Via, Rise of the Center, Michigan’s GOP governor-elect says he will stick revitalizing Michigan’s economy and away from social issues.
Indiana Republican Governor Mitch Daniels is getting a lot of talk about running for president and is also getting a lot of pushback.
What if there was a candidate both competent and sane who could take the Republican stage in 2012 and offer a real alternative to the Obama agenda? What if there was a Republican who would stand up and actually say what needs to be done — for a change?
Then we could do more than just “rally to restore sanity”; we could push for having a national election that wouldn’t be another, as Stewart says, “Cluster*@## to the White House.” So we are a group of young adults telling our parents to “grow up.” Can’t we just have an adult conversation about the legacy you are leaving us?
“Adult Conversation” is a catchphrase today among many Republican politicians and pundits, but you hear very little new being said from most of them. Governor Daniels, however, has gone out on a political limb by suggesting that we must declare a “social truce” in order to fix the economy and tackle the debt. We are all welcome to our social opinions, but when the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs says that the national debt is the top threat to our national security it is time to declare a truce in the culture war and do what needs to be done to cut the budget down to size and get our economy producing jobs.
Here again, Governor Daniels sets himself apart from other 2012 Republican contenders. He earned the nickname “The Blade” for his ability to cut out excess spending as director of the Office of Management and Budget, and as Indiana’s governor for turning a large deficit into consistent surpluses. While my generation has grown skeptical of Republican claims of practicing fiscal conservatism, there is no doubting Daniels’ record.
I like Daniels and his willingness to tell the truth on fiscal matters, but I wonder how realistic his chances are in 2012 or 2016 in these days of the Tea Party. He’s getting flack from two strong wings of the GOP. He has talked about imposing a combination of a Value Added Tax with maybe a Flat Tax and has drawn ire from “fiscal conservatives” like Grover Norquist and his call for a “social truce” has made social conservatives mad. I want to believe that someone like a Daniels could be a viable Republican candidate in two years, but I tend to think this party is in the thrall of someone like Sarah Palin who can bring together “fiscal conservatives” who don’t ever want to raise taxes and social conservatives who are against gay marriage and abortion. The GOP has backed itself into an ideological cul-de-sac that it either can’t or won’t get out of and it will not tolerate anyone that deviates from that path. I don’t know how you can grow a party that way, but the Republicans are trying to do that.
That said, I welcome this effort. Maybe, just maybe these kids are the start of a movement towards some sanity in the land of American conservatism.
James Joyner and Andrew Sullivan both note the fact that as much as Sarah Palin and her ilk quote the 40th President, Ronald Reagan would pretty much be considered a Republican in Name Only by the modern GOP. Here’s what Joyner says:
I’m constantly reminding people that the “Ronald Reagan” that many of today’s conservatives wish today’s Republicans were more like didn’t actually exist. He constantly compromised with Democrats; how else to get things done when they controlled the House? He signed into law a huge amnesty provision for illegal aliens. He negotiated a massive cut in nuclear armaments with the Evil Empire. And, as Andrew Sullivan reminds us, as governor he took an approach to prison overcrowding that would likely get him primaried today: Reducing the population by a third through early releases and declining to send people back to prison for minor parole violations.
Sarah Palin loves to compare herself to the Gipper, but in reality, the two are very different. Reagan was a governing conservative who perused conservative ends by working with Democrats when the moment called for it. Palin and her ilk are campaigning conservatives, who are always on the hustings and never interested in actually taking part in government. The modern GOP has no need for folks like Reagan who occasionally worked with those they disagreed with to get something done.
By Raynard Jackson
I am amazed that the controversy surrounding the proposed Muslim mosque and community center in New York City at ground zero is still going strong. America has turned into a country where if you don’t agree with someone, you are painted as a bad person. This is exactly what is going on in New York City.
Those who oppose the project have lost the legal battle, but now they are attempting to turn it into a political battle. I find those in opposition full of hypocrisy, especially those in the Republican Party. Continue reading
By Daniel Williamson
The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States allows freedom of religion, yet even those who are the most unabashedly religious are capable of openly expressing religious intolerance.
I don’t seek to excuse religious intolerance practiced by some from the political left, but since I’m on the political right, I’m more sensitive to broad-brush criticisms of the political right being dominated by narrow-minded Bible-thumpers. Personally, I don’t think that belief in the Bible makes me or anyone else narrow-minded. I think the perception of narrow-mindedness more likely springs from politically active religious persons who publicly demonize other religious persuasions. Continue reading
I decided to weigh in on the conversation about the proposed Islamic cultural center in NYC after participating in a short discussion about the subject on Facebook this weekend. Let me state clearly right at the start that I support the building of the center and it pains me that I seem to be splitting with many of my fellow conservatives on that point. One thing that is not unexpected in today’s media atmosphere is the way this entire issue has been branded. ‘The Ground Zero mosque’ is neither mosque nor at Ground Zero. Continue reading
..and they are taking their fellow Republicans to task for their opposition to the building of the Cordoba House project also known as the so-called Ground Zero mosque.
Hip-Hop Republican shares a note from a number of Islamic Republicans speaking out against the opposition to the building near Ground Zero. Here is a snippet:
While some in our party have recently conceded the constitutional argument, they are now arguing that it is insensitive, intolerant and unacceptable to locate the center at the present location: “Just because they have the right to do so – does not make it the right thing to do” they say. Many of these individuals are objecting to the location as being too close to the Ground Zero site and voicing the understandable pain and anguish of the 9-11 families who lost loved ones in this horrible tragedy. In expressing compassion and understanding for these families, we are asking ourselves the following: if two blocks is too close, is four blocks acceptable? or six blocks? or eight blocks? Does our party believe that one can only practice his/her religion in certain places within defined boundaries and away from the disapproving glances of some citizens? Should our party not be standing up and taking a leadership role- just like President Bush did after 9-11 – by making a clear distinction between Islam, one of the great three monotheistic faiths along with Judaism and Christianity, versus the terrorists who committed the atrocities on 9-11 and who are not only the true enemies of America but of Islam as well? President Bush struck the right balance in expressing sympathy for the families of the 9-11 victims while making it absolutely clear that the acts committed on 9-11 were not in the name of Islam. We are hoping that our party leaders can do the same now – especially at a time when it is greatly needed.
Republican Muhammed Ali Hasan, the founder of Muslims for Bush, is even more to the point, calling those against the project bigots:
I am deeply proud to be an American, with a proud, personal history of denouncing terrorism, including my founding of Muslims For Bush. However, what truly reeks within this debate is not the shadow of bigotry, but rather, the cloak of dishonesty. In the Rocky Mountains of Colorado, where I was born and raised, it is believed that your word — your honesty — is everything that makes you a man.
My fellow conservative leaders, please quit lying. If you are against the mosque, then call yourself a bigot and give us the gift of an honest dialogue, the kind we carry on so proudly here in America.
Yes, you will be a bigot — but at least you will be a man.
Read both articles.
Daniel Jack Williamson (aka Buckeye RINO) responds to an earlier post:
I couldn’t agree with you more. On my own blog, I also have written a post about the “Ground Zero Mosque,” (http://buckeyerino.com/2010/08/05/wsj-oped-on-religion-ground-zero-mosque/) and I will continue pleading for greater religious tolerance. I’ve called out other conservatives for religious intolerance in past posts at Buckeye RINO, also. Some REALLY thought I was a RINO after reading that one. (http://buckeyerino.com/2009/10/05/religious-intolerance-from-the-political-right/) I still feel as Republican as ever. If it weren’t for intolerance from the right, I think more Americans who identify themselves as Muslims would align themselves with the Republican Party rather than the Democrat Party, as, aside from foreign policy, I believe they view many issues in ways more similar to the way that Republicans view them.
Constance McMillen, the young woman that wanted to bring a female date to her high school prom in Fulton, Mississippi , ended up going to the “prom” after all.
I use quotes around the word prom, because it was a fake prom- McMillen, her date, and a few others were at the country club were said prom was supposed to be held, all the while a secret prom was taking place somewhere else for the rest of the students.
McMillen tells The Advocate that a parent-organized prom happened behind her back — she and her date were sent to a Friday night event at a country club in Fulton, Miss., that attracted only five other students. Her school principal and teachers served as chaperones, but clearly there wasn’t much to keep an eye on.
“They had two proms and I was only invited to one of them,” McMillen says. “The one that I went to had seven people there, and everyone went to the other one I wasn’t invited to.”
I really can’t understand such fear. What’s even more surpising is that some of the other kids there had learning disabilities. So, basically they shut out anyone that wasn’t “normal.” I’m not good at coming up with witty condemnations, but Pam Spualding did it for me:
In a community that invoked the bible and Christian beliefs in condemning Constance, these homophobes clearly chucked the sacred tome when it comes to loving thy neighbor, hospitality, and general decency without a second thought. To think that Fulton not only displayed rank homophobia, it raised the bar of evil by sending learning-disabled students to the fake prom, clearly labeling them “others.” I challenge any of these “Christians” in Fulton to cite where in the bible Jesus teaches that the physically or mentally challenged deserve to be outcasts.
This social hellhole isn’t even worthy of a boycott, since no gay person or ally would want to drive through this evil place to begin with. For Constance, one can only hope for a scholarship to get the hell out of there to attend college in an environment where she can thrive. Leave the evil behind, gain strength, knowledge and, should you want to challenge the hate, return to reclaim your space with others ready to fight homophobia in the darkest of places.
Fulton, Mississippi has earned its stripes as the cruelest town in America, by treating one of its young residents as a pariah for no good reason that the God they claim to worship can imagine. I do hope there is no adultery or fornication going on in Fulton. The bible had a lot to say about that.
Indeed it did.
Nice story about a showdown at CPAC between GOProud and the National Organization for Marriage.