Interesting developments in PA
February 14, 2010
This past week I had the opportunity to hear from Sam Rohrer, a candidate running to be Governor of Pennsylvania. Or, more specifically at this point, to be the GOP nominee for such. I found Sam to be inspiring and intelligent – he clearly understood the predicaments our country and state are in, and had some good ideas to fix them. Long story short, the state will soon become insolvent if we don’t fix things, and Democrat Ed Rendell actually wants to INCREASE spending.
Anyway, the real point of this post is to point out what happened this weekend – the state GOP endorsed Tom Corbett, Rohrer’s primary opponent to be the nominee. This comes more than three months before Pennsylvania’s Republican voters have to decide who we want to be the nominee. The effect of this endorsement comes down to this – Corbett will now have access to oodles of money, free campaign workers, and national support. The full weight of the establishment machine will be pushing for Corbett to win, and that is a very strong foe to face.
The problem is, no one knows what Corbett stands for other than running on his record as Attorney General. Now, I can’t say I follow the actions of the AG all that much, and he may be fine at it, but that does not mean he is a good candidate to be governor. In contrast, Sam Rohrer is the “principled” candidate in the fight. He has taken strong stands on many issues, and really understands the need for serious reform and restoring balance between the state and federal governments. Washington has gotten its hands into every facet of our lives, and we need someone who understands the corruption and bribery that have served to effect this situation.
So this comes down to a true battle between the party machine and what is commonly referred to as the “tea party” types for the choice of who will be the GOP nominee for PA Governor. The machine has been drastically wrong before (they did endorse Arlen Specter), and they very likely will be too this time. The GOP just cannot seem to understand that running candidates that offend no one, also give no one a reason to vote for them. In a time where conservative activism is on the rise and thousands have already been attracted to Rohrer, the GOP instead took the cowards way out.
They, and all establishment Republicans, must be made to understand this is NOT how we want things to be done. We do not want politically connected, but mediocre, candidates chosen by the “powers that be” as opposed to the people. We do not want another GOP politician who will stand for nothing and get nothing done in Harrisburg. We DO want a smart, principled leader like Sam Rohrer to have a chance. I think all people interested in Constitution-based leadership need to get behind Sam and give the state party a message. I encourage all residents of the Commonwealth, and all other interested parties, to check out Rohrer and see what you think.
I think we all need to take an active role in retaking the Republican Party. Together we can restore it to a party with principles.
We're not all nutjobs
February 11, 2010
With “Snowmageddon” upon us in the Northeast, and 20+ inches of snow on the ground, I’ve had a couple days to spend inside. Needless to say, being a Twitter addict, I spent a lot of my time keeping up on the latest tweets. Today’s big event this morning was the revelation that Debra Medina, a candidate running for governor in Texas, is potentially a 9/11 “truther”. This came to light during an interview on the Glenn Beck show, and while Medina did not actually admit to being a truther, she certainly left the door open and gave a very unsatisfactory answer – essentially, that, nine years after the fact, she still did not have all the facts and couldn’t make a determination about what happened that day.
Of course this triggered the usual folks calling in to defend her, and trutherism in general. One caller said that not voting for someone because they believe in this conspiracy is like not voting for someone because they are pro-choice. I’d say believing that the federal government deliberately murdered thousands of Americans on 9/11 is in a bit of a different class. To actually accept such a proposition, you’d have to believe in a widespread conspiracy that stretches over thousands of people, nine years, and all levels of government. To put it one way… that’s pretty damn insane. Going beyond the sheer irrationality of trutherism, it also requires one to believe that the government is not just incompetent or corrupt, but damn near evil. A government that would commit and cover up 9/11 is a government that is not worthy of any support, and must instead be actively fought as a direct threat to life and limb. To summarize, being a truther means you are divorced from reality, and in some cases, you could be actually dangerous. It is not something to take in stride.
Unfortunately, this incident has once again brought up the horrible tendency of libertarians, and especially those that support Ron Paul, to believe in all manner of nutty conspiracies. I say this with sadness as I agree with Ron Paul on many things and consider myself, largely, a libertarian. In my mind, birthers are in much the same boat in terms of being logic-challenged, irrational people. While 9/11 trutherism is certainly worse than birtherism in many ways, both are pure and simple conspiracy theories – they are beliefs in massive, secretive plots involving a huge number of people. Both rely on disproven and often ridiculous claims that run contrary to all available evidence and scientific fact. And both must be actively fought and expunged from any reasonable, well-intentioned movement. They are like cancers that will only metastasize and grow if left to fester.
All of these conspiracy nuts only serve to give the rest of us a bad name. There are many libertarian-leaning folks who don’t believe George Bush or the Jews are behind 9/11, or that 40 years ago some amazingly predictive folks saw to cover up Barack Obama’s place of birth. There are many of use who actually just believe that a small government is best, that the free market is dynamic and transformative, and that individual liberty is important to defend. Every time some nut goes off on some crazy tangent, it gives our enemies fodder to embarrass us and combat the legitimacy of the entire movement. And the sad fact is, I think truthers and birthers are (hopefully) only a small percentage – they are just the most radical and vocal. The rest of us, AKA the sane ones, need to get these people straight or get rid of them. If we don’t, we risk letting a few crazies sabotage the whole thing. And that would be a tragedy of massive proportions.
On purity tests
February 1, 2010
The battle between practicality and idealism within the GOP has always been a fierce one. Some value winning above all, and would see the Republican Party twist and mold itself into whatever easily-digestible form possible in order to regain power. The other side, which makes up a significant faction of the tea party movement, wants so-called “purity tests” in order to assure that all potential Republican candidates at least outwardly agree with a list of core tenets. The truth, as is often the case, is that both sides have a point, but that neither way is the best for the party. Obviously it’s not worth selling out everything you stand for just to win an election. But since the recent debate has settled more on recent attempts to impose a purity test, I think it is important to understand that purity is an elusive, and likely non-existent, beast.
From the beginning, what one citizen defines as purity is a completely personal thing. I’d venture that every major group in the GOP has its own “top 10″ list of requirements. Social conservatives will demand the candidate be totally pro-life. Business types will demand he/she favors tax cuts and opposes onerous regulation. Libertarians will demand moderation on social issues. The point is, each of these groups represents a sizable, but not majority, portion of the party. They each play an important role, but each must also play along with the others on the larger stage, because the things we all agree on are what is really important. To oversimplify these, they essentially boil down to a smaller, less-intrusive government. Such a government lets social cons raise their families, businesses conduct their affairs, and libertarians cultivate their cannabis farms in peace. To this end, all members of the GOP should support at least this.
But anything further is destructive. To give a specific item, I don’t think the party needs to be full-bore pro-life. Scott Brown is a recent example of a reasonably pro-choice candidate who, by and large, gets the core ideas and will hopefully fight for a more restrained government. Now, I have my own significant doubts about Senator-elect Brown, but I will put those aside for the moment and be optimistic. My problem with a pro-life test is that it renders a very complex issue into a simple black-and-white absolute that does not make sense. If abortion really were such an issue, there would be just two groups. The pro-life group, believing abortion is murder and genocide, would be bombing clinics and shooting doctors. The pro-choice group, believing the value of human life is dependent on its being “wanted,” would be in favor of euthanizing the infirm and “defective.”
Clearly neither side really exists except on the fringes. The point, then, is that abortion, like any issue, is not a 100% issue either way. This is not to say that those who aren’t setting bombs are not actually pro-life, or that those who support early-term but not partial-birth abortions are not really pro-choice. Instead, they are both generally well-intentioned in their beliefs, but they represent various points along a continuum rather than polar opposites. My own opinions strongly favor pro-life, mainly for human rights reasons, but not believing abortion is tantamount to murder and not believing in souls, I would never justify killing an abortion provider to stop the procedure. To some on the extreme side, I’d then fail a litmus test, but in fact it is the litmus test that is wrong, not the person who fails an impossible standard. In any case, who determines what is sufficiently pro-life?
To demonstrate another example of the pitfalls of purity tests, say for example you require all candidates to be for “small government.” Now, that would certainly require you to be against ObamaCare, but what else is required? Do you have to be against Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, labor laws, environmental laws, the FBI, and the Department of Education? Does your vision of government have to be almost anarchistic, or are you allowed to let the government build roads and schools? At what point do you draw a line?
My alternative to purity tests is something more difficult, but much more important. I think, instead of going down a list checking true or false, our candidates should have to explain their principles. By this I mean demonstrating an understanding of American history and government, and an understanding of personal freedom and liberty and why it is important to defend. It is my belief that this basis can evolve into a variety of positions – the point is in knowing how you get there. For example, I can imagine very strong, logical, freedom-centered arguments for and against gay marriage, for or against abortion, and for various positions on our actions abroad. In the end, I just want to know that my candidate actually believes in something, even if I may disagree with his/her positions.
This is much better than some small group forcing everyone in the party to agree to their priorities. I can be certain that most of the party would not agree with all of mine. But I’m okay with that, as long as I feel that my leadership understands WHY small government is, in general, better, regardless of to what extent they take their government-shrinking fervor. Purity tests create artificial divisions and split the party on lines that may not even exist. They turn complex issues into true/false questions. And they certainly are not a way to nurture and encourage freedom-minded folks who might disagree on a few specific policies. In that light I am glad the GOP is pushing against these tests, as accepting them would permanently reduce the party to fringe status.
