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

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.

Shamelessly begging Rubio to run. Why shouldn’t we?

The other night on Red Eye (my occasional guilty pleasure), during a discussion about whether or not Chris Christie would get into the presidential race, someone asked a question to the effect of,  "Who else is there?" Host Greg Gutfeld threw out (as sort of an afterthought), "Marco Rubio?" There was a pause in the banter and then everyone moved on.


I nodded my head in agreement and then I thought, "Why can't we, as conservatives, shamelessly beg a candidate to run?" If the RINOs and GOP establishment can drool all over themselves over Chris Christie and turn Christie Watch 2011 into a 24-hour Reality TV event, why shouldn't we do the same and demand a candidate that we really want?


While I realize that some are happy with the slate of Republican candidates, many are not. I am not.  Romney has never governed as a conservative and he has a long history of championing causes better aligned with the Democratic Party. Johnson and Paul are Libertarians and belong in that party, not the GOP. I'm very concerned that Perry cannot recover and regain the turf he lost in recent debates. I'm even more concerned that he is not up to the rhetorical challenges of a modern-day campaign. Cain's lack of a clear foreign policy nearly disqualifies him in my mind (although ABO still applies). Bachmann has had serious, almost unrecoverable gaffes in recent weeks and everyone tells me that Santorum will not be the nominee.


Which leaves our party and the conservative movement longing for...someone else.  We need someone who is both an ideological conservative and who can beat Obama. In other words, someone who can effectively articulate conservatism - and mean it.  At the same time, the nominee must have some crossover appeal and be a magnet for money.


Nearly every conservative I know thinks Marco Rubio (R-FL) could be that candidate - but not this time around. It's too soon for him to peak. I disagree about the time frame. First, we don't have time to wait around while either Obama or a RINO plunges our country toward the abyss. Yes,  Rubio is young; he hasn't paid his dues by becoming an entrenched 20-year Patriarch of the Senate. But who really wants that? If Rubio hunkers down in the senate for 8 years before running for president, one of two things will happen. He will either become the kind of crony establishment Republican we all despise, or he will hold to his conservative values and be marginalized by his colleagues in the senate and the GOP leadership. Neither of those scenarios is a path to the 2020 presidential nomination. (Will we even have a country in 2020?)


Yesterday I re-watched Sen. Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library (see below). I was inspired all over again and had a big lump in my throat. (I'm not generally a lumpy throat kind of gal). His defense of the free-enterprise system and American exceptionalism draw such a sharp contrast to Obama's mantra that the men seem to belong to a different species altogether. Rubio's story of his Cuban exile parents and grandparents is the polar opposite of Obama's immigrant family story. While Obama and his family found reasons to blame and disparage America, Rubio's family was in awe of the opportunity here and taught their children to work hard out of gratitude for the blessings of liberty.




In addition to (obviously) being able to appeal to Hispanic voters, Rubio is uniquely positionedto be the game-changer in the Social Security debate. Here's what he said at the Reagan Library:

"Now, I personally believe that you cannot make changes to these programs for the people that are currently in them right now. My mother just – well she gets mad when I say this. She is in her eighth decade of life and she is on both of these programs. I can’t ask my mom to go out and get another job. She paid into the system. But the truth is that Social Security and Medicare, as important as they are, cannot look for me how they look for her. 

"My generation must fully accept, the sooner the better, that if we want there to be a Social Security and a Medicare when we retire, and if we want America as we know it to continue when we retire, then we must accept and begin to make changes to those programs now, for us... 

"...These changes will not be easy....It will be hard. It will actually really call upon a specific generation of Americans, those of us, like myself, decades away from retirement, to assume certain realities -– that we will continue to pay into and fund for a system that we will never fully access -– that we are prepared to do whatever it takes in our lives and in our generation so that our parents and grandparents can enjoy the fruits of their labor and so that our children and our grandchildren can inherit the fullness of America’s promise. 

"But you see, every generation of Americans has been called to do their part to ensure that the American promise continues. We’re not alone; we’re not unique; we’re not the only ones. In fact, I would argue to you that we have it pretty good.
"And yet I think it’s fully appropriate that those of us raised in Ronald Reagan’s America are actually the ones who are being asked to stand up and respond to the issues of the day. For we, perhaps better than any other people who have ever lived in this nation, should understand how special and unique America truly is."

Rubio, who was in 4th grade when Reagan became president, can make the argument that he will leave Social Security untouched for his mother, but will call on his generation to "take one for the country." It's a tantalizing, iconic image and perhaps the only way we win this debate and reform these programs.  Seniors will go for it and young people will as well, because (not to be cynical or anything...) it won't make a hill of beans of difference in their lives right now other than to make them feel good about helping their country.


Rubio has also proven that he's able to appeal to a wide variety of voters. He trounced both Charlie Crist (RINO-turned-I) and Democrat Kendrick Meek in the 3-way Senate race in 2010, receiving nearly half of the votes cast in the swing-state election.
Rubio raised $24 million for that race and has $500K remaining. If he were to jump in the race tomorrow, I suspect the big spenders who have been holding back would begin throwing money at him.


He's been on the national scene for the last two years and is at the top of his game. He has a national following including 245,000 Facebook fans and 50,000 Twitter followers. Impressive numbers for a U.S senator. Just for the sake of comparison, my senator, Rob Portman (R-OH) has 27,000/8,000 Facebook/Twitter followers respectively.


One other factoid/trend I'd like to throw out: If 2008 showed us anything, it demonstrated that the country has no appetite (shallow that it may be) for candidates who are grumpy old men. As many have noted, part of Herman Cain's appeal is his positive attitude and outlook.  In 2010, in addition to young, earnest enthusiastic Senator Rubio, we found conservatives like Nikki Haley, Kristi Noem, and Rand Paul are the new face of the GOP, replacing the overweight white guy with big hair.


In Ohio, a 32-year old Iraq war veteran and state representative ran for State Treasurer. In a stunner, Josh Mandel beat the incumbent and raked in 2 million votes, making him the top vote-getter in the entire state. Governor John Kasich only pulled in 1.8 million votes. What State Treasurer does that?


My point is that this is the conservative trend in the country. People will put their money and efforts behind an ideological conservative with a solid record, even if the record is not that long. In Ohio, it's possible Mandel will be our next Senator. He will likely challenge Sherrod Brown and he will likely win. Mandel has already raise over $2 million and hasn't even officially announced he's running.


After my Red Eye revelation, I decided to write this diary, thinking there were probably others who felt the same way. I started writing it Wednesday night, but put it aside and went to bed. I flipped on the radio early Thursday afternoon to Rush asking essentially the same question. Why shouldn't Rubio run? He said, "Rubio would walk away with the election." He would "win in a walkover."  Heh. If nothing, Rubio getting in the race would make Karl Rove, et al curl up in the fetal position and suck their thumbs.


If you haven't watched Rubio's speech at the Reagan Library, take a look (and reminisce about some of Reagan's great speeches). Rubio strikes the same chords. Transcript here.

Pawlenty flipped faster than Romney flopped

Megyn Kelly just interviewed Tim Pawlenty on Fox News on his change of heart over Mitt Romney. She played clips and read quotes of T-Paw criticizing Romney on "Obamneycare" and nominating liberal judges. Here's what Pawlenty said on Romney's healthcare debacle in MA:

‎"Governor Romney has told me directly, as he has told the country, that his first order of business as president will be to repeal Obamacare including on the very first day in office granting waivers to states to opt out. So I'm absolutely convinced and assured that he will do everything and in fact repeal Obamacare so I'm comfortable with his position on that."

Oh...OK....the Governor told him directly.   That changes everything. Where do I get my Romney yard sign?

On the issue of Romney appointing liberal judges to the bench:

"Mitt has indicated that he will appoint strict constructionists to the bench, people who will apply the law as written as opposed to making it up on the back of a napkin. I trust and believe that will be the case. And as I understand the MA judicial selection system there's some limited options for who he could pick from to fill some of those slots. But his commitment to appointing strict constructionists gives me reassurance that he'll certainly do that as president."

"Mitt has indicated...."   Apparently the magic words for Pawlenty.
Even though Mitt's words don't match his record as a governor. And even though Pawlenty's words today are diametrically opposed to his words two weeks ago.
Finally, it appears that Pawlenty has switched to Establishment Tea. No more of that pure Tea Party brew for him:

"[Romney's] got the most capability, the most knowledge, he's got the most electability. I think he will make the best president - not just for the Republican party, but for the nation. And he can beat Barack Obama. He's the one that can unify the Republican base and he can go into those swing states we're going to need and also get conservative democrats and independents to join the cause as well."

Pass the Dramamine.

Announcement: New GOP slogan for 2012

Not that anyone asked, but I have come up with a slogan for the GOP that will help them win big in 2012:

The Audacity of Liberty

It's the perfect antithesis to Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope, or more appropriately, The Audacity of Hopey Changey. From Obama's book we get this twaddle:

"For in the end, laws are just words on a page- words that are sometimes malleable, opaque, as dependent on context and trust as they are in a story or poem or promise to someone, words whose meanings are subject to erosion, sometimes collapsing in the blink of an eye" (p. 92) 

Doesn't that just give you a thrill up your leg and inspire you?  To our president, the law means what he says it means. It's malleable, and typical of postmodern thought, we can't really know what it means with certainty. 


I consulted the 1828 edition of Webster's Dictionary of the English Language and found the following definition for "audacity":

"Boldness, sometimes in a good sense; daring spirit, resolution or confidence."

And the definition of "hope":

"A desire of some good, accompanied with at least a slight expectation of obtaining it, or a belief that it is obtainable."

Doesn't that essentially describe the Obama presidency in a nutshell?  A bold, daring confidence with a slight expectation that some good will come out of all of this. 


I don't know about you, but I'm a little underwhelmed by "The Audacity of Hope."

Now add that daring and boldness to the concept of "liberty" defined in the 1828 dictionary:

"Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government."

"Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty."

Our country's Founding Fathers gave us a bold, daring experiment in self-government -  a view of  liberty that only reluctantly imposed laws upon its citizens, who were born with natural, unalienable rights. 


John Adams described it this way:

"All men are born free and independent, and have certain natural, essential, and unalienable rights, among which may be reckoned the right of enjoying and defending their lives and liberties; that of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property; in fine, that of seeking and obtaining their safety and happiness" (The Political Writings of John Adams).

Over a hundred years ago, Frederic Bastiat, a French statesman said,

"Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place" (The Law)."

Because of this common understanding of Natural Law, many people were wary of the Constitution at first, fearing it would create a powerful ruling class.  Madison, in Federalist 46 reminded them that the Constitution explicitly granted the power to the people:

"The adversaries of the Constitution seem to have lost sight of the people altogether in their reasonings on this subject; and to have viewed these different establishments not only as mutual rivals and enemies, but as uncontrolled by any common superior in their efforts to usurp the authorities of each other. These gentlemen must here be reminded of their error. They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone."

 President Obama swings so far to the left of the Founders and their contemporaries in Audacity of Hope that they would not recognize him as an American president:

"According to [Justice Breyer's] view, the Founding Fathers and original ratifiers have told us how to think but are no longer around to tell us what to think. We are on our own, and have only our own reason and our judgment to rely on....

"...As we read these documents, they seem so incredibly right that it’s easy to believe they are the result of natural law if not divine inspiration. So I appreciate the temptation on the part of Justice Scalia and others to assume our democracy should be treated as fixed and unwavering; the fundamentalist faith that if the original understanding of the Constitution is followed without question or deviation, and if we remain true to the rules that the Founders set forth, as they intended, then we will be rewarded and all good will flow. Ultimately, though, I have to side with Justice Breyer’s view of the Constitution—that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world. How could it be otherwise?" (Audacity of Hope, p. 90).

Obama rejects out of hand the collective wisdom of the Founders, who provided the framework for a very limited federal government, and the means by which the people can change it - the amendment process. This process, by design, is difficult, cumbersome, and rare.  Instead, he and other liberal progressives depend on activist judges and the Administrative State behemoth to impose their will upon the American people.  


That's why we need "Audacity of Liberty." A bold, daring return to freedom and self-government.