On The Absurdity (and Incompetence) of Government

broberts — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:15:04 -0600

I’m not naive when it comes to the incompetence of the federal government, but every once in a while I come across something that flabbergasts me. This morning I was reading Mike Allen’s Politico Playbook when I stumbled upon one such story:

BEHIND THE CURTAIN - Michael Lewis, in a new afterword to the paperback edition of “The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine”: “Half a dozen U.S. senators phoned to chat [after publication of the hardcover] … The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which had been created by Congress to investigate the causes of the collapse, became a kind of pestilence in my life. … Most of what I knew about the financial crisis I knew from the characters in my book. Yet important people who read it felt the need to talk to me rather than to these people who had firsthand knowledge of events. … The absurdity of the relationship between author and government finally became clear on the sixth call from the Financial Inquiry Commission. It came from a man assigned to formally depose witnesses. It quickly became clear that he knew more than I did about the U.S. financial crisis … An hour or so into the conversation he asked me who else in the U.S. government I had spoken to about the financial crisis. I rattled off the long list of dignitaries I had met in the last few months. ‘So what did they tell you?’ he asked. … ‘What did THEY tell ME?’ ‘Yes, any insights into what happened. Anything we might pursue.’ ‘No, no, no,’ I said, ‘you don’t understand: THEY called ME to ask what happened.’ With that, he began to laugh.” $9 on Amazon http://amzn.to/erGqbY

If these are the people running our government…there’s not much hope for the future.

Reflections on CPAC 2011

broberts — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:31:45 -0600

I was sitting in the Atlanta airport reflecting on this year’s CPAC, and I realized I was slightly disappointed. While it was still a great conference and boasted a record crowd, it lacked some of its usual energy for me. Maybe it was due to all the controversy surrounding the event, maybe it was just the overall dissatisfaction with the current crop of presidential candidates (57% of attendees were not satisfied with the current field and wanted stronger candidates—CPAC Straw Poll), or maybe it was the less stellar than ususal speaker line up, but I didn’t sense the enthusiasm of years past.

I was surprised at the number of high profile conservatives that skipped the conference this year. Sarah Palin claimed it was a scheduling problem for the second year in a row. I find that interesting because if I were gearing up to run for president, I think I would make time for the largest gathering of conservative activists in the world. I also think it is worth noting her lackluster performance in the straw poll coming in 9th with 3% of the vote.

Several would be presidential candidates showed up at CPAC, but only a couple generated buzz—Haley Barbour and Mitch Daniels. Daniels spoke at the Reagan Banquet on Friday night, and according to those in attendance, he hit a home run. I watched the video of his speech on the CPAC website, and I agree that he did an excellent job. I even heard some Paul supporters would be willing to get behind Daniels should Dr. Paul not run.

Haley Barbour was the topic of a lot of conversation re: 2012, and he delivered a solid performance. Hitting on topics like spending, energy and health care, Barbour sounded like a presidential candidate. He hasn’t announced his intentions, but it sounded like a stump speech to me. I heard he was mobbed all the way to the door. However, his performance in the straw poll (1%) leaves doubt about whether he could garner enough support in a primary battle. Appearing on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace, Barbour explained his poor showing as a result of him addressing the group after the straw poll had already closed.

Speaking of the CPAC Straw Poll, it didn’t contain many surprises this year. Ron Paul won as predicted helped along by his organization, Campaign 4 Liberty, selling discounted tickets to their members. Whatever you think about the Paulies, you have to give them credit for showing up in droves and being very well organized. Romney was the only other candidate with an organized effort and came in second. Gary Johnson and Chris Christie tied for third, followed by Newt, Pawlenty, Bachmann and Daniels.

Overall, it was still worth the trip but I’d like to see them beef up their speaker line up next year.

CPAC 2011 (So Far...)

broberts — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:24:20 -0600

It’s been an interesting CPAC this year. Before the conference even started it was embroiled in controversy over the participation of gay conservative group GOProud. Several organizations pulled out of the conference, but few of them were regular participants anyway. The most high profile and only real loss was The Heritage Foundation. Rumors are that their refusal to participate this year was not over GOProud, but due to a financial dispute with the American Conservative Union—the organization behind CPAC. Regardless of the dispute before then conference, GOProud seems to be getting a good reception from attendees.

The big surprise yesterday was Donald Trump. Trump showed up yesterday afternoon to a fairly responsive crowd, but quickly digressed into a fight over Ron Paul with a heckler. Considering the room was stacked with Paulie’s waiting to hear Rand Paul, that was NOT a smart move. No one seems to be taking Trump for President seriously. Rand Paul did a really good job. He seems to have more charisma than his father.

Speaking of presidential candidates, Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, looks like he’s gearing up for a run. Johnson has a booth and professional campaign consultants wandering around. He actually gave a good speech yesterday, but is still considered a long, long, long shot candidate. Johnson’s biggest obstacle is his drug policy (he supports the legalization of marijuana) and he will have a hard time getting traditional Republican primary voters to buy into him because of it.

Mitt Romney spoke earlier today and got a very tepid response from the crowd. The ballroom was only three quarters of the way full, and he largely skipped over the health care issue which did not go unnoticed. The fake Sarah Palin was a bigger hit than Mitt.

John Thune has been considered a possible candidate for 2012 in some circles, and had a speaking spot this afternoon. He was good, but not great in both content and delivery. I think he’ll wait until 2016 to throw his name in the hat.

Former Governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty spoke this afternoon as well. He was long on red meat and short on specifics. I don’t really know that he lost any support, but probably didn’t gain much either.

On the conference in general, there seems to be a weaker line-up of speakers this year. Noticeably absent are Sarah Palin, Marco Rubio, Mike Pence, Mike Huckabee and Jim DeMint. The energy seems a little down compared to last year, and I think it is due to the lack of enthusiasm with our current crop of presidential candidates. I expect Ron Paul to win the straw poll again this year—his supporters are, if nothing else, well organized.

I’ve been coming to CPAC since 2004, and looking around this year I’m amazed at how libertarian this conference has become. When I first started coming, the conference has always been fiscally conservative, but social issues were also prominently featured. This year, there are a few panels discussing social issues (Traditional Marriage, DADT) but they’re not getting as much attendance or support as in the past. The easy acceptance of GOProud is also an example of how the attitude has changed. The younger generation of conservatives appears to have more of an libertarian, anti-government bent.

I’m looking forward to seeing Haley Barbour tomorrow morning, and to hearing how Mitch Daniels does later tonight. There’s a lot of buzz about both men, and I think their performance here could make or break their momentum.

GOP Presidential Primary Wide Open

broberts — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:15:07 -0600

**Note** A good friend pointed out that Gary Johnson the former Governor of New Mexico is also a likely candidate and deserves a mention. While I think Gary did an excellent job as Governor and know that he is ideologically solid, I don’t think he can win the nomination. His stance on the legalization of marijuana would prevent him from appealing to a large segment of the Republican base.

Believers in limited government should be worried. Conservatives in general should be worried. The current crop of potential Republican presidential candidates is largely bereft of real leadership and consists mostly of a bevy of recycled candidates from 2008. All of the polls cover the same names you’ve been hearing since the end of the last presidential election—Romney, Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, Pawlenty, et al.

Anyone who could not beat John McCain last time should automatically be disqualified from this primary cycle. If Romney wasn’t already disqualified by his failure to be beat McCain, Romneycare in Massachusetts would definitely disqualify him. Obamacare is one of the top three issues on voters’ minds. 58% of likely voters support a repeal of the 2000+ page health care overhaul. How can we have a Presidential candidate that speaks out against this federal takeover of our health care system when he passed a very similar law in Massachusetts? We can’t. That’s a deficit that Romney cannot overcome.

Palin—while she is wildly popular with the base, I do not believe she can win in a general election. Palin lacks gravitas. She has to convince moderate Republicans and Independents that she can be presidential. To accomplish this, she would have been wise to travel, meeting with heads of state and foreign dignitaries, and beef up her knowledge of domestic policy issues. Instead, she did a reality TV show. Now, I know many people say Obama got elected because he was a celebrity—the “hip” quality that made it popular to be a supporter. The difference is that Obama still came across as a serious guy, he was not gutting salmon on national television. Don’t get me wrong—I like Sarah as much as the next person, but I don’t think she has a broad enough appeal with the center/right voters.

I also really like Newt Gingrich. Newt is a great “ideas man.” The problem with Newt as a candidate is two-fold. First, he has a lot of personal baggage. While I personally could care less about his personal life, there are a lot of conservatives who will have a problem with him being on wife #3. The recent interview with his second wife in Esquire magazine demonstrates the kind of dirt that will come out. The second, and more formidable problem is his record. We see Newt saying all the right things on Fox News. What many have forgotten is that he went squishy on us after the Republicans took control of the US House of Representatives in ’94. Remember the compromise with President Clinton on welfare reform? He still shows some poor judgement from time to time, such as endorsing DeDe Scozzafava in the 2009 special election in NY 23. His “climate change” commercials with Nancy Pelosi are another example. So although I like Newt and believe he performs a very important function in the conservative movement, his time for the presidency has come and gone.

I don’t even know where to begin with Mike Huckabee. He raised taxes, and allied himself with the teacher’s union in Arkansas. He gave in-state tuition to illegal aliens. He has indicated his support for a national smoking ban in public places. The list goes on and on. No liberty-loving fiscal conservative could support him.

Other names frequently mentioned like Mitch Daniels, Tim Pawlenty, and Haley Barbour don’t inspire the same disgust as a Huckabee candidacy, but don’t really inspire any great excitement either. Mike Pence, the one name that was starting to generate some momentum among both fiscal and social conservatives, has decided not to seek the nomination.

So where does that leave us? The country is largely united in their opposition to big government and big spending. If you have any doubts about that, see the election results for Nov. 2, 2010. The tea party movement has sparked a new political enthusiasm, and budget/deficit woes have set the stage for some massive cuts in spending and entitlement reform. The mood of the country is in our favor. At a time like this, you would think we would have someone step forward to lead the movement. But, for all the great talent in the Republican party (Christie, Rubio, Haley, Cuccinelli) no one is really ready for the big job.

That’s why I’m a little nervous. Are Republicans headed for a ’96-like moment with another Bob Dole? The time is right for a real leader to step forward. Limited government, fiscal conservative, individual rights-loving activists across the country are desperate for a leader. They want someone they can get excited about in 2012. They want someone who has a record of saying AND doing the right things. They want someone not steeped in the mindset of Washington elites and the go along to get along crowd. They want a reformer who is willing to challenge the status quo and make the hard, politically risky decisions. Someone who dares to address the problems with Social Security, someone who will challenge the stranglehold labor unions have on industry and our education system, and someone who will actually cut spending and reduce the deficit.

I haven’t seen that someone yet. That’s troublesome because by this time in 2008, Romney, Huckabee, and McCain already had offices in Iowa and New Hampshire and were building campaign infrastructure. Whoever our candidate is doesn’t have time to waste. I think a lot of Republicans and conservatives have been lulled into a false sense of security due to Obama’s lackluster approval ratings. Many think there is no way he could get re-elected. But they forget Obama the candidate is much different from Obama the President. Obama the candidate was charming, charismatic and much more moderate. It’s true that this time, he will have more of a record to defend. However, the American electorate can have a very short memory when it comes to candidates (ex: Jerry Brown in California getting re-elected as Governor). Regardless of his record and approval ratings, beating him will not be a walk in the park.

Your Taxpayer Dollars At Work

broberts — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 12:28:58 -0600

Wherever you come down in the abortion debate, it is an outrage that our taxpayer dollars are paying for this. In the list of spending cuts—defunding Planned Parenthood should be at the very top.

The Case Against Tenure

broberts — Thu, 20 Jan 2011 14:02:50 -0600

Academic tenure is designed to protect teachers who dissent from popular opinion, openly disagree with authorities, and/or research unpopular subjects. Proponents say tenure fosters a more open academic environment where teachers are free to posit new ideas and give honest opinions. It prevents teachers from sticking to the “safe” position for fear of reprisal from their employer.

That’s what tenure is intended to do. What it actually does, is protect teachers like Curtis Robinson.

During his 18 years teaching disabled students in Paterson, Robinson hurled classroom chairs, punched a boy in the chest for failing to do his homework and shoved another kid against a blackboard until he cried, staff and students said.

Robinson still insists he had a gift with children. But he admits that using cocaine after school early in his career sometimes made him “preoccupied.”

“Immediately after work, I’d have a line or two,” he told The Record in August. “I been teaching so long, you can function with your eyes closed.”

Granted this is an extreme case, but the point is the same—tenure has had the practical effect of creating job security for bad teachers. It protects incompetence, laziness, and misconduct. Proponents of tenure will argue that there is a system in place to fire those teachers who demonstrate the above inadequacies. However, that system is extremely costly, and often comes at the expense of funding of other positions or other programs. For instance, the state of New Jersey spent more than $100,000 and four years in the quest to fire Curtis Robinson. That’s in addition to the $120,000 they had to spend hiring a substitute, and the $283,864 they had to pay Robinson in wages during the legal battle.

This is not a system that works. There are better ways to protect academic freedom.

The Times They Are A Changin'

broberts — Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:15:58 -0500

To quote the great Bob Dylan:

Come senators, congressmen

Please heed the call

Don’t stand in the doorway

Don’t block up the hall

For he that gets hurt

Will be he who has stalled

There’s a battle outside ragin’.

It’ll soon shake your windows

And rattle your walls

For the times they are a-changin’.

Last night’s primary election results came as a shock to many. Like Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, Sue Lowden in Nevada and Bob Bennett in Utah, Mike Castle was widely expected to win the Republican primary in Delaware. However, Delaware voters, like Alaska, Nevada and Utah voters, turned conventional wisdom on its head. Christine O’Donnell defeated RINO Mike Castle in a huge upset.

You would think that after seeing the primary results in state after state after state, the pundits, strategists and the GOP establishment would get the message. The Republican electorate wants CONSERVATIVE candidates. This message was sent in Florida, Utah, Nevada, Delaware, Colorado, Alaska, Kentucky, and potentially in New Hampshire, yet the NRSC still doesn’t get it. Karl Rove was on Sean Hannity’s show last night talking about the O’Donnell victory and how it diminished the Republican’s chances of winning the Senate in November. An unidentified, high-ranking GOP staffer is quoted in the Daily Caller bashing Jim DeMint and his Senate Conservatives Fund for derailing the Republicans attempt to win a majority.

Even in my home state of Alabama, conservative voters are rejecting the status quo. Dr. Robert Bentley beat out Bradley Byrne and Tim James, both favored heavily by the Republican establishment, to win the GOP gubernatorial primary.

I, however, don’t think anyone should really be surprised by this election cycle. Most of the “establishment candidates” who are being defeated are squishy moderate conservatives—the same kind that we’ve had in Washington who got us into the mess this country is in by spending like drunken sailors. Polls show that all Americans are overwhelmingly worried about the national debt and want more fiscal responsibility. Why would they support the very same people who have failed to give them that year after year?

Whatever their reasons are, the message is clear, “We want conservative candidates.” There is a definite sense of revolution in the air. People are tired of being told they have to vote for the moderate because he/she is “more electable”, tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. They want solid conservative candidates that believe in limited government and fiscal responsiblity. They want candidates that represent their values and ideology. They’ve bought into the idea of pragmatism for years now, and look where it has gotten them. I think voters overwhelming recognize that if you keep putting the same people (or same type people) in office, you’re going to get the same result.

I don’t know what’s going to happen come November, but I do think that a lot of the talking heads will be surprised. Since the election of Obama, this country has swung far to the left, and people are unhappy with the results. The pendelum is due for a significant swing to the right. Fortunately, with the rise of the tea party movement, people are starting to realize that simply putting a Republican in office is not enough. True movement conservatism is making a comeback, and it’s a real threat to the entrenched GOP establishment. Things may get ugly before they get better, but one thing is clear, the times they are a changin’.

Jim DeMint, Tea Parties Fight the Entrenched Establishment

broberts — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 14:53:48 -0500

National Review Online has a great profile of Sen. Jim DeMint today. Trent Lott is wrong, we need a whole Senate full of Jim DeMint disciples…

On the candidates he’s backing through the Senate Conservatives Fund and with the help of Tea Party groups:

These candidates are leaders in their own right. I’m supporting them, because they’re not running on some consultant’s talking points. They’re running on principle.” Jockeying for a leadership position, he says, is not his focus. “What I’m interested in is turning this country away from its fiscal cliff — and for the first time since Reagan, I think that we have a chance for real action, not just political posturing.”

On the GOP establishment:

Still, without naming names, DeMint remains critical of many establishment GOP senators. Earlier this summer, former Senate majority leader Trent Lott (Miss.) told the Washington Post that the Senate does not “need a lot of Jim DeMint disciples.” Party leaders, he said, need to move quickly to “co-opt” any rabble-rousing conservatives who may find their way to the marble halls of Washington. DeMint, with a hint of disgust, says, “We need to realize that Trent Lott was speaking for many senior Republicans.”

Looking at what’s happened in Republican primaries across the country—most recently with Joe Miller in Alaska—the GOP establishment has a reason to be worried.

Recent posts by broberts