Scan through my posts throughout the special US Senate election and you’ll see that I was never a big fan of US Senator Scott Brown. Didn’t like his superficial campaign, didn’t buy into his sound bites, didn’t think he had a game plan…so yeah, not my favorite guy.
And yet, I now find myself compelled to defend him a second time (the first time is here). (more…)
Lookee what I found online: a new proposed doctrine from Jim Bopp Jr., a member of the Republican National Committee, which is officially entitled the “RNC Resolution on [Ronald] Reagan’s Unity Principle for Support of Candidates.” More direct sorts have dubbed it the “Republican Purity Test” since Mr. Bopp is proposing that GOP candidates for elected office check off which of 10 statements they agree with, knowing that failure to agree to at least eight will disqualify them from any RNC support, financial or otherwise.
The 10 points are:
(1) We support smaller government, smaller national debt, lower deficits and lower taxes by opposing bills like [President Barack] Obama’s “stimulus” bill;
(2) We support market-based health care reform and oppose Obama-style government run healthcare;
(3) We support market-based energy reforms by opposing cap and trade legislation;
(4) We support workers’ right to secret ballot by opposing card check;
(5) We support legal immigration and assimilation into American society by opposing amnesty for illegal immigrants;
(6) We support victory in Iraq and Afghanistan by supporting military-recommended troop surges;
(7) We support containment of Iran and North Korea, particularly effective action to eliminate their nuclear weapons threat;
(8) We support retention of the Defense of Marriage Act;
(9) We support protecting the lives of vulnerable persons by opposing health care rationing and denial of health care and government funding of abortion; and
(10) We support the right to keep and bear arms by opposing government restrictions on gun ownership; and be further
No no no. Too wordy. Let me pare that down a bit, make it leaner and meaner:
1) We agree to abandon our common sense, individual wills, and desire to do what is best for the American public, and mindlessly follow RNC leadership on every issue; and, when in doubt, automatically oppose anything a Democrat says, does, or proposes..especially if it’s that Obama guy.
The Irony Fairy obviously tapped this document with her magic wand, since there is also a passage that reads:
WHEREAS, the Republican National Committee shares President Ronald Reagan’s belief that the Republican Party should espouse conservative principles and public policies and welcome persons of diverse views…
Diverse views? You welcome them? Really?
I think this is a good point for this…
Interesting that this should pop up so soon after the GOP royally blew what should have been a slam-dunk victory in the recent special election for the New York 23rd Congressional seat by backing a third-party candidate over the registered Republican because the latter was not conservative enough (she then left the race and endorsed the Democrat). Shout-outs by the usual suspects (Rush, Palin, etc.) weren’t enough to buoy the non-resident non-interesting conservative-but-not-Republican candidate to victory over the Democrat, who captured a seat that had been held by the GOP for 160 years.
One hundred sixty years.
All flushed down the bog because the Republican wasn’t Republican enough by the RNC’s increasingly narrow standards.
That’s talent.
What’s particularly bothersome about this Republican Purity Test is not how it asks candidates to be good little cookie-cutter drones, but how it asks them to voluntarily reinforce the attitude that is impeding the country’s ability to move forward effectively on anything. If anything is steering the country in the wrong direction — to borrow a favorite GOP euphemism for “We’re bitter because we’re not leading the parade anymore” — it’s our elected officials’ slavish loyalty to party dogma and the entailing knee-jerk opposition to anything coming out of the…well, opposition.
(And yes, I am applying that to the Democrats too. They’re every bit as bad.)
I would like to offer up my own resolution for politicians to review, and my stipulation: if you can’t agree to every single one of these statements, you have no business in public service.
1 ) I support a government that is responsive to its constituents and honors the will of the voter, even if that will is contrary to my personal opinions
2 ) I will do my best to communicate the intricacies of an issue, in a clear and factually accurate manner that does not reflect my own subjective opinions, to my constituents so they may make informed decisions, and will actively seek their input before acting on a matter to ensure my vote reflects their will
3 ) I support a government that engages in efficient and responsible spending, and if faced with a choice between making personal sacrifices and placing additional financial burden on the public, I will make any and all reasonable sacrifices first
4 ) I will base my decisions on hard data, common sense, and above all, on what is in the best interests of all people; I will not automatically oppose an idea based on the party affiliation of the individual(s) proposing it and/or its disagreement with my own party’s philosophies
5 ) I will disregard any outside influence on my decisions by lobbyists, special interests, and the leadership within my own government; only my constituents may influence my vote
6 ) I will not hesitate to speak out against my own party — its leadership or its members — if I honestly believe they are not acting in the public interest
7 ) If I ever abuse the public trust and act in a manner unbecoming of my station, I will immediately accept full responsibility for my actions by resigning my office and relinquishing all claim to any perks or benefits I would otherwise be entitled to
8 ) If defeated in an election, I will honor the voice of the voters and gracefully accept that defeat; I will not re-enter the race under legally valid and ethically dubious conditions in the selfish interest of keeping my job
9 ) I will endeavor to recognize when and if I become ineffectual as a legislator, and when that time comes I will voluntarily bow out of the next election to make way for someone with new energy and ideas
A lot of news outlets are talking about the GOP “sweep” of yesterday’s scattered elections, how they — in the words I read on the AOL home page — “thumped the Democrats,” how this is a clear repudiation of President Obama’s failed policies, and how this could be a grim portent of things to come for the Democrats in 2010.
Uh…am I still on the same planet as these pundits?
Let’s put this in a clear context: in Virginia and New Jersey (states that supported Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential elections), Republican candidates bested Democrats for the governorship of those states. More precisely, GOP candidates bested Democrats that were widely considered so grossly inept they probably would have lost to one of those lifesize cardboard cutouts you see at Starbucks pimping Via.
So, to recap: crappy Democratic candidates were beaten by Republicans in two races that have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the administration of the federal government, and somehow that foreshadows a resurgence in the GOP Congressional power base next November…a “Republican renaissance” as GOP chairman Michael Steele put it.
Yyyyyyeah.
And yet, the historical special election in New York’s 23rd Congressional district is somehow not a factor in this Nostradamian prediction of a looming Dem implosion.
If you’ve not heard about this, it’s a classic case of a hanging yourself with your own rope. Bill Owens, who by all accounts was not what you’d call a campaigning machine, won the election to become the first Democrat in more than a century to hold that seat, after the Republican Party tossed over their own candidate, Dierdre Scozzafava, to support a gent by the name of Doug Hoffman — a third-party candidate who did not even live in the district.
Why? Because Hoffman was more conservative than Scozzafava. She supported evil liberal things like same-sex marriage and abortion rights (which, really, have nothing to do with classic Republican political values like small non-intrusive government and limited taxation and government spending, and everything to do with a morality-based mindset that is often in direct conflict with the core principles of the GOP…but I digress).
Hoffman received lip service from GOP icons like Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Sarah Palin (who is still laboring under the delusion that she’s relevant). Scozzafava responded by dropping out of the race — a gutless move in my estimation, but she semi-redeemed herself by then throwing all her support behind Owens in a big expletive deleted you to her party.
The GOP pot accused the Scozzafava kettle of contemptible blackness and called her a traitor to the party…you know, that same party that turned its collective nose up at her to support a non-Republican (did I mention the GOP are sometimes very contrary people?).
Maybe the GOP is making such a big noise about their two minor victories on the gubernatorial front to mask their insecurity over the New York debacle…I mean, taking certain victory and squandering it through indecision, in-fighting, and feeding your own to the wolves? That’s been the Democrats’ modus operandi for many a year.
Remember, Republicans: those who forget the Democrats’ history are doomed to repeat it, and in next year’s mid-terms, you have so much to gain and very little left to lose — and you’ll have even less to lose in 2012 if you don’t get your act together.
Hidey-ho folks. I’m back from vacation, and I return to the column with a brief requiem for Bob Burr, would-be Republican candidate for US Senate.
Oh, Bob, we hardly knew ye, and I suspect that’s because you never really did anything with your campaign once you entered the race. I infer that by your inability to collect 10,000 signatures on your nomination papers by last Tuesday’s deadline.
The Fab Four engaged in a rather tepid debate Monday night, and you can read my analysis below.
***
AG Coakley, by the way, is under no small amount of scrutiny thanks to the Massachusetts Republican Party. The Mass. GOP recently filed a complaint against AG Coakley, claiming she was running a “shadow campaign” (insert dramatic musical sting here) for US Senate using money from her AG campaign coffers, which is a no-no.
The GOP specifically charges that AG Coakley spent about $31,000 from her state campaign fund on consultants in preparation for her Senate bid. Notably, she has reimbursed her state fund for $35,000 in expenses out of her federal campaign fund. File that under Things That Make You Go Hmmmm…
The Federal Election Commission is reviewing the matter but, as of this writing, has yet to announce whether it will launch an official investigation into AG Coakley’s campaign finances — so it will be a while before we learn whether this is a case of eagle-eyed diligence on the GOP’s part or they’re just out to get her.
One might suspect the latter in light of the new GOP-sponsored “Where Was Martha?” website, which focuses on the AG’s failure (real or imagined, you be the judge) to go after disgraced fellow Democrats – namely former House Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi, former State Senator Dianne Wilkerson, and Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner.
A final note on the Fab Four: a new Western New England College survey has AG Coakley as the person to beat: 37 percent of the people surveyed chose her as the favorite, followed by Mr. Pagliuca and Rep. Capuano running in a near dead-heat with 14 percent and 13 percent support respectively, and Mr. Khazei bringing up the read at a distant four percent.
***
A reminder: Sen. Brown will be on the Cape next month, specifically at the Hyannis Golf Course on Route 132 on Sunday, November 15 from 3 to 5 PM.
Want to talk directly to Christy P. Mihos, Republican candidate for governor? You’ll get several chances during the campaign, thanks to his new series of live webcasts.
Go to Mr. Mihos’s official campaign website to check for the next scheduled webcast, which will allow viewers to call into his Hyannis campaign office and chat directly with the candidate. The shows will be, as the name suggests, broadcast live over his site. He hopes to hold the webcasts up to three times a week.
***
On the topic of the gubernatorial race, I can’t help but take this as a bad sign – whether of the economy or Deval L. Patrick’s re-election campaign, I’m not sure, but when President Barack H. Obama rolls into Boston for a fundraiser and the place is not standing room only, something is amiss.
According to several media accounts of last Friday’s fundraiser for Gov. Patrick, a high-priced private reception with the President was about half-full, and a subsequent $500-a-head fundraiser for those without such deep pockets was two-thirds full.
***
Ray Kasperowicz, Republican candidate for the US House of Representatives – 10th Congressional District, will be on the Cape next month – November 10, to be precise, when he meets with the Sandwich Republican Town Committee. Keep your eye on his website and www.sandwichrepublicans.org for details as they’re announced.
If Mr. Stroll’s name sounds oh-so-vaguely familiar, it’s because he almost ran for the post in 2006. I say “almost” because he failed to get enough signatures on his nomination papers. Better luck this time around, dude.
Here’s a handy website promoting one of the possible ballot questions for 2010, which seeks to establish instant runoff voting in Massachusetts: http://voterchoicema.org, the official site for Voter Choice Massachusetts.
Under instant runoff voting, voters basically rank the candidates for a given race. During the tally the candidate who receives the least support (that is, the one who is the top pick among the fewest voters) is bumped out, elimination-style, and that vote is then automatically reassigned to the voter’s number two pick. This goes on until a winner emerges from the flaming heap of defeated also-rans like the lone NASCAR driver from a 30-car pile-up on a hairpin turn.
It sounds, and kind of is, complicated, but proponents claim that instant runoff voting avoids the “spoiler effect,” that voting phenomenon in which two similar candidates split the electorate, allowing a possibly weaker third candidate to sneak through with a win.
I don’t have another car racing metaphor for that one. Sorry.
Political news and announcements may be sent to Michael Bailey, Region editor and senior political reporter, at bailey@capenews.net