Blog @ MoreWhat.com

Criticism of the Tea Party phenomenon is limited to familiar rants. During last summer’s townhall meetings any attendees raising opposition to the liberal agenda were labeled as paid political thugs or racists or bigots clutching their bibles or guns. Frequently those dismissing the current public outrage over the growth of government, debt, deficits and taxes describe the opposition as mostly white. Yet you can likely compile a list of those opposing the current political climate featuring a significant number of non-white participants.

The race card is becoming quite the irrelevant insult largely adopted by the political left as are other complaints from liberals that characterize their political opposition as somehow inferior. A piece from Real Clear Politics sums up the situation rather well.

Palin and the Tea Party protests are also united by what is united against them: the liberal base. This is not the wave that brought Barack Obama to the White House. But this too is a people’s movement. It might not be liberals’ people. But grassroots activism it is indeed. And it has summed now to this convention, combining the second biggest political rock star with the hottest movement in American politics. That gets mainstream conservative voters, like my 7th grade girlfriend, to pay attention. This Tea Party might only be getting started.

Reference was made to some of the legitimate criticism or concerns about the Tea Party nation and all it represents. It is reasonable to evaluate developments and trends especially when they pose significant threats to established mechanisms within society. And politics is certainly no exception. Entrenched power structures like political parties have the most to gain or lose by success or failure of ‘movements’ like the tea parties.

The most important point to consider on this topic is not whether the tea party movement or its convention are good, bad, left, right or universal. That the message would be ignored by those in public office even when it represents a growing discontent across the nation beyond the movement itself demonstrates the reason for its existence.

To remove those from office who simply don’t get it or refuse to respond to the public they represent.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

you need to read the following….

An inconvenient question about the Mount Vernon Statement (Michelle Malkin)

Once again the economic media darlings weigh in. Paul Krugman deserves his lefty description. This is a man who would be a natural for NASCAR; circular motion always moving to the left. And like NASCAR races, each lap is a repeat.

In a column of his last week, Fiscal Scare Tactics, Krugman makes his case with something as appealing to liberals as bashing Bush. That is, bashing Bush. When they’re not bashing Bush they’re bashing Bush or something about Bush.

So why the sudden ubiquity of deficit scare stories? It isn’t being driven by any actual news. It has been obvious for at least a year that the U.S. government would face an extended period of large deficits, and projections of those deficits haven’t changed much since last summer. Yet the drumbeat of dire fiscal warnings has grown vastly louder.

To me — and I’m not alone in this — the sudden outbreak of deficit hysteria brings back memories of the groupthink that took hold during the run-up to the Iraq war. Now, as then, dubious allegations, not backed by hard evidence, are being reported as if they have been established beyond a shadow of a doubt. Now, as then, much of the political and media establishments have bought into the notion that we must take drastic action quickly, even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency. Now, as then, those who challenge the prevailing narrative, no matter how strong their case and no matter how solid their background, are being marginalized.

‘…even though there hasn’t been any new information to justify this sudden urgency’ is exactly the point, Mr. Krugman. For all the disdain elites and political power brokers have for ordinary citizens my fellow ‘commoners’ and I do understand clearly at least one element of this topic.

The following are some things that increase and rarely, if ever, decrease.

-The US national debt
-The US budget deficit
-Taxes
-the size of government
-the pay for those in government including elected representatives
-entitlements
-those receiving entitlements
-legislation that spends taxpayer dollars
-the amount of money borrowed by the government
And did I mention taxes?

Mr Krugman: Continuing to spend money we don’t have is a bad idea. And yes, it is an idea that is not new. That’s the problem. Not like their should be a learning curve on this issue. Spending what you don’t have is what caused much of our current problems. And the agenda(s) being pushed in DC are tantamount to the Madoff ponzi scheme.

Obama-speak, et al (translation): We are taking more of your money (tax dollars) to spend on things we want that will benefit you in the long run.

Like I said, a ponzi scheme to rival Madoff. And where is he currently residing?

And from another media darling comes the following:

This being a democracy, don’t the Democrats see that clinging to this agenda will march them over a cliff? Don’t they understand Massachusetts?

Well, they understand it through a prism of two cherished axioms: (1) The people are stupid and (2) Republicans are bad. Result? The dim, led by the malicious, vote incorrectly.

Liberal expressions of disdain for the intelligence and emotional maturity of the electorate have been, post-Massachusetts, remarkably unguarded. New York Times columnist Charles Blow chided Obama for not understanding the necessity of speaking “in the plain words of plain folks,” because the people are “suspicious of complexity.” Counseled Blow: “The next time he gives a speech, someone should tap him on the ankle and say, ‘Mr. President, we’re down here.’ “

A Time magazine blogger was even more blunt about the ankle-dwelling mob, explaining that we are “a nation of dodos” that is “too dumb to thrive.”

The key ‘economic’ word here being ‘agenda.’ And the attitude of those now governing toward those being governed is as much a part of an economic discussion as anything else. Since it is the dollars of those governed that those now governing plan tu use for their agenda. And the problem is, to pay for it, requires borrowing into the next millennium and continuing to pay for it long after that.

This is why liberals bashing the Tea Party citizens is an idea as bankrupt as their agenda. There is a piece at the Boston Herald from a ‘fellow’ at the Heritage Foundation that should make Mr Krugman cringe.

If spending jumps $12,000 per household, taxes must eventually rise. The president would make a large down payment on that with a $2 trillion tax hike on all Americans. Yet that would still leave the government running up $8.5 trillion in deficits over the decade, setting the stage for even larger and more damaging broad-based tax hikes later.

Ominously, economists close to the White House suggest that a value-added tax of 15 percent and 20 percent is eventually possible to finance Obama’s agenda.

By doubling the national debt over pre-recession levels, he’d push America toward a tipping point - where rising debt levels will become too large for global capital markets to absorb. This could trigger a financial crisis, an interest-rate spike and tax hikes.

And it still comes down to that nothing new concept Mr Krugman alluded to in his column. We cannot continue to spend what we don’t have. Everyone can understand that.

And to couple another item with Mr Krauthammers’ commentary comes the following brief item Charles Hurt at the NY Post. In a small amount of space Mr Hurt condenses the sanity of tea party nation those plain words for plain folks like us, down here, near the voting booth.

These people have come from all across the nation for the first National Tea Party Convention to denounce not just President Obama and the Democrats, but Republicans and all of Washington for getting infected with the same voracious and parasitic plague spawned by big-government liberalism.

Read the rest, it won’t take long and anyone can understand it. Even those lowly voters who have the audacity to raise a loud voice in opposition to leaders with a hearing problem.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Transparency and accountability have been a focus in the long battle to defeat liberal control of healthcare in the United States. While the antiseptic qualities apply, described in the phrase, sunshine is the best disinfectant, public demand to review healthcare reform legislation and have input is key. President Obama’s release of his budget proposal for 2011 which begins in October requires the same scrutiny and public focus.

Are you kidding me? A three point eight trillion dollar budget ($3.8 trillion) is not what the doctor ordered. Just as the Democratic party and their agenda is on life support so is the US economy. Given that the vast majority of federal budgets are entitlements and discretionary spending this budget number is preposterous. Like the stark reality being experienced by the unemployed and under-employed the White House and Congress need a wake up call.

The plan includes big increases in personal and business taxes, modest spending cuts and increased outlays for education, defense and jobs initiatives.

First of all, tax increases are nonsense in this economy. Second, modest spending cuts are equally ignorant. As for education, sure, it is important. But the simple fact that everyone will have to suffer includes education. So your college plans are postponed for a year or two. Join the Peace Corps or something. And why do we think education can only be improved by spending money. That hasn’t improved student or teacher performance yet.

Cutting more entitlements would certainly help paying for any defense needs. And who the hell needs a jobs bill now that needs to be paid for over ten years? $80 to $100 billion over ten years for government make work jobs? That’s ridiculous.

And enough with the future timelines for reducing spending, deficits and the national debt. Do it now. Right now, in this budget in this year turn the corner and halt the damage being done by government malfeasance. As an ending note to this post Lamar Alexander put it best in describing current politics in Washington.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.), appearing on the same program, praised Mr. Obama for talking about spending and tax cuts, but said his ideas were flawed. “I’ll give the president some credit,” he said. “He’s in the right church but the wrong pew.”

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

BTW, following links to the WSJ articles is worth the trip.  And so is the following link.

Debt deluge: Here comes the $1.6 trillion flood of red ink (Michelle Malkin) 

Coakley will rightly get most of the blame should Brown actually pull off what once seemed to be an impossible victory. Yet much of the responsibility will have to rest with Barack Obama, who has guided his party so poorly that it is having trouble making an appeal to voters in Massachusetts.

To put it bluntly, the Obama White House has been politically inept in the last year. It has made serious miscalculations, and today it is paying a price.

The link above makes a good case for how the Obama administration cultivated the landscape allowing Scott Brown to harvest a strategy for victory in Massachusetts. And since Martha Coakley supported Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential campaign you have to wonder if Barry from DC allowed that to influence his response to this potentially devastating loss for his agenda.

One year into a four year term and that nasty tendency of liberals snatching defeat from the jaws of victory rears its ugly but welcome head again. Sound bites proliferating since Brown’s victory suggest the Dems will continue their pusuit of defeat in 2010. That may be rewarding for the American public as many incumbents may fall if they don’t retire first. Both major political parties run the risk of not learning lessons from public outrage. And term limits in the form of elections might usher in a new era in US policy and politics.

Good stuff.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

….the anniversary of President Obama’s Inaugural, and it’s worth recalling the extraordinary political opportunity he had a year ago. An anxious country was looking for leadership amid a recession, and Democrats had huge majorities and faced a dispirited, unpopular GOP. With monetary policy stimulus already flowing, Democrats were poised to get the political credit for the inevitable economic recovery.

Twelve months later, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has fallen further and faster than any recent President’s, Congress is despised, the public mood has shifted sharply to the right on the role of government…

A report from WSJ before the results of the Taxachusetts special election to fill the vacancy left by Ted Kennedy is linked above and points to what still rings true after Scott Brown won.

What has been discussed since the ‘little known’ Republican state legislator became the first GOP Senator from MA in decades is what it may mean. Some are concerned he will represent another moderate or RINO from the Northeast like Snowe or Collins. Others say that beyond confirming the voting public is angry at the White House and Congress this election is not a game changer. And this blog suggested in a forum entry on this site that Scott Brown’s victory is less than a two year window for the GOP to hold a typically blue state seat.

What appears to be the most significant lesson of this event may fall on deaf ears within the GOP. Contrary to some reactions this event does not guarantee anything for conservatives and even less for the GOP. For some in the GOP to accept this as a vindication of criticism toward them, think again. The Republican party still has much to do to prove they are worthy of victories in the 2010 midterms.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The Senate candidates - not content with battling over health care, homeland security and bank taxes - can’t seem to stop bickering over who exactly that desk in Washington belongs to.

“This is not Ted Kennedy’s seat. It’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s your seat,” declared Republican state Sen. Scott Brown at a rally yesterday in Quincy.

The title of the piece above emphasizes the ‘exciting’ factor of the special election in Taxachusetts to fill the vacancy in the US Senate. Ted Kennedy held the seat for almost half a century. Scott Brown states the seat belongs to the people not the Democrats. Vicki Kennedy, Ted’s widow, voices a similar sentiment. One thing for sure, MA AG Martha Coakley is no Ted Kennedy. But Vicki Kennedy endorses her for the people’s seat.

Vicki Kennedy’s words would seem more sincere had she not endorsed anyone. Just like Caroline Kennedy’s apparent tendency to stay out of the fray in politics would have appeared more genuine had she not endorsed anyone, including Barack Obama, in the 2008 election.

It is reported that Martha Coakley avoids references to Kennedy or Camelot in her campaign. Perhaps the only thing she has done correctly from the beginning. With Scott Brown leading in the polls heading into Tuesday’s duel at the ballot box one thing seems clear. The bloom is off the rose for Camelot and voters of all stripes are angry.

Had the Democratic party not abused their Congressional majority by not only shutting out Republicans from any serious negotiation on legislative matters, etc., but ignoring public dissatisfaction with the state of healthcare reform and the failure to promote job growth this election may have been a slam dunk.

Sure, anything can happen and usually does in politics. And neither party has a monopoly on bad decisions. But right now the Democrats are in the majority and with that distinction comes the blame for poor performance.

A trend by the voting public to place one party in the White House and the other in control of Congress was commonly viewed as ignorant. Maybe that trend is looking smarter to the pundits these days. After all, the complaint was nothing would be accomplished under those circumstances. But given the track record of both parties having them do nothing or being forced to find common ground may be in the best interest of our nation.

Maybe the voting public is smarter than the credit given them by the pundits. The answer may come on January 19th in MA.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

A stunning poll showing state Sen. Scott Brown ahead of Coakley wrecked Obama’s week. After all, Obama’s dream of overhauling the nation’s health-care system could hinge on the Democrats holding 60 seats in the Senate to keep Republicans from filibustering the bill to death. A Brown win would also allow the GOP to bring Obama’s entire agenda to a halt.

Reason enough for conservatives and independents to vote for Scott Brown. Given the reluctance of many Congressional Democrats to vote for Obamacare it is good reason for liberals to vote for Scott Brown too. The pressure placed on Democrats by their party, including Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others, to vote the ‘party line’ is nothing more than extortion in an election year. No different than the bribes offered Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).

The debate has never been about healthcare reform. Those supporting Obamacare expecting reform will not get it. The singular reason for Dems passing this legislation is to give President Obama a political victory for his agenda to include in the State of the Union address with the hope of saving his first year in office. That’s an expensive campaign item taxpayers will have to fund. With no guarantee of benefits in the future or at least not for the first four years. Conveniently placed well beyond the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Again, reason enough to vote for Scott Brown no matter who you are or what you want. At the very least Brown offers a chance to remove the flaws from healthcare reform legislation and present an honest bill.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

related: Health Care Debate is Now Officially Underway (a text version)

related: The Vote Tonight (a text version)

related: 10 Things You Should Know About this Bill (a text version)

Nothing like political rhetoric to muddy the waters before a weekend stealth vote on so-called healthcare reform. Both major parties are guilty of playing politics. Within this rhetorical battle a few reminders should be stated. Currently the Democratic party is in the majority. They control the White House and Congress. With that political advantage comes power and responsibility. We already know the GOP misused that advantage their last time at bat. The Dems are doing the same now.

(RTTNews) - In advance of a crucial vote Saturday, leading Senate Democrats criticized their Republican opponents for seeking to stop health reform efforts without advancing an alternative.

“Senate Republicans want to talk about the number of pages in this bill; we want to talk about the number of people who will get affordable care,” Durbin said. “Our bill is two thousand pages long and it helps hundreds of millions of people.”

He added, “The Republican bill is zero pages long and helps no one. The choice is clear. It’s time to pass this health reform bill.”

Let’s be clear. The GOP may not have introduced a bill in Congress as an ‘alternative’ to the several submitted by the Democrats. Just as John Boehner touts CBO scoring of a GOP alternative proposal Dick Durbin and other Dems suggest the GOP has no proposal. Here’s a link to the CBO scoring of a GOP proposal the Dems say does not exist.

Most bills introduced in Congress never see the light of day. If they make it to committee that is where they die most of the time. That’s the upside. Those that survive the introduction may not pass. Those that do pass become law. Of those that become law the debate continues as to their benefit for the public. The Democratic party is responsible for the current healthcare reform proposals in Congress. The GOP is currently in the minority status and as such has few tools available to advance alternative proposals.

But what they have suggested makes sense. We should do this thing, healthcare reform, in smaller more manageable steps. That is contrary to the Democratic plan to pass legislation that is huge, restrictive, manipulative, debt raising, deficit increasing, budget busting and an overall hijacking of personal freedom. Say all you want about that not being true but nearly every report from the CBO to the MSM documents the dangerous effects of what they propose.

Once again it is time to contact your elected reps and demand a sensible approach to reform and that is not included in the current proposals being advanced by the liberal majority. The manipulation of the legislative process and the speed with which the Dems seek passage should be warning enough. Let’s back up and start over before any more damage is produced.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The left enjoys referring to the GOP as the ‘party of no.’ Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has press releases whining about the GOP holding up nominations or confirmations of President Obama. David Hamilton was confirmed for the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals by the US Senate in a 70-29-1 vote. The ‘not voting’ member is a Republican. Ten of the 70 voting ‘aye’ for confirmation are Republicans. The occasional support for the GOP from Senator Lieberman was not available this time as he voted to confirm. Read the rest of this post and the links to consider the implications of this event. Do the math. Had the 11 members of the GOP voting ‘aye’ or not voting opposed the nomination what would the outcome have been?

One question is presented in advance. Are the Republicans who voted to confirm David Hamilton RINOs?

An article from NRO in March of 2009 discusses ACLU Hamilton as a nominee for the US Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit. Follow the link to gain some insight on the nominee who was confirmed this week.

Seventh Circuit Candidate David Hamilton—An ACLU “Moderate”! [Ed Whelan]

In an article headlined “Moderate Is Said to Be Pick for Court,” the New York Times reports that President Obama’s first nominee to a federal appellate court seat is expected to be David F. Hamilton. Hamilton, appointed by President Clinton to a district judgeship in Indiana in 1994 (despite the ABA’s “not qualified” rating), is expected to be named to the Seventh Circuit.

An excerpt from Senator Leahy on the Hamilton nomination for the Seventh Circuit.

“I believe our confirmation decisions should not be based on partisan considerations, much less on how we hope or predict a given judicial nominee will ‘vote’ on particular issues of public moment or controversy. I have instead tried to evaluate judicial candidates on whether they have the requisite intellect, experience, character and temperament that Americans deserve from their judges, and also on whether they indeed appreciate the vital, and yet vitally limited, role of the Federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, rather than seeking to impose their own policy views.”

Senator Lugar believes Judge Hamilton “is superbly qualified under both sets of criteria.” So do I. Judge Hamilton is a well-respected Federal judge not known for partisanship or an ideological agenda. In light of his superb record, broad support, and unanimous “well qualified” rating from the American Bar Association, it is no wonder Judge Hamilton’s nomination for this important appellate seat has the support of both home state Senators. He should be confirmed with a strong bipartisan majority.

Interesting comments from Leahy considering every judicial nomination is partisan in nature. It would be good if this were not the case but it is. And Leahy’s characterization that this nominee has been selected based on his qualifications is absurd. (Of course, that is merely this blog’s opinion)

The following is the result of Roll Call Vote 349 (In the YEAs group and the Not Voting Group, Republicans voting in support of the nomination are in bold type.)

YEAs

Alexander (R-TN) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Begich (D-AK)
Bennet (D-CO) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Brown (D-OH)
Burris (D-IL) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE) Casey (D-PA) Chambliss (R-GA) Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY) Gregg (R-NH) Hagan (D-NC) Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT) Inouye (D-HI) Johnson (D-SD) Kaufman (D-DE)
Kerry (D-MA) Kirk (D-MA) Klobuchar (D-MN) Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (ID-CT) Lincoln (D-AR) Lugar (R-IN) McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ) Merkley (D-OR) Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI) Reid (D-NV) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY) Shaheen (D-NH) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (D-PA)
Stabenow (D-MI) Tester (D-MT) Thune (R-SD) Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM) Warner (D-VA) Webb (D-VA) Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs

Barrasso(R-WY) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY) Burr (R-NC) Coburn (R-OK) Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN) Crapo (R-ID) DeMint (R-SC) Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA) Johanns (R-NE) Kyl (R-AZ) LeMieux (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY) Risch (R-ID) Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Vitter (R-LA) Voinovich (R-OH)
Wicker (R-MS)

Not Voting - 1

Hutchison (R-TX)


David Frank Hamilton was first elevated to the status of judge by virtue of a Clinton nomination in 1994. (record from Thomas LOC, below)

Nomination: PN1469-103
Date Received: June 08, 1994 (103rd Congress)
Nominee: David F. Hamilton, of Indiana, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Indiana vice S. Hugh Dillin, retired.
Referred to: Senate Judiciary
Reported by: Senate Judiciary

Legislative Actions

Floor Action: June 08, 1994 - Received in the Senate and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Committee Action: September 21, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Hearings held.
Committee Action: September 28, 1994 - Committee on Judiciary. Ordered to be reported favorably.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Reported by Mr. Biden, Committee on the Judiciary, without printed report.
Floor Action: September 28, 1994 - Placed on Senate Executive Calendar. Calendar No. 1289.
Floor Action: October 07, 1994 - Confirmed by the Senate by Voice Vote.

Organization: The Judiciary

Control Number: 103PN0146900

Final note: Do the GOP members voting to confirm Hamilton or not voting demonstrate conservative principles?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Senate approves ACORN/abortion radical judge David Hamilton (Michelle Malkin) 

Another example of how political motivation blurs the lines in the GOP on being a politician or standing for conservative values.

Republicans are unanimously opposed to the sweeping legislation.

Signaling the unease of some freshman Democrats in swing districts, Rep. John Adler of New Jersey said Friday he will vote against the bill. Mr. Adler, who won his first term in 2008 with 52% of the vote, said the House bill “does not do enough to contain costs.”

He added, “Congress should not pass a bill that costs more than $1 trillion” over 10 years.

Are Republicans unanimously opposed to HR3962 and the other healthcare reform plans proposed by the Democrats for purely political reasons or because this reform violates conservative principles? There is the distinct possibility current reforms violate sections of the US Constitution as well but that’s another story for another time. As is the question of why this unanimous GOP opposition is not demonstrated on other issues like illegal immigration?

The Democratic majority has been unable to produce party unity on healthcare reform as reports indicate the Saturday vote on HR3962 may be delayed. Vulnerable Democrats are worried about the 2010 elections. The GOP has similar concerns about their possible comeback in those same elections. And yet both parties seem unwilling to accept widespread rejection by the public and respond responsibly. The fight is purely political.

The Senate may not be able to arrange a vote until next year. That would take a toll on Obama’s first term. The liberal agenda now seems destined to ride completely on the outcome of healthcare reform legislation. If incomplete into next year their 2010 aspirations are vulnerable. But the GOP may suffer along with them as voters express their anger at the ballot box.

As this fiasco continues other issues suffer from neglect, incompetence or both. The President’s support is fading. Congressional approval ratings are still in the tank. There is no economic recovery. Unemployment has reached a new high above 10% and some say it is actually higher. And all politicians can do is play politics with an issue most regard as secondary at best.

Shelve the damn healthcare issue for now. Attend to national security, national defense, border control, immigration enforcement and domestic policy related to economic matters. In other words, limited government that reduces taxes, national debt, deficits and spending. If those items are ever effectively solved then revisit healthcare reform if anyone other than liberal politicians is interested.

Until then, get conservative or get out.

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

The following GOP senators have endorsed Carly Fiorina as a candidate for Senator Barbara Boxer’s seat in the US Senate as reported by CQ.

Those endorsing Fiorina included Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; Assistant Minority Leader Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.; 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, R-Calif.; Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Maine Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia J. Snowe. All cited her experience as a business leader.

Coverage of this news and related items include obvious political considerations. Is Chuck DeVore being thrown under the bus by the GOP? Will this race be the next NY-23? Is the GOP committing political suicide? And more repeats of past speculation on the future of party politics in the US round out the typical discussions.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) endorsed conservative California State Assemblyman Chuck DeVore (R) Tuesday, once again going against the wishes of his party.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) has made no endorsement in the California Senate race, but party leaders favor former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina (R), a wealthy centrist whom many believe could give Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) a strong challenge.

The excerpt above from The Hill points to what this story should be about in terms of both the future of the GOP and conservative principles. Senator Jim DeMint is one of the few members of the GOP demonstrating conservative values on a regular basis. His support of the conservative candidate in this race is a case in point.

The overwhelming opposition during the August recess, Tea Party protests and other events during the past year including gatherings this week in Washington supports the notion the voting public is angry about less than conservative strategies displayed by members of Congress Pundits and talking heads in the media establishment exhibit the same refusal to accept reality as the establishment GOP. Conservative principles driving good governance and a return to basic and traditional American values to restore sanity in the United States is what the majority of citizens are demanding.

While McConnell, Kyl and Coburn are perhaps the more conservative of the eight listed in Fiorina’s corner the rest are like the description of Fiorina. Centrist or moderate or RINO is what the GOP establishment has favored for some time and most of those supporting Fiorina fit that mold. The others seem to be moving in that direction. But not Senator Jim DeMint.

Is it possible Senator Jim DeMint gets it and many others in the GOP ranks do not? Seems a reasonable conclusion to draw. The GOP risks a huge opportunity in 2010 if they continue to ignore the writing on the wall. Some have suggested you win some elections by moving center and others by moving to the right in terms of the GOP. Has it occurred to them there may be a sea change coming in American politics and those rules no longer apply?

Stanford Matthews
MoreWhat.com

Democrats and the death of deliberative democracy (Michelle Malkin)