Instead of a debate, Mitt and Newt should settle this like men

I would like to suggest a good, old-fashioned dance competition. Last man standing wins the delegates from Guam.

Personalize funny videos and birthday eCards at JibJab!

Who Hates Rick Santorum?

For those not familiar with the name, Dan Savage is a homosexual activist and cyber-bully who spends a pathological amount of time trying to take down Rick Santorum and other social conservatives. He has engaged in rampant, vile cyber-bullying and has even publicly threatened to kill and rape them - all in good fun, of course.


He has hijacked Santorum's name and created a sexually oriented website that is the first search result for "Santorum," thanks to Google bombing - all in good fun, of course.


Savage also supports public outing of his political enemies, including the outing of an 18-year-old who worked on Tom Tancredo's campaign in 2007. All in good fun, of course.


Molotov Mitchell at Worldnet Daily, an avowed "Ron Paul guy," whose "second choice is "Rick - Santorum, that is," thought it might be a good idea to expose "the hollow life form known as Dan Savage."

"Dan Savage is the perfect representative for the gay lobby. A filth-spewing hate activist that claims same sex marriage is beautiful, but then actively brags to the New York Times how he cheats on his spouse. He's a miserable creature, Dan Savage, and in 2003, he went after Rick Santorum."

All in good fun, of course.

UC Davis Pepper Spray Incident - What Really Happened

Mic check...
Mic check...
If you let them go...
If you let them go...
We will let you leave...
We will let you leave...
From Davis, to Greece, F*** the police!

We've all seen the video clip of the UC Davis police officer calmly hosing down "peaceful" student protesters with pepper spray, as if he were spraying weed killer on his flower beds on a lazy Saturday morning.


What we haven't seen are the events that led to this police action. When seen in context, it's clear that the police used disciplined restraint and it's incredible that nobody was seriously injured.


The protesters had been warned the day before that their tents were illegally occupying the quad and were ordered to remove them. The next day, the protesteres were again ordered several times to remove the tents. When they refused, police proceeded to remove them:





This was clearly a volatile situation. The dozen or so police, who were in riot gear and carrying pepper guns, were seriously outnumbered and being challenged by the protesters, who were constantly in their faces with cameras and were refusing to comply with police orders. The hundreds of students who were swarming the encampment area could have easily overwhelmed the police and one loon in the crowd with a weapon could have turned the situation into a tragedy of Kent State proportions.


Several protesters who attempted to impede the police action were arrested, which angered the protesters. The chanting resumed:

I propose...
That we pass a resolution...
To demand the cops...
Off the quad...

Apparently proper English usage is not a priority at UC Davis.


The group then marched en masse to the area where the students who had been arrested were being held and surrounded the police. The jeering mob attempted to "negotiate" with their hostages, saying they would allow the police to leave if they released the students who had been arrested.


At this point the situation had escalated far beyond a peaceful protest to an angry mob that was threatening the police. The officers were armed, but it was clear throughout the video that they had no desire to harm (or even arrest) the protesters. They waited an excruciatingly long time before they proceeded to use pepper spray on the students and continued to warn them of the consequences if they refused to move.


It was also clear that the students wanted the situation to escalate in order to make the police look bad. Upon being warned that the next step would be pepper guns, one student shouted, "Are you going to shoot students?" which set off angry chants of, "Don't shoot students! Don't shoot students!" One student in the crowd [11:50] says, "Who's got their own?" It's frightening to think what could have happened.


You can imagine what must have been going through the minds of the police officers at that point. I'm sure some of them are parents, perhaps some with children the same age as the protesters. No doubt they've been trained to de-escalate these situations and to use the least amount of force necessary to get everyone out safely while maintaining law and order. At the same time, they've got cameras in their faces recording every word and every move. One wrong move and they'll find themselves on YouTube or worse, in court. They have to make split-second decisions while they are surrounded by an angry mob of students who are screaming and jeering at them.


What could go wrong?


Fortunately, the occupiers decided to release their hostages (as if they had the right to detain them in the first place):

We are willing...
To give you a brief moment of peace...
So that you may take your weapons...
And our friends and go...
Please do not return....
We are giving you a moment of peace....
We are giving you a moment of peace. ..
You can go....
We will not follow you.....
We will let you leave...

These students are too young to remember what happened at Kent State University on May 4, 1970 and who knows what, if anything, they're being taught about that event at UC Davis. Four college students were killed and nine wounded when National Guard troops fired on protesters in the midst of a raucous protest.


A review of history recalls that the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) had spent the months leading up to the Kent State shootings organizing, agitating, and occupying on the KSU campus. The campus had been radicalized in part, through propaganda spread by an SDS manual called "The New Radicals in the Multiuniversity," which laid out the plan:

"The next stage of the movement is the most crucial and delicate -- the formation of a Student Strike Coordinating Committee. There are two pre-conditions necessary for its existence. First, there must be a quasi-radical base of some size that has been developed from past activity. Secondly, either a crisis situation provoked by the administration or a climate of active frustration with the administration or the ruling class it represents must exist. The frustration should be centered around a set of specific demands that have been unresolved through the established channels of liberal action. If this kind of situation exists, then a strike is both possible and desirable."

The result of course, was a campus that became a powder keg. The shootings were the culmination of months of escalation by radicals disregarding the rule of law and provoking police and university authorities. Whether or not the National Guard members were justified in firing on the students is the subject of another discussion. However, the lesson of Kent State remains: intentional escalation by radical activists can lead to volatile and sometimes dangerous situations. Backing the police into a corner and detaining them in order to flex your muscles is not an exercise of your first amendment rights.


The students at UC Davis seem oblivious to the fact that they are putting everyone involved in danger. They are laughing and joking, acting as if nothing could possibly go wrong in this angry mob scene. History tells us otherwise when the rule of law is ignored and radicals take over.

 

Students lob a tear gas canister back at Ohio National Guard troops on May 4, 1970, the date that four students were shot and killed and nine others wounded|Chuck Ayers/Kent State University Archives

The Arrogance of our Republican Overlords

The Ohio Republican Party (ORP) is in the midst of a public squabble that is not only causing division within the upper echelon of the party, but is exposing the arrogance of those who consider themselves to be the upper echelon of the party.


It's no secret that ORP Chairman Kevin DeWine and and Governor John Kasich are not the best of friends. Both Kasich and House Speaker William Batchelder (R-Medina) called for his resignation shortly after Republicans swept into office in 2010, taking over the House, Senate, and all statewide offices.  Batchelder and Kasich had accused DeWine (cousin of former Senator and current Attorney General Mike DeWine) of not putting party resources behind some incumbents and not supporting Kasich.


DeWine refused to resign and the party tensions continued to ferment. During the heat of the battle over Kasich's union reform law repeal this past fall, DeWine played host to Mitt Romney, who visited a call center where Romney made one of the biggest blunders of his campaign, refusing to support Kasich and the union reforms. Romney reversed himself the next day. Some have blamed DeWine, speculating that the event was either a ploy to embarrass Kasich or incompetance on DeWine's part.

This week things finally came to a head.  Party Chairman Kevin DeWine, knowing that Republicans were working behind the scenes to unseat him, went public. He complained to the entire State Central Committee that he was being targeted by Kasich and in a speech posted on the ORP website, blamed the divisions on the desire for "profit, arrogance, and the petty pursuit of power."


Speaker Batchelder shot back with a memo to the House Republican Caucus, condemning DeWine's public rant (and listing his failures as leader of the ORP).


This is a lot of inside baseball, especially if you don't live in Ohio. But there was a line in DeWine's speech that stood out to me. It really gives us some insight into how these people think and why we are stuck with ineffective RINO's year after year after year and  why we conservatives feel like we are hitting our heads against a brick wall. DeWine said this:

"The only people who can dash Barack Obama’s hope to slip back into office are the people here in this room."

Did you know that? Did you know that the 66 members of the Ohio State Central Committee are the ONLY people who can stop Barack Obama? I, for one, had no idea that Kevin DeWine, et al were so powerful. If I had known, I would have been in Columbus kissing rings and paying homage to our Republican Overlords.


This is the all-powerful Ohio Republican party that chooses our candidates for us and slaps fake Tea Party endorsements on their mailings and picks winners and losers before the primaries.  Kevin DeWine, thinks we are too emotional and not bright enough to figure these things out for ourselves. When challenged before the 2010 primary, he wrote this:

"Finally, I've seen and heard a lot of ridiculous accusations lately about the role of the Ohio Republican Party in this primary election. Understandably, much of it is motivated by the heightened emotions of political primaries and too often spread with little to no accountability through email, blogs, and social media sites. Unfortunately, most of it is flat out false, and it's typically generated by people who find the truth just too inconvenient for their agenda. I want you to know you can always contact my office or email me directly if you want answers to any rumor or accusation about something we're doing. This election is too important to let "noise" distract us from the real goal of winning in November."

So we, the people, are the "noise" and they, the Overlords, are the only ones who can save us from Obama. They know what's best. We just need to be quiet and go along with their grand plans for our state.


Got that? Now who is going to save us from our Republican Overlords?




Cross Posted at RedState

Newt's Romp on the Green Couch with John Kerry

"Because you want the government to pay for it with a great big tax credit. If it's big enough to do what you say, it's actually going to be more expensive than having the private sector go out and capitalize it in the private market....You want the research, you want the tax credit. That's a government solution." Sen. John Kerry

[Entire debate]

[Newt debate clips]

Four years ago, Sen. John Kerry and House Speaker Newt Gingrich took to the podiums at NYU's Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service to have an unstructured debate about solving the environmental crisis. Newt began by stating that there was a consensus in the scientific community that the earth was getting warmer and that human activity was contributing to that warming, but rejected the idea that we are headed for an immediate catastrophe.

Still, he felt it was important enough that the government needed to get involved:

"So, it is a problem. We should address it. And we should address it very actively."

He proposed what he thinks are "economic" solutions:

"[23:12] And I have to start with the idea we have an absolute requirement as a human race to be committed to economic growth. We also have a requirement, if you're going to be realistic about the environment, to be committed to economic growth in China and India, which means, any serious strategy has to be thinking through what would green development look like in Africa? And what would a green economy look like in India and China? And for that to happen, I would argue, that we have to have a very strong commitment to finding new incentives, to use new science and new technology, and to maximize the rate of innovation. Because you would actually like - the Chinese are going to have cars. The question is, could we accelerate the development of hydrogen cars so the cars they have don't add to carbon loading?" [emphasis added]

He then takes a moment to impress the intelligentsia in the room at NYU with his superior intellect:

"[23:17] So the challenge to us to lead the world, and I agree entirely with whatever criticism the Senator wants to make in general about the absence of American leadership. I'm not gonna stand up here and defend our failure to lead. I am going to say our leadership should start with science, technology, entrepreneurship, and that we should focus on developing new approaches...."

No kidding...that was actually Newt and not John Kerry and not Barack Obama. We must ask if this will be our next Green President's theme as he jets off to all those UN-type environmental justice conferences. Or has he repented of bashing his country among the liberal elite?

To be fair to Newt, he gives a valiant argument against carbon cap and trade. No one would come away from this debate with any inkling that he would want to impose this on the American people. That doesn't mean he doesn't favor other government solutions for dealing with his vision of our "green" future:

"[49:18] So I start with, I want a really big solution. I believe a really big solution has to mean very rapid change. And his is a core argument. I'm not talking about a laissez-faire market. I'm in the Alexander Hamilton/Theodore Roosevelt model. I'm for an incentivized market where, for example, we have very substantial tax credits for the auto industry to convert over to dramatically better cars. We have a very substantial tax credit to trade in the oldest and most polluting of cars. We have a very significant tax credit to go to a clean coal technology. Because if you don't help provide the capital - the morning you provide he incentives, there will be 50,000 entrepreneurs trying to figure out how to get the money. The morning you try to do it by regulation, there will be 50,000 entrepreneurs hiring a lawyer to fight you. It's a fundamentally different model."

He goes on to talk about 20-year tax credits for wind farms and paying to retrofit gas stations for E-85, ethanol to dramatically decrease "carbon loading." Then he displays an astounding measure of cognitive dissonance:

"[53:27] We're arguing over whether bureaucracy is a better way to be urgent or whether science and technology translated by entrepreneurs into products is a better way to be urgent. And I would argue, most of American history argues, that the market can move faster than a bureaucracy to provide solutions if you incentivize the market."

Aside from this sounding eerily like Obama's first three years in office, throwing around the word "market" when you're proposing a government subsidy to pick winners and losers is completely bipolar. Henry Hazlitt, in his concise manual, Economics in One Lesson, explained it this way:

"It is obvious in the case of a subsidy that the taxpayers must lose precisely as much as the X industry gains. It should be equally clear that, as a consequence, other industries must lose what the X industry gains. They must pay part of the taxes that are used to support the X industry. And customers, because they are taxed to support the X industry, will have that much less income left with which to buy other things. The result must be that other industries on the average must be smaller than otherwise in order that the X industry may be larger" (p.101).

Kerry recognized Newt's hypocrisy and rightly called him out on it. If you watch the entire debate, Kerry seems to have the upper hand throughout. Newt is subdued and conciliatory. At one point Newt boasted,

"[1:19:15] And when I was speaker, I think it's fair to say, that on things, that on a whole range of biodiversity issues, I intervened again and again on the side of the environment."

Kerry replied, "Absolutely!" and the room erupted in applause.

John Hinderaker over at the Powerline blog has an interesting comment about Newt's mild-mannered performance:

"Gingrich can be a fire-eater before a friendly audience, but he has a history of turning conciliatory when he has to deal with actual Democrats. One recalls his embarrassing tributes to President Clinton during the days when Clinton was eating Gingrich’s lunch in budget negotiations. Like most conservatives, I am fond of Newt and will always be grateful for his leadership in the years leading up to the 1994 GOP takeover of the House, and in the early aftermath of that takeover. But there is little in Newt’s record to suggest that he would be the most effective conservative standard-bearer in a presidential election."

More important, we just can't say with any confidence that he would be willing to dismantle the massive administrative state that currently rules our country. Indeed, he may just rearrange the deck chairs.

The Club for Growth has excellent White Papers on all the presidential candidates. While they rightly compliment Newt on many of his accomplishments as House Speaker, they note his propensity for promoting his pet projects with tax credits:

"Gingrich has an affinity – all too common even among conservative politicians – for gimmicky, special interest tax incentives that empower politicians to pick winners and losers in the marketplace. His favorite device is the tax credit.

In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Gingrich proposed a six month, $1,000-per person tax credit for 50 percent of the cost of personal travel more than 100 miles from one’s home. The idea sounds nice, but just as Cash for Clunkers only expedited the purchase of cars people were going to buy anyway (at non-car buying taxpayers’ expense), Gingrich’s Cash for Getaways would only have subsidized trips people were going to make anyway, enabling a transfer payment to frequent travelers from families without the time or inclination to travel. This proposal would also require more government to administer and oversee compliance. It is not a fiscally conservative policy. While perhaps not a large issue in itself, this is indicative of an approach Gingrich has frequently advocated. At times he has sponsored bills or issued proposals to do the following:

• A tax credit for the purchase of home computers used for educational or professional purposes.
• A $1,000 tax credit for low-income first-time homebuyers.
• Refundable tax credits for auto companies for the cost of flex-fuels cars, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and the development of hydrogen cars.
• Tax credits to encourage investment in biofuels and “renewable forms of energy.”
• A permanent 50 percent tax credit for research and development, or at least for “companies that are willing to take on government's ‘grand challenges’ (for example, the first inhabitable moon base).”
• A special business tax credit for “corporations that fund basic research in science and technology at our nation's universities.”

Along with these gimmicky tax proposals, Gingrich voted for at least one tax increase during his time in Congress. In 1984, he supported a $50 billion tax bill that closed $15 billion in loopholes, eliminated a tax break on interest income, increased cigarette taxes, and raised taxes on distilled liquor. "

Again, these tax gimmicks are not conservative, free market solutions, but transfers of wealth from one group to another.

Much of Gingrich's appeal is based upon his performance in the debates and his supposedly superior intellect. It's become such a mantra that I fear conservatives are becoming the new Obama Girls. Having above-average debate skills is a job requirement for a candidate. Technically, it's not in the job description for the Commander in Chief. While strong debate performances are a necessary evil in this age, let's not fool ourselves into believing that the best spokesmodel will be the best president while ignoring the record. The Democrats did that last time around and it didn't turn out so well.

Cross-posted at RedState

Ohio Primary Chaos

The Democrats, with an assist from the Republicans, have made a mess of the Ohio primaries. That's primaries - plural. In addition to the March 6th primary for the Senate and other state and local races, Ohio will also hold a second primary on June 12th for House races and presidential candidates. Maybe.

This all started in November, 2010, when the GOP swept the Ohio House and Senate and every statewide office. The Democrats, who told us for years that 'elections have consequences,' suddenly began to tell us what they really meant by that: 'elections have consequences when the Democrats are in power.' As it turns out, when Democrats lose, they have tantrums and storm the Bastille capitol and gin up emotional support for referendums to overturn laws they don't like. They managed to overturn SB5, Ohio's union reform bill, by turning Ohio's representative government into a direct democracy (allowed by the Ohio Constitution) and getting a majority of Ohio voters (most of whom had never read the law and didn't know what was in it) to vote it down.

Next up was redistricting. Ohio lost two congressional seats in the most recent census. In a perfectly reasonable move, the Republican legislature re-drew the lines to (effectively) eliminate one Republican and one Democrat district. The Dems howled, even though several of them crossed party lines to approve the new map (and offered no map of their own, although they were appropriated funds to do so). Being the good Socialists that they are, they thought it only fair that the state's districts should be drawn to make everything fair. In their minds, that would look like an equal number of Republican and Democratic House members from Ohio, despite the fact that such a map would have no actual connection to demographic reality.

Immediately after Gov. Kasich signed the new map (H.B. 319) into law on September 26th, the Democrats began their legal challenges in earnest, threatening to repeal it through the referendum process.

Because of the likely challenges and in order to give candidates and boards of election more time to adjust to the changes, the legislature passed Sub. H.B. 318, designating separate primaries in March and June, the later for races affected by the redrawn maps.

The General Assembly tacked on a $2.75 million appropriation to help local Boards of Election with implementation of the new plan. It was also added to try to prevent a referendum, because the Ohio Constitution does not allow a citizen referendum on bills containing current budgetary expenses.

Two days after Kasich signed the bill, a group called Ohioans for Fair Districts filed a suit in the Ohio Supreme Court to affirm their right to challenge the map through the referendum process. The 6-1 Republican-majority Ohio Supreme Court agreed with them and on October 14th ordered Secretary of State Jon Husted to accept the referendum petition signatures he had rejected two days before. The group now has until the end of December to collect 237,362 signatures in order put their repeal proposal to the voters in March. It's a tall order for a short, 90-day window, but these same activists (unions, community organizers, #occupiers) have been perfecting this since Kasich became governor. If they are successful, Ohio will be left without a Congressional map six months before the primary.

If this happens, it could fall to the courts to redraw the lines. Another option would be for the General Assembly to pass an emergency bill that would go into effect immediately and would not be subject to referendum. However, the 2/3 majority requirement in each house would likely be an impossible hurdle.

Adding to the confusion, a Batavia, Ohio woman filed a lawsuit in the Clermont County Common Pleas Court saying that the delays have violated her right to a fair election under the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions because come January, Ohio will be without a Congressional map on the books. She is asking the Clermont County court to step in and draw a new map. This could have the effect of establishing jurisdiction in the Ohio courts rather than sending the matter to the federal courts if it comes to that.

The most immediate issue is that in some cases, congressional candidates don't even know in which districts they reside, let alone which districts they might represent. Sub. H.B. 318 says,

"Because this act will not take effect before the December 7, 2011, candidate filing deadline established in Title XXXV of the Revised Code for the 2012 primary election, it is the intent of the General Assembly to allow any individual filing to be a candidate for nomination for the office of member of the United States House of Representatives to file on or before four p.m. on December 7, 2011, based on the sixteen-district congressional district map enacted."

The General Assembly also expressed the same "intent" for presidential candidates. A nice sentiment, but if the maps are thrown out in a March referendum, this becomes a moot point - or the subject of some serious legal wrangling.

Oddly enough, the legislature stated that it was their intent that presidential candidates filing before Dec. 7th were filing based upon the new map. The same bill sets the presidential primary for June and sets the filing date for 90 days prior to the primary election. So why the December 7th "intent" date for presidential candidates?

A call to the Ohio Secretary of State's office confirmed that they are recommending that presidential candidates file by December 7th just to be safe "because of the potential referendum and court challenges.'

Some of the campaigns (two that I am aware of) didn't find out about this escalated timeline until last week, which has sent them scrambling to figure out the process for filing and quickly organizing their ground game in a state they've barely seen out the window of their campaign jets as they've flown over on their way to Iowa. From Cain's campaign last week:

"Join us from 7-8 pm for a special meet and mingle with Presidential Candidate Herman Cain as he connects with the people of NE Ohio and hears from you. Due to recent election rule changes we have a very limited time to get the necessary signatures for the Senate and Presidential candidates to get on the ballot for 2012. This is a recent and surprising outcome from the challenges to the Congressional map. It is urgent that you take the time to help get this done."

If they're hoping to find some help with the requirements on the Ohio Secretary of State's website...uh...good luck with that. The Presidential Guide is coming soon. I did track down the 2008 Guide, but there have been many changes to Ohio's election laws since then, so much of the info is outdated.

I've been asking around about the Dec. 7th date and nobody I've talked to knows the reason for it. Even seasoned political insiders I contacted seem baffled by it.

[Update 11/29 2:00 PM]:

I received a copy of an advisory issued on Nov. 10th by SOS Jon Husted regarding the filing dates. He notes that since Sub. H.B. 318 does not take effect until 1/20/2012, candidates must file based upon current law and the premise of a single primary in March and abide by the 12/7/2011 filing deadline. Husted then explains that the law could be subject to repeal by referendum and recommends the earlier filing date (that he just said is required by law):

"As with any law enacted by the General Assembly, Sub.H.B. 318 could be repealed or subject to a stay as a result of a referendum petition. Accordingly, this office recommends that all candidates, regardless of whether they will run in the March 6 or June 12 primary election, file on or before the December 7, 2011 filing deadline."

And then it gets really weird:

"For those offices that ultimately appear on the June 12,2012 ballot, Sub.H.B. 318 renders the December filings null and void on the effective date of Sub.H.B. 318. Those candidates will have to file new declarations of candidacy for partisan candidates by 4:00 p.m. on March 14, 2012."

So if Ohio does end up with a June primary for House and presidential candidates, those candidates will have to file twice - once in December and again in March. The good news is the state will refund the December filing fees if their applications are declared null and void and they are required to file new declarations of candidacy.

This is a very strange turn of events. Republican Secretary of State Jon Husted's office has done a rather poor job of making this information clear and transparent. The SOS website is in the process of being redesigned and information is difficult to locate and in some cases, missing or not up-to-date. Though much of this information is considered a moving target, Husted could help to clear the confusion by providing regular updates and explaining the process.

Also at fault are Ohio Republicans, who are licking their wounds from their SB5/Issue 2 loss instead of making the case to the public for maintaining the new district maps they've enacted. The last comment I could find from GOP party chairman Kevin DeWine was a month ago. Why isn't he on the news every day explaining the importance of not dragging this out and leaving the state in limbo? The ORP Facebook page is extremely busy patting John Boehner and Rob Portman on the back and giving them "tremendous credit" for their work on jobs, despite the failure of the Supercommittee, but they're not talking about this extremely critical issue.

One way or another, we will have primary elections in Ohio next year. When they will be held and where the district lines will land is a question nobody can answer at this point.

FLASHBACK: House Members Who Voted Against This Supercommittee Sham

It's worth remembering that 66 Republican House members did not succumb to Speaker Boehner's high pressure tactics and voted against putting the American people through this sham they're calling the Supercommittee. Republican Study Committee Chairman Jim Jordan, who led the charge against the debt ceiling deal, was threatened with the loss of his seat through redistricting for his defiance of Boehner. We will never know what kind of arm-twisting other members faced behind the scenes.

Some of these members may yet face retribution from "The Party" in the form of loss of support when it comes time for re-election. If your representative is on this list, it might be a good time to call or email to thank him for doing the right thing and if you're able, send a donation. If your Congress member voted for the debt deal, you might want to take a minute to let her know you haven't forgotten that she voted for this scam that everyone knew would accomplish absolutely nothing.

Todd Akin MO-2
Justin Amash MI-3
Michele Bachmann MN-6
Rob Bishop UT-1
Mo Brooks AL-5
Paul Broun GA-10
Ann Marie Buerkle NY-25
Dan Burton IN-5
Jason Chaffetz UT-3
Chip Cravaack MN-8
Geoff Davis KY-4
Scott DesJarlais TN-4
Jeffrey Duncan SC-3
Jeff Flake AZ-6
Chuck Fleischmann TN-3
John Fleming LA-4
J. Randy Forbes VA-4
Trent Franks AZ-2
Scott Garrett NJ-5
Phil Gingrey GA-11
Louie Gohmert TX-1
Trey Gowdy SC-4
Tom Graves GA-9
Morgan Griffith VA-9
Ralph M. Hall TX-4
Andy Harris MD-1
Vicky Hartzler MO-4
Tim Huelskamp KS-1
Randy Hultgren IL-14
Duncan D. Hunter CA-52
Timothy V. Johnson IL-15
Walter B. Jones NC-3
Jim Jordan OH-4
Steve King IA-5
Jack Kingston GA-1
Raul Labrador ID-1
Doug Lamborn CO-5
Jeff Landry LA-3
Tom Latham IA-4
Connie Mack FL-14
Tom McClintock CA-4
Mick Mulvaney SC-5
Randy Neugebauer TX-19
Devin Nunes CA-21
Ron Paul TX-14
Steve Pearce NM-2
Ted Poe TX-2
Bill Posey FL-15
Ben Quayle AZ-3
Denny Rehberg MT-1
Martha Roby AL-2
Todd Rokita IN-4
Dennis Ross FL-12
Steve Scalise LA-1
David Schweikert AZ-5
Austin Scott GA-8
Tim Scott SC-1
Steve Southerland FL-2
Cliff Stearns FL-6
Marlin Stutzman IN-3
Scott Tipton CO-3
Michael R. Turner OH-3
Joe Walsh IL-8
Lynn Westmoreland GA-3
Joe Wilson SC-2
Kevin Yoder KS-3

SATURDAY: Thanksgiving Family Forum- Frank Luntz Moderating

A Family Discussion with Republican Presidential Candidates


Sponsored by The Family Leader, Citizen Link, and The National Organization for Marriage.


5:00 EST in Des Moines, IA, moderated by pollster Frank Luntz.


Presidential Candidates:
Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum (confirmed); and Mitt Romney (wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole) (invited).



Webcast at Citizen Link will begin at 4:30 EST.


PDF list of radio stations carrying the forum live.


"“I promise this won’t be like anything you’ve ever seen. No gotcha questions by the panel. No spin by the politicians. Just an authentic discussion among the people who seek to lead this great nation. It has the potential to be the most important forum of the primary presidential campaign.” ~ Frank Luntz


What to look for:

• A rehash of Perry's Gardisil problem (if I were a betting person I'd suggest a wager on whether Bachmann, Santorum, or Paul brings it up)
• A Rick Perry who is much better prepared to handle this question than the one we saw at the first debate.
• Bachmann and Santorum trying to out-cred each other (is being a foster parent more noble than having a handicapped child?)
• Whichever candidate is most desperate will bring up Newt's love of weddings (ahem).
• If Rick Santorum doesn't have ninja-quick reflexes, someone will steal his great line about marriage and families being at the heart of our economic woes.
• Someone, at some point, will tell Ron Paul he's crazy.
• We will find out who is more concerned with being Romney's VP than being president. Will anyone lay a hand on Mitt's empty seat or will they all ignore the fact that he didn't have the courage to face this forum?

Rick Perry Going Big - an Addendum

In the comment thread of my previous diary about the rehabilitation of Rick Perry's campaign, bzip shared a YouTube video of Perry at Sean Hannity's Freedom Concert in Dallas in August 2010. I think it's an important addendum to my previous post because it shows a side of Perry those of us in the flyover states have not yet seen:

The first thing I noticed is that though I searched and searched, I could not find a teleprompter. And you can't teach what Perry did on that stage. While there are a lot of elites in the media and on the left and right coasts who will hate the raw Americanism of that presentation, it will resonate with millions of patriotic Americans - the Tea Party, the troops, the veterans, the seniors. The stark contrast to Obama's whining, milquetoast, meh-America attitude makes Obama look like a weak, silly schoolgirl in comparison. If this Rick Perry shows up on the stump and he can become disciplined in the debates, he will be a contender.


Moreover, I think he has a better chance of beating Obama than Romney does, simply because he is naturally charismatic and his policies are bold and visionary. Romney is nice and decent and his policies will tinker around the edges and take the country in for its regular 4-year tune-up. The country wasn't in the mood for that in 2008 and with the current crises in the world, we're certainly not in the mood for tinkering now.




[Disclaimer #1: I have not yet settled on a candidate, though I have ruled out Romney, Paul, Huntsman, Johnson, and Cain]


[Disclaimer #2: I will vote for any one of the above-named candidates vs. Obama]


Cross-posted RedState

And a Baby Boy Babbled

In the darkened banquet room, a young mother on the big screen told the story of her crisis pregnancy. How her baby's daddy had been addicted to drugs and had left her to deal with the pregnancy alone. How she didn't know if she could handle a pregnancy, let alone the burden of raising a child on her own. As she was telling her story, the voice of a precious little baby began babbling at the table next to me. He had heard his mama's voice over the speakers and was excited and animated. His mama, clutching him in her lap, was sobbing as she heard her own story replayed. As she described how her own father was helping to raise her baby boy, her father, a man probably in his late 50's who was seated next to her, removed his glasses and wiped away his tears. Several other  older gentlemen at the table blew their noses and wiped away tears as the story continued. 


When the house lights came up, the young woman and her baby took the stage and she told the audience how much Pregnancy Solutions and Services had done for her. How the staff had helped her walk through her crisis pregnancy, had loved her unconditionally, had taught her to be a mother.  And that precious baby boy babbled the entire time.


Another young mom and baby along with the grandmother took the stage to share a similar story. The grandmother was so grateful for the Christ-centered message of PSS and shared that her daughter was a wonderful mother because of the parenting classes she attended there. 


Ann Marie Kirk, an ultrasonographer who travels with PSS's mobile ultrasound units, shared some of the center's success stories and also some of the dark, depressing circumstances the girls come from and must return to. She said that the counselors can't go home with the girls, so their goal is to send Christ home with them. Ultimately, baby clothes and parenting classes will only take them so far. Only the life-giving, saving grace of Christ can truly and permanently change the hearts and lives of these girls and their families. 


We were reminded at this fundraising banquet for Pregnancy Solutions and Services that 6000 little voices are snuffed out in Summit County every year by the evil of abortion. PSS has saved 104 babies from the clutches of the abortionists this year and has saved 848 in the last six years. It doesn't' sound like very many compared to the huge massacre year after year after year, but each one is precious and each one could grow up to be a world-changer some day. 


The guest speaker for the evening was Dr. Robert Peterson, who had a horrific childhood punctuated by neglect and abuse.  He eventually ended up in the foster care system, where he suffered more neglect and abuse until he was adopted by a loving family at age twelve. He has worn many hats, including pastor and professor and he credits and thanks three women - his (abusive) mother who gave birth to him, the woman who talked his mother out of aborting him, and the woman who adopted him. It's a great reminder of how God brings beauty from ashes. 


The pro-abortion types like to say that those of us who are pro-life only care about babies in the womb. That we don't care about women and babies once the woman decides to keep her baby. Of course, that's completely untrue. Besides their mobile units that performed 755 ultrasounds this year, PSS provided counseling and pregnancy tests, pregnancy care and infant care classes, childbirth classes, relationship classes, baby clothes and equipment, formula and baby food, mentoring and Bible studies. All of this is provided free of charge to the clients and without government funding.  Call Planned Parenthood sometime and see if you can get some baby clothes or parenting classes. 

Pregnancy Solutions and Services and other local pregnancy centers are the heart and soul of  the pro-life movement. They often run on a shoe-string budget with staffs that are mostly volunteers and paid staff that are paid far less than they are worth.  If you've got a few extra bucks (or a few thousand!!) perhaps you can help them out with a donation. And pray for them workers at PSS and pregnancy centers everywhere. Every day they are in the trenches with young women who will decide if their babies will live or die. It's not for the faint of heart. 

Rick Perry: Going Big, Not Going Home

Two weeks ago nearly everyone had written off Rick Perry. His poor debate performances and embarrassing gaffes had made even his most ardent supporters avert their eyes. But then Herman Cain began to self-destruct and while the media and pundits were busy with the postmortem examination of the Cain campaign, the Perry camp was busy finding a way to get back in the game.

Fortuitously (or perhaps providentially), Perry had hired members of FL Gov. Rick Scott's media team just a couple weeks before the disastrous Michigan debate. It was very clear that from the minute Perry uttered the now infamous "oops" his team was in full damage-control mode. It was almost as if Perry had been prepped on how to respond in the event a gaffe occurred (which isn't a bad strategy for any candidate in such a high-stakes game). Most people agree that the aftermath of Perry's brain freeze was handled as well as it could have been. He faced it head on and tore the bandage off with a smile and the right mix of self-deprecating humor and Obama bashing.

Of course, lost in all of this mess was Perry's bold flat tax proposal, which has received some pretty high marks and because it is optional, would actually have a chance of winning bipartisan support sometime this decade. He saw Herman Cain's 9-9-9 plan and raised ante by proposing a similar plan without the sales tax that most people disliked about Cain's plan. It's been endorsed by Mr. Flat Tax himself, Steve Forbes and has been praised by many other conservatives.

Now, he's raised the ante again by threatening to blow up the D.C. Beltway Bureaucracy. It's a desperate move, to be sure. It won't win him any friends in the D.C. cocktail party circuit - Karl Rove and Company must certainly be burning up their smart phones threatening to ruin the careers of anyone who's considering sending money to Perry. Perry said this in his "Uproot and Overhaul Washington" speech in Iowa on Tuesday:

"It is time to tear down the monuments to bureaucratic failure, and in their place build a smaller, more efficient federal government that puts the American People first. The Washington Insiders won’t address Beltway decay, they won’t try a totally new way, because they like things as they are. The lobbyists make their living on protecting corporate loopholes, and securing earmarks for the special interests they represent. The status quo is good to the Washington Insiders. It’s good to the overpaid bureaucrats. It’s good for the power-players who can trade favors to build fiefdoms of influence. While the rest of America remains mired in the ruin caused by Washington’s out-of–touch, big government economic policies, Washington is doing fine. In fact, the Washington metro area is now the most affluent metropolitan area in the country. That’s because all the lobbyists, contractors and over-paid czars and bureaucrats haven’t suffered one bit in the worst economy in 70 years. While Main Street’s windows have been boarded up, the cash continues to flow to Wall Street financiers and Beltway profiteers."

[Ouch...this is probably very awkward for Newt]

In addition, he wants to limit the terms of federal judges, make congress a part-time job and cut salaries and budgets, privatize the TSA and Freddie and Fannie, and get rid of the czars and several federal agencies, including, of course, the Department of Energy. He will defund Planned Parenthood and also vows he "will fight in every corner of this country for a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution."

If you read the transcript of the speech and pictured it being delivered by Reagan or even Marco Rubio you'd probably stand up and salute and cheer. Or at least give a mini fist pump while sitting on the couch with laptop. This is exactly the message we conservatives want to hear:

"The issue this election is not whether Washington is broken, but how we go about fixing it. There are two approaches, and even my own party is split. There are some who want to tinker with the status quo. They want to work within the current system to achieve marginal change. Then there are those who believe, as I do, that Washington is too broken to be fixed by tinkering on the margins. I do not believe Washington needs a new coat of paint, it needs a complete overhaul. We need to uproot, tear down and rebuild Washington, D.C. and our federal institutions."

But then....oops...it was delivered by Rick Perry. We hold our breath when he opens his mouth because we're not sure what...if anything...is going to come out.

But then again, he's been delivering strong performances on radio and TV. He's warm, authentic, and likable in those formats and contrary to the debate performances, he appears to be knowledgeable and competent. And as Aaron Gardner pointed out yesterday, he's going after Obama in an excellent new ad running in Iowa.

This brings us back around to Perry's media team, which is sinking $1 million into a national ad campaign on Fox News. In addition to the "That's Pathetic" ad, they've been running a very effective "I'm a doer, not a talker" ad:

"If you're looking for a slick politician or a guy with great teleprompter skills, we already have that--and he's destroying our economy. I'm a doer, not a talker. In Texas, we created 40% of the new jobs in the entire country since June of 2009, and we cut a record $15 billion from our state budget. Now they say we can't do that in Washington. Well, they're wrong, and they need to go."

It's running up to ten times a day and, combined with the populist message of the ad calling Obama's laziness comment "pathetic" and saying his policies are "socialist," it's a very effective campaign. There's another ad in the series, this one focusing on Congressional insider trading:

All of this adds up to a candidate who is still in the game. Perry's poll numbers are still tanking but this race has been like the weather in Ohio: if you don't like it, wait an hour and it will change. Newt is the flavor of the week, but his many years on the payroll of Freddie Mac will hurt his poll numbers and certainly his credibility when criticizing the black holes of Fannie and Freddie. I have serious doubts that he will survive the onslaught of ethics questions, let alone the longstanding moral questions. This will leave an opening for Perry to claw his way back into the race.

Of course we're all are thinking ahead to a debate between Obama and Perry and we're cringing. Visions of 5-point plans that suddenly turn into 2-point plans and that awkward moment when Perry realizes he has too many fingers on his left hand. But there's also the possibility of a debate between a straight-talker and an elitist Ivy League demagogue. Results vs. Rhetoric. Perry could even use a Reagan-style "There you go again" line effectively against Obama's predictable talking points. I'm not saying Perry could "win" a debate against Obama in the technical sense, just saying it might not be a total disaster.

I'm not at the point of being a Perry supporter, but I like him a lot better this week than I did two weeks ago. He has proven that he can put together a quality team and manage a crisis effectively. (The fact that the crisis was self-imposed is, of course, a serious concern.) More important, of all the candidates, he has put forth some of the boldest proposals we've seen for reform of the tax code and the way things are done in Washington. That at least, affords him a second look.

Cross-posted at Red State

Newt's Solyndra

Obama's Blueprint for a Clean Energy Future:

"Maintaining our leadership in research and development is critical to winning the future and deploying innovative technologies that will create quality jobs and move towards clean energy economy that reduces our reliance on oil. But as we aspire to achieve new breakthroughs – a battery that will take a car 300 miles on a single charge or a way to turn sunlight into fuel like gasoline, we area already beginning to see how our investments in the future are changing the game today. Through the Recovery Act, the Administration has invested in a host of clean energy programs and ultimately supported thousands of projects across the country targeted at the demonstration of clean energy projects in every state."

 Newt's 21st Century Contract with America:

"Today, we are on the cusp of an explosion of new science that will create new opportunities in health, agriculture, energy, and materials technology.Breakthroughs in brain science, in particular, will open up enormous opportunities for cures and treatments for Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism, mental illness and learning disabilities. The question in the twenty-first century is whether we reform our system so we can educate, regulate, and invest in a way that allows us to continue to be at the forefront of innovation....

 "...Furthermore, government agencies such as the National Institutes for Heath have the opportunity to use scientific research funding today in a way that will avert massive costs and human suffering in the future.

"As Americans now live longer than ever, one of the greatest fiscal threats in health is the rising cost of treating Alzheimer’s patients. The current estimate is that the combined public and private cost of Alzheimer’s between today to 2050 will be $20 trillion. That is one and a half times the current total federal debt. But a smart emphasis on brain science and innovation today can change this projection for the better..

"...While this topic may initially seem unusual in a proposed 21st Century Contract with America, I look forward to laying out my case of why I believe that brain science will soon be a major part of planning for better health and longer lives with greater independence and lower costs to the federal and state governments. It will also be an area in which American leadership could lead to an enormous number of new American jobs providing services for the entire world."

Stimulus for green jobs to solve the energy crisis, stimulus for healthcare jobs to solve the Alzheimer's crisis. Six of one, half dozen of the other. 


The former Speaker has a habit of picking favored projects for incentives. 


The Club for Growth's Presidential White Paper on Gingrich documents his accomplishments as a solid conservative but also notes his penchant for big government meddling when it seems to be politically expedient or it benefits one of his pet projects. They conclude: 

"Unfortunately, the problems in Speaker Gingrich’s record are frequent enough and serious enough to give pause. On two of the most important recent issues that confronted limited government conservatives (creating the new budget busting Medicare drug entitlement, and the Wall Street bailout), Gingrich was on the wrong side. His advocacy of an individual health care mandate is problematic. His penchant for tinkering with rewards for favored industries and outcomes shows a troubling willingness to use federal power to coerce taxpayers into his preferred direction. And his occasional hostility toward conservatives who do not share his desire to support liberal Republicans or to compromise on matters of principle is worrisome."

While Newt has apparently repented of his romp on the couch with Princess Nancy, there are plenty of other issues he's been on the wrong side of, some of them recently. Though he's not the flip-flopper Romney is, Gingrich is not exactly the model of consistency. He preaches smaller government while promoting big government programs that he personally approves up. He talks a good game and debates well, but we must understand that his inconsistency points to a philosophy rooted in compromise and political expediency. 

Blame Conservatives for Ohio's Issue 2 Loss

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." Lord Acton—The History of Freedom in Antiquity, 1877 

Much ink and bandwith has been spilled analyzing the reasons Ohio's collective bargaining reform law, Issue 2, failed to survive Tuesday's referendum.  Many suspect it was the millions of dollars poured into the anti-Issue 2 campaign by the out-of-state Big Labor groups and the blatantly deceptive ads that ran constantly on radio and TV stations across the state. Those were certainly major factors in the outcome. Some say that Governor Kasich and the Republican legislature overreached by including police and firefighters - that they should have been exempted from the reforms because they gave opponents ammunition for the aforementioned despicable ads that implied that police and firefighters would be in danger as would everyone else in Ohio. Again, that was a factor in the outcome. 


But the real reason Issue 2 went down on Tuesday is that conservatives voted against it. Tea Party members, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives - conservatives of every stripe in Ohio  voted save their "benefits" and the "benefits" of their union friends and relatives.  


The Ohio Constitution has an unfortunate provision that allows citizens to both amend the constitution and to call for a referendum to stop a new law from taking effect - a citizen's veto. While all this "We the People" language sounds good on paper, the reality is that it shifts the power to make laws from the legislature to special interest groups and uninformed citizens, most of whom don't bother to actually read the laws, let alone understand the implications of them. It has the effect of turning the state into a direct democracy.


When SB5 became law, Big Labor immediately went to work to gather enough signatures to put a referendum on the ballot so Ohio voters would have the opportunity to veto the legislation that the duly elected state legislature had passed and the duly elected governor had signed into law. From there, it was just a matter of convincing enough people that this new law would cost them money and cost their beloved "public servants" money. 


I began to see the trajectory this past spring when a teacher told me she had signed the petition to put SB5 on the ballot. She said they had passed it around at school  and "everyone" had signed it.  This was a conservative teacher from a conservative school in a district where most people would never dream of voting for a Democrat. As we headed into fall I began to see the anti-Issue 2 signs springing up amid the falling leaves in the yards of union members in our small town.  This is a town where it's rare to see a Democrat on the Village Council or school board and 56% voted for Governor Kasich. Hardly blue country, but the township voted down the collective bargaining reforms 61-39%.  These same voters (65% of them) overwhelmingly said they wanted Ohio to be protected from Obamacare. Again, hardly blue country. 


The unpleasant truth is that union members- conservative union members - voted with their pocketbooks. They saw (or most likely heard from their union bosses) that SB5 would cost them money and they voted to preserve the status quo. Their friends and family members also voted in solidarity with them. It's quite an easy thing to say we're Tea Party members and believe that we're 'Taxed Enough Already,'  but when it becomes personal and we're forced to have some skin in the game, how many of us would give up part of our paycheck or some of our benefits to help our state's bottom line? 


Issue 2 could not have passed without strong support from Republicans and conservatives. The state's 300,000 public employees (and 655,000 union members overall) barely made a dent in the 2 million votes against the measure.  Consider that more Ohioans voted against Issue 2 than voted for Governor Kasich (1,889,186) or Governor Strickland (1,812,052) in the last election.  


This was a big test for the conservative movement and Tea Party values and I'm disappointed to say we failed miserably.  As much as I dislike the direct democracy component of the Ohio Constitution, it does give us some insight into whether conservatives will put their money where their mouth is.  Human nature is such that men and women will, if given the opportunity, vote against measures that hit them in the pocketbook. Never mind that eventually, all Ohio taxpayers - union and non-union alike - will be paying for these gold-plated benefits for generations to come. At least those Akron public employees still don't have to pay anything for their pensions and healthcare this year. 


All of us who call ourselves conservatives need to do some soul searching in the wake of this huge loss in Ohio. While most of us in the private sector have had to deal with austerity measures in the workplace, for the most part, it hasn't been voluntary. We need to ask ourselves if we're willing to have skin in the game to help our country (or our state or our city) begin to dig out from the overwhelming burden of debt we find ourselves in. 


Or is the modern conservative movement merely slogans and academic discussion? 

Cross-posted at RedState

Ohio Issue 2 - A Proper Redress (Part 3)

[Read Part 1 to see the reasons I believe the reforms in Issue 2 are needed]


[Read Part 2 to see how SB 5 affects safety forces]


In this post I'd like to discuss how Senate Bill 5 (SB 5) if enacted, will affect teachers. As I said in my previous post, there has been tremendous pressure to "support teachers," with the implication that a YES vote on Issue 2 is analogous to disrespecting teachers or being ungrateful for the work they do. In reality, the opposite is true.


SB 5 will affect teachers in significant ways and it's understandable that they would be concerned. In Part 1 of this series, I explained the new requirements for health care (15%) and pension (10%) contributions. For many teachers, this won't be a change at all, since they're already paying these amounts or more. 


The other game-changer in this piece of legislation is the elimination of automatic step-increases for public employees. Instead, they will be evaluated and paid, in part, based upon their performance.  Nearly everyone in the private sector earns raises based upon performance and they're permitted to continue on the job based upon performance. For public employees in Ohio, there are currently step charts dictating exactly how much each employee makes based upon things like length of service and education level. So each year, they receive a predictable raise, whether or not they have performed well.  Good teachers are paid exactly the same as bad teachers. Layoffs are made based only upon seniority. 


In the new system, teachers would be evaluated and compensated based upon the following:

Sec. 3317.13 (B) Each teacher shall be paid a salary based upon performance as described in this section: 

(C) For purposes of this section, a board shall measure a teacher's performance by considering all of the following:

(1) The level of license issued under section 3319.22 of the Revised Code that the teacher holds;

(2) Whether the teacher is a "highly qualified teacher" as defined in section 3319.074 of the Revised Code; 

(3) The value-added measure the board uses to determine the performance of the students assigned to the teacher's classroom; 

(4) The results of the teacher's performance evaluations conducted under section 3319.111 of the Revised Code or any peer review program created by an agreement entered into by a board of education and representatives of teachers employed by that board; 

(5) Any other criteria established by the board

Here's a video that describes how such a multi-faceted system works in the D.C. school system:

See Part 2 and Part 3.

School boards would use evaluations to make decisions about compensation, nonrenewal of employment contracts, termination, layoffs, and professional development.

The first thing to understand is that no salaries are changed by this law and teachers will still be negotiating wages through collective bargaining. The big change is that teachers will no longer be awarded raises just for showing up to work for another year. 


There will be a model assessment framework created by the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) and the State Board of Education (SBE). This will be an open and transparent process, as SBE meetings are open to the public and all proceedings are subject to Ohio's Sunshine Laws.  Local school boards may use the SBE's model assessment or create their own, based upon the requirements of SB 5. 


Each board, in consultation with teachers, will create an evaluation system that:

(1) Is evidence-based and uses multiple measures of a teacher's use of knowledge and skills and of students' academic progress;

(2) Is aligned with the standards for teachers adopted under section 3319.61 of the Revised Code;

(3) Provides statements of expectation for professional performance and establishes specific criteria of expected job performance in the areas of responsibility assigned to the teacher.

(4) Requires observation of the teacher being evaluated by the person conducting the evaluation on at least two occasions for not less than thirty minutes on each occasion;

(5) Requires that each teacher be provided with a written report of the results of the teacher's evaluation that includes specific recommendations

Each teacher will be evaluated on the following, once each year in April:

The framework shall require at least fifty per cent of each evaluation to be based on measures of student academic growth specified by the department of education. When applicable to a teacher, those measures shall include student performance on the assessments prescribed under sections 3301.0710 and 3301.0712 of the Revised Code and the value-added progress dimension prescribed by section 3302.021 of the Revised Code

(1) Quality of instructional practice, which may be determined by announced and unannounced classroom observations and examinations of samples of work, such as lesson plans or assessments designed by theteacher;

(2) Communication and professionalism, including how well the teacher interacts with students, parents, other school employees, and members of thecommunity.

(3) Parent and student satisfaction, which may be  measured by surveys,questionnaires, or other forms of soliciting feedback.

Those of you who work in the private sector will likely read these requirements and find them familiar; this is how the majority of workers in Ohio are evaluated for raises and promotions. They certainly don't seem unreasonable. Those of us with children in the public schools would like to know that our children's teachers are on the job because they are competent teachers, not merely because they have a degree and a teaching license. 


It's important to understand that "student performance on assessments" is only used as an evaluation method "when applicable." So, for example, it would not be part of the art teacher's evaluation because there is no current mandated achievement test for art. The same for kindergarten. However, there would still be a requirement to measure "student growth" with a "value-added" dimension. For those not familiar with education lingo, this means that rather than a pass/fail system on mandated tests or assessments, the student's growth from year to year is the measure of success.  Who could have a problem with that?


Here's my take: If you're a good teacher, you're already doing all of this and you have nothing to fear from these reforms. If you're a great teacher, you may even be better-compensated for your efforts. If you're terrified that this new law will punish you in some way, then a little soul-searching is in order. Perhaps you're the reason we need performance pay.


There are a couple other items that might be of interest to teachers (and those who care about them).  The first is the provision that continuing contracts (tenure) will be retained for those who have already attained that status (ORC 3319.1). However, going forward, this will be eliminated. 


The other is a new provision that will ban forced fair share dues to unions. If teachers (or other public employee at a union-represented workplace) decide that they don't want to continue to fund the Ohio Education Association's liberal political agenda - namely funding the Ohio Democratic Party - they can now opt out without being forced to pay fair share dues. 

In most cases, paying fair share dues is the same as paying union does. In either case, the employee still receives union representation in contract negotiations. See here for an example of the differences.  The union bosses hate, hate, hate this provision because they know many people aren't thrilled about about its leaders, who pull in six-figure salaries and run an organization rampant with waste, fraud, and abuse. They know that if given the opportunity, union members will bolt and the money will dry up. But it's great news if you're a conservative teacher and you're tired of being shaken-down for union or fair share dues.


I realize this is a tough sell to teachers. I've heard stories of young teachers who have been pressured at work to sign the petitions and work for a NO on Issue 2. I also realize there's a conflict for some between an ideology of fiscal conservatism and a need to provide for one's own family. In a sense, this is where the rubber meets the road.

If you are a teacher, please understand that we don't all think you're greedy or that you've single-handedly bankrupted the state. We appreciate what you do for our kids. But also please understand that these adjustments you are being asked to make are the same ones we in the private sector have been making for years. Our family's health insurance costs have skyrocketed in recent years to $700/month. 


A couple years ago, my husband's employer cut back their contribution to his 401K, from 6% to 3% due to the economic downturn. While we were disappointed by the reduction, we were glad that it wasn't a layoff notice and glad the company is fiscally responsible - that they haven't had to make layoffs when many other companies have (they reinstated the the full contribution this year).  For that matter, we're grateful that they contribute anything at all.  Many private sector employees don't have retirement funds at all and, like my mother-in-law, will depend entirely on a meager Social Security check in retirement. 

I hope teachers and those who want to support them will consider voting YES on Issue 2. In addition to giving school districts tools to control their budgets and help avert layoffs, it will help to keep and reward the best teachers, which is best for the kids.