Voting

Elected to Congress last November, Missouri Republican Vicky Hartzler campaigned as both a Religious Right activist and as a Tea Party adherent. But while she literally wrote the book on how and why ultraconservative Christians should run for office, she has had trouble staying true to her anti-government Tea Party rhetoric— she has received hundreds of thousands of dollars of government farm subsidies and, during her campaign, couldn’t name any programs she would cut funding to other than “the Lady Bird Highway Beautification projects.”

In an interview on Sunday with The National Defense, Hartzler swore off any cuts to the Defense budget, denying that Defense costs have increased and claiming that Republicans in Congress already “passed $2.7 trillion in costs savings and cutting the budget.”

Spending on Defense actually outpaces all other discretionary spending programs combined, with estimated spending well over $708 billion in the 2011 fiscal year. In fact, defense spending is approaching 5% of US GDP and comprises about 44% of the global total of defense spending. And while Hartzler claims that “defense isn’t the area in our government where we have increased costs,” Laicie Olson of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation points out that in “inflation-adjusted dollars, the total U.S. defense budget has grown from $432 billion in fiscal 2001 to $720 billion in fiscal 2011, a real increase of approximately 67 percent.”

But perhaps even more outrageous is Hartzler’s that House have managed to cut $2.7 trillion from the budget since they took over as the majority in January. Her figure falls far short of the budget proposals by the GOP leadership, and the House Republicans’ Pledge to America is actually projected to significantly increase the deficit. While the congresswoman included the House’s symbolic vote to “repeal Obamacare” in her dramatic $2.7 trillion total, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that repealing health care reform “would ratchet up the federal deficit by about $230 billion over the next decade.”

Listen to Hartzler laud the GOP’s budget policies while distorting defense spending and coming up with imaginary budget numbers:

Defense isn’t the area in our government where we have increased the costs; it’s in these other areas of government. So let’s look at those areas and cut there, and let’s keep a priority to our men and women who are fighting a war on two fronts. Now is not the time to even be talking about cuts in my view.

…

We’ve only had a limited amount of time to do things, but I feel good about the three weeks that we had what we’ve accomplished. We voted to change the way Washington works, or Congress works I should say, by first and foremost in the second or third day in session we voted to cut our own House budget by five percent, saving $35 million, as a sign to show the American people that we get it and we’re going to start with us. We know that families and businesses are having to tighten their belts, and we think Washington needs to as well.

And then we have passed $2.7 trillion in costs savings and cutting the budget. Every week we are going to be voting to cut government in some way so we have been doing that and we’re going to continue doing that. And so far, if you include repealing ‘Obamacare,’ that’s $2.7 trillion that we have saved. We are serious.

After Michael Steele’s failed attempt to give the GOP a “hip hop” makeover, many Republicans hoped newly-elected Congressman Allen West could boost the Party’s outreach to African American voters. Today, West expressed his concerns about DC residents’ lack of representation, as Washingtonians don’t have a voting member of Congress. In one of the first votes of the session, the Republican majority stripped the DC delegate’s ability to vote in House Committees, a move West supported.

While West floated the idea of “an exclusionary zone” where “District residents do not pay federal taxes” since they don’t have a voting member of Congress, he went on to say that the African American-majority city and black voters across the country may only have themselves to blame for their political marginalization since black voters consistently support Democrats:

West, who was one of two African-American Republicans elected to the House last year, said he hopes to make the GOP more appealing to black voters.

"We need to open up the conversation because blacks cannot expect to have power in this country when they vote 90 percent Democratic," he said.

"You cannot put all of your trust in one political party. I know that blacks will not change overnight or become Republicans in large numbers overnight, but we have to have the conversation about this."

Cindy Jacobs and Generals International have released a lengthy prayer guide for dealing with the crisis in Egypt, stating that "it is a HUGE error to think that these protests are about the Egyptians demanding democracy" and warning that Egyptians need to take a lesson from America about the "danger of blindly voting for un-delineated change, simply because of discontent with the present leadership": 

With the Brotherhood coming across as the source of comforting benefits to the nation, the people are blindly agreeing to their order of doing business. The people are ignorant of the sharia realities, while crying out for any kind of change from the inequities and poverty currently included in the Mubarak regime. The CHANGE that the Muslim Brotherhood will bring is not democracy, but rather the removal of all Western influences in Egypt. (NOTE: Two years ago American citizens discovered the danger of blindly voting for un-delineated change, simply because of discontent with the present leadership.) Clearly, the Muslim Brotherhood has as its goals the death of Israel and the West, and also the establishment of an Islamic caliphate everywhere.

For the US government to even suggest that this uprising is about democracy is outrageous. The initial protestors . . . secular students in Egypt . . may in fact be calling for that kind of change, but they have no organization, no leader, and no hope of that happening in Egypt. Additionally WikiLeaks has revealed that the Obama administration has been busy for quite some time . . . stirring up and supporting unrest in Egypt to destabilize Mubarak . . . trying to initiate a regime change of this American ally. (NOTE: Obama has been doing that same meddling in Israel as well; stirring up the left and the media against Bibi, while lauding Livni as a better leader.) The combination of the US administration refusing to stand with one of her major allies, while at the same time being shown to be working to promote the collapse that government, is horrible. What will our other allies think about us? Their trust of America just went out the window. Undoubtedly, the disgrace of, and the level of hatred against, the USA just increased greatly around the world.

—Pray for those who are blindly enacting these protests as a way to achieve democracy will stop and take note at where these protests are now leading Egypt (far away from democracy).

—Pray that the foolish politicians and leaders in the West will stop perpetrating the lie that the goal of the uprising is democracy.

—Pray for wise and educated voices of authority to stand up and speak the truth, about this event and where it is headed. —Pray that the Lord would forgive America for the deceitful undermining of an ally nation, done by Obama. (Keep in mind that Egypt currently has a peace treaty in effect with Israel. Removing Mubarak might bring an end of this peace)

—Pray that the Muslim Brotherhood will not become the ruling power in Egypt.

—Pray that the Lord would strike down sharia law before it takes root in Egypt.

—Pray that the Lord would protect American citizens from the terrible consequences that might come as a result of this treachery and betrayal perpetrated by the US leadership.

—America had been shown to be profoundly weak, unreliable, and compromised in these last two Obama years, but now more than ever. Pray that the Lord would protect the people of America in this nation’s high state of vulnerability.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) said that his Republican Study Committee, the ultraconservative group that counts a majority of the GOP caucus as its members, told The Hill that he supports congressional action to reverse Washington DC’s marriage equality law. “I think RSC will push for it, and I’m certainly strongly for it,” the Ohio Republican said, “I don’t know if we’ve made a decision if I’ll do it or let another member do it, but I’m 100 percent for it.” Jordan voted against every major piece of gay-rights legislation and recently announced his boycott of CPAC over the conference’s inclusion of GOProud.

Even though the Republican Study Committee claims to be committed to “a limited and Constitutional role for the federal government” and reducing “government regulations [and the] size of government,” anti-gay attacks apparently take priority over its dedication to federalism and small-government.

The DC Council voted overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality in 2009, and marriage rights for gays and lesbians went into effect in early 2010. National and local Religious Right groups, led by Bishop Harry Jackson, just last week lost a lawsuit challenging the law.

Bishop Jackson has unsuccessfully demanded a popular referendum to decide the fate of marriage equality in the District, saying that the issue should be left up to DC voters rather than their elected representatives in the Council and going so far as writing to Congress to demand a popular vote on the issue. In Congress, however, DC’s Delegate does not have the right to vote on legislation and was stripped by Republicans of her limited voting powers.

Clearly, given his aggressive stance in support of DC’s voters’ ability to have a say in the matter, Bishop Jackson will come out strongly against Congressman Jordan’s proposal any minute now…

Yesterday, the Supreme Court rejected the challenge to Washington, DC's marriage equality law, much to the dismay of the Religious Right.

But if you thought that was going to be the end of the challenge, think again, as the National Organization for Marriage today announced that it will continue to fight it and expects the new GOP majority in the House to help them:

Yesterday, the Supreme Court of the United States denied an appeal by marriage defenders to the DC City Council’s implementation of same-sex marriage.

Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) pledged to continue to push for the right of District residents to vote on marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

“While we are disappointed that the US Supreme Court did not decide to take the case challenging the denial of the civil rights of District residents to vote on the definition of marriage, we are by no means done pressing this issue. With a pro-marriage majority in the new Congress we will explore a number of avenues to force the District to fulfill their constitutional responsibility to voters. As the four Court of Appeal justices who dissented in this case made clear, the District of Columbia owes it to the voters to allow them to decide the critical issue of marriage which has existed since before there was a District of Columbia. In order to curry favor with the same-sex marriage special interest group, members of the City Council have turned their backs on their own constituents. It is ironic that these same council members champion the right of District votes to be heard in national elections but then deny those same residents the right to vote on the definition of marriage. We will press our belief with Congress that the constitution of the District requires that voters be allowed to decide this important issue.”

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch legal challenge to marriage equality in the District of Columbia and exposed as hypocritical posturing the claims by Bishop Harry Jackson and his Religious Right allies to be representing the interests of DC voters.

Nancy Pearcey has made a name for herself in the Religious Right as a chief advocate for intelligent design, which emerged as the leading anti-evolution 'science' following the Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard that public schools can’t teach Creationism. She is a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, the leading propagandist of intelligent design, and scientist and evolution-defender Jeffrey Shallit called Pearcey the “Creationists’ Miss Information.” But Pearcey, who has no scientific credentials, appears to have replaced evolution with the LGBT community as her latest target.

Having previously called homosexuality the “denigration of physical anatomy,” Pearcey is now attacking the claim that sexual orientation is not a lifestyle choice. Writing for The Daily Caller, Pearcey defends the organizations boycotting CPAC over GOProud’s involvement because she believes that once sexual orientations other than heterosexuality are respected, affirmed, and considered equal, the U.S. will subside into government oppression and lose “the foundation of the American republic”:

By voting with their feet, however, social conservatives are not giving up, they are taking a public stand — which creates a forum to make their case more effectively. They should take this opportunity to argue that the practice of homosexuality has a negative impact not just on the family but also on individuals — that it expresses a profound disrespect for a person’s biological identity.

Biologically, physiologically, males and females are clearly counterparts to one another. The male sexual and reproductive anatomy is obviously designed for a relationship with a female, and vice versa.

Homosexual practice thus requires individuals to contradict their own biology. It disconnects a person’s sexuality from his or her biological identity as male or female — which exerts a self-alienating and fragmenting effect on the human personality.

And the logic of alienation will not stop there. Already the acceptance of same-sex relationships is metastasizing into a postmodern notion of sexuality as fluid and changing over time.

…

In other words, yesterday I was straight, today I may be homosexual, and tomorrow I could be bisexual. One’s psychosexual identity is said to be in constant flux.

In the past, homosexuals employed the defense that they were born that way. But now they are beginning to embrace the postmodern idea that you can be anything you want to be along a sexual continuum.

…

The CPAC walkout is a chance to highlight what is at stake. Jesse Hathaway at NewsReal Blog defends CPAC, saying “I’m a bit fuzzy on why it matters what a person does in the privacy of his or her bedroom, as long as it doesn’t affect me.”

But it does affect him — and everyone else. Every social practice is the expression of fundamental assumptions about what it means to be human. When a society accepts and approves the practice, it implicitly commits itself to the worldview that supports it — all the more so if the practice is enshrined in law.

If America accepts practices such as same-sex “marriage,” in the process it will absorb the accompanying worldview — the redefinition of human personhood as a purely social construction — which opens the door to unlimited statism, because there is no human nature that an oppressive state could possibly offend.

Those who resist will be compelled by the state to go along, or face penalties for “discrimination.”

Margaret Thatcher used to say, “First you win the argument, then you win the vote.” Instead of caving on this issue, the leaders of CPAC should be vigorously advancing the core arguments of conservatism. Not just to win the vote but to preserve the foundation of the American republic.

Back in January the Christian Science Monitor declared “Scott Brown: the tea party’s first electoral victory,” following his surprise win in the special election to fill the Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy. But now the Boston Globe reports that conservatives and Tea Party activists are mulling over a primary challenge to the Massachusetts Republican. According to the Globe, Brown’s votes in favor of repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, ratifying the START Treaty, and reforming Wall Street (but only after it was watered down to win his support) made him toxic to many Tea Party members and other movement conservatives. The Family Research Council has pledged to back a primary challenger to any Senator who voted to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and the National Republican Trust PAC promised to do the same to any Republican who supported START.

More surprisingly, movement conservatives in Virginia are hoping to block George Allen from running again for the seat he lost to Jim Webb in 2006. Allen, a former Senator and Governor best known for using a racial slur against his opponent’s campaign worker, is already finding himself in trouble with Tea Party groups even though he hasn’t even announced his candidacy yet. The Washington Post reports that Allen’s voting record in the Senate may sink his chances among Virginia Tea Partiers:

For months, it appeared that former U.S. senator George Allen would have a clear path to the Republican nomination if he chose to try to reclaim his old job.

But in the summer, grumbling about his past began, culminating in a Web site outlining the reasons some fellow Republicans oppose him: He's too moderate. He's part of the establishment. He's partly to blame for the record spending and ballooning deficit in Washington.

By this month, no fewer than four Republicans billing themselves as more conservative than Allen were considering challenging him for the right to run against Sen. James Webb, if the Virginia Democrat seeks reelection.

"There are some concerns based on his record and his rhetoric," said Mark Kevin Lloyd, chairman of the Lynchburg Tea Party and vice chairman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation, a statewide umbrella group. "People are looking at things in a new light," he said.

Allen, who received a 92.3% lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union, was hardly considered a moderate in the Senate. But apparently 92% isn’t enough:

But during his one term in the U.S. Senate, some Republicans complain, he backed President George W. Bush's proposals to increase spending; supported No Child Left Behind, a costly program to create a national education report card; favored a federal program to subsidize the costs of prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries; and voted to expand the Hate Crimes Prevention Act to include crimes based on sexual orientation.

Jamie Ratdke, who recently stepped down as chairwoman of the Virginia Tea Party Patriots Federation in order to explore a Senate bid, said she began to consider a run for the Senate after attending a Tea Party convention that featured Rick Santorum, Lou Dobbs, and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli as speakers:

Radtke said that she had considered running for the state Senate next year but that she began thinking about the U.S. Senate instead after Virginia's first tea party convention, which drew an estimated 2,800 people to Richmond in October.

Radtke, who worked for Allen for a year when he was governor and she was right out of college, said it's time for a new candidate. She said that Allen was part of "George Bush's expansion of government" when he was senator and that she was concerned about some of his stances on abortion.

Allen has said that abortions should be legal in cases of rape, incest and when the life of the mother is endangered, and he owned stock in the manufacturer of the morning-after pill.

If George Allen is deemed not conservative enough for the Republican Party, then expect many more extremist candidates like Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell to win contested GOP primaries. Allen hurt his chances by supporting healthcare and education initiatives that were backed by President Bush and the Republican leadership, and is also deemed too moderate because he voted to include sexual orientation under hate crimes protections and believes in exceptions under a ban on abortion.

While running for reelection in 2006, Allen received wide praise at FRC’s Values Voter Summit for his staunch conservative beliefs, but now he is under attack from the Right for being “too moderate” even though he hasn’t served in public office since he lost the 2006 race. As Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County board of supervisors and a likely primary opponent, says, Allen’s “base has moved on.”

Politico’s Ben Smith discussed today the unforeseen possibility that right wing activist Herman Cain could be a surprise Republican candidate for president, after he bested all other Republicans in an online straw poll conducted by the conservative blog RedState. Cain, an African American businessman and radio talk show host, even topped Sarah Palin, who came in second, to be the favorite of the right wing blogosphere. Erick Erickson of RedState writes, “I like Herman Cain and, though truth be told I never thought he’d make it past Mike Pence, I am delightfully surprised by the results.”

There is already a Draft Cain movement and he operates his own political action committee, called The Hermanator PAC (seriously). He has received praise from conservative darlings from Bishop Harry Jackson and Bryan Fischer to Joe the Plumber, and Cain himself is talking-up his chances at a presidential bid, telling The Daily Caller: “I will run proudly as a non-establishment candidate. I think the public has an appetite for a non-establishment candidate.” More recently, Cain told Fischer on the American Family Association’s radio program that after Republican gains in November, he is “one step closer” to running for President. When pondering a run, he explained: “No I don’t want to…but I feel like I must run.”

Of course, a 2012 presidential run wouldn’t be Cain’s first foray into politics. Cain is closely involved with Tea Party organizations and co-signed a letter with prominent right wing leaders asking the GOP leadership make “restoring traditional moral values” a key part of their agenda. He also ran for US Senate in 2004 in his home state of Georgia but garnered just 26% of the vote and lost to Senator Johnny Isakson in the GOP primary.

During the 2006 election, Cain was the public face of America’s PAC, a group that used stereotypical language and imagery when calling on Black voters to support Republicans. Cain, who voiced many of the group’s ads, maintained, “The main thing that America’s Pac is up to is it basically is challenging the thesis or the belief on the part of the Republican Party that they cannot attract the black vote.” America’s PAC suggested that Democrats were “decimating our population” by supporting abortion rights:

“Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies,” a female announcer in one of the ads says, as rain, thunder, and a crying infant are heard in the background.

“The Democratic Party supports these abortion laws that are decimating our people, but the individual's right to life is protected in the Republican platform. Democrats say they want our vote. Why don't they want our lives?”

Or as put in another ad:

Michael: And if you make a little mistake with one of your ho’s, you’ll want to dispose of that problem toot sweet, no questions asked, right?

Dennis: Naw, that’s too cold. I don’t snuff my own seed …

Michael: Huh. Really? (pause) Well, maybe you do have a reason to vote Republican!

America’s PAC was heavily backed by Republican financiers and led by a conservative activist who said that teaching evolution is “tantamount to teaching atheism.” Another one of their ads suggested that Democrats who opposed the Iraq War were treacherously allied with racist and right wing leader David Duke, who also opposed the war:

Now, I can understand why a Ku Klux Klan cracker like David Duke makes nice with the terrorists. They fight voting rights in Iraq, just like he does back home. But what I want to know is why so many of the Democrat politicians I helped elect are on the same side of the Iraq war as David Duke.

According to a report by the New York Sun, “Many of the ads with conservative social themes are sandwiched between hip-hop songs that convey blunt sexual messages. A spokesman for America’s Pac, John Altevogt, said no stations have refused the ads, but a few asked for minor edits, such as the removal of the word ‘cracker’ from the David Duke spot.”

However, the ads failed to produce significant gains for the GOP among Black voters, as nine in ten African Americans backed Democratic candidates in 2006.

Certainly, the Tea Party, the Religious Right, and the GOP will seek Cain’s help to attract Black voters in case his presidential run fails to get off the ground. Judging by his track record at America’s PAC in 2006, they may want to look elsewhere.