March 16, 2013

By Josephine Djuhana

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — Former Speaker Newt Gingrich lit up CPAC on its third and final day of convention, opening with bold criticisms against the Republican establishment and its consultant culture.

“The Republican establishment is just plain wrong about how it approaches politics,” he said, adding that the RNC’s effort to produce a report on initial changes was a good first step in the right direction. It was essential, he said, that conservatives “disenthrall” themselves from the establishment’s “anti-idea approach” and its “consultant culture”, which only perpetuated the process of raising money to run attack ads.

Gingrich also emphasized the importance of new ideas, not new principles. “We need lots of new ideas on how to implement those principles in the twenty-first century,” he said. Additionally, he highlighted the need of finding ways to empower people to leave poverty, empower small businesses to create jobs and get government out of the way.

Calling the establishment “prisoners of the past” and “trapped in the age of candles,” Gingrich quoted President Ronald Reagan and stated there was “no such thing as left or right” but only an “up or down.”

“We stand today on the edge of a great future, but Washington is blind to it in both parties,” he said, underlining the necessity to push past partisanship.

Gingrich also produced a stark contrast between conservatives that believe they have a “capacity for self-government” or a people that “abandon the American revolution.” Citizens, he said, must be empowered to solve things for themselves by getting rid of government and replacing the institutions with citizen activism. He then praised ‘Citizenville,’ a book by California’s very own Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom.

“It is sobering to me, to be standing here as a senior member of this party telling you that from 1976 to 2013, we have the dominant wing of this party which has learned nothing,” said Gingrich. Republicans, he said, should be in the business of “reshaping the budget” to liberate the American people and create a better future with a smaller government and balanced budget. “It is much more than a fight over numbers,” he added. “It’s a fight over values.”

The former speaker also quoted Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, asking Republicans to stop “dumbing down” conservative ideas and reducing their ideals to “campaign slogans and taglines.”

“We are not the anti-Obama movement,” said Gingrich. “We are for a better American future.”

He pointed to both parties in Washington, D.C., saying they were “blind to the potential in this country.” But there was hope, he said, if the conservative message focused on “the right to rise,” as well as its predicate, “the right to life.”

CalWatchdog.com Editors

NATIONAL HARBOR, Md. — It’s no secret that Republicans in the Golden State have been dispirited by the last two election cycles where the GOP has been relegated to virtually no power in statewide politics.  Nationally 2012 was also a lackluster election year for Republicans, yet many in the party are beginning to bounce back showing signs of optimism. The source of this energy is not due necessarily to the ongoing Conservative Political Action Conference but instead due in part to Senator Rand Paul’s recent filibuster in the United State Senate.

Watching various speeches at CPAC, I’ve found it interesting that the rhetoric from Republican elected officials and conservative leaders hasn’t changed much from last year’s election to today. And in fact, in some cases it may have even hardened. Even former presidential candidate Mitt Romney gave a speech Friday at CPAC that sounded like it was something from the campaign trail rather than a forward looking message. (There have been a few exceptions, of course, like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal’s call for a new focus for his party, similar to other speeches he’s made recently and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich’s chastising of the party’s establishment.)

Yet the high point for Republicans—in this moment at least— seems to be Senator Rand Paul. His filibuster demanding answers from the Obama Administration on the use of drones on United States soil illustrated the ability of one senator to lead on an issue and capture  the national dialogue, even as a member of the minority party in the United State Senate.

Staffers on Capitol Hill noted that Paul’s filibuster helped change the level of morale among Republicans in Washington, and it did so at a key moment; just before the leading national gathering of conservatives. At CPAC Sen. Paul was remarkably well received but particularly so by large numbers of young conservatives—many young conservatives who likely attended the event, at least in part, because of Paul.

Rand Paul’s recent ascent in popularity further stokes rumors of a presidential run for the Kentucky senator in 2016. Regardless of the potentiality of a bid for the White House, the GOP has a libertarian-minded Republican helping shape public discourse on issues with crossover appeal particularly hitting a cord with young people and those interested in civil liberties. That’s progress.

Even though a wholesale change in messaging by Republicans has not been evident at CPAC, there are new, powerful voices beginning to shape a movement in need some modernization. And thus an understandable bump in enthusiasm by the GOP.

By John Seiler

I agree with my colleague Katy Grimes’ assessment that Mitt Romney easily won last night’s debate. He easily command over President Valium.

But the debate ignored an issue critical to California: immigration.

Romney won the primaries largely because he talked tough on immigration. He painted his main opponents, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum and Rick Perry, as amnesty wimps. This went over big time with the party’s anti-immigration base.

As longtime Romney enthusiast Ann Coulter wrote last December:

“capitulate on illegal immigration, and the entire country will have the electorate of California. There will be no turning back….

“Massive legal and illegal immigration has already so changed the California electorate that no Republican can be elected statewide anymore. Not so long ago, this was a state that produced great Republican governors and senators like Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, S.I. Hayakawa and Pete Wilson. 

“If even Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, two bright, attractive, successful female business executives — one pro-life and one pro-choice — can’t win a statewide election in California spending millions of their own dollars in the middle of the 2010 Republican sweep, it’s buenas noches, muchachos. 

“Only Michele Bachmann and Mitt Romney aren’t trying to sneak through amnesty for illegal aliens.”

By then, Bachmann was not a contender. So that left Romney.

Gov. Etch-A-Sketch

But on Monday, Romney flip-flopped on immigration — again. National Journal reported:

“Mitt Romney’s advisers have long insisted that economic doldrums—not immigration policy—would turn Hispanic voters toward the Republican nominee.

“But Romney’s decision to break his silence on allowing young illegal immigrants to stay in the United States reflects a shift in that failing strategy and an implicit admission that the increasingly powerful Hispanic vote could, in part, cost him the election.

“After months of mostly stonewalling about President Obama’s order to stop deporting children brought to the United States illegally by their parents, Romney told The Denver Post on Monday that he would not repeal those temporary visas. On Tuesday, his campaign said he would end the program for others if elected president.”

Actually, the Hispanic vote is only about 7 percent of the electorate. It routinely votes about 67 percent Democratic. Assuming Romney’s new position resonates among Hispanics, he might reduce that 67 percent to 60 percent — if he’s lucky. So, he would improve by 7 percentage points. Multiply that (.07) times a 7 percent electorate (.07) and  at most he would gain 0.35 percentage points.

Moreover, few of the expected pro-Romney Hispanic switch would be in swing states. Most Hispanics live in big Blue states (California, New York, Illinois) or Texas (Red state for now). Florida is an exception, because it’s a swing state with a lot of Hispanics. But most Hispanics there are Cubans, for whom there’s already a special law allowing relatives to come here as refugees from Castro’s communism.

Hispanics soon will be a much larger electorate. They’re 16 percent of the population now, but their population is younger, so they have more kids under 18 years old; and many are immigrants, legal and illegal, until they become citizens. But this isn’t the 2024 election; it’s the 2012 election.

Meanwhile, the white (“Anglo”) electorate still is about 65 percent of the national electorate. Probably at least half of them oppose amnesty. How many of them will be offended now that Romney supports amnesty? Probably a lot more than .35 percentage points. Many in Ohio, Iowa, Colorado and other swing states will stay home in disgust on election day.

It’s no wonder his adviser, Eric Fehrnstrom, said last March after Mitt had wound up his primary victories and secured the nomination, “Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.”

Obama could have brought up amnesty as yet another Etch-A-Sketch Romney moment, but the president was napping.

Maybe immigration will come up in a later debate. But for now, this issue crucial especially to California is not even being discussed in this campaign.

“Now, a return to the American values of fair play and shared responsibility will help protect our people and our economy. But it should also guide us as we look to pay down our debt and invest in our future.”

— President Barack Obama, State of the Union address, Jan. 24, 2012

This speech was the latest reminder of the shockingly low state of political discourse in America. I’m not singling out Obama for special condemnation, given that these addresses always are a potpourri of banalities, regardless of which president is offering them. Yet, Tuesday’s speech was a vivid reminder of the shoddy thinking so common at the highest level of the federal and state governments and why we are — in the more precise, but less-lofty words of a former president — in deep doo-doo.

Criminologists have remarked on “the banality of crime,” the reality that most criminals are not dark geniuses, but ordinary dolts driven by the basest motives. The State of the Union is the ultimate example for the banality of American politics, of the reality that the people who want to reform us haven’t the slightest clue about anything. They are predictable and bland, traders in base ideas and driven mainly by ego and the desire to help those groups that assure their re-elections.

California is the starkest example. A friend of mine called the other day and told me that it finally dawned on him that Gov. Jerry Brown, despite his clever wordplay, is really not so brilliant. Here’s a man who actually believes that raising taxes and “investing” in green jobs will save California.

‘City on a Hill’

Politicians from Obama to Brown to Mitt Romney to Newt Gingrich want so desperately to build a legacy, save our state or nation, and create some “shining city on the hill,” but they want it all on the cheap.

Democratic pols want to sound like John F. Kennedy while Republicans sing hosannas to the legacy of Ronald Reagan, but such legacies don’t come from cheap banalities and the retreading of empty words. They come from tackling real issues and fixing real problems. The courage needed to do the latter is in short supply, given that most politicians crave adulation but don’t realize that putting that goal first almost assures that they won’t receive it.

Look at Arnold Schwarzenegger, who had a historic opportunity to bring the state back from the brink, yet changed course dramatically after his first defeat at the ballot box. He chose to be loved above all else and has ended up a scorned figure.

Many of us had hoped that Brown, who decades ago persistently pursued the presidency but no longer seeks higher office, would embrace the tough work of real governance and take on his own allies — i.e., the public sector unions — who are the key obstacle to reviving California. Instead, he has embraced one foolish answer, higher taxes, and has governed in a way that’s not too different from the two failed governors before him.

Spending Problem

If Brown were a serious man, he would acknowledge that the problem isn’t a lack of revenue, it’s the way the state spends money. But he has taken the easy, banal course and will, in time, be forgotten. And so, too, will Obama, who continues to believe that government is the font of all wisdom and energy in this nation and that populist attacks on evil-doing mortgage companies, for example, are more crucial than serious policy.

“Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same,” he intoned. “It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom. No bailouts, no handouts, and no cop-outs. An America built to last insists on responsibility from everybody.”

Banality is one thing, but this veers into dishonestly. No president — not even the terrible one that preceded Obama — has embraced the culture of bailouts, handouts and cop-outs more than Obama. His administration epitomizes the term “crony capitalism,” whereby friends and backers of the leaders get large infusions of taxpayer cash (e.g., Solyndra) and then cop out about why the money disappeared. In his speech, Obama sung the praises of the automobile bailout and called for more bailouts and government investments.

Instead of dealing seriously with the financial crisis, he embraced a kindergartner’s view of what happened (greedy banks foisted bad mortgages on decent people!), called for a special investment-crimes unit to crack down on financial wrongdoers and then pledged a new bailout for homeowners who are underwater in their mortgages, many of whom acted irresponsibly as they bought houses they knew they couldn’t afford and/or tapped their home’s equity and spent it.

Said Obama, “And while government can’t fix the problem on its own, responsible homeowners shouldn’t have to sit and wait for the housing market to hit bottom to get some relief. And that’s why I’m sending this Congress a plan that gives every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage, by refinancing at historically low rates.”

Just what we need — yet another irresponsible subsidy underwritten by U.S. taxpayers. In reality, the real estate market needs to hit bottom before it can rebound, and Obama’s plan will only delay the day of reckoning. This is more pabulum and more false hope for people who think the government is going to save them.

Soaring rhetoric and promised bailouts won’t fix what’s wrong in California or in the United States. It’s time for a little reality and some tough choices. It’s time for leaders with less banal rhetoric and more courage.

— Steven Greenhut