Public vs. Private Unions: There is a Difference

by PerlStalker | 8:28 am, March 11, 2011

There’s a difference between public sector unions and private sector unions. I know, shocker, right? While I would never voluntarily join a union, I see no reason to prevent private sector unions from forming. The only thing I would prevent is the abil…

MikeR’s advice for Dan Maes

by Rossputin | 6:13 am, March 11, 2011

My friend and occasional contributor to these pages, Mike R., who lives in Wisconsin, offered these thoughts to Dan Maes:

Dear Dan,

As one of Ross Kaminsky’s very very very few friends (I think I have known him for about 18 years or so) I am forced to conclude that you don’t know him very well or you would avoid picking a fight with him given your circumstances and what I would assume are your future political aspirations in Colorado. While I live in The Land of The Protesters just outside Madison I enjoyed following Ross’ detailing of the Colorado political scene and debating with him in private, and some publicly, about the rise of the Tea Party and whether it was really a significant political movement. I tend to be more cynical than Ross and about as skeptical but he does a lot more boring factual gumshoeing and analysis on such things whereas I tend to observe from a distance and process things viscerally to formulate my opinions on a macro level. I rely on Ross quite a bit to ground my thinking and funnel me into concrete rather than abstract modalities of thought particularly with regard to my writing and activism.

When Ross says he has been studying/following politics for 25 years I think he is being modest and somewhat gentle with you. Ross introduced me to The Heartland Institute and the Libertarian school of thought many years ago when I mostly just scoffed at them as an ‘outsider’ fringe group of non-practical idealists. I can assure you that in all my experience of Ross he is the most unaffiliated person I have ever met and supports only individuals (and even then reservedly) who adhere to rigorous principles of sound limited and effective government and free market capitalism. If there were a church of such things Ross would at least be one of its Bishops.

Now more to the point; I assume that you are not finished and don’t want to be finished in politics. I also assume after following the play by play in Colorado this last season almost as closely as I followed the Packers run up to the Superbowl that you are a ‘Not Ready for Prime Time Player’ yet but may still have a future in politics given some hard work and determination. With that being said I would suggest that this is a time for you to study, learn, refine, listen network and reach out to as broad a group of potential supporters as possible with an eye to the future. Even people with so very very very few friends and followers as Ross Kaminsky are still potentially pennies in your piggy bank of the future and you might even learn something and develop some sophistication and effective strategies for coalition building along the way.

Lashing out and projecting/deflecting blame for some perceived slight on/to Ross and others in such a petulant fashion to avoid taking responsibility for your dismal showing would seem to work at cross purposes to your future in politics. Rather, it is a time to regroup, reach out and build allies in preparation for the future, a time to listen with humility to all the voices around you who at least share a general vision of governance. As an old friend used to offer me in times of distress, “when your pockets are empty, it’s a good place for your pride.”

Alienating even Ross Kaminsky and his very very very few friends and followers would seem a grave error, especially given the multiplicity of platforms to speak and opine from which seem to be at his disposal. I have never heard of a successful farmer who, faced with a bad crop yield went on to salt his fields for their affront to him.

Regards,

MikeR (one of Ross’ very very very few friends)

Denver Lincoln Day Dinner featuring Herman Cain, Friday March 18th!!

by Brett Moore | 3:18 am, March 11, 2011

Fellow Patriots!  On Friday, March 18th, The Denver County Republican Party will be hosting its annual Lincoln Day Dinner! The event will be emcee’d by radio personality and former FEMA head Michael Brown and will feature outspoken businessman and aspiring US Presidential Candidate, Herman Cain, as the keynote speaker!  RSVP HERE ! Herman Cain is an extremely energetic and inspiring speaker. [...]

DMYR March General Meeting feat. Speaker Frank McNulty with special guest Budget Director Henry Sobanet

by Brett Moore | 12:01 am, March 11, 2011

Join the Denver Metro Young Republicans on Tuesday, March 22nd for our March General Meeting.  We are pleased to welcome Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives and fellow Young Republican, Frank McNulty!! On the agenda will be the re-taking of the Colorado House in 2010, breaking down the current legislative session, and discussing how we can get involved and be leaders as Young Republicans! RSVP HERE!! We will also [...]

Kit Carson Becomes First Innovation District: Case of One Size Doesn’t Fit All

by Eddie | 1:49 pm, March 10, 2011

One of the great cliches in policy is that “one size doesn’t fit all.” Well, cliches get to be that way by having some truth behind them. Kind of like my dad’s spiffy loafers are a little big for my feet when I try them on, sometimes even the best state policies need to be [...]

What means testing means

by Rossputin | 6:51 am, March 10, 2011

America’s fiscal need for entitlement reform is pushing the discussion about Social Security inexorably toward “means testing,” a policy both the left and the right have long avoided. Both sides realize that means testing, namely reducing or eliminating payments from the program to higher income senior citizens, would recast Social Security from its current perception by citizens as a retirement program to one of outright redistribution or welfare.

Please read my entire article on this topic at the American Spectator web page:
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/03/09/the-means-testing-temptation

Medicare Loses Nearly 4 Times as Much Money as Health Insurers Make

by Brian Schwartz | 6:30 am, March 10, 2011

Next time someone decries insurance company profits, remind him that fraud and waste in Medicare and Medicaid far exceed these dollar amounts. Check out Jeffrey Anderson’s article in the Weekly Standard: “Medicare Loses Nearly Four Times as Much Money as Health Insurers Make.” See also my previous post: “Medicare & Medicaid fraud far exceeds insurance company profits.”

Head Start Hasn’t Lived Up To Its Promises: How About Just Getting Out of Debt?

by Eddie | 3:52 pm, March 9, 2011

Adults can be strange sometimes. Create a government program. Make it about helping little kids like me. Give it a catchy name like “Head Start.” Spend billions of dollars. And then when the evidence repeatedly shows it doesn’t work? Just ignore it.
Wait, huh?
Okay, not all adults have that mindset. But it’s funny to see [...]

Dan Maes demands I disclose who I work for

by Rossputin | 1:51 pm, March 9, 2011

A few days after speaking to the Boulder County Republican breakfast club with remarks that included a mention of Dan Maes, I received an e-mail from Mr. Maes – a snide, sniveling, and ultimately self-destructive e-mail.

Maes asked that I make his note and my response public and I’m only too glad to do so:

Dan,

Per your request, I will make all this public.

• Let me begin with the subject of your e-mail, “Disclose who you work for.”  I hereby agree.  Here is a list of all of my sources of income:

1. Trading financial markets (my own account; I have no clients or customers, no employer or employee)
2. Investments (whether income or capital gains, plus interest, though not much interest with interest rates where they are)
3. Per-article payment for three publications/web sites (I write what I want, though sometimes an editor suggests a topic of interest; they are national sites, not Colorado-focused.)

• I have never been paid for any work or anything else by any political party or candidate or third party on behalf of a party or candidate.
• I have only once volunteered for any political campaign, and that was when I walked precincts for my friend Rick O’Donnell when he unsuccessfully ran against Ed Perlmutter in 2006.

I have inserted rebuttals within your litany of complaints below.

(My response to Maes is in the bullet points interspersed between his paragraphs to me, which are indented in “block quotes” below.)

On 3/8/2011 09:13, Dan Maes wrote:

Ross,

I have enjoyed a few months of not reading your baseless assaults but I tripped over your comments to the Boulder County Rs. I had to comment and I do not mind you making it public. As a matter of fact, I hope you do because then your readers and listeners, all 10 of them, might hear the truth.

• Dan, I have likewise enjoyed not hearing from you as it reminds me of a sad chapter in our state’s political history.  As for my 10 listeners and readers, I would note that that’s 10 more than you have.  But seriously, do you really want to start comparing whose is bigger?  I don’t have a huge radio show, but I do have a radio show.  Last week, I had two of the most-read articles at RealClearPolitics.com, perhaps the most important right-of-center political web page and certainly in the top few.  And even on the mostly irrelevant measure of Facebook “friends”, almost all of whom for me are more like political acquaintances rather than the historic definition of “friends”, I’m several hundred ahead of you.  You remind me of a poorly trained lawyer who asks a question he shouldn’t have asked and then complains when the other lawyer follows up, with the judge allowing it because “you opened the door.”
• By the way, if you thought I only had 10 readers and listeners, would you really have taken the time to write this note?  Well, you might since you’re probably not doing much else.  (See, I can play “a$$hole” at least as well as you can.)

First, your false accusations about my re-imbursements are slanderous and untrue. My re-imbursements actually trailed those of TTs on a month to month basis. In just 2.5 months Tom had reimbursed himself nearly 5K/mo. If he had campaigned as long as me he would have reimbursed himself even more than I did. To say I reimbursed myself more than I had made in the past is also completely untrue and inaccurate. I ask that you stop making those claims immediately.

• I never compared your reimbursements to anyone else’s
• I never said you reimbursed yourself more than you had made in the past
• Therefore, I will not “stop making claims” that I never made; it is you who is engaging in the slander/libel by claiming that I said things I never said
• I said, as you told me directly when I interviewed you, that you needed those reimbursements in order to make ends meet in your day to day life as you were unemployed and did not have substantial savings
• I said to the BCR group that that was one reason I believed you would not drop out of the race if you won the nomination, and I stand by that analysis.  I know that I will never know for sure.

Second, it was apparent from day one that you were working for another camp. It was blatantly obvious when you couldn’t wait to be first to falsely and inaccurately claim that I did not graduate from UW Madison. I was a fool to ever meet with you after that because your intent was clear. Lesson learned by me.

• Regarding the University, someone else called me with that tip because he had gotten it directly from the University.  Then I called the University myself and got the SAME answer.  I certainly believed I had done the proper research there.  Then, when it turned out not to be true, I called them back and the same guy said to me “I’m sorry. It was my error.”  I apologized to you in writing on my web site…and I think by e-mail as well…for that error.  I most certainly did not just make something up or repeat something without fact-checking.  It was a very bad coincidence all around, but nothing more, and I remain sorry that that incident happened.

• It’s no secret that prior to his dropping out I was supporting Josh Penry.
• When Tancredo got in the race, I initially encouraged my readers NOT to support him or donate to him because I believed he couldn’t win and I was still hoping that you and/or McInnis would get out so that someone electable could get in.  I only supported Tancredo very late in the game when it became clear that he had the best chance and that you had no chance…though I always thought you had no chance.  For the record, my thinking you can’t win isn’t evidence that I was “working for another camp.”  I was working for the camp of a victory by an intelligent, principled conservative and didn’t see you as that guy.

Third, you arrogantly sit in the stands and formulate uninformed opinions based on assumption. You, like some radio talk show hosts, do not care about the truth but in your desire to grow a following say whatever you think without all the facts. This is where some bloggers are part of the problem rather than the solution.

• Your opinion of my radio show or of bloggers is, frankly, irrelevant.  My opinions are my opinions.  They may turn out to be wrong, but they are almost never uninformed.  This is of course not to say that I might stumble across the rare bit of incorrect information, such as the college thing with you, but that is a less-than-1% occurrence.  I go out of my way to research my topics.  Furthermore, I’ve been studying politics and economics for more than 25 years and understand many things quite well.

Fourth, based on the Nov. 2 numbers few Tea Partiers abandoned me. The illusion that I was being abandoned was smoke and mirrors by your folks. The media had people leaving me that never supported me in the first place. Granted, a few jumped, the illusion was successful.

• You must be kidding.  You barely topped 10% of the vote and many Tea Partiers abandoned you aggressively and en masse, as noted in this detailed article.
  

Finally, the grassroots had it right. You, like others trying to disguise your insider role by playing outsider, simply could not stand the idea of a rookie outsider winning. The polls, which you all so conveniently use when advantageous, clearly showed me head to head with Hick after the primary and if everyone would have circled the wagons we would have won. Rather, the hypocrites who just weeks earlier railed to patriots that, “you better back our candidate when he wins the primary” showed their true character.

• My history of supporting pro-liberty candidates, including “outsiders” is solid.  That said, being an “outsider” isn’t the only thing I look for.  People I’ve supported recently included Alan West (FL), Mike Rogers (AL), Marco Rubio (FL), Paul Ryan (WI) and some Club for Growth-supported candidates. A mix of “insiders” and “outsiders” but all people I consider to be smart and principled. I supported “insider” Jane Norton over almost-as-insider Ken Buck because I thought it would be too easy for the left to demonize Ken, but then I contributed to Ken’s campaign once he won.  In any case, I stand by my remarks to the BCR group that the Tea Party made a big mistake in thinking that your being totally unqualified for the job was all the qualification necessary.
• It’s not extremely important, but I’ve donated substantially more money to Libertarian presidential candidates than to Republican presidential candidates. I am not particularly fond of the GOP and would never support a Republican candidate only on the basis of his party registration.
• I never believed that you had any chance against Hick.  Your take on those polls reminds me of the 5 minutes when McCain was close to Obama…something I also didn’t believe.  Why would people “circle the wagons” around a candidate who wants to hold the highest office in the state and yet didn’t have his own heartfelt view on critical issues such as guns and immigration?
• And does it not impact your view of your electability that it seems clear you won with the help of Democrat money and effort because they knew you were the much weaker candidate?
• For the record, I NEVER said anyone “better back our candidate”.  I said you were unqualified and McInnis was disqualified, and I stand by that as well.

In closing, your read on the Tea Party and the conservative revolution is either misinformed, understandable as you don’t really know them, or intentionally manipulative in order to mislead and manipulate the voters as was done in the August, September and November of 2010. In either case, get your facts right or get of the news circuit.

• I’ll put my “read on the Tea Party and the conservative revolution” up against yours (and almost anyone else’s) any day.
• Your accusations are worse than the pot calling the kettle black; they’re outright lies designed to mask your poor performance and boost your own ego.  Other than the college thing, which I’ve already apologized for repeatedly, I defy you to show me where I got a fact wrong.
• Dan, they say “when you’re in a deep hole, stop digging.”  Sending me a note full of baseless accusations and ridiculous claims is just you breaking out your shovel again when most of us thought you had already hit bedrock.
• This will make a GREAT blog note for my 5 readers and perhaps even a good few minutes of radio on Sunday for my 5 listeners, so I thank you very much for providing the fodder for this oh-so-light-hearted banter.  Now back to my day job…

NPR Fires CEO Vivian Schiller in Wake of Video Sting

by Mr. Bob | 9:10 am, March 9, 2011

#PBC #NPR #teaparty #budgetNPR board ousts CEO Vivian Schiller in wake of video sting | The Daily Caller – Breaking News, Opinion, Research, and Entertainment##NPR Foundation President Ron Schiller was fired yesterday after this video was released. You…

Numbers Show Government Employees Top Private Sector Counterparts in Colorado’s Union Membership

by Ben DeGrow | 2:56 pm, March 8, 2011

It looks very much like Colorado is only one year behind in achieving a labor movement milestone measured at the national level. A little over a year ago I reported the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) finding that government employees represented a numerical majority of the unionized workforce in the United States. (You can listen [...]

Mainstream Media Reports Actual News – shocking

by Mr. Bob | 1:00 pm, March 8, 2011

Tweet

Obscene Salaries Uncovered at NPR

by Mr. Bob | 12:28 pm, March 8, 2011

By Jim DeMint AP…The executives at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which distributes the taxpayer money allocated for public broadcasting to other stations, are also generously compensated. According to CPB’s 2009 tax forms, President…

Indiana Study Adds One More Proof to Pile: Charters Thrive in Right Conditions

by Eddie | 12:22 pm, March 8, 2011

Indiana is one of those states where an ambitious education reform push is underway. Interestingly, the Indianapolis Star reports today on some new evidence (H/T American Federation for Children) bolstering part of the legislative package supported by Governor Mitch Daniels and State Superintendent Tony Bennett:

The Star looked at charter schools’ scores on ISTEP [Indiana Statewide [...]

Guarantee to Unions the Same Rights the Rest of Us Have

by Ari Armstrong | 10:40 am, March 8, 2011

The following article by Linn and Ari Armstrong originally was published March 4 by Grand Junction Free Press.Union battles in Wisconsin spilled over into Colorado February 22 as union supporters and Tea Party groups held opposing rallies at the capito…

Hey Colorado Pols: Hospitals pass hospital “fee” on to patients

by Brian Schwartz | 6:30 am, March 8, 2011

The bill that would repeal the Colorado hospital tax has died. But Colorado Pols incorrectly states that it’s hospitals that pay the fee. This expense, or a large part of it, probably gets passed on to patients. Nor does the fee bring in matching funds from the feds.

Dan Mitchell: We can restrain government spending

by Rossputin | 6:05 am, March 8, 2011

Here’s a two part explanation by the Cato Institute’s Dan Mitchell showing that it is possible to restrain the growth of government.  All of Dan’s videos are worth watching, but these (among others) are worth particular mention:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJneSSGLnSI

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xnhb0JwS_7A

School Choice for Kids Adds Brief Podcasts to Enhance Parent-Friendly Experience

by Eddie | 3:00 pm, March 7, 2011

When Mondays come, especially when the Monday is cold and wet and foggy, I’m on the lookout for good news. For parents seeking a better educational option for their kids, I just might have the sort of news you’re looking for.
First and foremost, my Education Policy Center friends have added a new feature to [...]

Citizens’ Budget Facts of the Day

by Jon Caldara | 1:08 pm, March 7, 2011

In 1991, predating TABOR, the legislature passed a statute to ensure appropriations for operations would not expend more than 6 percent over the prior year[i]. The legislature recently[ii] removed the restriction. Exempted from the Arveschoug-Bird limitation was the State’s one-time “capital development” funds, used to catch up on deferred maintenance, to fund highway construction, or [...]

Weekend Wrap: Independence Institute Writers In The News

by Mike Krause | 1:05 pm, March 7, 2011

What do public-sector unions, highway traffic jams and gun rights all have in common? These are all recent topics of Independence Institute writers in the news.
First, in Friday’s Denver Daily News, Independence Institute education policy analyst Ben DeGrow points out, among other things, that while private-sector unions organize against management, public-sector unions actually organize [...]

Colorado Considers “Parent Trigger” Legislation, the Show

by Jon Caldara | 12:44 pm, March 7, 2011

Unions are Obsolete

by Al Maurer | 11:58 am, March 7, 2011

Unions may once have made sense, but today they just hold workers back.

Maher, Williams Debate Party Strategy

by Ari Armstrong | 9:39 am, March 7, 2011

Should liberty activists participate in the Republican or Libertarian parties? That’s what Kelly Maher of WhoSaidYouSaid.com and David Williams of the Gadsden Society debated March 2 at Liberty On the Rocks.Maher’s basic point was that liberty activist…

Text of my remarks to the Boulder County Republican Breakfast club

by Rossputin | 6:30 am, March 7, 2011

These are the prepared remarks for my talk to the Boulder County Republican Breakfast Club last Wednesday morning:

The Tea Party movement is, in my view, the most powerful force for good among political movements since the abolitionists of the 19^th century.  Its aims, despite the cries from the left of “racism”, “fascism”, and “violence”, are the revival of the fundamental American Principles which made this country the most powerful and successful in the history of mankind.  It’s no accident that people from every corner of the world want to immigrate to the United States, whether to escape tyranny or increase their own economic opportunities.

But just because a movement is well-intentioned does not mean it is flawless, especially in its early days when relative political novices are just learning how different politics is from almost any other human endeavor, or at least how much it magnifies and brings out the worst in people because of the power government has over so much of our lives.  Indeed, it is this disturbingly broad power which motivates many Tea Partiers.  We want to rein in government, especially federal government, to its proper place.  However, we won’t get there if we make the same mistake that so many liberals do, namely seeing the world as we wish it were rather than as it is.  To be fair, liberals make that mistake far more than conservatives or libertarians do.

Some of the Tea Party mistakes in the 2010 elections are well known, the most glaring being the nominations of Christine O’Donnell in Delaware, Sharron Angle in Nevada, and Dan Maes right here in Colorado.  One could also make an argument that Ken Buck’s nomination was a Tea Party error but that seems clearer to some in hindsight than at the time, whereas the other three were panned by many conservative or Republican analysts when they happened. (I endorsed Jane Norton over Ken Buck, taking a lot of heat from my Tea Party friends, arguing that they were nearly identical on policy but that Ken had a higher chance of losing than Jane did.)

I’ve already done more than my share of rhetorical Maes bashing, so…why not do some more?!?  Actually, what I’m interested in is not Maes himself but the lessons that his campaign taught us about the Tea Party and to a lesser degree about the other side of the Republican coin, the so-called “Establishment.”

The first lesson the Tea Party must learn – and it’s something which several Tea Party leaders around the state excoriated me for saying during the election season – is that while citizen legislators are a great and distinctively American idea, it simply can’t be that a person’s having no qualifications whatsoever for an elected position is the highest qualification a Tea Party group needs to endorse him.

Even a little bit of digging into Dan Maes – such as the 90 minutes I spent interviewing him, and this was after he had become relatively seasoned at giving interviews – showed a man who has long harbored political ambition (as his wife told me plainly) and whose success in business was far less than he intentionally allowed people to assume.

His positions on key Republican issues of guns and immigration changed dramatically after getting “advice” from conservatives with strong views on the topics.  It’s one thing to be open-minded.  It’s another thing entirely to be running for the highest office in the state and not have one’s own fairly solid views on the Second Amendment and on amnesty.

And despite all this, Maes was vehemently championed by Tea Party groups around the state who refused to endure even the slightest criticism of their man despite the relative obviousness of the likelihood of an electoral train wreck.

All that said – and this goes for the Christine O’Donnell situation in Delaware as well – the Tea Party’s backing of Maes was understandable given the alternative, especially once Josh Penry got out of the race.

Scott McInnis in his best moment was an unappealing candidate, a perfect and depressing example of the Republican Party establishment giving its nod to the guy who can claim it’s “my turn.”  I met with McInnis and found him to be, in short, a strange combination of pandering and supercilious imbued into a wax figure of a caricature of a politician.

As my friend Don Boudreaux always reminds me when it comes to economics, the most important question when considering a choice is “compared to what?”  So it’s understandable that people would have found the alternative to Maes so unacceptable that all Maes needed to be was just not-McInnis, just as all O’Donnell needed to be was not-Mike Castle.

I supported Josh Penry early on and it broke my heart to take my Penry for Governor sticker off my car. I was one of the first bloggers to call for Maes and McInnis to both drop out, though I knew it was extremely unlikely.  I refused to vote in that primary race although I did encourage people to hold their noses and vote for McInnis because I thought he might drop out but that there was no way Maes would drop out.  After all, where would he go since he was broke and unemployed?  Perhaps calls for an undervote in that race by me and others resulted in Maes’ primary victory because it’s likely that Maes supporters didn’t listen to us nearly as much as McInnis voters did.  In the end, Maes beat McInnis by 5,000 votes out of almost 400,000 votes cast, or just under 1.5%, with almost 20,000 fewer votes cast in that Republican primary than in the Norton-Buck Senate primary.

One thing to keep in mind as we consider the “establishment”.  It’s not just the party apparatus, but it’s also big money, often “moderate” Republicans, with some of the best known names in Colorado being Pete Coors, Bruce Benson, and Phil Anschutz, who perhaps think that their tremendous business acumen will and should translate into political wisdom and tactical genius.  It doesn’t.

Businessmen come from a world where people tend to get promoted based on prior success, at least until the Peter Principle hits them.  It’s rational to usually assume that someone good at a job has a better than average chance of being good at the next higher related job.  But politics is different in several important ways.  First, being popular in your own home district, whether as small as a State House district or as large as a congressional district, is not an extremely reliable indicator of statewide popularity, especially if your home district is removed from the state’s largest population centers, as was the case with Scott McInnis. Second, political times and the interests of voters change over time, so a candidate who might have been popular in one cycle might no longer be interesting to the electorate in another cycle.  Indeed, the massive change in voter sentiment about government influence and spending between 2008 and 2010 was nothing short of stunning.

Therefore, these masters of the universe, for whom I have the utmost respect when it comes to business, need to be reined in by political adults when they try to exert influence on who will be the GOP’s candidates for various offices, particularly when that influence is too much along the lines of “my turn” politics, which is what gave us Bob Dole and John McCain, which is to say what gave us Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

[Many political novices, including well-intentioned Tea Partiers, missed this fact and thus laid the blame for far too much at the feet of the outgoing chairman of the state party, Dick Wadhams, whose influence over candidates and potential candidates is extremely limited, both by his actual powers as well as by political and ethical realities.]

The Tea Party and the Establishment need to live by a modified version of “the Buckley Rule”, named for the now deceased founder of National Review magazine, William F. Buckley, who said that conservatives should support the most conservative candidate who is electable.

I would modify this to say that “most conservative” needs to meet some minimum standard of principle.  For example, Christine O’Donnell in Delaware was obviously unelectable from Day 1.  This means that the most conservative electable candidate in Delaware was Mike Castle, a RINO of the first order.

To quote Grover Norquist, whom I had the chance to hear and have a conversation with at the Leadership Program of the Rockies Annual Retreat this past weekend, Republicans who support tax increases are like rat heads in the bottom of a Coke bottle.  They don’t just ruin that bottle, they do great damage to the whole brand.

And I have to say this leaves me in a huge quandary.  To be frank, and I’m not sure whether this is a confession, I said on my radio show that I hoped Mike Castle won the primary because he was sure to win the general election whereas O’Donnell was sure to lose it and many people thought that that race could have been the difference between Republican and Democrat control of the US Senate.  In hindsight, I can’t say that my take was wrong, but I’m also not convinced it was right.  I had never before nor since hoped for a RINO to win an election, whether against another Republican or even against a Democrat.

I hate to complain about problems without offering a solution, but in the case of Delaware, there was no good answer regarding whom to vote for.

But that brings us back to the Tea Party and the Establishment.  Delaware is not a conservative state, and Castle was a popular incumbent Congressman, so it’s not surprising or even that objectionable for the party apparatus to support him, especially with his huge polling advantage over the Democrat.  Still, I hate the idea that the party establishment would support a rat head.  On the other hand, the Tea Party’s support of O’Donnell who was not just not a serious candidate but not a serious person, was unforgiveable.  It’s not impossible, even in Delaware, and considering the results in the Massachusetts senate race won by Scott Brown and the New Jersey governor’s race won by Chris Christie, that a Tea Party candidate who wasn’t a buffoon could have won that Senate seat.

Nevada’s senate race was similar.  Establishment candidate Sue Lowden was too much of a RINO, but Sharron Angle, although quite nice in person and seemingly principled to the point of stubbornness, something I appreciate, lacked substance and was too gaffe-prone.  Tea Partiers should have supported Danny Tarkanian, the most conservative electable candidate instead of just going with the most flamboyantly anti-government candidate.  The result would likely have been the defeat of Harry Reid.

After all this, here’s the good news: The Tea Party is gaining influence, although it remains to be seen whether pro-liberty activists will maintain their passion and pressure even when Republicans gain power.  And the Tea Party is full of smart people who will learn from their mistakes and probably mostly avoid the future Dan Maeses and Christine O’Donnells. So, despite the substantial rookie mistakes of the Tea Party movement, the best hope for the future of liberty and capitalism in America still lies with them.  The Establishment is too sclerotic and too focused on power rather than principle to ever improve very much.  That said, even small improvements in the Establishment could make a huge difference in outcomes, especially in Republican primaries, and therefore I encourage pro-liberty activists to try to get involved in Establishment structures, party organizations, and so on, and try to create change from the inside.

Furthermore, their pro-liberty Tea Party activists should avoid tarring their Tea Party friends who do get involved with the party structure with the pejorative of being “Establishment”.  This is about outcomes, about liberty, personal responsibility, free markets, and generally fundamental American principles.  Any non-violent means of reaching those ends should be cheered even if it means working with and in a system that you might not fully appreciate.

I also encourage Establishment Republicans who have not taken much interest in the Tea Party to reconsider that view.  A good dose of Tea Party is like a booster shot of conservative or libertarian principles and could go a long way toward reminding anyone of what politics is really about and what’s really at stake if we get it wrong.

Finally, I would encourage Tea Partiers to keep the pressure on incumbent Republicans, letting them know that a primary challenge is only a couple of bad votes away…

3/3 Pt 1 – Chat with Tea Party activist Elliot Fladen about the Wisconsin and nation-wide union protests

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 7:00 pm, March 6, 2011

In Part One of the 3/3 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger chats with blogger and Tea Party activist Elliot Fladen about the union protests in Wisconsin and his own run-in with protesters here in Colorado.  What are we to make of the w…

3/3 Pt 2 – Forum with Matt Arnold and Leondray Gholston, COGOP Chair candidates

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 6:00 pm, March 6, 2011

In Part Two of the 3/3 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger conducts a mini-forum with Matt Arnold, of Clear the Bench Colorado, and Leondray Gholston, Vice-Chair of the CO GOP, who are both candidates for Chairman of the Colorado Republican…

2/24 Pt 1 – Interview with State Rep. Ken Summers

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 3:00 pm, March 6, 2011

In Part One of the 2/24 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger sits down with Colorado State Representative Ken Summers, a Republican from HD-22, for a wide-ranging discussion about several issues of the day.  Topics include a failed elec…

Separated at birth?

by David K. Williams, Jr. | 2:14 pm, March 6, 2011

Just a gratuitous fat joke, I know. I’m ashamed of myself.BlueCarp

2/24 Pt 2 – Kevin Miller, author of "Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally"

by Jimmy Sengenberger | 2:00 pm, March 6, 2011

In Part Two of the 2/24 edition of Seng Center, host Jimmy Sengenberger sits down with Kevin Miller, author of the thought-provoking book Freedom Nationally, Virtue Locally, or Socialism.  The duo discuss Kevin’s surprisingly-difficult contention …

Dems Refuse to Cut More than $10.5 Billion

by PerlStalker | 12:08 pm, March 6, 2011

Every Federal dollar is sacred to Senator Dick Durbin. Despite GAO reports that between $100-200 billion is spent on duplicative federal programs and $48 billion spent on fraudulent Medicare payments, Durbin tells Fox News that Democrats will not cut m…

« go back — keep looking »

Featured Posts

• Judge Rules Americans Can Be Forced to Testify Against Themselves

  In order to protect our rights, our security must be protected. In order to protect our security, our rights must be invaded. Nothing wrong with that, is there?

• World Economic Forum in Switzerland: Global Elites Celebrating Hypocrisy
• SCOTUS decision on warrantless GPS surveillance produces an expected friend of privacy
• You didn’t want your Fifth Amendment rights, anyway, did you?
• Keynesian Economists Finally Catch Up and Agree: China to Have Hard Landing
• The Beauty of Private Property—from China?
• Regime Uncertainty, Regulatory Surge, and Unemployment Numbers