Archive for ‘Republican’

August 17, 2010

Scott Walker, college dropouts, and media coverage

by thoughtfulconservative

Two friends (at least online friends) posted recently on remarks Scott Walker made to reporters after the debate in Oconomowoc. They based their posts on this article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which “quoted” Scott Walker as saying,

Walker said he didn’t graduate because he got a job and he suggested that in the current economy college students close to graduating might consider doing the same.

Pretty plain and they drew their conclusions.

Might not be as simple.

At least when you look at the report on WITI channel 6  locally, which seems to have the entire quote. Here’s what Walker said,

“Bottom line is, I was offered a job. Like any person going into their senior year, right now particularly in this economy, if they were offered a job their senior year of college, I think most people these days would take it. That’s what I did at the American Red Cross.”

Kinda different to me. And I don’t necessarily blame the Journal Sentinel reporter although I would encourage him to work on that. But the quote in the Journal Sentinel, if read alone, is misleading.

Therefore my conclusions would be different from Chris and Cindy (although I don’t presume to think I’m changing anyone’s mind here).

Here’s my paraphrase of what Walker said:

In this economy, any senior who got a good job offer like I did at the Red Cross, might consider leaving school, since their prospects are dim even if they stay in school.

It goes without saying that it’s up to interpretation.

The Left’s other concern is voiced by Xoff,

Scott Walker, the degree-less candidate for governor, continues to describe his college career in ways that are terribly misleading if not outright fibs.

Xoff, in a magnanimous moment, says something I’ve been thinking about since this issue came up,

I don’t care whether he has a degree or not. Many dropouts, from Bill Gates to Lady Gaga to your truly (who falls somewhere in between those two) have had some success.

I don’t look at a candidate’s educational qualifications that much when deciding on a candidate. Certainly Mark Neumann and Tom Barrett are very well educated. Scott Walker does have experience running a government with a legislative body of the opposite persuasion. He’s won elections in a county that usually votes overwhelmingly Democratic.

I haven’t decided between the two yet, but I certainly wouldn’t rule out Walker because he didn’t finish college.

August 7, 2010

“Republicans draw few contrasts in governor debate”

by thoughtfulconservative

Republican candidates for governor Scott Walker and Mark Neumann drew few contrasts on Friday in the first of three debates before the Sept. 14 primary.

via Madison.com.

There’s a reason for that–they’re both conservative!

The rest of the crap that’s happened in this campaign is because there is basically no ideological difference between Walker and Neumann.

So it’s degenerated, for the most part into “You do this.” No, I don’t.” kind of campaign.

Distasteful to many (mostly in SE Wisconsin) who would simply like to anoint Scott Walker as the Republican nominee, I’m sure, it will be invaluable should Walker (yes, he still has to win the primary) win the nomination.

The only question is if such bitter campaigning leaves the winner without the support of the loser.

June 19, 2010

Mitch Daniels’ truce

by thoughtfulconservative

This is what I really wanted to talk about when I wrote this post.

At first, I thought about being snarky. I could have taken this quote from Neil Pickett, a Daniels booster who said,

“If Republicans want a social conservative agenda to dominate their choice for president, then Mitch Daniels is not their candidate.”

and replied, “Hey, social conservatives don’t want to dominate the agenda; just throw us the meaningless platform platitudes you usually do.”

But I won’t. Cuz this is serious stuff.

As I’ve noted, unlike some of my fellow conservatives, I’m not one to throw someone under the bus because I disagree with them on a few things. I’d rather see something accomplished than nothing.

But there was no surprise when Mitch Daniels spoke of a truce on social issues and folks started taking sides.

It all started with a profile on Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana, in The Weekly Standard. Tucked way toward the end of that feature was this:

And then, he says, the next president, whoever he is, “would have to call a truce on the so-called social issues. We’re going to just have to agree to get along for a little while,” until the economic issues are resolved. Daniels is pro-life himself, and he gets high marks from conservative religious groups in his state.

And the phrase “truce on the so-called social issue” caused a small stir and showed how fragile the coalition is between social and fiscal conservatives. Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote (via Reid Wilson at Hotline OnCall),

“Not only is he noncommittal about his role as a pro-life leader, but the Governor wouldn’t even agree to a modest step like banning taxpayer-funded promotion of abortion overseas. I support the Governor 100% on the call for fiscal responsibility, but nothing is more fiscally responsible than ending the taxpayer funding of abortion and abortion promotion.”

Mike Huckabee posted a couple of time about it. First in a post called The Heartbreaking Truce,

Let me be clear though, the issue of life and traditional marriage are not bargaining chips nor are they political issues. They are moral issues. I didn’t get involved in politics just to lower taxes and cut spending though I believe in both and have done it as a Governor. But I want to stay true to the basic premises of our civilization.

Then a couple of days later, he made this excellent point,

Poverty and crime are the direct results of broken families and broken values of responsibility, work, marriage, and respect of others. Prisons are overflowing and government “relief” programs get traction often because of the breakdown of our social structure. If we don’t respect the value of each individual life whether in the womb or the classroom or the living room, we devalue property and intangible qualities of life. It gets expensive. [Emphasis his]

Mr. Huckabee would probably be bolstered by this recent research found on Heritage.org,

A wedding ring, it turns out, is the ultimate anti-poverty weapon. That conclusion from The Heritage Foundation is both encouragement and warning this Father’s Day.

Research shows that a child raised in a home where Dad is married to Mom is much less likely to live in poverty, get arrested as a juvenile. be suspended or expelled from school, be treated for emotional or behavioral problems or drop out before completing high school.

Interesting.

But I think, social conservatives are too harsh on Mr. Daniels. As Dan Riehl pointed out at Riehl World View, truce is different than surrender. He thinks Daniels is saying to focus on one area not to neglect the other.

At The American Spectator blog, Joseph Lawler asked, “What exactly did Bush do on the social issues that President Daniels would have to forgo?”

I think the answer is evident. Erick Erickson at Red State had a different criticism for Daniels,

“Daniels, without prompting, chose to pick an unneeded fight with social conservatives. That is not leadership.”

But if you read The Weekly Standard article, Daniels is kinda like that.

And read it all, because I kinda like the guy. Wish more politicians were like him.

June 19, 2010

Todd Kolosso is running against Jim Sensenbrenner

by thoughtfulconservative

Yeah, it took me awhile to quit giggling also. Democrats have been throwing themselves on their swords ever since I moved here (and probably before that) trying to unseat the long serving Republican congressman. You’d think they’d learn.

Mr. Kolosso put out a press release recently (h/t WisPolitics.com) which declared,

“When the people of the 5th Congressional District vote for me in November,” said Kolosso, “they can be confident that I will honor my pledge to conduct myself according to the highest ethical standards and that I will not put personal profits over the interests of my constituents or my fellow citizens.”

I don’t want to tell Democrats how to campaign, but the last few challengers have tried to nail Sensenbrenner because of his stock holdings and it hasn’t taken.

Come to think of it, pretty much any thing any challenger has thrown at him has managed to unseat him.

Oh, well.

Now Nick Schweitzer says he would vote for Kolosso over Sensenbrenner, and Nick’s a very smart guy, but I don’t see the majority in the 5th CD doing it.

Kolosso for Congress site.

Sensenbrenner for Congress site.

June 4, 2010

Wisconsin political stories 2010-06-04

by thoughtfulconservative

Former North Prairie trustee to challenge Kramer; Waukesha County Dems also announce 6 other candidates

“Former North Prairie Village Board Trustee Dawn Caruss officially announced Wednesday she will challenge state Rep. Bill Kramer, R-Waukesha, for the 97th Assembly District seat.

Caruss’ announcement came with six others by the Waukesha County Democratic Party on Wednesday, which ensures at least 11 of the 14 state Legislature seats will be challenged in the November general election.”

Tea party endorses no candidates “A coalition of Wisconsin tea party groups tried to distance itself Thursday from Republican candidates who have appeared at their rallies and identified themselves with the movement.”

Physicians endorse Reid Ribble for 8th Congressional District seat “A group of physicians from the Green Bay and Appleton area have endorsed Kaukauna area roofing contractor Reid Ribble, a Republican candidate for the 8th Congressional District.

The group, called Physicians for Responsible Government, has a number of physicians from Green Bay and Appleton on its provisional board.”

GOP Bites the Hand that Feeds “It is my fear that by the time the GOP finally understands that short-term gains of inciting their base are not worth the long-term setbacks of making the Hispanic community a permanent foe, it might be too late.”

June 4, 2010

“How Christian is Tea Party Libertarianism?”

by thoughtfulconservative

Jim Wallis, of Sojourners and the author of God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It which I reviewed awhile back (There is no link anymore, once again thanks to Google), wrote a post simultaneously posted on Huffington Post and God’s Politics on the Tea Party.

I can agree with Jim Wallis on some things, but on most things I would disagree. From this article, it doesn’t appear as though Mr. Wallis knows what the Tea Party is.

This comes out immediately in the title. Mr. Wallis links Tea Parties with libertarianism. My sense is that there are some Tea Partiers that are libertarian there are some who are not libertarian, mostly Republican with a few independents and even Democrats. That’s not to say that libertarianism is not an undercurrent as he points out has been evident in the Republican Party.

I hold some viewpoints in common with libertarianism, but I’m not libertarian.

Painting with a broad brush necessitates making some points that aren’t true for the whole. And instead of looking at the Tea Partiers, Wallis seems to be rebutting libertarianism, or those things that Tea Partiers believe that are the same as what libertarians believe. those points Wallis contends are:

  1. The Libertarian enshrinement of individual choice is not the pre-eminent Christian virtue.
  2. Not so. Although perhaps not a virtue, individual choice is the foundation of Christianity. We come to Christ by our individual choice. We are exhorted to live Christ-like in this world, but are not forced to do so. We are our brother’s keeper, but again that’s a choice we make as the Holy Spirit directs us, not one that the government, or anyone else can coerce us to do.

    Wallis tries to prove his point by going to the Old Testament prophets, but we must remember that Israel was God’s people on earth, something only a Christian dominionist might contend today. God’s People on earth should exemplify these characteristics, but all political parties fall short here.

  3. An anti-government ideology just isn’t biblical.
  4. Mr. Wallis erects somewhat of a straw man here, as he says later, “Of course, debating the size and role of government is always a fair and good discussion, and most of us would prefer smart and effective to ‘big’ or ‘small’ government.” I think that’s what the discussion IS about as I believe wanting to get rid of all government is called anarchy. And I think most clear thinking Tea Partiers and Libertarians would concede some taxes are necessary. They just think taxes are too high.

    He then puts on his rose colored glasses and states, “a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration.” Apparently he and I are not examining the same government. Eminent domain, police abuse, bureaucratic malfeasance seems pretty common.

  5. The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin.
  6. This might be the area I agree with most and it’s not limited to libertarians; many conservatives feel the same way. In a previous post I thought aloud about some things concerning government regulation. Wallis gave me this food for thought:

    Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids’ toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won’t serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids? Given the reality of sin in all human institutions, doesn’t a political process that provides both accountability and checks and balances make both theological and practical sense? C.S. Lewis once said that we need democracy not because people are essentially good, but because they often are not. Democratic accountability is essential to preventing the market from becoming a beast of corporate totalitarianism…”

    Some would argue we were fine for hundreds or thousands of years without government regulation, but I’m not sure that’s a valid argument. Others have argued that regulation is the cause of some of these problems.

  7. The Libertarian preference for the strong over the weak is decidedly un-Christian.
  8. He shows his hand with this sentence:

    “[P]rivate charity is simply not enough to satisfy the demands of either fairness or justice, let alone compassion.”

    There you have it. Jim Wallis’s position as succinctly as you can get it. Private charity is not enough. We have to redistribute wealth by government decree.

    And here, oddly enough, is where Wallis could possibly come closest to agreeing with conservatives and libertarians.

    “When the system is designed to protect the privileges of the already strong and make the weak even more defenseless and vulnerable, something is wrong with the system.”

    The system could be construed as being the government in some arguments.

  9. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. …would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office?

This is his big finish? To answer the second question first, who knows? McCain was not that popular among conservatives or libertarians, so maybe, maybe not. And it’s hard for me to label a whole movement racist when there are African-Americans at the rallies, although no doubt as Wallis says, there are probably some racists attached to the movement. We even have an African-American writer taking the libertarian side on The Civil Rights Act (though most African-Americans would no doubt dispute that he is a valid speaker for the African-American community)!

It seems as though Mr. Wallis needs to learn some more about the Tea Partiers as part of his “dialogue.”

<a href=”http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060834471?ie=UTF8&tag=musingsofatho-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0060834471″>God’s Politics: Why the Right Gets It Wrong and the Left Doesn’t Get It</a><img src=”http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=musingsofatho-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0060834471&#8243; width=”1″ height=”1″ border=”0″ alt=”” style=”border:none !important; margin:0px !important;” />

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,647 other followers