How Should Conservative Trump Critics Vote?

In a few days, it will all be over. This Tuesday is Election Day and Wednesday, unless you live where there is a runoff, there will be no more political ads on television and the only signs that you’ll see are those belonging to candidates that are either too irresponsible or lacking in enough support to clean up their mess. Before that, however, we have to get through Election Day.

If you’re like me, getting through Election Day is a problem because this election resembles 2016 in a lot of disappointing ways. Even though Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton aren’t on the ballot, his influence and the memory of her defeat loom large.

Over the past two years, the Republican Party that I used to consider my political home has changed, possibly irrevocably. This wasn’t as sudden a change as some claim it to be. The roots of the GOP’s transition from a conservative party to a populist party with big government solutions was already underway when Donald Trump announced his candidacy in 2015. It’s an open question whether the party was ever actually a small government, fiscally conservative party, but it definitely is not one today.

A local political commercial says the Democrats aren’t the same party they used to be. That’s true, neither are the Republicans.

What has changed is the acceptance of Trumpism. In 2016, most Republicans were willing to stand up to Donald Trump and criticize him when he was wrong. I see very little of that today. Speaker Paul Ryan was one of the few sitting Republicans to criticize Trump’s notion this week that he could unilaterally amend the 14^th amendment and overturn birthright citizenship with an Executive Order, an announcement reminiscent of Obama’s “pen and phone” moment. I have to wonder if Ryan would have spoken out if he weren’t retiring.

The problem is that most Republican officials understand where loyalties of the base lie. Earlier this week, a Harris poll found that 46 percent of Republican voters associate with Donald Trump while only 25 percent associate with the GOP itself. For the time being at least, the Grand Old Party is the Trump Party and Republican candidates innately understand this fact. In most primaries, the question was not whether candidates loved Donald Trump, it was which candidate could show they loved him more. Republicanism is no longer based on objective principles. It is based on Donald Trump.

For a small government, Reagan conservative like me, that presents a problem. Unlike the current iteration of the GOP, I am a pro-immigration, pro-free trade, fiscal conservative who believes that character matters and words have meaning. I no longer fit into the Republican Party.

While I applaud some of Trump’s successes, the president’s victories seem greatly overstated by his supporters and have come at a tremendous cost in terms of Republican principles, national division, damage to the conservative and Republican brand, and basic self-respect. It’s also true that most of the victories came despite Trump, not because of him, through the hard work of Republican congressional leaders like Ryan and Mitch McConnell.

Like Obama, Trump‘s abrasive personality are “my way or the highway” attitude are ill-suited for lawmaking. His singular legislative accomplishment, tax reform, was passed with a bare majority of 51 Republican votes. His Executive Orders are unlikely to outlive his presidency. Obamacare stands unrepealed and unreformed.

What to do then?

Some conservatives who I like and respect (and some I don’t) advocate voting Democrat. I don’t see how any conservative can take a look at the modern Democratic Party and say, “Let’s put that in power.” All the Democrats had to do to ensure a blue tsunami was to act sane for six months prior to the election. They could not pull it off.

I vehemently opposed Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton so why would I throw my support behind candidates they endorse? I’m not a liberal and don’t support the platform of even most moderate Democrats. If I oppose Trump because of his bad policy and bad behavior, I cannot bring myself to support the worse policy and worse behavior of the national Democrats.

My personal decision was to become a true independent. I used to be a straight-ticket Republican voter, but when I voted early this year I looked beyond the “R” after the candidate’s name. I looked at their website, their records, debates, and interviews. I contacted candidates with questions and, in the case of my Republican congressman, I received a phone call from his office assuring me that he was a Reagan conservative who favored free trade, entitlement reform, and deficit reduction. Rather than voting Democrat, I chose to evaluate all the candidates, including third parties, and voted a mixed ballot.

I wouldn’t presume to tell people to vote Democrat or Libertarian or Green. Few would listen to me if I did. My best guess, however, is that a lot of people are making their own decision to send a message to Republicans and the Trump Administration. Pew reported today that, by a 14-point margin, more voters consider their vote to be against Trump than for him. Democrats lead Republicans in party preference by an average of eight points.

I’m not a Democrat. I’m not a liberal. I’m not even a Libertarian. I am a traditional conservative and voters of my ilk are bereft in the current political environment. I hope that I will one day be able to proudly call myself a Republican once again.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Elizabeth Warren Is Revolting

Elizabeth Warren is revolting. No, not that way. She's leading a rebellion against moderate Senate Democrats. A partial rollback of Dodd-Frank regulations has enough bipartisan support to give it a real chance of passage and Sen. Warren (D-Mass.) doesn't like it.

Warren sent out a fundraising email attacking the Democrats who supported the banking reform bill. The email led in turn to a contentious meeting of Senate Democrats. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, (D-N.Y.), who doesn't officially support the bill, has not been vocal in his opposition. Schumer reportedly urged Warren to temper her criticism by focusing on facets of the legislation that she opposes rather than engaging in intraparty warfare.

“This is what I said I was going to do,” Warren reportedly told Schumer per Politico sources. “This is why I ran for the Senate.”

The bill, officially titled the “Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act,” but dubbed the “Bank Lobbyist Act” by Warren, has done what Republicans have been unable to to accomplish in other areas: split the Democrat caucus. The bill, which is favored by housing industry groups, counts 12 moderate Democrats among its cosponsors, more than enough to ensure cloture and passage.

The schism between leftist and moderate Democrats could easily lead to an intraparty rivalry similar to what Republicans experienced during the later Obama years. Moderate Democrats may find themselves pitted against the party's left wing and derided as “Democrats in name only” who are not liberal enough. It's easy to imagine Warren, the leftist stalwart, in the role of Ted Cruz, vying for the reins of the party and trying to steer it toward the left and away from compromise.

The problem for Democrats is that a strategy of going left is likely to have disastrous electoral consequences. Doug Jones in Alabama and Conor Lamb in Pennsylvania have demonstrated that moderate Democrats can be competitive in deep red Trump country, especially if Republicans continue to nominate flawed candidates, but the Warren strategy of forcing these moderates to the hard left after they are elected would invariably lead to a Republican wave similar to 2010 and 2014.

Schumer seems to realize this. His decision to allow moderates to work on the bipartisan bill to reform Dodd-Frank may have been made with the upcoming elections in mind. The success of the bill would allow moderates to crow about a positive accomplishment rather than being forced to run on opposition to President Trump.

DNC Chair Tom Perez hinted at a similar strategy in a recent segment on CNN. When asked about a Conor Lamb ad in which the candidate distanced himself from Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Perez replied, “Listen, Democrats are going to do what they believe is best to win their races.”

Dana Bash then asked, “So you don't think that Nancy Pelosi is a drag on Democrats in tough races?”

Perez deflected the question, but the answer is obvious. “San Fran Nan,” who isn't even popular with liberals these days, would be the kiss of death for moderate Democrats in red or purple states.

Democrats hope for a “blue wave” this November, but to make that a reality they will have to nominate candidates that are a good fit for the local electorate. Candidates for swing states will need to be more moderate than the Democratic Party at large and may not fit with the liberal orthodoxy on issues like guns, taxes and especially cultural matters such as gender and abortion. This is a recipe for conflict down the road.

The paradox of winning a majority is that Democrats will find that a larger congressional caucus means that the party is more moderate. While the Elizabeth Warrens of the left may not like this move to the center, to force representatives of swing districts into hard left voting patterns would mean that any majority would be short-lived.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Dem Candidates To Hillary: If The Phone Doesn't Ring, It's Us

Two-time presidential loser Hillary Clinton said last week that no prospective presidential candidates have sought her advice on a campaign to unseat Donald Trump (assuming he is still president) in 2020. The comments were made in an interview on Wednesday with conservative talk-show host Hugh Hewitt.

Clinton attributed the lack of contact from presidential hopefuls to the fact that the election is three years away. “Nobody’s actually been to see me,” Clinton told Hewitt. “I see Democrats all the time, and nobody has said ‘Hey, I’m going to run,’ or ‘I’m thinking about running, give me advice now,’ because it is too soon.”

While Clinton is correct that the election is still far in the future, there may be other reasons that Democrats are not seeking her advice. Clinton ran one of the most lackluster campaigns in recent history. Although there are many reasons why Hillary Clinton is not president today, one of the most fundamental errors was her failure to campaign in the Rust Belt states. Donald Trump’s unexpected wins in these states allowed him to eke out an Electoral College victory.

Aside from not letting up on the campaigning, there are other things that Hillary could tell a 2020 candidate. For example, don’t do anything to trigger an FBI criminal investigation of yourself, especially in an election year. If you are under an investigation, it’s probably best to sit out 2020 and focus on 2024.

Hillary might also say that a 2020 candidate needs a message other than “I want to be president.” The 2016 Clinton campaign seemed to be centered around the theme that voters should elect her because she wanted to make history as the first woman president. Her lack of an agenda to correct the problems of the Obama Administration was equivalent to campaigning for “four more years” of an unpopular president who presided over eight years of economic doldrums. Voters were ready for a change.  

“There may be some private planning going on by some people,” Clinton said. “I wouldn’t know who. I wouldn’t hazard a guess. But in terms of actually seeking out advice, people have said, 'hey, I want to come talk to you.' But I haven’t had those conversations, in large measure, because I’ve said I’m going to focus next year on 2018, and then, you know, I’ll be happy to talk.”

There may be another reason that the 2020 hopefuls are steering clear of Hillary. The era of Clinton domination of the Democratic Party appears to have drawn to a close as prominent Democrats like Donna Brazile distance themselves from the both Hillary and Bill. Democrats are beginning to acknowledge that the Clintons were corrupt, beholden to Wall Street and covered up Bill’s sexual misbehavior for decades. In short, the Clintons are becoming pariahs among leftist political activists.

After Hillary’s embarrassing loss to Donald Trump and the subsequent revelations about secret Clinton control of the Democratic National Committee, it may be that potential candidates see Hillary as more of a liability than an asset. As Hillary makes the rounds on her book tour and desperately tries to stay relevant, it is likely that her phone will stay silent. The calls from 2020 hopefuls are probably going to Bernie Sanders. 

Originally published on The Resurgent

Brazile Denies Democratic Primary Was Rigged

Donna Brazile, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called Hillary Clinton staffers who criticized her take on the 2016 campaign out of touch. Brazile, appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” defended her claims that Clinton control of the DNC tied the group’s hands and made it difficult for the group to be involved in the campaign, but denied that the primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders.

“Here's what they don't know. What it was like to be over at the DNC during the hacking. What it's like to bury a child. I did, Seth Rich. They don't know what it's like to protect a staff from further harassment,” Brazile said.

“They don't know what it's like because they're — the high command of Brooklyn,” Brazile added. “The people making the decisions, even for the DNC, they didn't come and work with us. They told us to shut up. And basically let them win the election. When we tried to intervene, we had to spend money we raised to try to help them win. That was my job as chair of the party.”

In a racially charged comment rarely applied to fellow Democrats, Brazile also said that she had to tell the Clinton campaign that she was no slave. “Yeah, I'm not Patsy the slave because I got sick and tired of people trying to tell me how the spend the money,” Brazile  said. “I wasn't getting a salary. I was volunteering my time. I was trying to increase the level of enthusiasm and passion for Hillary Clinton and the rest of the ticket across the country.”

In other comments, Brazile denied that the Democratic primary was rigged against Bernie Sanders. "I said I would get to the bottom of everything, and that's what I did," Brazile said. "I called Senator Sanders to say, you know, I wanted to make sure there was no rigging of the process ... I found no evidence, none whatsoever."

“The thing, the only thing, I found -- which I said, 'I found the cancer, but I'm not killing the patient' -- was this memorandum that prevented the DNC from running its own operation,” she added.

Brazile’s claim that Hillary Clinton colluded with DNC long before Clinton won the Democratic nomination is ethically questionable, but falls short of actually rigging the election. In Brazile’s version of events, she discovered the Clintonian control of the DNC after the convention in July. Per Brazile, Bernie Sanders agreed to campaign for Clinton even after he was told of the party’s duplicity.

In spite of the result of the election, Brazile stands by her actions. “Do I regret taking on a job the second time in my life as chair of the party? Cleaning up everyone's mess? Taking all of the income in? Being unable to spend funds that I raised? Do I regret being on the road 100 percent of the time? Being hacked by the Russians? Being — being harassed, getting death threats? Do I regret any of that?” she asked rhetorically.

“Do I regret standing up for what is right? Helping Hillary Clinton? Helping the Democratic Party? … No, I wish I could have done more.”

Originally published on The Resurgent 

A Year of Democrat Attacks On Trump Has Been Ineffective

For the past year, Democrats have unloaded on Donald Trump with both barrels. The attacks against Mr. Trump have been withering and unrelenting. The problem for Democrats is that they have not been particularly effective.

Sure, President Trump’s approval rating has a double-digit deficit, but his numbers seem to have bottomed out in the mid-30s. The Real Clear Politics average found that Trump’s average approval was at its lowest in August at 37 percent. This was 20 points less than his disapproval rate. Since then, Trump’s numbers have improved only slightly to 39 percent, still a 16-point net disapproval rate.

The problem for Democrats is that Trump’s approval has always been low and a year of attacks has not markedly changed his numbers. This may be partly due to the large number of different tactics used by the Democrats, none of which has been a homerun. Trump has been charged with not keeping his promises, with having problems with his temperament, with lying and even with colluding with Russia and supporting white supremacists, but none of the attacks seems to be a silver bullet.

There has been speculation since 2015 that Trump’s antics would cost him support among Republicans. So far that has not happened. The Washington Examiner reported last month that two polls showed Republican support for Trump was still at 75 percent. Trump’s Republican support may be eroded by the failure to repeal Obamacare and enact tax reform, a rumored amnesty for DACA participants, not building the wall, or his recent pivots to Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), but few Republicans would be likely to back a Democrat alternative.

To secure a victory in the midterms and 2020, Democrats need to offer independent voters something other than “Not Trump” and it is here that they are falling flat. Politico reports that the traditional Democrat platform planks don’t excite many voters outside the Democrat base. Voters worry that free college tuition proposals will still cost them money. Obamacare has gained majority approval and the idea of government health care for all is gaining popularity, but it still generates suspicion and is very divisive.

Democrats are learning the same lesson that the Republicans were faced with during the Obama era. Opposition to an unpopular president will only get you so far. An agenda that convinces people that you can make their lives better is needed to seal the deal.

It is on this point that one Democrat line of attack seems to show promise. Politico notes that a recent DCCC poll showed that Democrats lead President Trump by 17 points on the question of who “fights for people like me.” Last February, Trump and the Democrats each received 50 percent on the question. The change may be the result of Democrat charges that many Trump policies, such as financial deregulation, tax reform, and opposing Obamacare, are intended to benefit the rich at the expense of everyone else.

In the end, upcoming elections are likely to be referendums on President Trump’s job performance and the economy. If undecided voters feel that the country – and their own lives and careers – are going well, then they may decide to reward Trump and the Republicans despite their misgivings.

“He is the president,” Matt Canter, a focus group analyst told Politico. “The assessment that voters will make is, is he a good one or not? While Democrats like me have come to conclusions on that question, most of the voters who will decide future elections have not.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Is a Democrat Civil War Brewing Over Abortion?

News stories often point to internal squabbling among Republicans and speculate as to whether the GOP is in the midst of a civil war because of the frequent disagreements. Mainstream outlets may be missing a budding civil war among the Democrats, however. Recent comments by several Democrat leaders indicate that the party may be splitting over one of its core issues.

For years, Democrats have marched in virtual lockstep on abortion. If pro-life Democrats were endangered before Barack Obama’s presidency, they were almost nonexistent after the elections of 2010 when Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) and a cadre of pro-life congressional Democrats bowed to pressure to vote for Obamacare and lost their seats as a result.

Fast forward to 2017 when Tom Perez, elected chairman to rebuild the Democratic Party in the wake of the disastrous 2016 election, seemed to draw a line in the sand last month on abortion. “Every Democrat, like every American, should support a woman’s right to make her own choices about her body and her health,” Perez said in a statement. “That is not negotiable and should not change city by city or state by state.”

If support for unrestricted abortion is “not negotiable” as a litmus test for Democrats, then the donks can plan on writing off about half of the American electorate. Polling has shown that Americans are split almost equally between the pro-life and pro-choice viewpoints. When examined more closely, only small factions support either extreme on the issue. Most Americans say that abortion should be legal only under certain circumstances.

Perez’s comments have set off a battle between Democrats who favor a big tent party and those who believe that ideological purity is more important. The debate is similar to the one that Republicans have had in recent years on issues such as spending, immigration and the details of replacing Obamacare.

Some party leaders rejected Perez’s comments. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on NBC that “of course” pro-life Democrats should be accepted and supported by the party.

“I grew up Nancy D’Alesandro, in Baltimore, Maryland; in Little Italy; in a very devout Catholic family; fiercely patriotic; proud of our town and heritage, and staunchly Democratic,” she told the Washington Post. “Most of those people — my family, extended family — are not pro-choice. You think I’m kicking them out of the Democratic Party?”

Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the Senate Minority Leader, agreed on MSNBC. “Look, we're a big tent party as Nancy Pelosi said, but we are, let's make no mistake about it, we are a pro-choice party. We're a strongly pro-choice party,” Schumer said. “We think that's where the American people are, and in fact, if anything, are moving even more in that direction.”

Some members of the Democrat base disagreed with their leaders’ inclusiveness. “It was great to see Perez discover a spine,” Erin Matson, a pro-abortion activist, told The Atlantic, adding that “Schumer and Pelosi’s recent comments are cowardly.”

“It’s about policy, not feelings or labels, and anything less than a bold stance that makes clear that the Democratic Party must be united in protecting a woman’s right to an abortion is a betrayal of a core constituency of the party,” Matson continued. She stopped short of calling big tent Democrats “DINOs.”

Elyse Hogue, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America noted in the Washington Post that last year’s Democratic platform “went further than the Party has ever gone to stand up for the women’s rights. It didn’t just seek to protect abortion access — it sought to expand it,” while failing to note that Democrats lost that election. “If the Democratic Party is going to gain back power, it can’t go backward, it can’t back down and it can’t trade away these principles,” she added.

“I don’t know why we would want to start walking away from folks, like myself, who have a personal conviction on the pro-life issue,” said Rep. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), a pro-life Democrat congressman. “We ought to be able to include everyone, as opposed to saying ‘no, we don’t want these folks, even though they fight with us on jobs, even though they fight with us for economic rights, even though they fight with us on healthcare.’ It just seems to me to be very, very short-sighted.”

Nevertheless, even Bernie Sanders, the sometimes-Democrat with the cult-like following, is not immune to criticism when he deviates from the party line on abortion. Sanders drew fire from fellow progressives for his support of Omaha mayoral candidate Heath Mello. Mello had a pro-life voting record and reputation during his time in the Nebraska state legislature.

Pelosi later claimed to the Washington Post that the abortion is “kind of fading as an issue” for Democrats. That may be wishful thinking.

This week failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton jumped into the fray with a speech to abortion provider Planned Parenthood. “Protecting access to the full range of reproductive health care: it is a health issue, of course, it is a core economic issue,” Clinton said, quoted by The Blaze. “Women in every corner of our country understand that intimately. And anyone who wants to lead should also understand that fundamentally, this is an issue of morality.”

By claiming that opposition to abortion is immoral, Clinton has upped the ante and made it clear that pro-lifers will not be welcomed by a large part of the Democratic Party. Framing the issue in moral terms makes it almost impossible to compromise.

“I believe we can and should respect deeply held beliefs of our friends, our neighbors, our fellow citizens, even if they differ from our own,” Clinton continued. “That’s what should make America, America. But it is possible to do that while holding firm to what we know is the only right approach in our diverse democracy. Oh, yes, let’s respect people’s convictions, but never back down from our commitment to defend the ability of every woman to make these deeply personal decisions for herself.”

In other words, Democrats should respect the immoral opinions of pro-life Democrats as long as those opinions have no impact on the party platform or policies.

The decision on whether to welcome (or tolerate) Democrats who differ from the party dogma on an issue like abortion is an important one. It is very difficult for a political party to win if it is actively seeking to expel many of its members. Even if pro-life Democrats are permitted to stay, it is unlikely that the official Democrat position on abortion will change any time soon.

 Originally published on The Resurgent

Breitbart worked with liberal activists against Republicans

The conservative website Breitbart has been very critical of reports that a pro-Hillary group paid liberal activists to incite violence at Trump rallies. The reports, based on an undercover video by investigative filmmaker James O’Keefe, were explosive and resulted in the dismissals of at least two Democrat activists from the group Democracy Partners. Now it appears that Breitbart may have used similar tactics to disrupt the campaign events of Trump opponents in the Republican primary.

A report from Politico cites an unnamed source who said that Aaron Black, one of the Democracy Partners activists featured in O’Keefe’s videos, worked with Breitbart during the primary. According to the source, Black, who was also an organizer for Occupy Wall Street, had an informal alliance with Breitbart, “tipping it off about his stunts, exchanging raw video and coordinating coverage” of Black’s antics at events for Republican candidates.

“He [Black] worked directly with Breitbart’s political team on the ground in the primary states to sabotage Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, and elect Trump as nominee of [the Republican] party,” the source told Politico. “[Black] was coordinating with [Breitbart’s] top staff to rabble rouse against Rubio at rallies.” The source says that Black was friendly with the Breitbart staff and that contacts were made by phone, email and in person.

In one widely circulated picture, Black, dressed in a silver robot costume, confronted Rubio in a hallway. Video from New Hampshire shows Black and other activists heckling Rubio supporters last February. A Breitbart “exclusive” from February details a physical confrontation between a robot-costumed protester and the chairman of Rubio’s New Hampshire campaign. The Breitbart story identifies the protester as Aaron Black.

Breitbart supported Donald Trump early in the primary and was particularly critical of Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. The relationship between the website and the Trump campaign became even more cozy when Paul Manafort was forced to leave the campaign due to his close ties to Vladimir Putin. Trump replaced Manafort, his campaign manager, with Steven Bannon, Breitbart’s chairman.

After the death of founder Andrew Breitbart, Bannon’s leadership turned the website from a respected conservative news source to a transparent, laughable propaganda page. Former Breitbart editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro wrote in the Daily Wire that Bannon “has shaped the company into Trump’s personal Pravda…the facts are undeniable: Breitbart News has become precisely the reverse of what Andrew would have wanted.”

It is unconscionable that a conservative website like Breitbart would work with a radical liberal activist against other conservative Republicans. To condemn Hillary’s campaign for the same tactics that Breitbart used only underscores Steve Bannon’s hypocrisy.

Originally published on The Resurgent.

Democrats slash funds to Rubio challenger

In a bit of good news for conservatives and Republicans, it appears that Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) has scored a TKO against the Democratic challenger for his Florida Senate seat. Rubio met Patrick Murphy on Monday in Orlando for their first debate. The following day, Politico reported that the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee pulled all funding from Murphy for the remainder of the campaign.

The Florida race was one of several tossup races that Democrats hoped to win in order to gain control of the Senate. Several weeks ago, it seemed that those hopes were fading. Then came Donald Trump’s sexual harassment scandal and the problem of guilt by party association for sitting Republicans who had endorsed Trump. Now it seems that at least Rubio’s seat in Florida may be safe.

The race isn’t over yet though. Politico points out that even without the DSCC money, the Rubio and Murphy campaigns are evenly matched with cash on hand. The decision means that Rubio will have an advantage since he will continue to receive money from the GOP Leadership Fund that can be used to outspend Murphy in the final days before the election.

Democrats claim that the decision to dump Murphy had nothing to do with his debate performance, but was a strategic call. According to Politico, the party felt that the money would be better spent on Senate races in North Carolina and Missouri where they might be able to knock off Republicans Richard Burr and Roy Blunt for the same cost as attacking Rubio.

Marco Rubio has consistently held a lead over Murphy for the past few weeks, but most polls show the race near the margin of error. The most recent poll, released yesterday but taken before the debate, showed Rubio ahead by only two points.

In spite of losing Florida to Donald Trump in the Republican primary, Rubio is now running ahead of the presidential candidate. Hillary Clinton leads Trump in Florida, a must-win swing state for the GOP, by four points in several recent polls.

Recent Wikileaks revelations show that Hillary Clinton promoted the Trump campaign in the Republican primary while considering Rubio a more dangerous threat in the general election. Polling trends show that Clinton’s assessment of Trump’s weaknesses and Rubio’s strengths were accurate.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Hillary Clinton promoted Donald Trump as way to damage GOP

Among the documents in the leaked John Podesta emails recently posted by Wikileaks was a strategy memo that suggested that the Clinton campaign may have colluded with the Democratic National Committee and the media to promote certain Republican primary candidates that the Democrats considered extreme. If genuine, the memo indicates that the Clinton campaign interfered with the Republican primary with the help of the media.

The memo was an attachment to an email with the Wikileaks ID number 1120. It was sent to numerous staff members on April 23, 2015 with the subject line “[AGENDA & MEMO] Friday Strategy at 8:00 AM ET.” The email was sent by “MASTOR,” probably a reference to Marissa Astor, who is listed as a surrogate on the Hillary for America organizational chart. The attachment file name is “150407 Strategy on GOP.”

The memo is addressed to “The Democratic National Committee” and is dated April 7, 2015. The introduction says that its purpose is to “outline the strategy and goals that a potential Hillary Clinton presidential campaign would have regarding the 2016 Republican presidential field.” The introduction notes that, even though Hillary Clinton was not yet the Democratic nominee, “most of what is contained in this memo is work the DNC is already doing.”

The memo lays out three strategies to “make whomever the Republicans nominate unpalatable to the majority of the electorate.” First, the Clinton campaign planned to “force all [emphasis theirs] Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a general election.” Second, they wanted to “undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have” among independent voters. Finally, they planned to “muddy the waters on any potential attack launched against HRC.”

In “operationalizing the strategy,” the memo described a plan to “use the [Republican] field to inflict damage on itself.” The Clinton campaign wanted to use “more extreme candidates” as “’Pied Piper’ candidates” who would seem to “represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.”

The memo identified three “Pied Piper” candidates by name. They were Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson. At the time the memo was written, Donald Trump was still two months away from declaring his candidacy. It is not clear if the Clintons directly influenced Trump to enter the race.

“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them [sic] seriously,” the memo says. This indicates coordination between the Clinton campaign, the DNC and members of the media.

The memo goes on to identify several “more established” candidates who needed special attention to
“undermine their credibility among our coalition (communities of color, millennials, women) and independent voters.” The candidates identified as bigger threats to the Clinton campaign were Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, Bobby Jindal and Chris Christie.

To “muddy the waters,” the memo suggested building a dossier on each Republican candidate in the areas of “transparency & disclosure, donors & associations, and management & business dealings.” In a statement that presaged this week’s attacks on Donald Trump, the memo says, “any information on scandals or ethical lapses on the GOP candidates would serve well. We won’t be picky.”

 While the email does not contain a “smoking gun” that indicates that Clinton enticed Donald Trump to enter the Republican primary, it is apparent that Trump was considered a weak and extreme candidate who could hurt the rest of the Republican field. The reference to the press may help explain the large amounts of friendly press coverage that Trump received during the primary. There is also no indication that the Clinton campaign thought that Donald Trump could actually win the Republican primary and become the party’s nominee.

In the end, Hillary Clinton’s plan to sabotage the Republican primary must have exceeded her wildest expectations.  One of her “Pied Pipers” actually won the nomination and became the Republican candidate for the presidency. Hillary was ready when he did.

Read the full story on The Resurgent

Hillary promoted Trump two months before he started campaign

Lost amid the furor over Donald Trump’s sexually charged hot mic recording was another email dump by Wikileaks. The new document dump contains emails purportedly hacked from John Podesta, the chairman of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

One of the documents leaked and subsequently tweeted by Wikileaks allegedly shows that the Clinton campaign worked with the media in “elevating” Republican primary candidates that were more extreme. The Clinton strategy was to make these “Pied Piper” candidates seem to “represent the mainstream of the Republican Party.” The document mentions three candidates by name: Ted Cruz, Donald Trump and Ben Carson.

“We need to be elevating the Pied Piper candidates so that they are leaders of the pack and tell the press to them [sic] seriously,” the document says.

The Wikileaks tweet does not present the entire document. The portion available is not dated although Wikileaks says that it was “two months before he [Trump] declared his candidacy.” The tweet does not provide a way to identify or find the document within the trove of emails posted on the Wikileaks website.

If genuine, the document indicates that Hillary Clinton not only interfered with the Republican primary, but also conspired with the media to do so. There were numerous reports that Donald Trump spoke with Bill Clinton prior to declaring his candidacy last year. It is possible that the Clintons set up Donald Trump to run as a Republican, knowing that they could destroy his reputation if he won the nomination.

At present, the authenticity of the document and Wikileaks claims have not been independently verified.

Read the full story on The Resurgent

Bernie Sanders tweet quoting Marx is fake

Yesterday an alarming tweet by Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders went viral. The tweet contained the radical message, “My object in life is to dethrone God and destroy capitalism.” The big problem is that the tweet is fake.

The phrase in the tweet is actually attributed to Karl Marx, German revolutionary and the father of communism. The quote does not appear in “The Communist Manifesto,” Marx’s most famous work or any of his other known writings, but is similar to a documented quote from “Revelations Concerning the Communist Trial in Cologne.” In that work, Marx wrote, “If I dethrone God I also dethrone the king who reigns by the grace of God.”

Bernie Sanders, a sitting senator from Vermont, is an avowed socialist. While the line between socialism and communism is thin and blurred, Sanders seems to shy away from vocally supporting communist countries like the Soviet Union and China. Instead, he lavishes praise on the democratic socialism of Scandinavian countries like Denmark, Norway and Sweden according to Oregon Live.

Steven Wolf of Daily Kos notes that Sanders “Sanders advocates for three things that should be the backbone of the Democratic Party. These include reducing economic inequality, removing the rigged influence of the rich on our political system, and of course most importantly, preventing climate change.” He calls Sanders a social democrat “despite his chosen label of democratic socialist” and notes that this breed of politician wants to “ensure that every person has access to housing, health care, education, meaningful employment, and transportation.” With the exception of reducing the influence of the rich on politics, this makes Sanders almost indistinguishable from other Democrats, including Hillary Clinton.

It must be noted that the reference to “dethroning God” can apply to many modern Democrats as well. Democrats have shown a hostility to the free expression of religion in recent years including loud opposition to religious freedom laws. In 2012, an attempt to add a reference to God to the Democratic platform resulted in loud, almost overwhelming, boos.

Sanders, who is Jewish, is not religious, but does not seem overtly hostile to religion. According to the Christian Post, he is more likely to pick and choose from various religious texts to find passages that support his views. For her part, Hillary Clinton said in a speech last March that “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed” to make way for more progressive policies according to the Daily Caller.

While Sanders might or might not agree with the Marx quote, he apparently never tweeted it. A review of the timeline of the Sen. Sanders Twitter account does not show the offending tweet. The time stamp on the tweet is August 10, 2015 at 9:27 p.m. There is a tweet on the Sanders timeline at the same time, but with a different message. The actual Sanders tweet reads, “The cost of war is real. It is terrible. I believe that war should be the last resort, not the first resort.”

A comparison of the two tweets reveals a subtle difference. The fake tweet shows the date is numeric characters while the authentic tweet uses the word “August” in the date. This may simply reflect a difference in device or settings.

Examiner traced the fake tweet to the Facebook account of John Trulli. Trulli’s Facebook wall contains a post claiming responsibility for the fake tweet: “Lol [sic] I'm still getting notifications for people sharing that fake Bernie sanders tweet I made. Hundreds of shares and everyone's pissed that he said that.”

The post immediately above Trulli’s admission of responsibility is another fake Sanders tweet. This one reads, “Pretty much everything I say is a lie lol [sic]. My closest friends growing up called me Bernie Slanders.” Further examination of his timeline shows other tweets supposedly by George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

An attempt was made to contact the Sanders campaign in connection with this article, but no reply was received. Sanders leads Mrs. Clinton by a small margin in the latest New Hampshire poll.

Read the full article on Examiner.com

GOP has chance for pickup in NY-21

In the far reaches of upstate New York, two Republicans are seeking the 21^st congressional district seat of Democrat Bill Owens, who is retiring according to a January report from the Daily Kos. Owens is serving his third term in Congress after originally being elected in 2008. Joe Gilbert, a retired army veteran and Tea Party conservative, will face off against Elise Stefanik, a businesswoman

Joe Gilbert was born in Ogdensburg, N.Y. in 1966 and joined the army reserves at 18 while he was still in high school. After an abortive attempt at Potsdam State University, he joined the active duty army. In 1987, he began his military career in Germany guarding the strategic Fulda Gap opposite a Cold War Soviet army. During this time, Gilbert says he “caught glimpses of the misery and poverty that resulted from an all-powerful government on the other side.” At the same time, Gilbert began studying college courses. He earned degrees from the University of Phoenix and the University of Maryland and was selected to attend Officer Candidate School. Gilbert specialized in military intelligence and after 9/11 served three tours in Iraq.

After retiring from the army, Gilbert became the Director of Emergency Services for St. Lawrence County, N.Y. In that position, he is responsible for 41 fire departments, 28 ambulance squads and more than 2,000 employees and volunteers. His policies have resulted in savings of hundreds of thousands of dollars to St. Lawrence County taxpayers. Gilbert also served as a contributor to Examiner.com in the role of Watertown Tea Party Examiner until 2013.

According to BestPlaces.net, Plattsburgh, one of the main cities of the district, has an unemployment rate of 8.5 percent, just below the national average. Nevertheless, incomes are well below the national average and job growth has been declining. Gilbert’s platform is based on opposition to the tax increases and health care reforms of the Obama Administration. He believes that these policy positions will help to bring economic relief and spur job growth in the district.

He is also a friend of the Second Amendment and is a member of the National Rifle Association. The right to bear arms has been under assault in New York in the past few years with the passage of the SAFE Act, which placed strict limits on ammunition and magazines and extended New York’s “assault rifle” ban.

In New York, local party officials have the power to choose a candidate instead of using the traditional primary system. If other candidates do not accept the party’s choice they can insist on a primary.

In February, WAMC Radio reported that businesswoman Elise Stefanik was the choice of district Republican leaders. A third candidate, Michael Ring, immediately endorsed Stefanik, but Gilbert exercised his right to a primary.

Elise Stefanik grew up learning her family business, a distributorship of wood products in upstate New York. An honor graduate of Harvard, she became the first member of her family to graduate from college. During the administration of George W. Bush, Stefanik served on the White House staff where she worked on economic and domestic policy. In 2012, she worked as the policy director of the Republican National Platform and served as the debate coach for vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan. Having won support of 11 of 12 counties in the district, Stefanik must be considered the favorite for the primary as well.

The Syracuse Post Standard reports that district Democrats have chosen Aaron Woolf, a documentary filmmaker, to be the Democratic candidate. Woolf has no political experience, but has produced award-winning films that highlight the societal effects of government policies. In the time since beginning his campaign, Woolf has been somewhat reclusive. According to the Adirondack Daily Enterprise, he has given no real interviews and says that is a “press release kind of guy.”

Whether the Republican candidate is Gilbert or Stefanik, the Republican candidate will face a stiff battle. The district has voted Democrat in presidential elections since 1992 and has been represented by a congressional Democrat for the same length of time. This year a retiring Democratic incumbent paired with widespread dissatisfaction with President Obama’s policies may reverse that trend. Two very capable Republicans against a weak and inexperienced Democrat may boost the GOP’s odds.

Originally published on National Elections Examiner

New poll shows conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 states

A new Gallup poll released on January 31 shows that conservatives outnumber liberals in 47 states. Although liberal identification has reached a new high in the wake of Barack Obama’s reelection, conservatives still make up the largest ideological group in most states. Nevertheless, the average gap between conservatives and liberals shrank from 15.9 to 14.6 percent since 2012.

The three states in which liberals outnumbered conservatives were Hawaii, Massachusetts and Vermont. Other states that rounded out the liberal top ten were Delaware, New York, Oregon, Maine, California, and New Jersey. The District of Columbia is the most liberal “state” with 38 percent of its population identifying as liberal.

Wyoming is the most conservative state with 51 percent of its population considering themselves conservative. Mississippi, Idaho, Utah, Montana, Arkansas, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Alabama make up the rest of the conservative top ten, all with greater than 44 percent conservatives. Last year’s most conservative state, Alabama, fell to number 10.

The swing states from recent elections all boast a double-digit conservative advantage leading one to question why Florida, Virginia, Iowa, Colorado, and Ohio all voted for Barack Obama. According to Gallup, the answer lies with moderate voters.

Even though conservatives are the largest ideological group in most states as well as nationally, the fact that they make up less than 50 percent of the electorate means that Republicans need to reach out to moderate voters, something that they have had problems with in recent years. An Examiner analysis of exit polls from 2008 and 2012 found that moderates made up 44 and 41 percent of the electorate in the two elections. In both years, Barack Obama won moderates handily. In 2008, Obama won 60 percent of the moderate vote. In 2012, he won 56 percent. North Carolina was the only swing state in which Mitt Romney was able to eke out a victory even as he lost moderates.

Gallup notes that the percentage of liberals has been slowly increasing since the 1990s and suggests that the resurgence in liberal identification may be a result of Americans becoming comfortable with the term once again. After being popular in the civil rights era and 1970s, the term “liberal” fell into disfavor in the 1980s and early 1990s. Many liberals eschewed the label and chose to identify themselves as “progressives” or “moderates.”

Originally published on National Elections Examiner

Elections hint at problems for Dems

Democrats are still celebrating the victory of Terry McAuliffe over Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia, but the elections on Nov. 5 should ring alarm bells for the Democratic Party. Chris Christie’s resounding victory in New Jersey showed that Republicans can be competitive in blue states while McAuliffe’s margin in Virginia was much narrower than expected.

The McAuliffe campaign raised and spent far more than Cuccinelli. Politico reports that McAuliffe outraised Cuccinelli by almost $15 million. The funding disparity meant that Cuccinelli was not able to air campaign ads in the final two weeks of the campaign.

The Republican Party has been criticized for not providing support to Cuccinelli, but the Politico article points out that the Republican National Committee spent $3 million on the Cuccinelli campaign while the Republican Governor’s Association spent $8.3 million. Dick Morris points out that Republicans tried to aid Cuccinelli when the race became competitive in late October, but at that point it was too late to buy air time for ads.

A bigger problem than the lack of money from political groups was Cuccinelli’s lack of fundraising prowess. The Cuccinelli campaign raised only $11.7 million compared to McAuliffe’s $28 million. The Washington Post notes that businessmen who previously supported Republican Bob McDonnell backed McAuliffe this year, making it difficult for Cuccinelli to raise funds.

The bad news for Democrats is that the mountains of cash that McAuliffe spent barely eked out a victory, even with a Libertarian candidate drawing Cuccinelli voters by a margin of two to one. As previously reported by Examiner, McAuliffe’s double digit lead in mid-October had all but evaporated by the end of the month. The likely reason for McAuliffe’s difficulties was the steady stream of bad news relating to the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. Unless a dramatic change occurs over the next year, Obamacare may prove to be a drag on Democratic candidates in next year’s midterm elections.

Voter demographics in the Virginia race are also troubling for Democrats. Strategist and pollster Dick Morris points out that a major question in surveying the race was whether turnout would mirror 2012 or 2010. Exit polls show that turnout closely resembled the off-year election of 2010. The surge of minority Democrats that propelled Barack Obama to two election victories in Virginia did not materialize when he was not on the ballot in either 2010 or this week.

Ezra Klein of the Washington Post agrees. “A Republican looking at these numbers should feel disappointed by last night's election but hopeful about next year's,” he says, noting that the core demographics of Obama’s electoral success, women, minorities, and young voters, all decreased as a percentage of the electorate, as did the percentage of Virginia voters identifying as Democrats.

With Barack Obama off the ballot, his ability to get out the vote is considerably curtailed. Obama’s ability to rally voters may get worse as his approval rating drops with disappointment in Obamacare. A Gallup poll from Nov. 5 showed Obama’s approval rating at 39 percent, a historic low. If the makeup of voters in 2014 resembles the electorate in Virginia from this week, the Democrats may suffer a defeat similar to the 2010 Republican congressional landslide. Democratic hopes for winning control of the House are in jeopardy and with 20 Senate Democrats up for reelection Republican control of both houses of Congress is a very real possibility.

Chris Christie’s victory in New Jersey presents a different set of problems for Democrats. Although Christie is reviled by Tea Party Republicans as a “RINO,” the New Jersey governor has proven adept at reaching into traditional Democratic vote strongholds.

Exit polls from New Jersey show that Gov. Christie made deep inroads into Barack Obama’s core constituencies. Christie won women voters by 15 percent even though the Democratic candidate, Barbara Buono, was a woman. He also won Hispanic voters outright with 51 percent (compared to Buono’s 45 percent). Although Christie did not win the black vote, at 21 percent his percentage of the black vote was almost two-and-a-half times greater than Cuccinelli’s (eight percent).

Some Republicans would charge that Christie’s success is a result of abandoning traditional conservative principles. Christie claims to be a conservative and John Nichols wrote in The Nation that he is right. According to Nichols, Christie cultivates a moderate image to appeal to New Jersey’s voters, but his policies are in line with other Republican governors.

Nichols details how Christie has enacted Wisconsin-style “austerity” in New Jersey and clashed repeatedly with unions. He pulled the state out of a regional carbon emissions program, scaled back renewable energy targets, and vetoed a plan for early voting. Christie’s record on social issues is also conservative. He is pro-life and defunded Planned Parenthood from the New Jersey budget. He also vetoed New Jersey’s gay marriage law.

Christie’s conservative record is not perfect, however. As the L.A. Times pointed out on Nov. 5, Christie his support for in-state tuition for illegal aliens will trouble the right. He also dropped a state appeal to a New Jersey Supreme Court decision that allowed marriages to proceed and signed a bill banning gay conversion therapy. Christie also has a mixed record on gun control. Many Republicans will not easily forget or forgive Christie’s “bro-mance” with President Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.

Nevertheless, a Gallup poll from June found that Christie is the most popular Republican politician. The poll found that Christie had approval ratings of greater than 50 percent with members of both parties as well as the public at large. No other Republican topped 50 percent outside the party. Even if Christie is not the Republican nominee in 2016, his success shows that Republicans can win in blue states without abandoning their principles.

Taken together, the two elections this week portend a difficult future for Democrats. President Obama’s legacy, the problem-ridden Affordable Care Act, could spell disaster for many Democratic candidates just as the president becomes unable to help them.

Originally published on Elections Examiner

Shutdown legacy, Libertarian spoiler may sink Cuccinelli in Virginia

In Virginia’s gubernatorial election today, current Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is expected to lose to former Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe. Virginia, a hotly contested state in recent presidential elections, is an important prize for both parties. The state was reliably Republican until recent years when Virginians voted for Barack Obama twice.

After a dead heat for much of the spring and summer, the race trended towards McAuliffe in late summer. Polling data archived on Real Clear Politics and the Wikipedia page dedicated to the race show polls split between the two candidates between January and July. In September, Mr. McAuliffe began to edge away from Mr. Cuccinelli and in October he picked up a commanding, often double digit, lead for most of October. In recent days, two polls have shown Mr. Cuccinelli closing the gap, but still trailing.

The most recent poll, released on Nov. 4 by Quinnipiac, found McAuliffe leading 46-40 percent with Libertarian Robert Sarvis at eight percent. Another recent poll by Emerson College released three days earlier showed McAuliffe with only a two point lead.

There are likely two big reasons for Ken Cuccinelli’s impending loss. The most obvious is Robert Sarvis, the third man in the race. Sarvis, a lawyer and software developer is Libertarian candidate for governor. According to Real Clear Politics, Mr. Sarvis has polled between four and 13 percent in recent polls. In many of the polls, if the Libertarian percentage were applied to Mr. Cuccinelli, he would lead Mr. McAuliffe.

Third party candidacies damage the party that they more closely identify with because they draw voters from the same pool. The Republican and Libertarian parties are both competing for voters who oppose the Democratic big government agenda, Obamacare, gun control, higher taxes, and a host of other common issues. Since the Republican Party has the largest base, the Republican candidate ends up being hurt by the Libertarian. The Emerson College poll confirmed that Sarvis was drawing support from twice as many Republicans as Democrats.

Libertarian candidates do not have enough support to win. Instead, they can only act as a spoiler to prevent Republicans from winning. Many third party advocates are fond of saying that “a vote for the lesser of two evils is still a vote for evil.” In reality, a more appropriate aphorism would be that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.”

The second factor that will likely cost Cuccinelli the race is the government shutdown. Cuccinelli’s dive in the polls coincided with the run-up to the government shutdown. At the same time, Democrats surged in generic congressional ballots and a number of polls reported Republican approval ratings at historic lows. Polling in Virginia shows that Mr. Cuccinelli’s resurgence began in late October after a compromise on Oct. 16 reopened the federal government.

The Virginia race was contentious from the beginning with McAuliffe reprising Barack Obama’s successful “war on women” strategy against Cuccinelli. For his part, McAuliffe has been plagued by a string of scandals relating to his business dealings with an electric car company that took federal money and allegedly received favorable treatment from the government. Over the weekend, on Nov. 3, President Obama visited Virginia to campaign for McAuliffe. Given the president’s recent low approval ratings and Obamacare’s continuing difficulties, the trip may be as likely to hurt McAuliffe as help him.

In a last ditch effort to rally support, Cuccinelli has attempted to turn the election into a referendum on the Affordable Care Act. CBS News reported that Cuccinelli, who led the more than half of the states in a lawsuit that challenged Obamacare, told supporters, “If you want to fight Obamacare, if you want to tell Washington that Virginians have had enough of Obamacare, then I need your vote.”

The election will likely hinge on turnout, which is expected to be low. According to CBS News, the state believes that turnout may be as low as 30 percent.

Originally published on Elections Examiner

Cognitive dissonance

As I get older and wiser (some would dispute the latter), it seems more miraculous that anyone could ever be saved.

As humans we are so set in our ways and committed to our rationalizations that it is amazing that God could ever change our minds about anything. Even in the face of overwhelming objective evidence, we choose to deny reality and have faith in our own baseless beliefs.

For example, a committed liberal can stare at figures of the mounting federal debt and still believe that Barack Obama cut spending. They can look at crime data and still believe that we need gun control. They can look at our ravaged economy and still believe that we need more entitlements and stimulus.

Conservatives do the same thing. Many still believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya or that the NDAA allows for indefinite detention of Americans, that Ted Cruz saved the Republican Party instead of splitting it.

If we can stare past mountains of evidence that are right in front of our eyes to cling to our erroneous beliefs, then how miraculous it is that we could ever be persuaded to believe the evidence of things not seen?

There, but for the grace of God go I.

In search of Senate RINOs

Of late the Republican Party has become distracted from the battle against Obamacare by an intraparty witch hunt for RINOs, shorthand for “Republicans in name only.” It is believed by many that the RINOs are destroying the party and undermining the efforts of “true conservatives” to stymie Barack Obama and his Democratic minions. Join us then as we go on safari to the Senate to hunt the fabled Republican RINO.

When RINOs are discussed, the name of John McCain (R-Ariz.) is usually at the top of the list. The list of grievances against McCain is long and includes belief in global warming, putting his name on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law that was struck down in the Citizens United ruling, and even voting to consider new gun control measures this year. McCain has long been a moderate Republican who was willing to reach across the aisle. In 2005, he was a member of the Gang of 14 and in 2004, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry offered McCain the vice presidential slot on the Democratic ticket. McCain told the New York Times in 2008 that Kerry was “a liberal Democrat” and “I am a conservative Republican. So… that’s why I never even considered such a thing.”

But is McCain a conservative? Several conservative organizations provide scorecards on how members of Congress rate based on actual votes. The most famous of these is the American Conservative Union. On that scorecard, McCain has a lifetime average of 82.84 out of a possible 100. In 2012, he scored 92. (The Republican average was 77.83 percent. The overall Senate average was 39.28 percent.) The Club for Growth ranked McCain at 85 percent overall and 90 percent in 2012. On the Freedomworks scorecard, McCain scored 44. (Of the 45 Republican senators, only seven scored 90 or better on the Freedomworks scale. The Republican average was 68 and most Democrats scored zero.)

President Reagan famously said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” Using the Reagan standard, John McCain is a friend and ally of conservatives. As confirmation, McCain is listed as an ACU Conservative, a title bestowed on senators with scores higher than 80.

Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is Senate minority leader and also often considered a RINO. In the deal that ended the recent government shutdown, McConnell was accused of securing a $3 billion earmark to build a dam on the Ohio River near Paducah, Ky. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) have since said that they, not McConnell, requested the appropriation in order to avoid canceling contracts that would cost taxpayers $160 million.

When it comes to the scorecards, McConnell gets a 90.09 lifetime average from the ACU with a score of 100 for 2012. The Club for Growth gives him a 74 for 2012 and lifetime 84. He gets a 71 from Freedomworks. McConnell, who faces reelection in 2014, would meet Reagan’s 80 percent rule. Sen. McConnell is listed as a Defender of Liberty by the American Conservative Union, confirming his 100 for 2012.

Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has also been frequently tagged as a RINO. Graham called for an end to the government shutdown in mid-October and has been accused of supporting amnesty for illegal aliens because he favors immigration reform.

Graham earned an 89.12 lifetime average from the ACU with a 92 in 2012. According to the Club for Growth scale, he has a lifetime score of 77 and an 86 for 2012. He scores a 41 on the Freedomworks scale. Graham, who is also running for reelection in 2014, is also listed as an ACU Conservative.

Kelly Ayotte, a Republican from the blue state of New Hampshire, earned a lifetime 85.5 from the ACU with a 76 in 2012. The Club for Growth gives her a lifetime 92 and an 86 in 2012. She gets a 59 from Freedomworks. Ayotte’s 76 score is not good enough to be labeled as a conservative by the ACU, but it is still markedly better than the Democratic senator from New Hampshire, Jeane Shaheen, who scored zero in 2012 and has a lifetime average of 4.5.

Georgia’s two Republican senators are also alleged RINOs. The retiring Saxby Chambliss has a 92.03 lifetime ACU score while Johnny Isakson is at 87.57. Their Club for Growth scores are 83 and 78 percent respectively. Chambliss received a 47 from Freedomworks, while Isakson scored 47.

As a comparison, the lowest Republican on the ACU survey was Susan Collins (R-Maine) with 20 percent. Her score was less James Webb (D-Va.), the highest Democrat at 32 percent. Olympia Snowe, also a Maine Republican, also had 32 percent.

Even though Collins can be fairly described as a RINO, she does have saving graces for Republicans. Writing on Newsmax, Christopher Ruddy points out that she is pro-gun and is rated B-plus by the NRA. She also voted against Obamacare, for the Bush tax cuts and their extension, for the Iraq War resolution, and is generally pro-military. She is also a fiscal conservative who supports a balanced budget amendment and spending caps.

Tea Partiers should be leery of ousting moderate Republicans like Collins. When fellow Mainer Olympia Snowe retired in 2012, she was replaced by independent Angus King. The Maine Sun Journal reported last May that King voted with Democrats 90 percent of the time. A dozen Democrats have broken with the party more often than King.

A review of 2005 list of RINOs in Human Events yields similar results in other states. The top ten list includes four senators (including Collins and Snowe), four representatives, and two governors (including then-governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney). Of the ten, only Susan Collins is still serving. Of the remaining nine, only one, Arlen Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican who later switched parties, was replaced by another Republican. In the other eight cases, the RINOs were replaced by authentic Democrats. One, Mike Castle, a popular Delaware Republican, was defeated in the Republican primary for Joe Biden’s senate seat in 2010. He lost to Christine O’Donnell, the Tea Party favorite, who subsequently lost to Democrat Chris Coons amid revelations of her experiments with Wicca.

Republicans would do well to look at the voting records of elected officials before writing them off as RINOs. Many of the senators often derided as “liberal” Republicans are actually among the most conservative members of Congress. Others represent blue or purple states where a staunch conservative could not win.

There are worse things than having liberal Republicans in Congress. They could be Democrats.

 

Originally published on Atlanta Conservative Examiner