The Lincoln Coalition

Funny and depressing article in Politico today about recent polling data that reveals the GOP’s best hope for 2010: tell the public they should vote for us just as a check on the Dems.

What this article doesn’t say, but is obvious to any concerned Republican, is that we really can’t run on too much else at this point, at least in this political climate. So far, everything put forth by the Democrats and the Obama administration is pretty popular in the rest of the nation. We claim to have alternate plans for getting the economy back on track, upholding traditional values, keeping pressure on the bad guys around the world who are still taking aim at us, but the public doesn’t seem to notice.

I was speaking with a up-and-coming Republican operative the other day about the party’s woes. This is a guy who can’t stand Hannity, Levin, Rush (although he– like me– has some respect for the druggie), and agrees that the party needs new blood, but even he didn’t think that our problem was a lack of a message. Even he was focused on tactics– more aggressive organizing, and the like.

I didn’t feel like embarrassing him, running through all our party’s contradictions and mixed messages, but not once did he talk about why the party is so unpopular in honest terms. He really thought that if we just knocked on more doors or held more rallies, the tide of the nation could turn back into our favor.

I usually try to stay out of these issues but I read Iowa’s Supreme Court decision that basically affirms gays and lesbian’s right to marry in that state. Who would have thought Iowa would be the fourth state to recognize that defense of marriage in any form is discriminatory and allows the majority to impose it’s prescription of life on a minority.

While the summary of the decision (it’s a quick) is really good reading — it shows how obtuse all of the arguments have been. Some of the little gems in the defendant claims include: promotion of procreation (so if gays aren’t allowed to marry, straight people will have more sex and children), and saving state resources (resources that those the state is trying to exclude pay in the form of taxes) and promotion of optimal environment for children (where the court asks why sexual predators, child abusers, felons and parent that don’t provide child support aren’t included). While all of this falls under the “sky is blue; the sun is hot” category for me, of particular interest is the Court’s opinion on religious opposition to Same-Sex Marriage.  In that portion of the opinion the judges state:

“Our constitution does not permit any branch of government to resolve these types of religious debates and entrusts to courts the task of ensuring government avoids them . . .  The statute at issue in this case does not prescribe a definition of marriage for religious institutions.  Instead, the statute, declares, ‘Marriage is a civil contract’ and then regulates that civil contract . . . .  Thus, in pursuing our task in this case, we proceed as civil judges, far removed from the theological debate of religious clerics, and focus only on the concept of civil marriage and the state licensing system that identifies a limited class of persons entitled to secular rights and benefits associated with marriage.”

I’ve said many times here, marriage is a contract between two people and it has nothing to do with one’s spirituality and is not bound by religion. This sums it all up, truth be told, that’s the stone in the shoe for those who oppose giving a class of people a right that they enjoy by simply being citizens of the United States: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

The sooner people learn and understand that being gay or lesbian is not about deviant sex, teaching it to children or preying on children the better off we’ll all be. When left alone it can be as boring, thrilling and dysfunctional as a relationship between a man and woman.

Speaking of don’t let the door hit you on the way out, Gingrich recently wrote an article suggesting that the Republican Party is about to split in two.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is warning fellow Republicans that conservatives may leave the GOP for a third party in 2012.

“If the Republicans can’t break out of being the right wing party of big government, then I think you would see a third party movement in 2012.”

Gingrich thrashed Republicans for allowing increased spending during the Bush administration and for not doing enough to block President Barack Obama’s early initiatives.

If Gingrich is saying here that the Republican Party has become too right-wing, then I agree with him. The party of big government? Absolutely. The perpetrators of right-wing big government politics have been threatening to leave the party for over ten years now. The reason why they haven’t left is because they are all cowards. Their success has hinged on their ability to hijack the party by threat of withdrawal, but I’ve always held that they haven’t made good on that promise because they know their movement is far from being self-sustainable in the arena of national politics.

I don’t agree with Gingrich on everything, but I have always respected his views on fiscal conservatism. It seems a bit cryptic, but when Gingrich starts talking about “right-wing” and “big government” Republicans, he’s talking about neoconservatives. Whether it’s big government intervention abroad, or big government intervention in our own homes, this group of Republicans have been responsible for one of the largest expansions of government in the history of our country.

What I also believe Gingrich to be saying here, is that the neoconservatives have run the Republican name into the ground so much, true conservatives are better off starting fresh with a new party than they are continuing the legacy of Abraham Lincoln. Perhaps he is correct, but it’s a sad state of affairs for the GOP for sure.

I’m not sure that I would follow Gingrich to his new party, but I would certainly consider a third party choice if Obama continues down this road, and the Republicans put up someone like Sarah Palin.

In light of an announcement that New York State will be raising taxes on those earning over $300,000 annually, Rush Limbaugh has stated that he will stop doing the occasional show in New York, and might even stop broadcasting from Florida, where his show usually is based.

“When I am there working I pay whatever, you know, my rate is based on income for that day in New York.  And I try to go as little as possible. If it weren’t for hurricanes down here, I would never go up there.  New York is the escape valve in case hurricanes are showing up in our area, because of the loss of electricity.  So I’ll tell you what I’m going to do.  I’m going to look for an alternative studio somewhere outside New York, perhaps Texas — another no-income-tax state — and I’m going to get the hell over there, when a hurricane starts coming our way, ’cause I told Mayor Bloomberg: I’ll be the first to lead the way.  You know, this is just… I’ll sell my apartment. I’ll sell my condominium. I’m going to get out of there totally, ’cause this is just absurd, and it’s ridiculous — and it isn’t going to work. It’s punishing the achievers for the mistakes and the lack of discipline on the part of a bunch of corrupt politicians that have run that city and state into the ground for I don’t know how many years — and I, for one, am not going to take the blame for it.”

There is no question that New York State is extremely bloated and inefficient, and has a dirty dirty habit of wasting the public’s money.  There is a common understanding among those who work in State agencies that they could cut their budgets in half and do pretty much the same job.

Here in New York, however, there is a more pressing, immediate concern than whether New York State has a culture of inexcusable government largesse.  That immediate concern is the decision by the Metropolitan Transit Authority to raise subway fares from $2.00 to $2.50, whilte also cutting services.  By law, the MTA is required to maintain a balanced budget, which led to this extreme decision.  Unless the state comes up with more money to bailout the MTA, working people, the elderly and everyone else will get a 25% hike in their transportation costs– basically a huge regressive tax– and for no reason other than the state’s inability to manage its finances.

The argument in New York against taxing the wealthy mainly revolves around the belief that if you tax the rich, they’ll leave the state, thus drying up our tax base.  With the exception of the Drug Addict radio show host, I’m not sure you’ll see much of this.  From my perspective, it looks like the defenders of the wealthy are saying that there’s little chance of low and middle class people leaving the state, so it makes a lot more sense to tax them.

The only thing scarier than Glenn Beck’s 2.3 million viewers is the thought that he’s still on his way up.

If the economy were doing better, his super-blatant, gimmicky scare-tactics would stand less of a chance of catching on. If we didn’t have a president with an exotic name and an exotic skin color, his shtick would also have less of a chance of catching on. If the economy continues to tank, there’s little doubt that his audience will grow, as people let themselves be caught up in irrational apocalyptic hysteria. Under such a scenario, Beck would be able to tell everyone that he was right all along– the communist, fascist baby killers have taken over, and the end of the word is here.

The challenge for the rest of us will be to stay firm no matter what gets thrown at us and no matter what tough times may (may) be ahead.  Pressure to conform around some absolutist view could become pretty intense.

Ever notice how the right wing gets suckered in conspiracy theories when the Democrats are in power? It kind of makes you long for the days when Bush and the GOP were in power and the liberals were the ones predicting the end of Western civilization.

I read with interest the news today that the government finally pushed the chairman of General Motors under the bus. Under normal circumstances I’d probably have problems with the action but considering the circumstances and the amount of money that the government is spending to keep this sinking ship from taking on more water I guess it’s the right move.

Many will probably think this is moving the government closer to socialism, but I ask this: What is more socialist than propping up the banking system in an effort to keep the U.S. economy from going in the drink? Maybe this will be the splash of cold water in the face of the banking system that will get them to straighten up and fly right.