Posts Tagged ‘Independents’

h1

CONTENDER

November 19, 2009

As we approach the mid-term elections in 2010, it seems all of the focus is on the inevitable: the Democrats will lose seats in the House and Senate. The erosion of a president’s approval rating is also part of the political cycle. We Americans like diversity in our government. When one party controls both houses of congress and the White House, we get a little nervous.

Although the Republican Party is leaderless, the hardcore Conservative Movement has many leaders (*see the partial list below) and is pushing hard to cleanse the party of moderates. This is a HUGE mistake. Moderates attract independent voters. Without them, you’re left with the extremists in your party. By the time we get to the next Presidential Election, the number of people who call themselves independents will probably grow to about 40% of the voting population – not a good sign for the hard right or the hard left.

There’s been much discussion about who will be the Republican Nominee in 2012. Naturally, people go back to the names they know: Palin, Huckabee, Romney, etc. But there is a Republican you may not have heard about.

He’s fiscally conservative, voting “nay” on virtually every appropriations bill that comes up, including T.A.R.P. Obviously, he is already holding an elected office in congress. He is Pro-Life and pro-guns, including advocating for conceal carry laws. He seems to be moderate on climate and energy issues. He’s also seems to be down-the-middle on education issues, but does think “No Child Left Behind” is a good model for improving our schools. He’s very pro-military, possibly bordering on neo-conservatism.

According to Real Clear Politics, he’s considered a “dark horse” for a presidential bid in 2012, but I disagree. He knows how to raise money. (He’s sitting on $5.5M for his re-election bid next year.) He’s younger than most of the potential candidates, camera-ready, and could easily appeal to conservative independents.

Could he beat Obama in 2012? I doubt it – unless our President completely falls apart in his first term – an extremely unlikely scenario. But he could use the exposure in 2012 to make a very strong bid for the White House in 2016. Typically, second terms for Presidents are not as strong as first terms. Because of this, vice-presidents running for their boss’s position are not usually successful, historically speaking. Considering Biden will be 74 years old on November 20, 2016, there is a very good chance he won’t run for President. This would certainly create a scenario that could give a well-known, seemingly moderate Republican, a 50-50 shot at winning the White House. If Obama’s second term goes well, a Republican’s chance of winning decreases substantially against a formidable Democratic candidate.

The Republican I speak of is John Thune of South Dakota. 

Among the other “dark horses” mentioned in the Real Clear Politics article are Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels, Texas Governor Rick Perry and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn.

There was one other “dark horse” mentioned: Dick Cheney.

Sincerely,

www.MichaelKontras.com

* Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Mike Huckabee, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, among others.

h1

TO BE BLUNT

September 25, 2009

ToBeBluntLOGO 

They just don’t get it.

They’ve lived in their Lilly-white, gated community world for so long, they have no handle on the pulse of this country. They only associate with the very small minority of those who look and live like them. They are some of the “two-percenters” (the highest income-earners), the “white elite,” and often, without realizing it, the very ones perpetuating the vitriol that offends the vast majority of us – black, brown and white.

I know I’m giving them the benefit of the doubt saying they may be unaware of their part in continuing this rhetoric. I’m probably too optimistic.

The 2009 Value Voters Summit featured many Republican Presidential hopefuls. Below are some of the following breakout sessions on their agenda:

Agenda 

Did you notice the “fear” element? These titles use words like “Thugocracy,” “Conspiracy,” “Silencing the Christians,” “Losing …Basic Freedoms,” “Hysteria,” “Pro-Death Agenda,” “…Threatens Religious Liberty” and “Rationing Your life Away.” So what’s the take-away? Be afraid? Of what?

We decided last year to no longer live and govern in fear when we voted for a change. Why do conservatives and the Republican Party continue to support these non-productive, regressive ideas? Can’t they bring some new ideas to the table instead of relying on the age-old cultural issues that only serve to divide us?

Apparently not.

In case you’re wondering who sponsors such “enlightenment,” below is the sponsorship page from the website: www.valuesvotersummit.org

2009VVSSponsorsPage

Recognize any of these supporters? Here they are individually, along with links to their websites.

The Legislative Arm of the Family Research CouncilFRC-Perkins

The American Family Association  AFA-Wildmon

Focus on the Family ActionFFA-Daly

American ValuesAmericanValues-Bauer

The Family Research CouncilFRC-Perkins2

The Heritage FoundationHeritage-Feulner

Many common themes are woven throughout these organizations, making one think they espouse “American Values.” (A term that eludes definition.) But close, and not-so-close scrutiny reveals very conservative agendas. They are all Pro-life, Anti-Gay, Anti-Government and Anti-Liberal. They have a low, if non-existent tolerance for anyone who believes differently.

None of this makes them bad organizations. But tolerating racist rhetoric does make their motives questionable. Case in point: Rep. Roy Blunt (R-MO), who spoke at the Summit.

The insensitivity illustrated by Blunt is completely trumped by the fact that NONE of the sponsors denounced his words.

Is this a lack of understanding about racism? Or acceptance? When will the Conservative Movement and the Republican Party realize as long as they tolerate this dialogue, their popularity will not grow.

Making Michael Steele the RNC Chair is “tokenism” – not racial understanding. Not denouncing rallies where bigotry is displayed (in signs and speeches), for fear of backlash from the Rush Limbaughs of the media, will not attract rational, level-headed new members to the Republican Party, especially independents – the essential voting block for any political party’s election success.

And allowing Blunt’s comments to go unchecked is just one more shot across the bow of an already suicidal Republican Party.

How pathetic it must be to be Blunt.

Sincerely,

signature2

 

 

www.MichaelKontras.com