Instant GOP stars
By: Politico Staff
July 23, 2010 04:14 AM EDT
Kristi Noem, South Dakota’s Sarah Palin
South Dakota state Rep. Kristi Noem didn’t decide to run for Congress until February. She didn’t have very much money. No one really knew her. Conventional wisdom said she’d lose the primary to Secretary of State Chris Nelson, who’d already won two statewide elections in landslides, and that he’d go on to challenge Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in November.
But Noem won — convincingly — and the calls from Washington poured in. She shot to the top of the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Young Guns program. Fox News showed up with a camera crew. And even before primary day, Herseth Sandlin’s husband, former Texas Rep. Max Sandlin, sent out a fundraising plea, warning that the telegenic Noem could be “South Dakota’s Sarah Palin.”
Noem will have a difficult race against Herseth Sandlin, who was first elected in 2004 and has plenty of cash in the bank. But with a slight lead in some polls and a strong GOP wind at her back, Noem is a top prospect, national observers say. And in a new Republican majority, she’d be a charismatic female in a GOP looking for leaders to increase the party’s appeal among women and minorities.
— Kasie Hunt
Tim Scott, the lone face in the crowd
South Carolina state Rep. Tim Scott was the first black Republican elected to the state’s Assembly since Reconstruction, and he’s poised to become the Deep South’s first black Republican in the U.S. House since that era.
He also would be the only black Republican member of Congress, period. And that distinction, operatives say, would give him immediate authority. He could enjoy high-level attention like that lavished on J.C. Watts, the University of Oklahoma football star who was the first black Republican since Reconstruction to win a House seat from a state south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Watts was elected in 1994, co-chaired Bob Dole’s presidential campaign two years later and was the head of the Republican Conference by 1998.
But it’s much more than the color of Scott’s skin that has made top Republicans take notice of his ascent. To win the primary and earn his spot as the clear front-runner in a conservative district, Scott had to rise above Paul Thurmond and Carroll Campbell III, heirs to the state’s most potent political legacies — those of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond and former Gov. Carroll Campbell. Both sons ran against Scott. He beat both, and it’s earned him plenty of admirers in Washington.
— Kasie Hunt
The wooing of Dino Rossi
By: Kenneth P. Vogel
June 11, 2010 04:57 AM
With the Senate still wrangling over a groundbreaking health care overhaul, about a dozen Republican senators — nearly one-third of the GOP conference — took time out from their hectic schedules in late March to talk to an out-of-towner about his family and their governing priorities if they were to retake the majority in November.
The out-of-towner in question wasn’t some wide-eyed, camera-wielding tourist. Rather, he was a prospective star Senate recruit considered essential to GOP hopes of expanding the general election playing field and winning back the upper chamber — Dino Rossi.
The goal was to persuade Rossi to challenge three-term Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). And Senate Republicans were ultimately successful, with Rossi eventually announcing his bid in late May — about two months after his red-carpet treatment in the Capitol.
The episode provided a window into the sometimes elaborate courtship process that takes place during candidate recruitment, with Rossi leaving D.C. feeling reassured that a Senate career is not mutually exclusive with having a family and that he would not want for national support if he entered the race.
His would-be colleagues compared his potential candidacy with that of Republican darling Scott Brown’s winning Senate campaign in Massachusetts and cast the 2010 crop of GOP Senate candidates as a sort of dream team that could fundamentally alter the ideological composition of the U.S. Senate.
“When I went there, I wasn’t all that convinced that if they got the majority, they’d actually do something, because I don’t need to be part of any club,” Rossi said in an interview with POLITICO.
Though he wouldn’t reveal which GOP senators he met with other than Brown and John Cornyn of Texas, who chairs the campaign committee that helped plan the trip and led the effort to lure Rossi into the race, Rossi said a common theme emerged in his one-on-one conversations with lawmakers.
“They said, ‘Look, we’ve got a bunch of guys all over the country that are running — Rubio and Portman and Toomey and others — that are authentic fiscal conservatives like you,’” he said, referring to GOP Senate candidates Marco Rubio of Florida, Rob Portman of Ohio and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Rossi, a former state senator who positioned himself as a pragmatic moderate during losing gubernatorial bids in 2004 and 2008, doesn’t have the GOP field to himself. But political insiders believe his candidacy could provide the GOP with its best shot at winning a Senate seat from Washington state since Republican Slade Gorton lost his 2000 reelection bid to Democrat Maria Cantwell.
“He was considered a good get because he was literally the only Republican besides [state attorney general] Rob McKenna in the entire state that anybody had heard of,” said Matt Baretto, a political science professor who directs the University of Washington’s Washington Poll.
Rossi seemed to pay special attention to the encouragement he received from Brown, whose stunning January special election victory in Massachusetts stripped Democrats of their 60-vote filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. In a telephone call and also during a March meeting on Capitol Hill, Brown urged Rossi to run by comparing dark blue Washington state to even darker blue Massachusetts.
According to Rossi, Brown’s message was: “If it can happen in Massachusetts, certainly it can happen in Washington. There is a new day out there.”
In 2004, Rossi seemed poised to give the state GOP its biggest victory in years, narrowly edging then-Attorney General Chris Gregoire in the initial vote results and a state-mandated recount in the gubernatorial race, before losing in a second — and final — recount by a staggeringly slim 133 votes. He lost a 2008 rematch to Gregoire by about 200,000 votes.
His decision to challenge Murray was seen as a major coup for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, which is facing a national electoral landscape rich with pickup opportunities but needs more competitive opportunities if the GOP is to have any hope at capturing a Senate majority.
Rossi demurred when asked whether Cornyn promised him financial support — saying “there was certainly nothing in writing, I can tell you that.” But he sounded confident that Cornyn’s committee would direct resources to his campaign, predicting it would fare well in the cost-benefit analyses that typically govern such decisions.
“If I’m in the margin when the time comes, I would imagine they would be very supportive of this effort,” he said, adding, “Are they going to go spend $15 million in California to get a seat or $3 million in Washington to get a seat? Hmmm.”
Washington’s quirky primary system, which sends the leading two vote getters to the general election regardless of party, is thought to diminish the power of the party fringes, and that could give Rossi an advantage over handpicked GOP candidates in other states who’ve met with anti-establishment, tea party-fueled resistance.
Nonetheless, Democrats are hoping Rossi is pulled to the right by Clint Didier, a tea party-backed former pro football player who was endorsed by movement favorite Sarah Palin. Though Didier was largely unknown before the race and hails from sparsely populated Eastern Washington (Rossi is from the vote-rich Seattle suburbs), he has already blasted Rossi as “part of the Republican establishment” and predicted tea party activists would reject his candidacy.
The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, meanwhile, pounded Rossi for months as he considered running, casting his commercial real estate interests and business associations as unsavory in an effort either to keep him out of the race or frame him early as something other than a “sunny conservative,” the moniker sometimes used to describe Rossi in 2004 in press accounts.
“In a political environment where voters want to know what their candidates are doing for them, Dino Rossi is all about what he’s doing for himself,” said DSCC spokesman Eric Schultz. “As we have already seen this year, voters will absolutely hold their candidates accountable for their records, and Dino’s is not one to be proud of.”
In the interview with POLITICO, Rossi shrugged off the attacks from the DSCC and Didier, casting the former as an act of desperation and largely ignoring the latter, saying “anybody should be able to run, but we’re running against Patty Murray.”
Palin endorsed Didier before Rossi got into the race, he pointed out, suggesting the endorsement owed more to the fact that Palin’s uncle lives in Eastern Washington “and is a big supporter of Clint, and that’s fine.”
Efforts to brand him as the establishment candidate won’t work in Washington, where Democrats are regarded as the establishment, Rossi asserted, accusing Murray of driving the DSCC’s attacks.
“After 18 years as our senator, is this all Patty Murray’s got to talk about? That’s the question. Really? That’s pathetic,” he said. “And so — yeah — go ahead, have at it guys, but I’m going to be talking about the issues that she obviously is trying to avoid like the plague.”
Alex Glass, a spokeswoman for Murray, responded: “Sen. Murray has been out there talking about what she’s doing for Washington state families and small business. Her record is very clear. She’s been an effective senator for the state of Washington, standing up for our vets, fighting to bring the tanker contract home for Washington workers and fighting to hold Wall Street accountable.”
As for the effect of a potential Senate career on his family, Rossi, who has four children between the ages of 9 and 19, said all of the GOP senators he met with “gave me a different answer. And it all depended on the dynamic of the family, how many kids, how old and how far away their state was from D.C. All that had an effect on the answers that they all gave. And it’s not that one thing fits for everybody.”
RCP Newsmaker Interview with Dan Coats
By RealClearPolitics
RCP: We'll start by asking what your thoughts are on the Kagan nomination, and how you might vote if you were in the Senate right now.
COATS: Well, obviously I'm not in the Senate right now, so I'm not going to have access to all the information that I would like to have in terms of assessing someone's qualifications and abilities.
After my experience with Alito I really start with the premise that the most important thing is the individual's faithfulness to the Constitution. I think no one could have expressed it better or adhered to it more than Judge Alito. Of course, I was privileged to be close to that. Not to take anything away from any of the other Supreme Court justices, and particularly Justice Roberts, who I think expresses the same thing. Seeing the Constitution as the Constitution, written by our Founding Fathers, one of the most brilliant documents ever produced in the history of civilization. To see people say, "It's a living document and times have changed and everything's evolved, and therefore we have to be different with our interpretation of these things than the founders -- than the Constitution specifically says," that opens a Pandora's Box with no end in sight. So you'd end up then having a Supreme Court, or justices advocating for ideologies, for changes they think the Congress should have made but didn't make, and I think exceeding their Constitutional duties to be adjudicators of the law and not makers of the law, to defend the Constitution not rewrite the Constitution. See it as a document that has stood the test of time and has to be strictly interpreted in terms of what it says, rather than loosely interpreted to mean something that it doesn't say.
So that's the foundational standard which I would use to assess this nominee, and any nominee - whether it's a Republican-appointed nominee or a Democratic nominee. That's what I think the Senate should do. I won't be there to articulate that. I think that's probably what the result of the Alito/Roberts confirmation hearings have demonstrated to Republicans - that this whole idea of, "Well the president has the prerogative of choosing who he wants," and ideology, and loose interpretation is okay - I think those days are over. That standard used to be: give the president his prerogative and if they were experienced ... . But now, Democrats have not adhered to that standard. I saw them trash Alito. If that's the game they want to play, that's the game we'll have to play. So we'll see how Kagan stands up against that.
I'm going to watch very carefully to see what she says. She has very little record. And so unfortunately it's more of what she says, not more of what she has done. You know, I have an opponent who says one thing and does another. It's easy for a nominee to say something that sounds right and moderate, whatever, as opposed to doing something. That's the problem with appointing someone who doesn't have a record.
The irony is that Harriet Miers, the original appointee, was soundly criticized for not having a record with which to judge.
RCP: Do you see the comparison? People are making that comparison?
COATS: Yeah. We have the same situation in terms of record. It's not as if Harriet came out of nowhere. She was the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association, the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association - not necessarily the kind of state - a macho, male dominated state. Counseled the president at the White House. And a woman of substantial personal experience and not judicial experience. So there are similarities here. It's ironic that the same Democrats who were trashing Harriet Miers for not having judicial experience are saying it doesn't matter. That's life in the big city.
RCP: Given what you see happening in other primaries across the country and the political environment, do you feel fortunate to have won your race last week?
COATS: Yeah. I am grateful that the people, Republicans in Indiana thought that I should be the one to carry the message. But it was earned through an extensive primary season, very different than what Senator Bennett went through in a convention with limited number of people. It was earned through dozens of debates, forums, placing ourselves in front of Hoosiers, giving them a clear choice of any of the five of us. I was gratified to have a solid win and carry it forward. I'm also gratified that my four opponents rallied around and said we're going to forward because the real goal is to replace an enabling Democrat, an Obama-enabling Democrat with an Obama-opposing Republican. That's what Hoosiers I think are looking for.
RCP: Given the toxic environment inside the Capitol, why do you want to go back to that?
COATS: That's a big question for me. Look, you have 20 years of public service. You left with a solid reputation. You're enjoying the fruits of your labors. Obviously not going back for the money. You're not going back for the title. Not going back to advance your career, position yourself for the post-Senate. Why are you doing this? That's asked by everyone from top to bottom.
The answer is that when it appeared that Senator Bayh was not going to have a real contest, two of our top people decided not to run against him - Mike Pence and our Secretary of State, who's running for Congress - it looked to me at the time like Senator Bayh was going to have pretty much an easy time to go back. And I was frustrated that he was saying one thing but doing another. He was the 60th senator. Every Democrat was the 60th senator. One person could have stood up and said no, prevented the Obama liberal agenda from going forward. And he didn't.
So I thought that he deserved a real race, and that's why I got in - never realizing that he would less than two weeks later announce his retirement. So that sort of changed the whole dynamics. But back then, the word was that race had been checked off. Nobody had the statewide name ID. Nobody had run and won statewide before. Nobody could possibly raise the money and compete with Evan Bayh. I thought that I could.
Bottom line is, my frustration is the same frustration of the tea partiers and conservatives everywhere, Republicans, moderates and even Democrats. The direction this country is going is - this isn't just a concern, it's a fear. A fear that the debt we're mounting up, the deficit we're using every year and the massive expansion of the federal government is going to undermine our country and undermine our future. On foreign policy issues, on which I've had a lot of experience, a president running around the world apologizing for America was just unacceptable to me. This foreign policy of hug your enemies and they'll come our way is naïve and dangerous in a very challenging world environment right now.
So all of these things prompted me to say our nation is in crisis and somebody's got to step up. I'm willing to make major sacrifices to do that. Bottom line is, I'm not looking to go back to the Senate. But I'm going back I think for the right reasons.
RCP: Do you think the Senate is still a place where business can be done? How do you see it's changed since your time there?
COATS: Dramatically. During a time of surplus, a time of peace before 2001, it was much easier to try and find middle ground. We were running surpluses. But during a time when we're careening into bankruptcy and failing miserably on our foreign policy it's just not the same old "find consensus, go along to get along, be pragmatic, come together" place that it was. I think that some very hard decisions and very hard choices have to be made. They won't be popular, but they're necessary.
RCP: You had a record working across the aisle, voting on some Clinton policies -
COATS: Some.
RCP: -- and Senator Lugar also has a reputation as well of doing that. It sounds though now that you might consider yourself a reliable vote against the administration. Is that fair to say?
COATS: You can count on it. You can take that to the bank. That's what the people of Indiana want. That's what I want. None of us ever imagined an administration, a presidency, that in spite of one of the worst economic downturns in this country's history - record unemployment - that the leadership would be advancing a liberal agenda of massive new spending, massive new expansion of government and not focusing on getting the economy back on track and getting people back to work. Just inconceivable. And so if I'm elected, I'll be a major voice of opposition to what this administration is trying to do.
RCP: Indiana voted for the president. What has changed?
COATS: What's changed is that Indiana has seen the real face of this president. Agenda is a better word - they've seen the agenda of this president. And that's not what they voted for -- particularly at time of economic distress, for a major expansion - that's not what they voted for. That crosses the spectrum, from tea partiers, from Republicans to moderates and even conservative Democrats.
RCP: Let's say Republicans win the House and pick up six to nine seats in the Senate. How do you see the legislative process working? Will there be more bipartisan crafting of bills?
COATS: Only if the Democrats come on board and say that we're at a time of fiscal crisis, and it's no time to impose new spending programs. It's no time to raise taxes in an economic downturn. We've all had to trim, to adapt to the economy. Government has not. Government has to. So to the extent that conservative Democrats or Democrats get the message and support it, then yeah, we can work together. To the extent that they want to continue to follow the leadership of Obama, Pelosi and Reid, there's no way, no way we can work together.
RCP: You think Congressman Ellsworth would keep that going?
COATS: I thought for sure he would flip and vote against health care. That vote for health care both undermined his so-called conservative position on spending and the role of the government, as well as his pro-life credentials. He made the decision to support it two days before Stupak cut the so-called deal with the president. A lot of people from his district have told me, "I voted for the guy, I trusted him, but he let us down. When push came to shove, Obama and Pelosi had more pull than we had back home."
RCP: Do you know him well?
COATS: No I don't. From what I know, he's a good guy. Was popular with his constituents until he came to Washington. I don't want it to be a personality race - I won't make it a personality race. I'm not questioning his motives. I'm simply saying that he is on the wrong team and he's listening to the wrong team.
RCP: What's your assessment of his strengths as a candidate and what kind of race do you expect from him?
COATS: I expect it will be a vigorous statewide race. He'll be well supported by a lot of outside groups. But I don't know how much support he'll have from Hoosiers because I think his record is not representative of the majority of the state of Indiana. So we're prepared to go toe-to-toe until November and let Hoosiers make their choice.
RCP: After you won your primary we all noted Democrats referred to you as senator, a lobbyist, someone with close ties to DC -
COATS: They'd like to do that. Well they'd like to do that. The irony is that I'm the challenger. Been out 12 years. I'm the challenger applying for the job and he's the incumbent trying to hold on to the job. Right now, people are upset with what's happening in Washington now with these incumbents, a lot more than someone who served 12 years ago.
RCP: So even though he's only been in Congress for two terms, you see him in Hoosiers minds as firmly part of the Washington establishment more so than yourself.
COATS: I do. And I think Hoosiers will. Regardless of what he's done before, what the [voters] are concerned about is not what you did before but what's happening now. What's happening now, and his support of it, goes against what he said he would do, what he thought he would do, and what Hoosiers are going to do.
RCP: How do you see the next few months playing out? Is there anything that the president can do to save the party, reverse what seems to be a very favorable environment for Republicans?
COATS: I thought there might have been a chance after Massachusetts. But when the president doubled down and said we're going for more, it was clear to me that they said, "We've got the votes now and we're going to enact as much of this liberal agenda as we can, regardless of the consequences in the fall. This is our one shot and we're going to do it whether the public likes it or not." That's the message that came across to me. It's almost arrogant. It was an arrogant State of the Union address, because clearly he was not listening to the voice of the people.
He dismisses those who have a different opinion, and basically implies that we don't know enough to understand, we're not smart enough to understand why he's doing what he's doing. Then when he berated the Supreme Court, that was one of the most offensive things I have ever seen in my lifetime. It showed me he had no respect for the Constitution and separation of powers. It injected pure ideology into a process where the Supreme Court of American had ruled on a Constitutional question, and not ruled in the political way that he wanted. To publicly redress them before a nationwide TV audience in a State of the Union address when they came out of respect to sit in that front row and then do what he did - it's unbecoming of a president of the United States to do that. Unbecoming.
RCP: One of the things we also heard in this speech was that the problems the nation faces are not new, he inherited. How much do Republicans and the last administration have a responsibility for the state of the nation.
COATS: Everybody has some responsibility. The point is, how are we going to fix it? And you don't fix it simply by blaming the other guy, or blaming the past. Every president inherits difficult problems. George W. Bush inherited eight years of a failed foreign policy and did nothing about the growing threat of Islamic terrorism, except a one-time lob of a cruise missile into the desert at a camp that had long been abandoned. George Bush inherited that, and 9-11 was the result of that. Every president inherits problems. Harry Truman inherited a war. Stop blaming the person before you and go forward and take leadership and deal with the problem.
RCP: Elkhart, Indiana has become symbolic of the economy. Having talked to some of the people there they see that the stimulus has had some impact, things are starting to turn around. What might have you done differently, and how would you work to restore manufacturing in places like that?
COATS: Get the economy back on track. When people are working and they're making money, many of them choose a lifestyle of having an RV. Nobody is more involved in that manufacturing process than Elkhart County. It's also been a place of innovation, a lot of creativity, a lot of small businesses. Right now the economic situation is such that no one can see the future with any sense of confidence. Therefore, they're not hiring even though the economy has picked up. I've been there several times, talked to business people. They say, "I can't hire because I don't know what the future looks like." Even three months out or six months out, there's so much uncertainty here.
All we hear is more regulation, more taxes. And we don't see a sound economic plan, getting us back to work. So getting the right policies in place to enable businesses to do what they do and enable consumers to purchase what they want to purchase is key to Elkhart coming back and any other place.
RCP: Things like GDP growth - statistical signs - you don't think we've seen the worst yet?
COATS: It's not that there isn't an uptick. There is an uptick. It's resulting in better sales. But it's not resulting in confidence that it's going to continue. As long as people think new programs are coming down the line like cap and trade, which devastates Indiana manufacturers and consumers, such as amnesty for illegals, which affects the job market for Americans - until they see a more certain path to prosperity, they're not making decisions to expand, to hire, to invest.
RCP: Your governor has gotten some credit for the things he's done in Indiana -
COATS: Well deserved.
RCP: How do you think his record stacks up if he decided to run for president?
COATS: If you look at his record, it stands out there with some amazing accomplishments at a time of real distress. Here's a state surrounded by states going bankrupt, can't pay the bills. A state with a AAA credit rating, balanced budget, without raising taxes, and positioned to really profit from an economic rebound. Major cutbacks in government spending, which is very encouraging to people. Cap on tax increases. I mean, it's a remarkable story. So if the country is looking for competence and experience and been-there-done-that success, it'll be pretty hard to find someone better than Mitch Daniels.
RCP: He had seemed cool to the idea but now he seems like he's warming up to it. Have you talked to him? Do you think it is something he's considering it?
COATS: I think he's considering it with some seriousness, but a long way away from making a decision. Testing the waters.
RCP: You were the ambassador to Germany. Looking at what's happening in Europe right now, what's your reaction?
COATS: It's amazing. You could see this coming. There's no way they could continue the socialist state, cradle-to-grave government support. It had taken away work incentive. It had raised taxes to the point where people didn't have discretionary spending. They had reached more than the limit of what government could do. Now, it's caught up to them.
And the irony to me is that these states that were moving toward a social welfare system are now saying it doesn't work. And we've got to move the other way. We can't sustain that. But we, Obama, is trying to find their model. And it's a failed model. People there I talk to are scratching their heads and saying, "Why in the world would you want to be like us when what we need to do is be more like you?" It's like the world's been turned upside down.
Europe is in a crisis. It simply can't sustain it. My favorite quote is Margaret Thatcher's. She said the problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of everyone else's money.
RCP: You talked about outside groups coming into the state in your race. Is there anyone you would look to, to come in and campaign with you?
COATS: I can't do that, I can't coordinate anything like that. I've always been for, "Let us run our own race." We'll do our thing and you do your thing. Groups come in what they think are the right intentions, on both sides. But that might not be the message you want sent. But that's the reality of where we are these days.
And so, no, I'm not looking forward to outside intervention. I'd just like to run our own race and let the people decide. But that's not the way it'll be. So you hope that they come in and they're reinforcing your message rather than your own guys trying to help but not with the same message.
Guitar Man
By W. James Antle, III from the December 2009-January 2010 issue
Thaddeus McCotter is bored. His answers for what ails the Republican Party and the reasons he gives for why it came to its current minority status on Capitol Hill are thoughtful, even insightful. But this isn't new territory for the four-term Michigan Republican. He responds to my questions with all the enthusiasm of someone who has been asked to repeat an old story for the hundredth time.
Until I ask him about his guitar. "George Harrison once told an interviewer that he picked up his first guitar and played it until his fingers bled," McCotter says. "His mother asked him what he was doing and he said, 'I'm learning how to play guitar.'" Does McCotter favor electric or acoustic? "Same six strings," he replies matter-of-factly.
Most congressional offices are filled with mementos from the district and pictures of the congressman with important government officials. Republicans tend to favor photographs of Ronald Reagan and, until about 2005, George W. Bush. McCotter's office has dark green walls and a picture of John Lennon hanging over his desk. There's also a guitar, of course. It resembles a young rock fan's bedroom as much as a quiet place to write constituent letters.
Thad McCotter is chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, a leadership position from which he will play a role in shaping the GOP congressional agenda. When the tall, lanky congressman isn't jamming with the bipartisan rock band called the Second Amendments -- he is known for being able to play Lynyrd Skynyrd's "Free Bird" behind his back-- he is being received like a rock star on a growing number of offbeat television and radio talk shows.
Dennis Miller is a McCotter fan -- or likes "the cut of his jib," as he puts it -- and so is Greg Gutfeld, since the congressman's dry sense of humor is a good fit for Red Eye, Gutfeld's late-night show on Fox. Shortly after Barack Obama took office, Gutfeld asked McCotter the familiar question about whether the GOP was in "disarray." His reply was typical McCotter, with carefully wielded pop culture references sending his co-panelists into guffaws as he dutifully pressed his party's case.
"Well, when we were growing up we used to look at the Flock of Seagulls' hair and we'd say that looks in disarray, but there was a whole lot of work that went into sculpting that -- if not the music itself," McCotter quipped. "It may appear to be disorderly, but we are going through a very intense period of reorganization, restructuring the Republican Party, we're starting to see the unity come back, the message come back, the principles be expressed again, and we think you're going to be very happy."
Read more: http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/08/guitar-man/print
GOP leads in race for Gregg seat
By Reid Wilson - 10/05/09 07:30 PM ET
Former New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte (R) leads Rep. Paul Hodes (D) by seven points, according to a new survey, giving the GOP hope of holding on to a seat it once openly worried about losing.
Ayotte is the choice of 40 percent of voters in the University of New Hampshire’s Granite Poll, sponsored by WMUR-TV, while 33 percent pick Hodes.
Hodes leads two other Republicans — attorney and former gubernatorial nominee Ovide Lamontagne and Republican National Committeeman Sean Mahoney — by nine points.
It is the second poll in a row, following an American Research Group survey out late last week, that confirms Ayotte’s slight, but significant, lead.
Neither campaign would comment directly on the Granite Poll.
“As she’s traveling up and down across the state, excitement continues to build for her candidacy,” was all Brooks Kochvar, Ayotte’s campaign manager, would say.
Read more: http://www.wmur.com/politics/21208438/detail.html
Ayotte talks the Senate talk at GOP gathering in Portsmouth
By Charles McMahon
Friday, August 28, 2009
PORTSMOUTH — U.S. Senate hopeful Kelly Ayotte affirmed her stance as "fighter" for the people of New Hampshire Thursday night during an evening of cocktails and conversation hosted by the Portsmouth Republican Committee.
Despite a surprise visit from Congresswoman Carol Shea-Porter and what was described as an awkward encounter with the second-term Democrat in the ladies room, the former attorney general told the crowd of more than 100 gathered at the Portsmouth Sheraton that she was the best candidate to campaign against U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes for the U.S. Senate seat expected to be vacated by Judd Gregg in 2010.
"I was in the bathroom and I ran into Carol Shea-Porter and you should've seen the look on her face," said Ayotte.
Using the chance encounter as a springboard, Ayotte said Democrats realize she is the best possible candidate to defeat Hodes in the 2010 election and ever since she left the office of the attorney general they have continued to attack her with "absurd" rhetoric.
"They have been attacking me and they would like to scare me off, but I would like to tell you one thing, I have never shied from a fight," said Ayotte. "As attorney general I fought for the people of this state to keep us safe and I will fight to protect all of your wallets from those Washington big spenders."
Although she has yet to officially announce her intentions on a bid for the U.S. Senate seat, Ayotte was very vocal Thursday night on her expectations of campaigning against Hodes. The 41-year-old lawyer has been considered as the GOP's front-runner to take on Hodes, however she could still face a primary challenge from party rivals.
"I am the candidate that can beat Paul Hodes," Ayotte said.
Read more: http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090828/GJNEWS_01/708289905/-1/FOSNEWS
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter: Real-Life Walt Kowalski
by Michael S. Rulle Jr.
Polish American Walt Kowalski, played to anti-hero perfection by Clint Eastwood in Gran Torino, stands against corruption and lawlessness and wins. But not before sacrificing his life. Kowalski is a Korean War veteran and retired auto worker living outside of Detroit. He is old and tired, and just wants to be left alone after the death of his wife. But fate and duty had other ideas. He carries a long held guilt over killing a surrendering soldier in the Korean War. His death redeems, not just his soul, but the soul of his town.
Events lead Kowalski to resist a local takeover by a Hmong youth gang. The Hmong are an ethnic Southeast Asian people, primarily from Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand. In real life Michigan, they are among the fastest growing immigrants. Many Hmong people emigrated from South Vietnam after Democrats shamelessly withdrew monetary support from South Vietnam in 1974. The Paris Peace Agreements thus became toothless and North Vietnam conquered South Vietnam. “Boat people” fled Vietnam and the insane, murderous Pol Pot created the Cambodian Killing Fields.
Gran Torino can be viewed as metaphorical microcosm of the Vietnamese conflict with an alternate ending. Eastwood, the quintessential symbol of American independence and strength, helps defend a group of Asian Americans against a gangster group of other Asian Americans. Kowalski’s courage and independence led to his death and the defeat of the gang members. The image of protagonist Thao Vang Lor (Bee Vang) driving in Kowalski’s Gran Torino, left to Thao in his will, cements the “good Hmongs” victory, and ultimate commitment to America. The juxtaposition of this scene, versus Kowalski’s children trying to unload him in an old age home is striking.
Another morality play is occurring today in the real Michigan. Michigan has a 15% unemployment rate. Detroit’s auto industry, which made the 1972 Ford Gran Torino, has been decimated in large part by federal regulations. In classic “anti-comparative advantage” style, a sclerotic EPA required individual auto companies to meet mandated “CAFE” standards. Even if one wanted the nation’s entire car fleet to meet CAFE requirements on average, the EPA implemented it in the most inefficient way possible.
US automakers’ comparative advantage was in SUVs and small trucks. To keep their fleet within mandated averages, they were forced to build unprofitable, uncompetitive small cars. If the Feds just let comparative advantage work, the US auto fleet would have likely met federal CAFE standards without each company being compelled to build every type of car. But Government does not know economics. They simply know better.
Read more: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/mrulle/2009/08/28/rep-thaddeus-mccotter-real-life-gran-torino-hero/
GOP hopes to rebound with Ayotte
Washington Times
Donald Lambro
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
New Hampshire Republicans have lost most of the state's top offices in recent years, but the losing streak could be nearing an end in a critical 2010 Senate contest that early polls show is up for grabs.
Democrats hold the governorship, both House seats and one Senate seat, and Republican Sen. Judd Gregg's decision to retire next year gives them one more opportunity to tighten their political grip on the Granite State. But former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, an untested law-and-order Republican who has never run for elective office, has emerged as the party's front-runner to take on Democratic Rep. Paul W. Hodes, who has a 100 percent liberal voting score from Americans for Democratic Action.
"I think she will be a great candidate, though she is a new candidate, having never run before. But her instincts are very good, and the contrast between her and Hodes, particularly when it comes to spending, he's going to have some problems in New Hampshire," said Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, who recruited her for the race.
A University of New Hampshire poll last month showed Mrs. Ayotte leading Mr. Hodes by 39 percent to 35 percent and a Research 2000 poll for the liberal Daily Kos Web site put the two in a statistical tie. Election analyst Stuart Rothenberg calls the race a "tossup," but adds that "GOP prospects have improved of late."
Democratic Party officials remain cautiously confident about their chances, noting President Obama's continued popularity in the state and a Gallup Poll that found Democrats still have strong support there.
"I think this is a significant pickup opportunity for the Democrats. It is one of our top priorities," said Eric Schultz, chief spokesman for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Hodes is a very strong candidate, but it is going to be a competitive race, no doubt about it."
Mrs. Ayotte, who was appointed to the attorney general post she held before resigning last month, announced her candidacy earlier this month after Mr. Cornyn and other national Republican leaders urged her to run and promised to help raise money for her campaign. The early support came even though several more Republican candidates may enter the race in what could be a divisive party primary. The NRSC already has scheduled a fundraiser for Mrs. Ayotte on Sept. 22.
Read more: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/18/gop-hopes-to-rebound-with-ayotte/
Confounding America's ideals
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Washington Times
Rep. John Campbell
Prior to the founding of the United States, political theorist and philosopher John Locke developed the theory that government derives its power and authority from the consent of the governed. Benjamin Franklin once wrote that "in free governments the rulers are the servants and the people their superiors and sovereigns." These are the principles that are fundamental to the American system and that have helped shape the nation we know and love today.
Flash forward to the current setting and context. President Obama has made his intent clear on health care: Medical decisions will no longer be made by doctors and patients, but by the omnipotent prowess of the federal government. By proposing creation of a bureaucracy to ration care and determine the cost-effectiveness of care for individuals, he has violated at least one fundamental tenet of America's founding.
The House version of the bill creates 53 new departments, agencies and commissions, but one stands out: the National Institute of Comparative Effectiveness. Though it may sound benign, this bureaucracy will be used to ration care.
A similar institution exists in Britain, called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, given the curious acronym of N.I.C.E. Rulings on whether people live or die are made frequently in Britain and Canada, and if an individual has a pre-existing condition, is elderly, or for some reason deemed "unfit" for a lifesaving procedure, his chances of being granted that lifesaving procedure become uncertain. With health care rationing, lives will literally hang in the balance, subject to the whims of government.
In fact, it is documented that in countries where socialized medicine is in place, citizens suffer from drastically lower survival rates from ailments such as cancer and heart disease. On balance, survival rates range from around 30 percent to 50 percent below countries with private medicine.
This socialized-medicine package is a giant leap in a direction that changes the dynamic of government as a servant to the people, violating the widely acknowledged precept of democratic government, that it derives its power from those which it governs. Mr. Obama and other big-government advocates are now effectively forcing a shift in how the government views those it serves. The American government will begin to view its citizens as liabilities rather than assets.
By definition, a liability is an item to be categorized, managed and ultimately dispensed with. If government views its citizens through the prism of structured assets and liabilities, it sets a terrible precedent.
I and my Republican colleagues view the American people as assets with the intelligence and power to decide for themselves what is best for them and their families. This is something we are committed to fight for, and we continue to do so.
Our grand republic was founded on the premise that the government derives its power from the "consent of the governed." If Mr. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have their way and this bill passes, perhaps we should change that to "consent of the governed, unless they represent too high a liability."
Rep. John Campbell is a California Republican.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/aug/02/confounding-americas-ideals/