Is Hillary electable?

Hillary Clinton has finally announced her candidacy for president. Her candidacy was begun with a tweet and a two-and-a-half minute You Tube video, of which only about 40 seconds is Hillary giving her announcement and rationale for seeking office.

In contrast to the Republican hopefuls, who kicked off their presidential campaigns to adoring crowds, Hillary’s campaign began with a soundbite on social media followed by a trip in her “Scooby” van to Iowa with no organized campaign stops along the way. Hillary’s presidential announcement was almost secretive in comparison to the Republicans, with no rallies, no crowds of supporters and no questions from the media.

Hillary’s trip to Iowa is more akin to a fugitive sneaking across the state line than a triumphant politician arriving to assume her mandate. When Clinton’s “Scooby” van stopped at an Ohio Chipotle restaurant, the presumptive Democratic nominee was incognito, hiding behind a large pair of sunglasses. She not only did no campaigning, but she was only recognized when the manager examined the store’s surveillance videos after being tipped by a New York Times reporter than Hillary had visited the restaurant. Neither employees nor other customers had recognized the former First Lady.

Dick Morris, a longtime confidante of the Clintons, explains that the subterfuge is part of Hillary’s nature. Unlike her extroverted, fun-loving husband, Hillary is “hidden, paranoid, secret, controlled, and scripted” according to Morris. Where Bill was a natural campaigner, Morris calls Hillary a “born bureaucrat” who sticks “to a script, blundering when she make the slightest departure.”

The current crop of scandals that are already dogging the Clinton campaign can only serve to heighten Hillary’s sense of secrecy and paranoia. She has hidden from the media for the past several months as the scandal of her personal email server and deleted emails developed. Questions about the legality of sending classified documents via unsecure personal email and an unsecure server mean that Hillary has to consider that any questions that she answers might come back to haunt her in a criminal proceeding.

Keeping Hillary away from the media and real voters also minimizes the chance of an embarrassing gaffe. Ms. Clinton is known for a number of misstatements, such as when she asked congressional Benghazi investigators, “What difference, at this point does it make?” or when she claimed that the Clintons were “dead broke” upon leaving the White House in 2001.

One embarrassing error has already occurred. Hillary’s long-awaited announcement also came with a serious typo according to Bloomberg. A press release heralding her announcement claimed that she had “fought children and families all her career,” omitting the word “for.” Although the wording was quickly corrected, it is shocking that such a high profile announcement on a multibillion dollar campaign could have seen the light of day.

Similarly, Hillary’s campaign logo, a blue “H” with a red arrow, quickly became the target of widespread ridicule. Many claimed it resembled a road sign that pointed toward a hospital or the FedEx logo. Julian Assange claimed that it was based on the WikiLeaks logo.

Hillary has long been assumed to be inevitable by many on both the left and right. Now with her lack of campaign skills, scandals, and a slipshod campaign becoming evident, the question is whether she is electable at all.

Hillary’s biggest advantage over any Republican is that she is well known. Many Republican candidates are new to the national stage and not familiar outside the GOP. According to Gallup, 90 percent of Americans are already familiar with Hillary. No Republican even comes close.

The downside for Hillary is that, while she is well known, she is also a polarizing figure. Even the Huffington Post puts her approval rating almost equal with her disapproval at 47 – 46 percent. Further, polls that use likely voters rather than adults give her a much high negative rating. Republican candidates are not as well known, but have much lower negatives.

While Hillary’s name recognition gave her an early lead in polling, there are signs that her lead may already be fading. Karl Rove pointed out in the Wall St. Journal that recent polling in 15 battleground states showed Ms. Clinton trailing a generic Republican. Recent polling available on Real Clear Politics also shows several races around the country where Republicans Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Rick Perry hold slight leads over Ms. Clinton.

Nevertheless, Hillary’s failings may be more than offset by several factors. First, whoever the eventual Democratic nominee is will win at least 40-45 percent of the popular vote. The worst Democratic wipeout in recent history, Richard Nixon’s 1972 trouncing of George McGovern, still saw McGovern win 37 percent of the vote even as he lost 49 states. Ms. Clinton would undoubtedly do much better than McGovern. With normally reliable Democratic states such as those carried by John Kerry in 2004, any Democratic candidate can be expected to win at least 200 of the 270 electoral votes needed just by appearing on the ballot as a Democrat.

Second, Ms. Clinton now heads the Clinton money machine. Hillary is backed by many on Wall Street including friends at Goldman Sachs. The Clintons also have a well-established network of foreign contributors. Republican candidates will be struggling to establish support networks for the first time, which will put them at a disadvantage. Additionally, it seems unlikely that Hillary will face a serious primary threat, which will enable her to get a head start on general election campaigning and fundraising.

Finally, Hillary will benefit by default if the Republicans nominate someone who seems more extreme and unlikable than she is. Hillary’s negatives will only take Republicans so far. The Republican nominee must be able to close the deal with moderate and independent voters. This will require the ability to present a positive vision to voters and not simply focus on negatives like Ms. Clinton’s poor record or promising to repeal Obamacare. The Republican candidate must convince voters that he cares about them more than Ms. Clinton does.

Despite her problems, Ms. Clinton’s money and network alone make her a formidable candidate, but not an inevitable one. Conservatives would do well to remember that she has only run in three elections, twice for the Senate and once for president. Of these, only one, the 2008 Democratic primary, was a tough race. Hillary lost.

 

Read the full article on Examiner.com

Can Scott Walker unite the GOP?

The factions of the GOP are split and the Wisconsin governor is one of few candidates that can bring them together.

Scott Walker, the Republican governor of Wisconsin, has generated much buzz as a potential presidential candidate since he addressed the Freedom Summit in Des Moines, Iowa on January 24. Walker has jumped to the front of a crowded Republican field and may be uniquely qualified to unite the various factions of the Republican Party.

There are a number of factions within the GOP, the two most obvious being the establishment and the Tea Party. In addition to these groups, there are also religious conservatives, foreign policy conservatives, and libertarians. Most of the potential Republican nominees are championed by only one or two of these groups. For example, Chris Christie and Jeb Bush fall into the establishment category. Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and Sarah Palin are prominent candidates from the Tea Party. Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum have the support of the religious wing of the GOP. Rand Paul is the obvious libertarian choice and no strong foreign policy candidates have yet emerged. Scott Walker is one of few candidates with the potential to bridge the divides between these groups.

Establishment excitement

Establishment Republicans like Scott Walker for his effectiveness and his experience as the governor of Wisconsin. Many conservatives favor a governor with proven leadership abilities after two terms of the meanderings of a former community organizer who was never tasked with a management position until he won the White House. The proven ability to get things done and forge majorities is a big plus for the next Republican nominee.

Additionally, establishment Republicans appreciate the fact that Walker is the best vetted candidate in the country. Likewise, after successfully managing three hotly contested campaigns (two gubernatorial campaigns and recall attempt), the potential for unforced errors is less likely than with untested candidates. Both areas have plagued many Tea Party candidates in the past and caused Republicans to lose races that should have been easily winnable.

Terrific Tea Partier

From the Tea Party point of view, Scott Walker is a fighter. He faced down Wisconsin’s public employee unions and won. He also cut taxes and moved the state budget from a deficit to a surplus. According to National Review, 95 percent of the state’s employers think that Wisconsin is on the right track, reflecting Walker’s pro-business and limited government policies. Walker’s new budget proposal also bans the use of Common Core assessment tests in Wisconsin’s public schools.

Walker’s views largely match those of Tea Party favorite Ted Cruz, but, unlike Cruz, Walker has a record of accomplishment. Where Cruz has made a name for himself in making principled, but ultimately unsuccessful stands against Obamacare and the debt ceiling, Scott Walker can point to a record of accomplishments in Wisconsin.

Religious, but not radical

Walker can also appeal to both religious and secular Republicans. He grew up as the son of Baptist pastor, notes the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. As a boy in Iowa he even started a “Jesus USA” club to do good deeds. In March 2014, he attracted the ire of the Freedom from Religion Foundation when he posted Philippians 4:13 on his official state Facebook and Twitter feeds.

Walker is pro-life and a defender of traditional marriage as well. In an October 2014 letter described in the Journal-Sentinel, Walker described how he signed a bill requiring ultrasounds for women seeking abortions and hospital-admitting privileges for doctors at abortion clinics. Walker also cut off state funding for abortion providers. With respect to marriage, Walker supports traditional marriage, but a court decision establishing gay marriage in Wisconsin meant that the issue was not prominent in his reelection campaign. As the governor of a blue state, Walker is seen as more mainstream in his faith than Huckabee and Santorum by secular Republicans.

As governor, Walker also had support from libertarians. Walker’s limited government policies and challenges to public unions drew the endorsement of the national Libertarian Party in 2012. When foreign policy becomes an issue in a national campaign, support from libertarians might become more problematic, especially if the pacifist Rand Paul runs.

Aggressive on foreign policy

On foreign policy, Walker has begun to stake out a claim that is decidedly not pacifist. He recently told ABC News, “I think aggressively, we need to take the fight to ISIS and any other radical Islamic terrorist in and around the world, because it’s not a matter of when they attempt an attack on American soil, or not if I should say, it’s when, and we need leadership that says clearly, not only amongst the United States but amongst our allies, that we’re willing to take appropriate action.”

Walker went on to say, “We have to look at other surgical methods. And ultimately, we have to be prepared to put boots on the ground if that’s what it takes.” He continued, “I don’t think that’s an immediate plan. [But] I wouldn’t rule anything out.”

Walker’s sharp comments come after months of executions by ISIS and the Charlie Hebdo murders in Paris. Polling shows that voters are sharply critical of President Obama’s tepid response to Islamic terror, but are not necessarily ready to commit U.S. ground forces to the fight in Syria.

Immigration impasse

On immigration reform, Walker opposes an amnesty, but does see the need for immigration reform and securing the border. He told ABC News, “We need to enforce the laws in the United States, and we need to find a way for people to have a legitimate legal immigration system in this country, and that does not mean amnesty.”

So far, Walker has been vague about his position on immigration, but at various times has voiced opposition to the idea of deporting all illegal aliens and support for a pathway to legalization. With some conservatives decrying any suggestion of reform as “amnesty,” the issue of immigration is likely to be the most difficult for Walker to negotiate in the Republican primaries.

Other possible uniters

Scott Walker is not the only candidate with the potential to unite the GOP. Several other candidates might possibly bring the establishment and Tea Party, the two largest factions, together, but each has their own weakness. Marco Rubio has broad support, but as a one-term senator has little leadership experience. Rick Perry is a successful governor of Texas, but is under indictment for abuse of official capacity and must overcome his poor performance from 2012. Bobby Jindal is the two-term governor of Louisiana, but faces questions of effectiveness and experience at the national level.

The down side

There are several potential problems that might affect a Walker campaign. A simmering investigation in Wisconsin has searched for illegal coordination between conservative groups and Walker’s gubernatorial campaign. A recent Washington Post column hinted at how Democrats might respond to a Walker candidacy. Points of attack include Walker’s cuts to the University of Wisconsin and the state’s Seniorcare prescription drug program. Walker’s response to a projected budget shortfall was a round of spending cuts. Additionally, Walker is one of the few politicians at the national level without a college degree.

Walker’s largest obstacle at this point is coming to terms with immigration reform. While a small, vocal minority in the GOP opposes any change to immigration laws, a large majority of Americans want the system fixed. According to a Beyond the Beltway poll from December, 48 percent, a plurality, favor “a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers if they undergo a background check, pay taxes, and learn English.” This is one area where Republicans are out of step with the rest of the country.

Veering right on immigration in the GOP primary may prove fatal in the general election. Some observers believe that Mitt Romney’s fate was sealed in 2012 by his comments in the primary about “self-deportation.” Romney ended up losing the Hispanic vote by 44 percent according to CNN, a worse performance than any Republican candidate since Bob Dole.

So early into the 2016 race, anything can happen. At this point, Walker is not even a declared candidate yet. Nevertheless, he is well positioned to bring Republicans together, an important first step taking back the White House.

 

Read the full article on Elections Examiner.com

How to solve the GOP problem with minorities and millennnials

Barack Obama’s two presidential election victories were built on the backs of three groups in which he received landslide victories. Obama won with margins on the order of two-to-one with black, Hispanic and young voters both times he ran. These lopsided numbers provided him with the slim margin that he needed to eke out a victory over Mitt Romney in spite of a strong showing by Romney among white voters. If any Republican hopes to win a national election in the future, it is axiomatic that he must slice deeply into the Democratic advantage with minority and millennial voters.

 The Democratic plan has been one of targeting their message to individual demographic groups in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Black voters are told that Republicans are racist and want to suppress them at the polls and repeal the Voting Rights Act. Hispanics are told that Republicans are racist and want to deport them. Millennials are swayed by Obama’s “cool” factor. The razor thin rationales targeting the various demographic groups should be permeable to Republican attacks.

President Obama’s unpopularity and the failure of his agenda present a unique opportunity for Republicans. Voters who were firmly in the Obama camp may now be willing to listen to alternative viewpoints. Charles Ellison recently wrote in The Root that dissatisfaction with the president and high black unemployment are resulting in tempered black support for Democratic candidates. Likewise, high unemployment among millennials may hurt their support for Democrats as well. With respect to Hispanics, Democrats have promised immigration reform for six years and failed to deliver.

The necessary first step for Republicans is to remove the stumbling blocks that prevent minorities from voting for Republican candidates. Republican candidates should put themselves in the shoes of minority voters and acknowledge that black and Hispanic Americans do have a different experience than white Americans. Republicans should take this into account and consider how certain messages will sound to minority voters.

Guilt by association is real. Conservatives should temper their enthusiasm for the defense of people like George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson. Springing to the defense of alleged murderers, especially before all the facts are known, is just as wrong as calling for their heads. Conservatives should also distance themselves from racists such as Cliven Bundy and Donald Sterling. These people have the freedom to spout racist nonsense, but they don’t have the freedom to duck the consequences.

Conservatives should also refrain from pointing out that Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the other race baiters are the real racists. It’s obvious, but also irrelevant, that there is a double standard.
The biggest stumbling block for Hispanics is immigration. The Tea Party fringe that insists on deportation and no “amnesty,” by which they mean any immigration reform, seems bent on driving Latinos permanently into the Democratic camp. These opponents of “amnesty” claim not to the see the problems in the current system in which businesses and farms depend on immigrant labor, but under which legal immigration can take decades.

The next step for Republicans is to show up. Republican candidates should make frequent visits to ethnic neighborhoods and listen to the voters there. This should not merely be an election year exercise. They should forge long-term relationships with community leaders. It is harder to paint a Republican as an evil racist if the people already know and trust him. Minority voters won’t vote for Republicans if Republican candidates don’t show up to ask for their votes.

Finally, Republicans should find out where a majority Americans agree with them and oppose the Democrats. An October 2014 Gallup poll found that the top three issues for voters were the economy (17 percent), dissatisfaction with government (16 percent) and unemployment/jobs (10 percent). These were the only issues to rank in double-digits and, coincidentally, a separate Gallup poll found that voters favor Republicans on these issues. These are the issues that Republicans should be talking about.

While Republicans should not mimic the Democratic ploy of making separate promises to different demographic groups, they should target campaign messages to different groups. While it is true that a rising tide lifts all boats and that conservative principles would benefit the nation as a whole, Republicans can no longer simply spin out a generic message and wait for minority voters to flock to their banner.

The best strategy may be to take the advice of economist Arthur Brooks, who wrote in the Wall St. Journal that conservatives must make their policies personal to voters instead of railing against abstract ideas and things. By connecting with voters on a personal level and explaining how conservative ideas can help the poor, Brooks says, “Conservative leaders will be able to stand before Americans who are struggling and feel marginalized and say, ‘We will fight for you and your family, whether you vote for us or not’—and truly mean it.”

This means that conservatives should spend less time talking about abstract ideas and social issues. Republicans must deemphasize issues like abortion, marriage and even the repeal of ObamaCare. They should completely stop talking about things like amnesty, impeachment, and birth certificates. At best these issues are divisive. At worst, they alienate voters.

What Republicans should spend more time talking about how is Democratic policies hurt real people and their families, playing to their advantage on the economy and jobs. Republican candidates should stand with the unemployed who have been unable to find jobs in the Obama economy, the family breadwinner struggling to support a family on less than he made in 2008, the college graduate with no employment prospects and the cancer patient whose health insurance policy was canceled due to the Affordable Care Act. Republicans should make an emotional connection with voters by putting names and faces to real effects of the Obama agenda.

When the Republicans win control of the Senate, passing immigration reform unilaterally should be a top priority. If President Obama chooses to veto Republican immigration reform, the Democrats might well incur the wrath of Hispanic voters, while the Republicans could, for once, be the party of “si’.” Democrats promised immigration reform for six years, but didn’t deliver. This leaves the GOP with an opportunity. One need look back no further than 2004, or even more recently to Chris Christie in New Jersey and Rick Perry in Texas, to see that a conservative can win Hispanic votes.

With respect to millennials, emphasizing jobs and playing down social issues may help the GOP since younger voters tend to be more liberal on social issues, but may lean conservative on size and role of government. Removing Obama from the ballot may help as well. Potential Democratic candidates such as Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Elizabeth Warren lack the president’s hipness and youth appeal. In the pre-Obama elections, young voters were more closely divided. George W. Bush even tied the demographic with Al Gore in 2000.

Republicans don’t have to change their principles or write off entire demographics to the Democrats, but neither will these groups simply fall into the GOP camp by default. To win these voters, Republicans must show up, listen to their concerns, and convince them that conservative ideas will make their lives better. Read the rest on Examiner.com

Perry indictment is part of campaign of harassment against conservatives

The news of the indictment against Texas Governor Rick Perry on charges of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official surprised the country and shook up the early presidential race for 2016. Debate ranged from how the charges would affect Perry’s chances at winning the Republican nomination and the White House to whether Perry would be convicted. A surprising number of liberals and Democrats have broken ranks to defend what many call an unconstitutional attempt to criminalize politics as usual. This is not the first time in recent memory that prosecutors have pressed charges against Republicans on dubious grounds.

In Texas, the Travis County DA office has prosecuted other high profile Republicans. In 1993, Rosemary Lemberg’s predecessor, Ronnie Earle, indicted newly elected U.S. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on charges of misusing her previous office of state treasurer according to National Review. Hutchison was originally elected in a special election and faced the prospect of running for reelection in 1994 with the indictment hanging over her head. She pressed for a quick resolution and, when the case went to trial, Earle told the court that he could not proceed without the admission of records seized from Hutchison’s office without a search warrant. The judge promptly ordered the jury to return a verdict of not guilty.

After the acquittal, Hutchison requested that the records be released, saying, “The case was not there. They turned around and ran because they knew the longer they went, the more embarrassing it was going to be. . . . They thought the lady would crack. Well, the lady wouldn’t crack.”

In 2010, it was Tom Delay’s turn to face the Travis County DA. Delay was convicted on money laundering charges stemming from accusations that he funneled corporate money to Republican candidates. Delay, a former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, was sentenced to three years in prison, but remained free on bail while he appealed. His conviction was overturned in 2013 by a three judge panel of a Texas appellate court. The decision said that evidence in the case was “legally insufficient” according to the Washington Post.

In 2008, Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was indicted on felony charges of failing to properly report gifts less than four months before that year’s election. He was found guilty of making false statements on Oct. 27 and promptly lost his reelection fight to Mark Begich. A few months later in February 2009, an FBI agent became a whistleblower and revealed that prosecutors and FBI agents had withheld key evidence and witnesses that would have supported Stevens’ claims of innocence as well introducing evidence that they knew to be false. In April 2009, a federal judge vacated Stevens’ conviction. Politico reported in 2012 that a special investigator’s review of the case found that misconduct by the prosecutors and FBI had tainted the trial. Stevens died in a plane crash in 2010 and his Senate seat remains in Democratic hands.

Two other Republican governors, Chris Christie (N.J.) and Scott Walker (Wisc.), are also potentially under investigation according to Salon. In New Jersey, prosecutors are trying to tie Chris Christie to the “Bridge-gate” scandal as well as diversion of Port Authority money to New Jersey road and bridge projects and real estate deals by David Samson, Christie’s appointee to chair the Port Authority’s Board of Commissioners. According to Esquire, anonymous “sources with intimate knowledge” of U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman’s investigation say Christie’s Port Authority appointees and former chief counsel “face near-certain indictment and are being pressed to hand up Christie.”

Walker may come under investigation for illegally coordinating with outside groups in his 2012 fight against recall. Walker triumphed in the election, but, as described by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, the Milwaukee County prosecutor, a Democrat, launched a John Doe probe, an investigation allowed under Wisconsin law that allows the government to “compel people to produce documents and give testimony, as well as bar them from talking publicly about the investigation.” A federal judge ordered an end to the probe in May 2014, according to MSNBC, noting that no laws had been broken. Under Wisconsin law, issue ads that do not endorse or attack a specific candidate are not considered expenditures for a campaign and are not subject to laws regarding coordination with the candidate. This issue was previously decided in Wisconsin Right to Life v. Barland.

Republicans do not have to be prominent elected officials to attract the attention of partisan prosecutors. Since 2013, a series of articles in the Wall St. Journal have detailed how prosecutors in Wisconsin have subpoenaed 29 conservative groups in the John Doe probe. In June 2014, the Journal noted that so far prosecutors have failed to show probable cause that any crime had been committed and pointed out that the coordination in Wisconsin strongly resembled the President Obama’s 2012 campaign. Nevertheless, recent reports by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Fox News indicate that personal information from members of conservative groups such as Wisconsin Club for Growth were released by a federal appeals court and posted online, allegedly by mistake.

The John Doe probe in Wisconsin is reminiscent of the IRS harassment of conservative groups that has been ongoing under the Obama Administration. Far from targeting high profile Republicans, the IRS focused its abuse on grassroots leaders of Tea Party groups. In one instance, cited by the Chicago Sun-Times, Catherine Engelbrecht, a small business owner involved with two nonprofit political groups beginning in 2010, was suddenly subjected to more than 15 federal audits and inquiries. In addition to the IRS, she was contacted by OSHA, the FBI, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, among others.

The IRS admitted to both the harassment of conservative groups and illegally leaking confidential tax information to liberal groups during the 2012 presidential election. In June 2014, the Daily Signal reported that the IRS had agreed to pay $50,000 to the National Organization for Marriage. The IRS had leaked the group’s donor list, including names and contact information to the gay activist group, the Human Rights Campaign, which then published the data. Even though leaking confidential tax information is a felony, no criminal charges have been filed against anyone at the IRS.

There are also indications that Lois Lerner, the official at the center of the IRS scandal, may have had a history of malicious prosecutions at the Federal Election Commission as well. The Illinois Review reported that Republican senate candidate Al Salvi was the subject of several FEC complaints regarding campaign finances in the last weeks of his 1996 campaign against Dick Durbin. The complaints were ultimately dismissed in 2000, but not before Salvi received a strange offer from an FEC official he identified as Lois Lerner. Salvi says that, in a conversation that included Mike Salvi, his brother and attorney, Lerner told him, “If you promise to never run for office again, we'll drop this case.” Salvi refused. Four years and $100,000 in legal fees later, the FEC case against Salvi was dismissed.

These high profile cases are likely not the only instances of malicious prosecution of conservatives. At the state and local level, it is easy for such cases to avoid national scrutiny. The Wisconsin John Doe probe has largely been ignored by the national media. (Those aware of similar cases can contact the author.) In many other instances, such as harassment of California supporters of Prop 8 and the demonization of the Koch brothers, there was no prosecution, but a blatant attempt to intimidate and silence conservatives.

It is increasingly evident that the harassment, intimidation and malicious prosecution of Republican officeholders and conservative activists, often in the name of campaign finance reform, are an integral part of the Democratic playbook. As long as such attempts at stifling free speech succeed with no consequences for the left, they are likely to continue.

 

Read the full article on Examiner

Many Democrats side with Rick Perry on indictment

In the days since Rick Perry’s indictment on charges of abuse of official capacity and coercion of a public official, many prominent Democrats have condemned the move by a Texas special prosecutor. As Perry’s attorneys announced on Friday, August 22, that he would seek to have the charges dismissed on constitutional grounds according to the El Paso Times, a large number of Democrats around the country agree with Perry that the governor’s actions were not criminal and were protected under the Constitutions of Texas and the United States.

Although Perry’s indictment was initially applauded by many on the left, the flimsy nature of the charges quickly led many liberals and Democrats to condemn what USA Today called a “bid to criminalize politics.” Even the New York Times called the indictment “the product of overzealous prosecution” and opined that “bad political judgment is not necessarily a felony.”

The indictment stems from a dispute between the governor and the Travis County District Attorney. The DA, Rosemary Lehmberg, was arrested for drunk driving in April 2013 with a blood alcohol content almost three times the legal limit. While in custody, Lehmberg had to be restrained. Video of her arrest was posted online by KOKE, an Austin radio station. When Lehmberg was convicted, Perry argued that she had lost public confidence and should resign. When she refused, Perry ultimately vetoed $7.5 million in state funding for Lehmberg’s office in June 2013. Lehmberg is still serving as the Travis County DA, but is not planning to seek reelection in 2016.

The fact that Lehmberg’s office had investigated the Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, one of Rick Perry’s pet projects, for corruption muddies the waters. The criminal investigation into the cancer institute concluded in December 2013 without targeting Perry or his staff according to the Wall St. Journal. Although cited by Democrats as a motive for Perry’s veto, the indictment does not mention the cancer institute investigation.

First to break ranks was David Axelrod on August 16. In a tweet, Axelrod, a former Clinton advisor, called Perry’s indictment “pretty sketchy.” Three days later, Axelrod defended himself in a series of tweets after receiving “unhappy emails” from anti-Perry Twitter followers,

Lanny Davis, formerly the special counsel to Bill Clinton, joined Axelrod’s dissent a few days later with a column in The Hill. Davis called the indictment “shameful” and wrote that “whether Perry was right or wrong in vetoing that funding… is not relevant. The voters get to decide that issue.” Davis called the indictment “a perversion of the criminal justice system, a classic case of prosecutorial abuse, to indict Perry as a way of deciding the wisdom of his veto.”

Davis goes on to scold Democrats for the presumption of Perry’s guilt. “It is even more outrageous to anyone who cares about due process and civil liberties,” he writes, “to read the comments from local and state Democrats in the state Texas Democratic Party about the Perry indictment.”

“In fact, an indictment is evidence of nothing,” Davis continues. “It is literally just an accusation, not even close to proven facts.”

Self-proclaimed liberal Democrat and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz agrees, saying that Perry’s veto threat is “not anything for a criminal indictment” in an interview on NewsMax TV. Dershowitz called the two statutes that Perry was accused of violating “reminiscent of the old Soviet Union” and says this is “what happens in totalitarian societies.”
Mark Halperin, political analyst for Time Magazine and MSNBC and author of “Game Change,” a book about the 2008 election, called the indictment “the stupidest thing I think I’ve seen in my career” on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” He continued, “I hope some judge throws it out right away. It’s not just kind of funny and ridiculous; it’s an infringement on individual liberties.” Halperin noted that Perry doesn’t lose his First Amendment rights “just because he’s governor of Texas.”

UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh, author of the Volokh Conspiracy legal blog for the Washington Post points out several legal problems with the indictment for abuse of office. First, the Texas law requires that the public servant must have “custody or possession” of the property that was misused. Perry never had possession of the Public Integrity Unit funds since his veto prevented them from ever being appropriated. Second, Volokh notes that vetoing funds is not a misuse of funds or a violation of Perry’s oath of office. Finally, Volokh notes that vetoes are legal under the Texas Constitution, even to influence other officials, which Volokh calls “behavior that is commonplace in the political process.”

The Volokh Conspiracy also finds fault with the charge of coercion. Volokh cites the 1990 decision by a Texas court in State v. Hanson in which the Court noted that “Coercion of a lawful act by a threat of lawful action is protected free expression.” The decision also pointed out, “Freedom of speech must encompass the liberty of elected officials to discuss matters of public concern without prior restraint or fear of punishment. A vague statute that potentially could punish protected political debate violates due process because of its chilling effect on the exercise of that essential right.”

Perhaps USA Today summarized the problem with the case best: “The case rests on a highly dubious legal argument: Perry can exercise his rights of free speech to seek Lehmberg's resignation, and he can exercise his power of the line-item veto over use of state funds. But, supposedly, he can't do them in tandem.”

Read the full article on Elections Examiner

Why did God allow Tebow, Bachmann to fail?

It is seemingly a bad year for God and his followers. Outspoken Christian Tim Tebow and his Denver Broncos suffered a blowout loss in the NFL playoffs at the hands of the New England Patriots. Of the three Republican candidates who claim that God told them to run for president, two (Michelle Bachmann and Georgia native Herman Cain) have already withdrawn from the race and the last (Rick Perry) is on the ropes.

Why would God put some of his most high-profile followers in the position to suffer such humiliating defeats? Why would God tell three different candidates to run for office in the same election? Is God hedging his bets?

Questions similar to these are not new. Believers have wrestled with the question of why bad things happen to good people at least since the Old Testament days of Job and probably earlier. Job was tormented by Satan, who that took all his worldly possessions, killed his family, and left Job with painful illnesses.

In response to Job’s questioning, God answers that he is the sovereign ruler of the universe and does not answer to men. Essentially, humans with limited knowledge cannot hope to understand why God chooses to do what he does.

Nevertheless, it is tempting to speculate on the possibilities. One obvious answer is that God may not have instructed the candidates at all. It is possible that one or more may have misinterpreted his message. Atheists would probably default to this argument since they don’t believe that God is real. Therefore, any presumed communication from God must be a misunderstanding in their view.

A second possibility is that God’s goal for his people was not what the rest of us think. It is obvious that God’s priorities are not the same as our own. In some cases, God gives instructions to people that are not meant to succeed by the world’s standards. The Old Testament prophet Hosea is one such case.

Hosea was called by God to preach God’s unending love to the people of ancient Israel. During the time of Hosea’s ministry, the ancient Israelites were rejecting God in favor of Canaanite gods such as Baal. God sent Hosea to tell the people that he still loved them, but that they would be punished if they continued to reject him. In the process of spreading God’s message, Hosea entered into an unhappy marriage in which his wife was unfaithful. Her rejection of Hosea became a metaphor for Israel’s rejection of God. Hosea never had a single convert throughout his ministry, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he was a failure since he fulfilled the role that God had for him.

Maybe Tim Tebow isn’t a failure because he failed to win the Super Bowl. Maybe Tebow is a success because he honors God and sets a good example. Maybe Tebow is a success because he lives the words of the Apostle Paul who said, ”Whatever you do, whether in word or deed, do it all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him” (Colossians 3:17). It is much more difficult to be a good loser than a good winner.

Perhaps Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry had a purpose for being in the presidential race that did not involve becoming president. Perhaps they added a dimension to the race that would not have existed otherwise. Cain’s 9-9-9 plan changed the debate by introducing the idea of sweeping tax reforms that would change the entire structure of the American tax system. Other candidates responded to his proposal with their own reform ideas. Maybe that’s why he was there.

Perhaps, the failures of Tebow, Bachmann and the others affected something or someone in a way that will not be known for years, if ever. Like the Butterfly Effect, a small and seemingly insignificant event can lead to cataclysmic events in the future. Perhaps, their failures now prepare them, or someone that they touched, for future success.

In Herman Cain’s case, God may have led him to run for president in order to deal with Cain’s secret sins. God does not allow sin to persist in a believer’s life indefinitely. God disciplines his people when do wrong (Revelation 3:19). As Jesus said, “Nothing is hidden that will not become evident, nor anything secret that will not be known and come to light” (Luke 8:17).

One thing that is evident from the failures of Tebow, Bachmann, Cain, and Perry is that belief in God and following God’s commands is not an easy thing. Contrary to charges from atheists that belief in God is intellectually lazy, they illustrated the principle of John 16:33 in which Jesus told his followers, “In this world you will have trouble.” Failure and problems are not a possibility; they are a certainty, even for believers.

The last part of the verse is what makes all the difference. Jesus concluded by saying, “But take heart! I have overcome the world.” The God who created the universe holds the earth and its occupants in his care and has our best interests at heart (Jeremiah 29:11, John 14:27).

 

Read this article on Examiner.com:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-atlanta/why-did-god-allow-tebow-bachmann-to-fail

Meet the candidates: Rick Perry

As the presidential race heats up, a popular governor of Texas may be poised to sweep the head of the pack of forgettable Republican candidates. This is not a flashback to the 2000 presidential primaries that ended in the nomination of George W. Bush, but a possible outcome of the 2012 primary should current Texas governor Rick Perry decide to enter the race as appears increasingly likely.

Perry is a native Texan and a graduate of Texas A&M. After college, he joined the Air Force and served as a pilot of C-130 Hercules transports. After leaving the Air Force, Perry returned to Texas where he joined the family business as a cotton farmer.

Perry’s political career began as a Democrat in the Texas House of Representatives in 1984. Even as a Democrat, Perry was fiscally conservative. In the Texas house, he was a member of the “Pit Bulls,” a group of appropriations committee members who fought spending increases.

In 1988, Perry was the Texas chairman for Al Gore’s presidential campaign. The next year he changed his party affiliation to Republican saying, “I came to my senses” according to Politifact.com. Immediately after becoming a Republican, Perry was elected Agriculture Commissioner, an office that he held for two terms. In 1998, he became the first Texas Republican lieutenant governor since Reconstruction. In 2000, he became governor when George W. Bush resigned to become president of the United States. Since then, he has won re-election twice.

Gov. Perry presides over one of the few bright spots in the current economy. CNN Money notes that Texas, with no state income tax, has one of the lowest combined state and local tax burdens of any state at 8.4% placing it forty-third out of the fifty states. Georgia’s combined tax burden is 9.9% for a rank of thirteen. The Tax Foundation ranks Texas as one of the most business-friendly states at thirteen. Georgia ranks twenty-fifth.

Low taxes and regulation have paid off. According to the Federal Reserve and the Wall St. Journal, Texas accounts for forty-five percent of American job creation. Since the beginning of the recovery, Texas has produced thirty-seven percent of net U.S. jobs. USA Today points out that the Texas economy has grown twenty-six percent over the past decade, one of the largest increases of any state economy in the past fifty years. The Texas economy is now second only to California, which is may be entering a period of decline.

What makes Texas’ growth all the more interesting is that in 2009 Perry rejected his state’s share of the federal stimulus money. USA Today reported that Perry rejected the $555 million because of conditions that the federal government placed upon the use of the money, such as an expansion of unemployment insurance. During his tenure as governor, Perry has supported limitations on abortion, reform of medical malpractice laws, and the Trans-Texas Corridor, a large infrastructure project that would have expanded Texas roads, rail and data lines. The plan for the corridor was shelved in 2009 amid public opposition. He has vetoed more bills than any other Texas governor.

Perry has raised eyebrows several times during his career. In 2009, he made comments that were construed to be an endorsement of secession after a Tea Party event. At the event some attendees shouted, “Secede!” Afterward, Perry was quoted by the Austin Statesman as saying, “We've got a great union. There's absolutely no reason to dissolve it. But if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people, you know, who knows what might come out of that? But Texas is a very unique place, and we're a pretty independent lot to boot."

The Atlanta Journal political blog has a video of Perry’s speech at the rally, which does not mention secession, and notes that it sounds as if only one or two people shout the word “secede” and then only one time. The blog notes that others laughed and that it seemed that the shout was a joke. In any case, Perry’s comments are hardly a call for Texas to leave the Union.

Perry has also faced criticism for several executions carried out by the State of Texas. This year, Humberto Leal Garcia was executed for the rape and murder of a sixteen-year-old girl. The execution was criticized by the Obama Administration and the International Court of Justice because Garcia was not informed of the right to contact the Mexican consulate at the time of his arrest. Perry received criticism for failing to stop the execution, but the U.S. Supreme Court also ruled against Garcia.

In another case, that of Cameron Todd Willingham in 2004, convicted of the arson murder of his three children, critics accuse Perry of removing three members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission shortly before the commission was to hear a fire expert’s examination of evidence in the fire. Three reports, including the report commissioned by the state, concluded that the evidence did not point to arson.

Perry denied pressuring the investigators and said that the replacements were made because the commissioners’ terms were expiring. He told CNN, “If you've got a whole new investigation going forward, it makes a lot more sense to put the new people in now and let them start the full process, rather than bring people in there for a short period of time and then replace them. I think it makes a whole lot more sense to make a change now than to make a change later."

He also told the Houston Chronicle, “Willingham was a monster. He was a guy who murdered his three children, who tried to beat his wife into an abortion so that he wouldn't have those kids. Person after person has stood up and testified to facts of this case that quite frankly you all aren't covering.”

More recently, Perry has made headlines for his sponsorship of “the Response,” a day of prayer at Reliant Stadium in Houston. The event, which drew some 30,000 attendees as well as Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas and video message by Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, was billed as a call to repentance for the United States.

The event, which drew criticism from separation of church and state activists and a lawsuit from atheists, was open to people of all faiths, although the attendees were predominantly Christian. The gathering was also not a political rally. According to the N.Y. Times, Perry even offered a prayer for President Obama: “Father, we pray for our president, that you impart your wisdom upon him, that you would guard his family.”

Perry also made headlines in April 2011 when he issued a proclamation asking Texans to pray for rain. Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue hosted a prayer service in 2007 when Georgia was in the clutches of a similar drought. In 2008, Georgia suffered the worst floods in decades. To date, Texas is still wracked by the drought.

Even though Gov. Perry is not a declared candidate yet, there are reports that he is laying the groundwork for his campaign. Peach Pundit reported in June that he had hired Elizabeth Vaughan as a manager of his Georgia campaign. Vaughan was manager of Gary Black’s successful campaign for Georgia Agriculture Secretary and former member of Newt Gingrich’s presidential campaign staff. This report was denied by Vaughan.

Nevertheless, Perry did meet with Georgia Republicans in July according to Politico. According to the report, which did not name the attendees, Perry took part in an “extensive question-and-answer session” in which he talked about the economy and his record of job creation in Texas. Reportedly, Perry won over several of the Georgians who were previously undecided.

Even though he has not yet entered the race, Perry is running a close second to Mitt Romney in the most recent Real Clear Politics average of polls. The most recent Public Policy poll of Georgians’ preferences for a Republican candidate was in April and did not include Perry.

Rick Perry’s economic record in Texas makes him a strong contender if he decides to run for president. He has strong conservative credentials that will please the Tea Party, but the idea of another conservative Republican Texas governor will turn off some voters. Fortunately for Perry, most of those voters probably would probably vote for President Obama regardless of who the Republican candidate is. Perry does run the risk of missing the window of opportunity if he waits too long to enter the race, so look for an announcement of his decision soon.

Read this article on Examiner.com

http://www.examiner.com/elections-2012-in-atlanta/meet-the-candidates-rick-perry

Photo credit:  Public domain