging — and largely Democratic —population growth over the last decade to help Democrats retake control of the House of Representatives.

How far O’Malley (D) is willing to go to achieve that goal is now the question.

According to interviews and drafts of two leading proposals obtained by The Washington Post, O’Malley and a cadre of the state’s top Democratic lawmakers are engaged in a secretive, final round of negotiations over whether to go further than expected and try to unseat not one but potentially both of Maryland’s Republican congressmen.

At a minimum, the maps make clear that O’Malley will seek to oust Western Maryland’s 10-term Rep. Roscoe G. Bartlett (R) by moving a swath of liberal Montgomery County voters into the traditionally conservative 6th Congressional District.

WaPo got their hands on two proposals, which you can see here. It appears, however, that the actual proposed district plan is a hybrid of the two aforementioned plans. Here is a link to the PowerPoint proposal acquired byWaPo.

The 1st District (Eastern Shore Counties, part of Harford, Baltimore, and Anne Arundel Counties), represented by former Republican State Senator Andy Harris, picks up more Republican voters by dumping Anne Arundel and stretching West to Carroll County. Originally, Democrats wanted to take out Harris and replace him with Frank Kratovil, who defeated Harris by less than 3,000 votes in the 2008 election. Doing so would mean a major change in the lines of the Democrat-held districts which slice-and-dice Baltimore city, so it appears they scrapped that idea.

Where a majority of the proverbial “screwing” happens is in Western Maryland, where Democrats have targeted 10-term incumbent Roscoe Bartlett, a peculiar-but-likeable Congressman, whose non-interventionist stance on foreign policy is due largely to his strongly-held religious beliefs. He also sides with Democrats on many civil liberties issues and on alternative energy. (Side note: Dr. Bartlett is a brilliant inventor and scientist, who holds a number of patents on inventions which improved breathing devices used by astronauts, pilots, and fire/rescue personnel.)

The Hill reports this morning that Bartlett is the top target for Maryland Dems:

Bartlett’s new district wouldn’t be a slam-dunk for Democrats if he ran — he has an unorthodox voting record, including support of some Democratic positions on renewable energy and civil liberties, and the new district leans Democratic, but not overhwelmingly so. But the 85-year-old might choose against running in his first tough race in decades.

Democrats had pondered targeting both Republicans, but that would have forced a complete rejiggering of the current map and could have put some of their own incumbents at risk.

Tough race, indeed. If you overlay the old State Senate districts onto the new proposed Congressional Districts, you begin to understand exactly what the Democrats want to do.

It seems as though the entirety of the Montgomery County addition to the proposed 6th District is currently represented by Senate Democrat Leader Rob Garagiola, who spent part of the 2010 cycle campaigning in Frederick County for the Democrat candidate for State Senate. There’s very little doubt that he plans to run if (merely a formality, when) the new districts are approved by the legislature in a special session this year.

Full Disclosure: I worked on a State Senate race in Mid-Maryland last year (the district sits squarely in the current 6th Congressional District). Maryland is a tough landscape for Republicans, but they routinely capture between 30% and 40% for state-wide candidates.

Reason would suggest that – were redistricting handled proportionately, rather than politically – Republicans would hold 3 Congressional Districts. That’s not the reality. And it appears from the proposed map that Maryland Democrats aren’t finished screwing over Maryland Republicans.

UPDATE: The Maryland GOP released a statement on the Democrat redistricting plan:

In response to the release of Governor O’Malley’s partisan, Democrat-designed congressional map that outrageously gerrymanders the state of Maryland, Maryland Republican Party Chairman Alex Mooney made the following statement:

“This map is an insult to the people of Maryland. It ignores the people’s plea for a fair map that respects geographic boundaries and protects minority rights,” said Chairman Mooney. “Governor O’Malley and his stacked partisan Democrat committee have created a map with the singular goal of carving up the Western part of Maryland and defeating Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett,” Mooney said. “Not only does the map target one individual, but it also features not one or two but eight districts that look patently ridiculous.”

“County boundaries and communities of interest were not given their due regard in this map. As a result, this map further violates minority groups who have been traditionally underrepresented in the state’s congressional delegation,” Mooney continued.

“Governor O’Malley has once again failed to live up to the ‘One Maryland’ talking point he uses during election years. I urge the General Assembly to reject this attempt to carve up and divide both the rural areas of our state and black communities to maximize the Democrats partisan advantage,” concluded Mooney.

National Review columnist Mark Steyn makes an excellent point this morning:

There is something surreal and unnerving about the so-called “debt ceiling” negotiations staggering on in Washington. In the real world, negotiations on an increase in one’s debt limit are conducted between the borrower and the lender. Only in Washington is a debt increase negotiated between two groups of borrowers.

Actually, it’s more accurate to call them two groups of spenders. On the one side are Obama and the Democrats, who in a negotiation supposedly intended to reduce American indebtedness are (surprise!) proposing massive increasing in spending (an extra $33 billion for Pell Grants, for example). The Democrat position is: You guys always complain that we spend spend spend like there’s (what’s the phrase again?) no tomorrow, so be grateful that we’re now proposing to spend spend spend spend like there’s no this evening.

On the other side are the Republicans, who are the closest anybody gets to representing, albeit somewhat tentatively and less than fullthroatedly, the actual borrowers — that’s to say, you and your children and grandchildren. But in essence the spenders are negotiating among themselves how much debt they’re going to burden you with. It’s like you and your missus announcing you’ve set your new credit limit at $1.3 million, and then telling the bank to send demands for repayment to Mr. and Mrs. Smith’s kindergartner next door.

Nothing good is going to come from these ludicrously protracted negotiations over laughably meaningless accounting sleights-of-hand scheduled to kick in circa 2020. All the charade does is confirm to prudent analysts around the world that the depraved ruling class of the United States cannot self-correct, and, indeed, has no desire to.

Steyn essentially argues that we’re kidding ourselves if we think the debate in Washington is really going to change all that much, what with Senate Republican leadership willing to capitulate to Democrats at the drop of a hat.

I recorded a program for Fairfax Public Television over the weekend, and at one point the moderator asked me about the debate over cutting spending in Washington and the refusal of conservatives to accept raising the debt ceiling without taking serious measures to curb spending.

I dug deep and was able to come up with something like this:

For the better part of 70 years, both political parties in Washington have been content to increase spending and create debt. During that time, only a small minority actually called for decreasing spending and actually meant it. Let’s say it was about 10%. But you can’t do anything with such a slim minority.

After the 2010 elections, Republicans took control of the House, and among their ranks are a substantial number of conservatives. They don’t make up a majority of the Caucus — I don’t think — but they’re vocal. And those who were elected last November “don’t know how Washington works,” so they’re less willing to accept compromise than Members who have been in Washington for several terms.

So, over the course of the last 70 years, we’ve had compromise, compromise, compromise… more spending, more debt. And where has that gotten us? Right here. In a mess.

And who’s contributed to the mess? 90% of the ruling class in D.C.

On this public access program, I was asked why conservatives wouldn’t give in and agree to raise taxes or accept any proposals from the Democrats, to which I responded — it hasn’t been working! True conservatives have been shut out of the debate for decades. As far as I can tell, conservatives who want to cut government spending have about 70 years worth of catching up to do.

The time for compromise on the right has passed. It’s time to make significant cuts to government spending.

And what’s with this notion of compromise for the sake of compromise anyway? To paraphrase Erick Erickson, sometimes the evil party and the stupid party come together to do something that’s both evil and stupid all for the sake of compromise and bipartisanship.

What good is it if both parties sell us down the river just so they can say they worked together to do it?

We’ve finally changed the debate in Washington from “What can we spend?” to “What can we cut?” — It’s the first time in probably forever that this sort of debate is taking place in Washington.

Conservatives should stand their ground and fight for their principles now more than ever.

Professors at the University of Cincinnati James L. Winkle College of Pharmacy are using their school-issued email addresses to lobby students to sign a petition in favor of repealing Senate Bill 5, which was passed this year to curb collective bargaining efforts by Ohio public employees. If the petition garners enough signatures, SB5 will appear on the November ballot in the form of a referendum.

States like Ohio have had to trim millions of dollars in expenses due to tough economic conditions. One way conservatives are balancing state budgets is by cutting back the Big Labor largesse by compelling public sector employees to contribute more to their own benefits and restructuring collective bargaining arrangements.

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) and other unions are protesting all over the country, and they’ve launched a repeal effort in Ohio called “We Are Ohio.”

Andrea Wall, the Assistant Dean of the School of Pharmacy & Alumni Affairs, sent the following message to students on behalf of a few professors this morning: (Emphasis added.)

Are you a registered Ohio voter in Hamilton or Butler Counties?  Would you be interested in signing a petition to place Ohio Senate Bill 5 (SB5) on the November ballot? If so this message is for you!

Ohio Senate Bill 5, restricts the rights of all public employees (Teachers, Police, Firemen, Professors, etc.) to fully participate in collective bargaining through their respective unions.

Today May 31, Drs. Cavanaugh and Cluxton will be collecting signatures on the petition in the hallway outside room 331 from 12 n until 1pm.

To sign the petition you MUST BE a registered voter in Ohio counties of Butler or Hamilton and have voted at least once in the last 4 years.   By signing the petition you are exercising your right to vote on Senate Bill 5.  Signing the petition is NOT a vote for or against SB5 it merely places the bill on the ballot in November for a vote.  If SB5  is on the ballot you can be sure that both sides on the issue will provide considerable information for you the voter to decide what is best for Ohio.

The forwarded email is signed by Robert J. Cluxton, Jr., PharmD, MBA under the closing “WE ARE OHIO,” a reference to the left-wing lobbying organization that is pushing the effort to repeal SB5.

The message is curiously worded: By signing the petition you are exercising your right to vote on Senate Bill 5.  Signing the petition is NOT a vote for or against SB5 it merely places the bill on the ballot in November for a vote.

It appears as though the professors in question understand they are using their school-issued (and by extension, taxpayer-funded) email addresses to lobby against SB5. They carefully suggest their message is not for or against the collective bargaining bill, but only those who want to repeal it are pushing this effort.

Dr. Cluxton signs the message with his entire title, including the James R. Winkle School of Pharmacy and his on-campus P.O. Box.

The email was sent out and the petition signatures will be collected during school business hours, which suggests taxpayers will be bankrolling their Big Labor efforts.

Would conservative professors be allowed to use the same listserv to lobby on behalf of a conservative cause? Is it appropriate at all to use this taxpayer-funded platform to lobby for or against anyissue?

As a conservative university student, you have the responsibility to report these leftist abuses on campus. If you encounter an abuse like this one, don’t hesitate to contact CampusReform.org by reporting aleftist abuse here or by finding your Regional Field Coordinator (RFC) here.

UPDATE I: I stumbled upon this 2008 Huffington Post column by Greg Lukianoff, the President of theFoundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Lukianoff noted prior to the 2008 Presidential election that students at the University of Oklahoma were warned about forwarding political commentary through their university email accounts. Lukianoff writes:

If you’re a student at the University of Oklahoma and you enjoy The Huffington Post, beware: Your school has forbidden you from forwarding any of the fabulous political content you may find on this site.

Sounds crazy, but sadly it’s true. Students at the University of Oklahoma have been warned not to use their university e-mail accounts for “the forwarding of political humor/commentary” during this election season.

Meanwhile, anyone who has an actual opinion on the election should think twice about expressing it on a bumper sticker at the University of Illinois, or in their dorm window at University of Texas at Austin. In fact, students who hung an Obama sign in their window at UT Austin were threatened with expulsion.

The good news is that after being confronted by the press, angry students and faculty, or outside organizations, each of the above universities has now backtracked from their original censorship of huge swaths of political speech like bumper stickers, window signs, and e-mails.

One question Lukianoff posed was: Can the partisan speech or expressive act in question reasonably be construed as the official stance of the university, as opposed to the individual opinion of a student, student group, faculty member, or staff member speaking as private citizens?

Had Dr. Cluxton not used his faculty email address and private listserv, the answer to this question would beabsolutely not. But because of his actions, he has seemingly blurred the lines between the speech of a private citizen and that of a university official.

UPDATE II: The University of Cincinnati News Record reported the story yesterday:

One UC student agreed with the view of CampusReform.

“I feel that this is a gross misuse of school resources,” said Ryan Printy, a graduate student in the College of Pharmacy who also ran as a Libertarian candidate for Ohio’s 32nd House District last November. “The professors used the College of Pharmacy email listserv to promote their own personal political agenda.”

Whether or not university policy allowed the email, it is highly unethical for the professors to use school resources in such a manner, Printy said.

“We are a pharmacy college, not a political science program,” Printy said. “Our professors should be using school resources to promote pharmacotherapy and patient care, not their own personal political agendas.”

John McNay, chapter head of the AAUP at UC, disagrees with Printy’s and CampusReforms’s assessment.

“It is important to recognize this announcement didn’t do that,” McNay said. “It made graduate students aware of a ballot petition and the opportunity to vote and encouraged students to educate themselves on the issue to make up their own mind.”

The university listservs, McNay said, are basically announcement boards that professors can notify students of information on — including the signature collection.

Professor McNay is being intellectually dishonest. As I argued above, only people who want to repeal SB5 would sign the petition. While the email didn’t specifically ask students to vote to repeal SB5 (if the petition gathers enough signatures to appear on the ballot in November), there is no conceivable reason why an advocate of SB5 would sign the petition.

Additionally, the professor in question signed the email “WE ARE OHIO,” which is the anti-SB5 organization behind the petition drive. Professor McNay is covering for his colleague’s inappropriate use to the listserv and his taxpayer-funded email address.

Shame on them.

Note: The Leadership Institute is a 501c(3) organization and does not support or oppose specific candidates or legislation. If you are interested in learning more about the Leadership Institute or Campus Reform, contact your Regional Field Coordinator.

This post first appeared at MatthewHurtt.com.

I discussed last week the maxim: All gains are incremental; some increments aren’t gains. This is just one of the more than 40 “Laws of the Public Policy Process” developed by Morton Blackwell, founder and President of the Leadership Institute. A movement conservative, Blackwell has trained over 100,000 conservative activists since he first got involved in politics in the ’60s.

Aside from the training the Leadership Institute provides, I believe there is some real wisdom in these “Laws.” So much so that I’m going to write about more of them in the days and weeks ahead. The first few are directed toward my libertarian friends, who – to their own detriment – sometimes reject the two-party system in their goals. Electoral success often eludes the most die-hard libertarian.

I want to say, there’s hope. But we must reject the “Sir Galahad Theory of Politics” - I will win because my heart is pure. Electoral success isn’t based on who’s right or who’s wrong. To make policy, you have to get elected.

And that brings me to Blackwell’s 13th Law:

13. Don’t make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Most immediately, the words of one of my favorite Rolling Stones songs comes to mind. “You can’t always get what you want.” In life and in politics, this is true. Undeniably so. You can’t get the perfect candidate. You can’t get the perfect policy. You can’t get the perfect circumstances. And even if you could, there are many others vying for a piece of the same success as you — and they don’t want the exact same things you do.

Even amongst Democrats or Republicans or tea partiers, there is no singular platform or goal. Sure, each national party has a “platform,” but even then the issues are prioritized by individual members. Realistically, politics doesn’t play out on a left-right axis; it’s multi-dimensional, with social issues and fiscal issues as the X- and Y-axis, respectively… with perhaps a Z-axis for level of intensity. And to an extent, elements of the ideological “left” and “right” loop around and the differences fade. Fascism is an example of where the left-right lines blur.

The point is, there are an infinite number of combinations to produce a candidate, a policy, or a set of circumstances.

If everyone who’s engaged is trying to get a piece of the pie, then there are countless hands shaping and changing these factors. I hate the “C” word - compromise – but it’s the norm in politics, not the exception.

This is most evident in today’s debate over the budget. (SPOILER: It’s an NPR link!) Last week’s debate over the continuing resolution showed that both sides were willing to give up some to keep the government open. It wasn’t perfect for Republicans, but any level of cuts should be a win in our playbook. Remember, the natural direction of government throughout history has been toward larger government.

Any shift in the opposite direction is a shift against history… and a win for conservatives. We have to pick and choose our battles. Which ones can we win? Which ones are worth fighting? Not every disagreement on policy should be a showdown where we can only accept 100% of what we want.

Republicans control one-half of the Legislative branch. There’s not a Republican in the White House, and Harry Reid is not the Republican leader of the Senate. That’s the reality.

There will be plenty of opportunities for Republicans to take the Senate next year. And – with a good candidate – we can retake the Presidency. If and when this happens, we will have more clout to advance a limited government agenda.

What I do not advocate is that we elect Republicans next year and then forget why we elected them. We can’t put them in charge and then not hold them accountable. But they have to be in charge for us to get any more than a few billion dollars in cuts in a continuing resolution.

And that will be good. It won’t be perfect. But what is perfect from one conservative to the next? Remember, we don’t all believe in exactly the same ideology. Sure, there are overarching themes and goals, but there are no two conservatives who agree on every single issue.

And that brings us to the naughty “C” word. Reagan paraphrased: Someone with whom I agree on 80% of the issues is my 80% friend, not my 20% enemy.

What’s better, Democrats pushing irresponsible and reckless economic and social policy? Or Republicans pushing less destructive policies? By “punishing” Republicans for spite, conservatives actually continue on the destructive path. It was William F. Buckley, Jr. who said, “The wisest choice [in an election] would be the one who would win… I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.” I wrote about this at length for RedState.

I’m going to wind this down before it becomes too rambly, but I cannot stress enough that any rightward shift, any spending cut is a small victory for conservatives. The important battle will be over the budget. We must keep our powder dry and our political capital safe for what will be a very tough battle. We must be willing to pick our battles wisely.

Matthew Hurtt is often accused of being too conservative, too liberal, and too moderate. He describes himself as a “pragmatic conservative” and is rabidly right-wing on many issues. ]]> http://www.redstate.com/matthewhurtt/2011/04/11/the-good-the-bad-and-the-perfect/feed/ 0 http://www.redstate.com/matthewhurtt/2011/03/30/dont-eat-racist-cake/ http://www.redstate.com/matthewhurtt/2011/03/30/dont-eat-racist-cake/#comments Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:57:18 +0000 Matthew Hurtt (Diary) http://www.redstate.com/matthewhurtt/?p=67 Read More »]]> This post originally appeared on The Leadership Institute’s CampusReform.org and was written by Brittney Morrett.

Is it ever ok to discriminate based on race or gender?

The hosts of the Affirmative Action Bake Sale said no. But some members of The George Washington University (GWU) multicultural community said yes.

On Monday, March 28, the GWU chapter of the Young America’s Foundation (GWYAF) and the GW College Republicans (GWCRS) hosted an affirmative action bake sale. The satirical event took place in the Mid-Campus Quad from 11am-3pm and University Police were present. Baked goods were sold and the group raised $47.00 for the troops at the event.

A price list posted charged different amounts based on the race of the patron. The point was to show how offensive it is to base anything, like admissions, on race.  The prices were as follows:

Asians – $1.25 (Asians being the most negatively affected by affirmative action), Whites – $1.00, Latinos – $.75, Blacks and Women – $.50, and Native Americans – $.25.

However, all baked goods were sold at the “Human Special” of $1.00 regardless of race, gender, background, or belief. Some of the homemade signs held by the students said, “Affirmative Action is Racist” and “Racism is Always Wrong.”

The most interesting part of the event was not the actual bake sale. It was who attended and what they said.

At 12:00pm the GW NAACP and the Black Student Union (BSU) staged a protest. An e-mail organizing the protest that circulated through several listservs on behalf of the GW NAACP and BSU said the following,

“We will be meeting Monday, March 28th @ 11:45am at the Multicultural Student Services Center (2127 G St). We ask that everyone participating wear black business causal [sic] attire.”

The majority of protestors did wear black and carried various signs. Some of the protestors also used the “raised fist” which is a salute used by left-wing activists such as socialists, communists, and black nationalists.

There were also GWU employees in attendance on behalf of the protest. One, Karyn Pomerantz, is a research scientist at the School of Public Health and Health Services. She is the faculty advisor for the Black Public Health Student Network (BPHSN).  At the event she handed out flyers for the Progressive Labor Party (PLP).  The PLP’s full title is the Revolutionary Communist Progressive Labor Party.  She is shown holding a sign that says “BPHSN Supports Equality! Don’t buy racist cake.” A copy of the flyer she handed out is below.

The official blog of BPHSN wrote a story decrying the bake sale. In a comment on the blog Pomerantz calls on President Knapp to ban organizations such as YAF from campus for “building racism.”

Tim Miller, the Director of the Student Activities Center, was in attendance observing the majority of the event but refused to comment. Also in attendance was Michael Tapscott, Director of the Multicultural Student Services Center (MSSC); George Rice, Associte Director of the MSSC; and Harbinder Sohi, Senior Secretary.

Ms. Sohi did confront the students hosting the bake sale, but the rest of the MSSC staff stayed on the sidelines. A sign carried by the counter-protestors stated, “GW Multicultural Student Organizations.”  When Tapscott was asked if that meant that all of the GW Multicultural Student Organizations supported the counter-protest, he said he didn’t know and declined to comment further.

The majority of the event was civil, although some protestors did accuse the students supporting and hosting the event of being racist. At the conclusion of the event, there were several baked goods left over. GWYAF and GWCRs offered them for free to anyone in the vicinity. The student leader of the GW NAACP told the protestors that they had better not take them.

Despite some hostility directed toward  GWYAF and GWCRs at the event, there is talk of the GW NAACP and BSU working with GWYAF and GWCRs to host a joint event that addresses the issue.

Click here to see video from the event.

Do you want to have an Affirmative Action Bake Sale on your campus? Contact your Regional Field Coordinatorfor assistance and advice.

I am under no impression this post will be comprehensive; however, the following is something I believe the Conservative movement should consider when playing in electoral politics. I have been reminded on a number of occasions that the only people who make policy in America today are those who are elected to office – be it local, state, or federal.

I should say it again because I think it bears repeating: The only people who make policy are elected officials.

And while public sector union protests or tea party rallies tend to make headlines and can certainly drive the debate, throngs of concerned people – angry or upset for whatever reason – do not make law. We are, at all levels and with very few exceptions, a representative republic. You and I elect people to represent us on city councils, county commissions, state legislatures, and in Congress. And in any debate, we must define the terms, so that we each approach the issue from the same understanding. Guaranteed, we’ll come to different conclusions.

My final paper as an undergrad was entitled: “From Buckley to Goldwater: American Conservatism as an Intellectual Movement from 1945 to 1964.” Growing up, I remember reading about William F. Buckley, Jr. and Barry Goldwater, and they have and continue to shape my political ideology.

Beyond left and right, liberal and conservative, I believe that many Americans are split between the two. For instance, most of my friends are economically conservative, or “market liberals” as the Cato Institute suggests. We believe, more or less, that government should get out of the way of the market – that less regulations allow market forces to provide economic opportunity. When given the choice, I think most people want the easiest path to consumption of goods and acquisition of wealth and resources. And whenever government sets up a roadblock through regulation or some other way, it hinders that progress.

As it relates to social issues, I tend to consider myself more libertarian, or even “liberal” for those who are unfamiliar with the first “L” word. If people are able to make economic decisions on their own, then perhaps they are equally able to make other decisions: what to eat, what to ingest, how to take care of themselves, and a whole host of other so-called “social issues.”

But I digress. (This happens sometimes. I’ll try to stay on track.)

Buckley said two things that are increasingly important in this debate for conservatives:

1. Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.

In an ideal world, things work the way we want. I have a libertarian friend who does not recognize the fact that Social Security is a program in the U.S. His “ideal world” conflicts with reality because, in fact, Social Security does exist. Some of my libertarian friends believe the 16th Amendment to the Constitution was never actually ratified, regardless of the fact that Congress has levied an income tax since its “ratification.” Their belief clearly conflicts with reality. And it prohibits them from engaging in serious debate. We cannot debate policy issues of the day without recognizing certain political realities. Things that just are. The end result is ultimately no compromise and no progress.

2. The wisest choice [in an election] would be the one who would win… I’d be for the most right, viable candidate who could win.

This is sometimes boiled down to: “Support the most conservative candidate who is electable.” Notice the statement is not: “Support the most conservative candidate.” Conservatives do themselves a disservice by ignoring arguably the most important part of the sentence: who is electable. Charles Krauthammer, a pragmatic and intellectual contemporary conservative, had this to say leading up to the November election last year:

Tuesday in Delaware was a bad day not only for Republicans but also for conservatives. Tea Partyer Christine O’Donnell scored a stunning victory over establishment Republican Mike Castle. Stunning but pyrrhic. The very people who have most alerted the country to the perils of President Obama’s social democratic agenda may have just made it impossible for Republicans to retake the Senate and definitively stop that agenda.

Bill Buckley — no Mike Castle he — had a rule: Support the most conservative candidatewho is electable.

A timeless rule of sober politics, and particularly timely now. This is no ordinary time. And this is no ordinary Democratic administration. It is highly ideological and ambitious. It is determined to use whatever historical window it is granted to change the country structurally, irreversibly. It has already done so with Obamacare and has equally lofty ambitions for energy, education, immigration, taxation, industrial policy and the composition of the Supreme Court.

That’s what makes the eleventh-hour endorsements of O’Donnellby Sen. Jim DeMint(R-S.C.) and Sarah Palin so reckless and irresponsible.

Of course Mike Castle is a liberal Republican. What do you expect from Delaware? A DeMint? Castle voted against Obamacare and the stimulus. Yes, he voted for cap-and-trade. That’s batting .667. You’d rather have a Democrat who bats .000 and who might give the Democrats the 50th vote to control the Senate?

Castle wasn’t only electable. He was unbeatable. Why do you think Beau Biden, long groomed to inherit his father’s seat, flinched from running? Because Castle, who had already won statewide races a dozen times, scared him off. Democrats had already given up on the race.

Now, those are Krauthammer’s words, not mine. I firmly believe that Christine O’Donnell can play an important role in post-November 2010 conservatism. I also believe Sarah Palin plays an important role. (Do I want to see her elected President? No.) And finally, I have tremendous respect for Senator DeMint. He is arguably the most effective conservative Senator in Congress today.

But the fact remains, November may have looked entirely different for Republicans under different circumstances. What could Republicans have done with 51 Republican Senators? Wasn’t it Reagan who said something to the effect: The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.

This is where I get accused of “going soft” or becoming a moderate, but those accusations simply aren’t true – and they’re made by people who are too shallow to understand electoral politics. Sure, we can debate the issues over drinks one night, but at the end of the discussion, we haven’t changed policy. I would rather have a Scott Brown or Mike Castle in office – who will more or less vote with us 40% – 80% of the time than a dream candidate who will never get elected.

And I do draw the line in the sand. There are some issues where I will not compromise. The fact remains: We can govern responsibly with who is elected, or we can be out of power and have all the right ideas.It’s not enough to just have the right ideas. We have to implement them.

Most recently, this concept reared its ugly head in the race for RNC Chairman. Certain conservative elements sought to unravel the debate because of the roughly $20 million in debt accrued by former Chairman Michael Steele in an election year where we made significant gains in both the House and the Senate.

As the RNC met to select the next Chairman, some found this debt inexcusable and irreconcilable. How could Republicans consider tackling the national debt with debt of its own on the books?

Then rose the National Committeeman from Virginia, Mr. Morton Blackwell, who has long been respected in conservative circles. His Republican resume is long, beginning somewhere in the late ’50s but most notably his first major achievement was being elected the youngest delegate for Barry Goldwater in 1964. From there, he served in the College Republicans, wrote direct mail, and even spent some time on the Regan ’80 campaign and in the Reagan White House before joining the Leadership Institute full-time as its President in 1984.

Along the way, he was personally responsible for the political careers of people you may have heard of: Karl Rove, Mitch McConnell, and Terry Branstad, just to name a few. (Yes, another digression.)

Morton rose to defend the actions of the previous RNC Chair during the 2010 election cycle. He argued that it was not uncommon for an organization to accrue some debt, particularly in the wake of such success. Now, most of the success from the RNC standpoint was overshadowed by the poor management, but Morton made an excellent point.

While Morton is just about as conservative as they come, he stopped short of being an unreasonable reactionary, and cooler heads prevailed in that debate.

Likewise for tea party types and libertarians (who overlap, but are not necessarily the same group). In electoral politics, we have to win elections to advance policy. Sure, we could run as far to the right as possible in a primary and find someone with whom we agree with on most issues, but elections aren’t always won by who is right. What good does it do us to elect unelectable candidates?

This post isn’t an endorsement of a Mitt Romney-esque candidate. The flip-side of not electing a too far-right candidate is not to elect someone who stands for nothing, someone with no ideology. There is a balance.

I’m sure I’ll continue this musing at a later date. I’m interested in what you have to say. Click the box below and write your thoughts. And pass this link to a friend.

Click here to read the Amendment.

Tennesseans rally against a state income tax in the early 2000s.

Senate Republicans were quick to applaud the vote. In a statement, the Caucus announced:

The proposal, Senate Joint Resolution 18, specifies that the legislature as well as Tennessee counties and cities shall be prohibited from passing either an income tax or a payroll tax, which is a tax on employers that is measured by the wages they pay their workers.  A payroll tax has been proposed as a way around an income tax.  An effort to impose a local payroll tax was defeated by voters in the City of Memphis in 2004 but was proposed again in recent years by elected officials in Shelby County.

The most serious attempt to pass a statewide income tax was in 2002, when the proposal received 45 of the 50 votes necessary for passage in the House of Representatives.  Last year, eight state lawmakers co-sponsored legislation to implement a state income tax.

“In these tough economic times, Tennesseans need jobs and don’t need to be worrying about having to pay a state income tax,” added Sen. Kelsey.  “It’s time to let the people vote on the issue and put this matter to rest.”

The resolution would allow Tennesseans to vote to prohibit the income tax in three years.  Prior to that, it will need to pass the House in the coming weeks and to pass the Senate and House by a two-thirds vote in two years.

I applaud Senator Brian Kelsey for his hard work and for Democrat Leader Jim Kyle for also voting for the measure. Tennesseans have – on a number of occasions – made their voice heard on this issue. According to Wikipedia, there are only nine states with no income tax.

Watch the video of the Senate vote here.

The measure now moves to the House. Upon passage, it must pass the General Assembly in the next Session by a 2/3 vote before going onto the ballot in the following gubernatorial election cycle.

This post originally appeared at MatthewHurtt.com. However, its national importance compelled me to post here, as well.