I don't like writing about things in this space that everyone else is writing about because I do this in my free time and why create more white noise? However, Eric Cantor losing tonight is just too bleeping good not to write about. There are a lot of angles - establishment v tea party, amnesty v border hawks, but I want to make a quick mention of this one.
The fact of the matter is that no matter how much people talk about money in politics you cannot sell something people do not want. This is also why I feel the Democrat's "digital advantage" has been a little bit overstated since 2012. They had, whether people want to admit it or not, a once in a generation candidate who people voted for despite not approving of his job performance or agreeing with his policies. Whether the trend of the electorate voting for candidates based on who they like more (i.e. the ones who will promise more free stuff) will continue until our republic collapses like every other great civilization before ours is yet to be seen, the fact is this is what we saw in 2012 and 2008. While this is not what happened tonight, Cantor is a good representation of the opposite, which is people will vote against someone who while being known is not selling anything other than the status quo ad his promise to lick his finger, stick it in the air, and follow the breeze. Dave Brat was selling something the people wanted and Eric Cantor was selling nothing. This is why people who talk about the dangers of money in politics are off target. Our economy is over $17 Trillion and the federal budget is close to $4 Trillion, yet combined Obama and Romney (plus their surrogates) didn't get close to 1% of the annual outlays of the federal government. Tonight, Eric Cantor outspent Dave Brat by over 20:1 and still lost. So just remember that the next time Harry Reid talks about Kochtopia -- no matter how much either side complains about spending in politics remember that it is not all that heavy and that a better marketing campaign (and I suppose ideas) will win out every time.
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Monday, June 9, 2014
Conservative News Nerd Games!
I'm not sure which conservative news nerd game is more fun to play, guess the number of paragraphs it takes for the reporter to write that a Democrat (or an illegal alien) is the guilty party or count the logical fallacies. I think it depends on the mood you are in at the moment.
Having said that, this story is a variant of the first game:
This story, beyond adding to the countless numbers of anecdotes which have collectively eroded the public's trust in the government, shows the contempt the left has for personal responsibility (at least when it comes to their fellow leftists). If you are a Democrat, espouse the proper beliefs, give to the right causes, are a member of a protected class, a welfare recipient, or an illegal alien then the idea of personal responsibility is nothing more than a racist/sexist/homophobic construct with which the man is using to keep you down. Personal responsibility only matters when a conservative is caught doing something wrong - then it is time to point out their hypocrisy. If this story doesn't illustrate the left's complete contempt for being responsible for you own actions then I am not sure what would do the trick.
The larger point is that these journalistic games and patterns, while fun, point to a much larger issue which is how the left pushes it's agenda through tricks and deception in what is supposed to be unbiased news reporting. The tricks the left uses to mask opinion as fact are fun to call out, but with fewer people willing to use critical thinking skills to dive into what is being reported this represents a serious issue. The left knows they cannot win on the facts alone so they condescend to their fellow citizens by presenting their opinion instead. This State Senator wasn't duped by the GOP, the GOP offered him and his daughter a job in exchange for his and he took the deal, case closed. Suggesting this is anything else isn't just another enlightening look at how the left operates, it is a reminder that the left will not risk engaging in a battle over the truth and the right must be prepared to wage a war where the media will happily propagate lies fed to them by their fellow leftists.
Having said that, this story is a variant of the first game:
The Republican Party in Virginia has resorted to what appears to be outright bribery in its ongoing effort to deny low-income residents in the state access to the Medicaid expansion authorized by Obamacare.Right away, this is the fault of the GOP! This man was powerless to stop himself! It doesn't matter that later the State Senator reversed his decision to take the job or that some of his fellow Democrats were appalled that he was willing to sell out his party (and I guess his principles, though it is murky if he had any beyond looking out for Number 1) what matters is the GOP hijacked his brain by making him a job offer!
The Washington Post reported Sunday that Republicans offered to move Democratic state Sen. Phillip P. Puckett and his daughter into prestigious jobs in exchange for Puckett's resignation, which will flip the chamber into Republican hands. Puckett officially accepted the offer on Monday, but then appeared to back away amid a public outcry.
The Senate was on course to pass an expansion of Medicaid, as the law allows, while the House of Delegates, in GOP hands, aimed to block it. In such a scenario, Democrats hoped that Republicans would be blamed for the resulting government shutdown. With Republicans in control of both chambers, Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) must now veto the GOP budget in order to force a showdown over Medicaid.
The apparent quid pro quo has sent Democrats railing.
"It's astounding to me. The House Republican caucus will do anything and everything to prevent low-income Virginians from getting healthcare ... They figure the only way they could win was to give a job to a state senator," Delegate Scott A. Surovell (D-Fairfax) told The Washington Post. "At least they can't offer Terry McAuliffe a job. I hope Terry continues to stand up to these bullies."
This story, beyond adding to the countless numbers of anecdotes which have collectively eroded the public's trust in the government, shows the contempt the left has for personal responsibility (at least when it comes to their fellow leftists). If you are a Democrat, espouse the proper beliefs, give to the right causes, are a member of a protected class, a welfare recipient, or an illegal alien then the idea of personal responsibility is nothing more than a racist/sexist/homophobic construct with which the man is using to keep you down. Personal responsibility only matters when a conservative is caught doing something wrong - then it is time to point out their hypocrisy. If this story doesn't illustrate the left's complete contempt for being responsible for you own actions then I am not sure what would do the trick.
The larger point is that these journalistic games and patterns, while fun, point to a much larger issue which is how the left pushes it's agenda through tricks and deception in what is supposed to be unbiased news reporting. The tricks the left uses to mask opinion as fact are fun to call out, but with fewer people willing to use critical thinking skills to dive into what is being reported this represents a serious issue. The left knows they cannot win on the facts alone so they condescend to their fellow citizens by presenting their opinion instead. This State Senator wasn't duped by the GOP, the GOP offered him and his daughter a job in exchange for his and he took the deal, case closed. Suggesting this is anything else isn't just another enlightening look at how the left operates, it is a reminder that the left will not risk engaging in a battle over the truth and the right must be prepared to wage a war where the media will happily propagate lies fed to them by their fellow leftists.
Friday, June 6, 2014
The Uber Perplexing Virginia DMV
It wasn't until I started turning into a political junkie during the 2000 Presidential Primaries that my media diet switched from cartoons and music to Fox News and talk radio (I was an old man trapped in a 12 year old's body). Lucky for me this was encouraged by my parents who while I was growing up always let me watch the news and read the Boston Globe in the morning before school. One day while winding down with Hannity and Colmes I made a comment to my dad about how it was astonishing that they let these two men go at it when Hannity clearly bested Colmes each and every night. My dad turned to me and said "Well that's true, but you should know that if someone told them they had to switch sides that Hannity would be able to argue Colmes' points as well as Colmes can and vice-versa." I thought about that for sometime and realized that this obviously has to be true, not because they are acting out a script (they are not) but because it is impossible for you to have an unshakable confidence in your own beliefs without knowing the ins and outs of what the other side preaches. It is the same reason sports team scout their opponents and so I soon added left wing news sources to my media diet so I could learn the ways of the progressive movement so that when the time came I would know how to effectively and efficiently dismantle these arguments (have I mentioned I am not good at making friends?)
Now, why did I tell that story? Because I genuinely have no idea what the rationale behind this decision could possibly be:
But back to my original point of not understanding the logic behind the ban. The issue seems to be that because the business models of Uber and Lyft are new and regulators have not adapted as fast as the private sector (shocking, I know) that until Virginia can find a way to make more money off these companies they will just fine them into submission. This leaves me with a few questions.
1. How is Uber any different than me repaying a co-worker who picks me up on the way to work with a case of beer each week or gas money?
2. How is Uber any different than a taxi other than one has a medallion and one has more spacious seating a complementary water?
3 (and this is really the philosophical argument that this hinges on) - Why is it Virginia's business to regulate a contract between two consenting parties?
With regards to the first question, there is no difference other than I am more familiar with my co-worker. There's no clear reason why I should trust my coworker more than an Uber driver and the likelihood of being in an accident is no greater in a Uber car than it is with your co-worker.
The second question is an important one. How is a taxi better regulated than Uber? Do the cars have to go through the same inspection process? Yes, they do. In fact, since Uber drivers own their car and pay for their own insurance they have a much more invested interest in keeping their vehicle in the best condition it can be in while a taxi driver tends to drive for a company and may use different cars from time to time. Again, they all have to go through the same inspection process each year.
The third point is where this gets murky as I will admit I do not agree that all contracts between two consenting adults should be legal and out in the open (the only ones I am truly against are prostitution and euthanasia). But this question ties back into question one, which is how is Uber or Lyft any different than getting a ride from a buddy? Uber offers me a service, we agree on the price, and the service is then carried out. End of story.
It is not that I don't see the point behind all government regulation, though I disagree with 90% of it. I understand why having health inspectors investigate restaurants may be in the interest of public health (though I think the market could take care of this with either a private company doing the inspections or by having no one do them and the restaurants that are dirty and make people sick will go out of business) and I even understand why governments inspect cars (like food providers, this is a public safety concern, though I have my qualms about this as well), but I have no idea what the Virginia DMV's argument is in this case other than they want their kickback.
In an era where people carry around phones which have more computing power than Apollo 11 we should expect innovation to rapidly outpace legislation and hopefully because of this more people will come to see that when the government stays out of the way society does a pretty good job of taking care of itself.
Now, why did I tell that story? Because I genuinely have no idea what the rationale behind this decision could possibly be:
Earlier this year, Virginia officials slapped the app-based services with more than $35,000 in civil penalties for operating with out proper permits. On Thursday, Richard D. Holcomb, commissioner of the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, sent a cease and desist letter to both companies.In an attempt to find out what is really behind this I came across a nice blog post on Reason which linked to an article at the Virginian-Pilot that contained this factoid:
“I am once again making clear that Uber must cease and desist operating in Virginia until it obtains proper authority,” Holcomb said in the letter.
The DMV had already issued civil penalties against the companies in April -- $26,000 for Uber and $9,000 for Lyft -- for trips that their drivers provided in Virginia despite warnings by the state agency that Virginia law does not allow their business model....As the author of the post, Brian Doherty, neatly sums up, instead of these companies investing in themselves they should be greasing the wheels of the Virginia state legislature. In fewer words, it sounds like Aubrey Layne is in search of a quid pro quo.
The DMV is studying Virginia’s motor carrier laws with an eye toward legislative changes next year that could allow Lyft and Uber to legally operate in the state. Secretary of Transportation Aubrey Layne said last week that he liked the companies’ business models, but until the law is changed, they are violating it.
But back to my original point of not understanding the logic behind the ban. The issue seems to be that because the business models of Uber and Lyft are new and regulators have not adapted as fast as the private sector (shocking, I know) that until Virginia can find a way to make more money off these companies they will just fine them into submission. This leaves me with a few questions.
1. How is Uber any different than me repaying a co-worker who picks me up on the way to work with a case of beer each week or gas money?
2. How is Uber any different than a taxi other than one has a medallion and one has more spacious seating a complementary water?
3 (and this is really the philosophical argument that this hinges on) - Why is it Virginia's business to regulate a contract between two consenting parties?
With regards to the first question, there is no difference other than I am more familiar with my co-worker. There's no clear reason why I should trust my coworker more than an Uber driver and the likelihood of being in an accident is no greater in a Uber car than it is with your co-worker.
The second question is an important one. How is a taxi better regulated than Uber? Do the cars have to go through the same inspection process? Yes, they do. In fact, since Uber drivers own their car and pay for their own insurance they have a much more invested interest in keeping their vehicle in the best condition it can be in while a taxi driver tends to drive for a company and may use different cars from time to time. Again, they all have to go through the same inspection process each year.
The third point is where this gets murky as I will admit I do not agree that all contracts between two consenting adults should be legal and out in the open (the only ones I am truly against are prostitution and euthanasia). But this question ties back into question one, which is how is Uber or Lyft any different than getting a ride from a buddy? Uber offers me a service, we agree on the price, and the service is then carried out. End of story.
It is not that I don't see the point behind all government regulation, though I disagree with 90% of it. I understand why having health inspectors investigate restaurants may be in the interest of public health (though I think the market could take care of this with either a private company doing the inspections or by having no one do them and the restaurants that are dirty and make people sick will go out of business) and I even understand why governments inspect cars (like food providers, this is a public safety concern, though I have my qualms about this as well), but I have no idea what the Virginia DMV's argument is in this case other than they want their kickback.
In an era where people carry around phones which have more computing power than Apollo 11 we should expect innovation to rapidly outpace legislation and hopefully because of this more people will come to see that when the government stays out of the way society does a pretty good job of taking care of itself.
Monday, June 2, 2014
Why Millennials Should Be Up In Arms Over Sgt. Bergdahl (Plus Two Questions We Need To Be Asking)
Out of everything that has been written about the prisoner swap for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl there was one paragraph in the Wall Street Journal's write-up of the transfer:
And yet we are the generation responsible for electing a man who seems to have forgotten that there are truly evil people in the world.
The above paragraph, where and Obama administration official stated that they think the Taliban demonstrated good faith in these negotiations shows just how far removed this administration is from reality. The five terrorists who were released, and there is no doubt these men are terrorists, will no doubt reenter the fight on the side of radical Islam and look to hurt and kill Americans in the future. The Taliban knew exactly who they wanted freed, they wanted high level operatives, and they got them in exchange for a man who was not only "ashamed to be an American," but by all accounts deserted his post. 6 men died as a direct result of missions, or the reallocation of resources, aimed at finding Sgt. Bergdahl and now even more lives are at risk because of this prisoner release and to think that this was a negotiation done in good faith by the Taliban and that the Qatari government is going to ensure that these terrorists will be monitored for a year (big deal, one year) is just another instance of this administration's naivety endangering lives.
It is because of this that Millennials who grew up knowing how bad these people are should be beyond outraged. The President who said he was for "hope and change" just released 5 men who cheered on what happened on 9/11. That day we were robbed of our innocence but enlightened to the realities of the world. Unfortunately we didn't use that awakening to elect a president who is capable of carrying and acting decisively with the images of that day at the forefront of his mind.
** There are two other quick points to be made. One is in regards to Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi who has been in a Mexican prison for over two months because he made a wrong turn. If President Obama is willing to negotiate with terrorists and release five terrorists for a man who deserted the military what is he willing to give for a soldier who wants to continue to fight for his country who is being held by our neighbor to the south because he let them know he made a wrong turn and had three guns in his trunk that he purchased and registered in the United States.
The second point is that we are supposed to trust this administration to keep a close eye on five terrorists who may go anywhere around the globe? I distinctly remember another Obama administration scandal where they allowed dangerous weapons to be trafficked across the Mexican border (with Mexican authorities unaware this was happening) in order to see where these weapons ended up in the hopes it would lead to some big fish. Well, the death of at least one American border agent and several Mexican citizens later and we have yet to hear a coherent reason as to why Operation Fast and Furious was put in place when Obama took office.
I guess the idea with this prisoner transfer is that once there is another bombing and we tie one of the Gitmo 5 to it then we will realize that we shouldn't trust that terrorist groups will act in good faith. Until then, just like with Fast and Furious, let's just cross our fingers and hope the public appetite for this story dies down.
What struck many of the Americans involved in the Bergdahl negotiations was the extent to which the Taliban showed "good faith" in the talks. "This demonstrates that we could come together, even indirectly…to produce a complex outcome. That does build confidence," the senior Obama administration official said.Everyone who is lucky enough to be a Millennial, including myself, grew up in the most prosperous circumstances this world has ever seen. Our childhoods, compared to previous ones, were ones of relative safety and with that safety came wealth, health, and an abundance of choices that our parents and certainly our grandparents never experiences in their youth. Us Millennials also grew up in a world where ever time we fly a plane, walk through a city, or even send an email we know we are being monitored in large part because 19 men hijacked planes and used them as bombs some 13 years ago in one of the most horrific acts this world has ever seen. It was our generation's introduction to true evil and we are reminded of it in small and sometimes large doses every single day.
And yet we are the generation responsible for electing a man who seems to have forgotten that there are truly evil people in the world.
The above paragraph, where and Obama administration official stated that they think the Taliban demonstrated good faith in these negotiations shows just how far removed this administration is from reality. The five terrorists who were released, and there is no doubt these men are terrorists, will no doubt reenter the fight on the side of radical Islam and look to hurt and kill Americans in the future. The Taliban knew exactly who they wanted freed, they wanted high level operatives, and they got them in exchange for a man who was not only "ashamed to be an American," but by all accounts deserted his post. 6 men died as a direct result of missions, or the reallocation of resources, aimed at finding Sgt. Bergdahl and now even more lives are at risk because of this prisoner release and to think that this was a negotiation done in good faith by the Taliban and that the Qatari government is going to ensure that these terrorists will be monitored for a year (big deal, one year) is just another instance of this administration's naivety endangering lives.
It is because of this that Millennials who grew up knowing how bad these people are should be beyond outraged. The President who said he was for "hope and change" just released 5 men who cheered on what happened on 9/11. That day we were robbed of our innocence but enlightened to the realities of the world. Unfortunately we didn't use that awakening to elect a president who is capable of carrying and acting decisively with the images of that day at the forefront of his mind.
** There are two other quick points to be made. One is in regards to Sgt. Andrew Tahmooressi who has been in a Mexican prison for over two months because he made a wrong turn. If President Obama is willing to negotiate with terrorists and release five terrorists for a man who deserted the military what is he willing to give for a soldier who wants to continue to fight for his country who is being held by our neighbor to the south because he let them know he made a wrong turn and had three guns in his trunk that he purchased and registered in the United States.
The second point is that we are supposed to trust this administration to keep a close eye on five terrorists who may go anywhere around the globe? I distinctly remember another Obama administration scandal where they allowed dangerous weapons to be trafficked across the Mexican border (with Mexican authorities unaware this was happening) in order to see where these weapons ended up in the hopes it would lead to some big fish. Well, the death of at least one American border agent and several Mexican citizens later and we have yet to hear a coherent reason as to why Operation Fast and Furious was put in place when Obama took office.
I guess the idea with this prisoner transfer is that once there is another bombing and we tie one of the Gitmo 5 to it then we will realize that we shouldn't trust that terrorist groups will act in good faith. Until then, just like with Fast and Furious, let's just cross our fingers and hope the public appetite for this story dies down.
Sunday, June 1, 2014
A Total Joke Courtesy of the AP
Via Politico PLaybook on May 31st, 2014:
The sad thing is Susan rice isn't even one of the top 5 biggest jokes in this admin.
SUSAN RICE PROFILE by AP White House Correspondent Julie Pace: "Rice has been keeping a list of issues at risk of being ignored: a trade agreement with Asia-Pacific nations, development projects in Africa, protecting gay rights overseas. She's sent the list around to some of those on the 400-person National Security Council staff she oversees. She holds weekend meetings when necessary to keep tabs on issues that may have gotten overshadowed by Mideast instability or Russia's threatening moves in Ukraine. ...Protecting gay rights? How about protecting Christians who are being slaughtered because this admin doesn't have a coherent foreign policy. How about speaking out about the woman in Sudan who was almost put to death for being a Christian (David Cameron spoke out about this, but where was Michelle's hashtag activism?) Oh, and what about the Marine being held in a Mexican prison for making a wrong turn when no less than three times during Obama's presidency Mexican troops were illegally across the border and drew weapons at our border patrol?
The sad thing is Susan rice isn't even one of the top 5 biggest jokes in this admin.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Who Do You Believe, Me Or Your Lying Eyes?
There is a larger point to make about the media, specifically Democrats in the media (there I go being redundant), giving free advice to conservatives about who they should run against Hillary in 2016 but I am going to try and stick with this one instance of unsolicited advice from the left.
I will leave you with this, as I could spend days linking to and expanding upon articles about why this is not just bad politics for the right, but basically the worst idea for the economy since ObamaCare. Suffice to say, if even the more popular and easy to achieve piece of immigration "reform" is based on a total lie the reality of what would happen if full-blown amnesty is passed will probably be far worse than our practical minds will allow us to comprehend. I mean, we have to believe that Rep. Gutierrez has the best interests of the conservative movement and the country in mind...right?
President George W. Bush will be regarded by history as the last Republican President of the United States, according to Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (D-IL), if the GOP does not embrace and pass immigration reform.Well, I guess that is it for the Republican Party (though there are many who would question how conservative Dubya was, including myself). The death of the Republican Party is, to borrow a term from another group of activists, "settled science." Unless we on the right agree to grant citizenship to 30 million low-skilled, non-english speaking illegal aliens then the Democrats will win until the end of time...or at least until they can't print any more money to finance the welfare these future marginally attached to the workforce laborers will need to survive in our horrible Kochconomy.
“If you do nothing on immigration, I guess you can take comfort in knowing that, from Abraham Lincoln to George W. Bush, you had a pretty good run,” Gutiérrez added. “Freeing the slaves, winning the Civil War, interstate highway system; those all go in the highlight column. And there have been some low lights as well.”
I will leave you with this, as I could spend days linking to and expanding upon articles about why this is not just bad politics for the right, but basically the worst idea for the economy since ObamaCare. Suffice to say, if even the more popular and easy to achieve piece of immigration "reform" is based on a total lie the reality of what would happen if full-blown amnesty is passed will probably be far worse than our practical minds will allow us to comprehend. I mean, we have to believe that Rep. Gutierrez has the best interests of the conservative movement and the country in mind...right?
Monday, May 19, 2014
Nevada: Ground Zero for the battle inside the GOP
This falls under the category of "Right conclusion, wrong reason."
Now, onto the other subject at hand, which is the fight between social conservatives and the more libertarian element in the GOP. The Nevada GOP is doing what the Nevada GOP thinks is best for the GOP to succeed in Nevada. This doesn't mean the pro-life movement will be ignored in the state (especially because GOP primary voters are generally overwhelmingly pro-life) or that the GOP is suddenly going to hold hands with the left and turn the state into one giant Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, the GOP in Nevada will continue to attract pro-life candidates the only difference being that if someone like their current Governor comes who happens to be pro-abortion that they won't be put off by the party platform (not that he was in the first place). All politics is local and this is what the Nevada GOP thinks will put them in position to win elections in the coming years.
What bothers me more isn't so much the "this is an attack on God" stuff but the complete disregard for inter-party federalism. I would put money on the people who are angry about the Nevada GOP removing social issues from their platform are the same people who are upset about Common Core and other areas of federal overreach because "people in Washington don't know what is best for me." They are absolutely right, which is why the 10th Amendment exists (and why it needs to be enforced more strictly). People in New Hampshire don't know what is best for people in Florida and the people of Oklahoma don't know what is best for the people of Nevada. I don't agree with what Nevada did, but the fact of the matter is that I don't live in Nevada because it is a state that doesn't appeal to me who a wide range of issue, this now being one of them.
Lastly, no one votes for a party platform. I understand why they exist, but why can't it be short like "The Republican Party: We believe you know what is best for you and your family." People vote for candidates, not platforms, and as a free market evangelist why not have a Nevada GOP platform candidate out there running nationally? The market will end up deciding if they succeed in being elected. Even as a pro-lifer I am far more offended at the idea that I know how to run the lives of people in a different state (and their party) more than they do than I am at the Nevada GOP pulling social issues out of their platform. Maybe the folks in Nevada are right and I am wrong. I don't think I am, and I will always be pro-life, but if states are the "laboratories of democracy" when it comes to policy, why can't it be this way for political parties as well?
Oh, and the Nevada GOP held a 2016 straw poll as well. The winner? Pro-life Senator Rand Paul.
Social conservatives say the Republican Party should deny Las Vegas’s bid to host its 2016 presidential convention after the Nevada Republican Party erased from its platform the pro-life and traditional-marriage language.There is a lot to work with here, but first let's knock down the idea that Las Vegas is a good location for the GOP convention. The Nevada state GOP platform shouldn't have anything to do with it because the Nevada state platform is not the star of the show, it is a 4-day rally to get the troops motivated and to formally introduce the nominee to the nation. The reason a Las Vegas convention is stupid is because there are too many ways to get in trouble and there will be cameras EVERYWHERE. Not just TV cameras and reporters, but anonymous trackers for liberal orgs who will be ready to upload every single step everyone associated with the convention online. There is absolutely no reason why Republicans should pick a location where the negatives far out-weigh the positives. What happens in Vegas would soon be on HuffPo.
Diana Orrick, a Nevada RNC member, said grumbling over the changes is “ridiculous.”
“If you look at what is happening across the nation. I think a lot of Republicans are recognizing the social issues are destroying the Republican Party. They really are,” she said.
The Washington Times reported this month that the move came under fire from some Republicans, including Oklahoma Republican National Committee member Carolyn McLarty, a staunch opponent of abortion, who called the action an “attack on God and family.”
Ed Martin, chairman of the Missouri GOP and an RNC member, said that the move is a “big blow” to Las Vegas’s chances of hosting the party’s quadrennial made for television event.
Now, onto the other subject at hand, which is the fight between social conservatives and the more libertarian element in the GOP. The Nevada GOP is doing what the Nevada GOP thinks is best for the GOP to succeed in Nevada. This doesn't mean the pro-life movement will be ignored in the state (especially because GOP primary voters are generally overwhelmingly pro-life) or that the GOP is suddenly going to hold hands with the left and turn the state into one giant Planned Parenthood. On the contrary, the GOP in Nevada will continue to attract pro-life candidates the only difference being that if someone like their current Governor comes who happens to be pro-abortion that they won't be put off by the party platform (not that he was in the first place). All politics is local and this is what the Nevada GOP thinks will put them in position to win elections in the coming years.
What bothers me more isn't so much the "this is an attack on God" stuff but the complete disregard for inter-party federalism. I would put money on the people who are angry about the Nevada GOP removing social issues from their platform are the same people who are upset about Common Core and other areas of federal overreach because "people in Washington don't know what is best for me." They are absolutely right, which is why the 10th Amendment exists (and why it needs to be enforced more strictly). People in New Hampshire don't know what is best for people in Florida and the people of Oklahoma don't know what is best for the people of Nevada. I don't agree with what Nevada did, but the fact of the matter is that I don't live in Nevada because it is a state that doesn't appeal to me who a wide range of issue, this now being one of them.
Lastly, no one votes for a party platform. I understand why they exist, but why can't it be short like "The Republican Party: We believe you know what is best for you and your family." People vote for candidates, not platforms, and as a free market evangelist why not have a Nevada GOP platform candidate out there running nationally? The market will end up deciding if they succeed in being elected. Even as a pro-lifer I am far more offended at the idea that I know how to run the lives of people in a different state (and their party) more than they do than I am at the Nevada GOP pulling social issues out of their platform. Maybe the folks in Nevada are right and I am wrong. I don't think I am, and I will always be pro-life, but if states are the "laboratories of democracy" when it comes to policy, why can't it be this way for political parties as well?
Oh, and the Nevada GOP held a 2016 straw poll as well. The winner? Pro-life Senator Rand Paul.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)