Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America welcome new polls in Pennsylvania and Ohio showing the GOP looking better in both Senate races. They also slam Sec. of State John Kerry for saying he wishes the media wouldn’t cover terrorist attacks so much because then people might not know about them. And they react to former Texas Gov. Rick Perry signing on to do “Dancing with the Stars.”
News & Politics
Gut Check Time for GOP & Social Conservatives
One of the nation’s leading cultural conservatives says Republican Party leaders are looking for an excuse to avoid fights over religious liberty and freedom of conscience out of fear of being labeled anti-gay, and she says a win by Democrats in the North Carolina governor’s race could be just what they’ve been looking for.
Why North Carolina?
The Tar Heel State has witnessed an intense debate over the past several months on transgender accommodation. The Charlotte City Council passed an ordinance requiring every government building, school and business to allow people to use the restrooms, showers and other public facilities according to their own gender identity.
North Carolina lawmakers responded with legislation allowing business owners to set their own policies while maintaining that all government buildings and public schools and universities require people to use the facilities corresponding with the sex listed on their birth certificates.
The law is now clogged up in the courts, as is an Obama administration order for every public school in the nation to allow students and adults to act according to their gender identity.
Former National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher says national Republicans are closely watching this race because they would love to move these issues off their plates.
“They’re going to look at this McCrory race and they’re going to decide whether or not they’re going to shut down on these issues, whether these are just not politically viable issues in America,” said Gallagher, who is now a senior fellow at the American Principles Project Foundation.
“I can tell you that the national Republican Party would like to shut down. This is going to include not only the national Republican Party, but you’re going to see the wave of state efforts to provide conscience protections to gay marriage dissenters grind to a halt,” said Gallagher.
With McCrory trailing Democrat Roy Cooper and so much attention being paid to social issues, Gallagher says a McCrory loss will lead national GOP figures to the wrong conclusion.
“If it turns out this is a losing issue for McCrory in North Carolina, which is not Vermont or Massachusetts, this is going to be read by the political class as, ‘Stay away from any issue the left says is anti-gay,'” said Gallagher.
She says the party is squeamish about standing up for conscience right and religious liberties for two major reasons. First, the Chamber of Commerce wants nothing to do with it/
“The Chamber of Commerce has emerged as one of the leading voices against conscience protections for gay marriage dissenters or pushing back against this radical idea that biological males get to shower with your daughter,” said Gallagher. “The business wing of the party has already folded and caved on this.”
Gallagher says the GOP is mainly focused on fiscal issues and is only interested in embracing a socially conservative position when the public has taken an overwhelming stand in that direction.
“In order for a social issue to break into the agenda under the political strategies that Christian conservatives have been using, it has to be an incredible, overwhelming political winner. If you can show us that 65 percent of the country is on your side, then maybe the Republican Party will be on your side too,” said Gallagher.
Absent those lopsided numbers, Gallagher says GOP elites have as much use for social conservatives as Democrats do.
“[The McCrory-Cooper race] is really a national election. It is going to decide whether both parties agree with the Obama administration transgender initiative and both parties agree you’re like a bigot or a hater if you dissent from gay marriage and should be treated the same way,” said Gallagher.
Gallagher says Republicans could make great strides by pointing out that this fight is entirely because Obama and the Democrats are forcing an agenda on the American people. She says North Carolina is really the only entity to fight back, although some states have also taken the administration to court. She says the Obama forces would not even allow parents to know their children are identifying as another gender.
“In Charlotte, the training notes for teachers, for children even in grade school, they are told they should be very careful about letting parents know if children are transitioning to the other gender,” said Gallagher.
She says social conservatives have to get directly involved in the political process and not just fume on the sidelines.
“We don’t devote political institutions with the resources that can actually go in contested elections and help our guys out, un-elect our opponents and make sure that our friends who stick their neck out are protected,” said Gallagher, who adds she sees none of that support going towards McCrory right now.
According to Gallagher, a concerted, organized campaign is needed against the well-oiled political machine of the left.
“What we’re watching unfold is the kind of ’80s and ’90s idea that if the left just takes extreme positions, the American people will spontaneously rebel,” said Gallagher. “The left has gotten much better at controlling the message, controlling the framework.”
Gallagher asserts this is not really even a stand against the LGBT agenda, since the entire Democratic movement is now “all-in on using the power of the federal government to fundamentally take away the privacy rights of girls and the rights of every public school across America.”
She says the time for social conservatives to take a stand is right now because losing now means a very bleak future.
“We’re just going to continue to see our rights rapidly overturned and our place in society redefined as the equivalent of racists, haters and bigots,” said Gallagher.
Three Martini Lunch 8/29/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America enjoy watching DNC Chairwoman Donna Brazile wonder what the problem is with Hillary Clinton packing her private meeting schedule with Clinton Foundation donors and they squirm as Anthony Weiner includes a picture of his small child in his latest sexting scandal. They also shudder as foreign hackers have hacked the voting systems in two U.S. states. And they offer their blunt assessment of San Francisco 49’ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick refusing to stand for the national anthem and his reasons for doing so.
GOP Tries to Take Out Another House Conservative
Fresh off a win in Kansas earlier this month, Republicans and special interests looking to oust rebellious conservative members have their sites set on Arizona.
Just four weeks after House Freedom Caucus member Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kansas, lost his seat in a Republican primary, fellow caucus member Rep. Paul Gosar is fighting back against an onslaught of outside Super PAC money aimed at defeating hi.
Gosar was elected in the tea party wave election of 2010 and is seeking a fourth term in the state’s large, rural fourth district on August 30. But Gosar is busy fending off a spirited challenge from pastor and city council member Ray Strauss.
Gosar says his case for re-election is simple and strong.
“We gave them a promise that we would deliver and we’ve actually done that. We’re one of the most accomplished members of Congress because we actually get things done. We listen to the people. We inventory what they need to get done. We try to limit governments and empower freedoms,” said Gosar.
Over nearly six years in Congress, Gosar has compiled ratings of 92 from both the American Conservative Union and Heritage Action. Conservative Review scores him at 83. Still this conservative district is playing host to a competitive primary thanks to more than $280,000 in outside money attacking Gosar and boosting Strauss.
Gosar says it takes a lot of time and effort to counter an ad campaign that intense.
“They’re throwing the kitchen sink. They have been lying about my record, like I voted for Obamacare when everybody that knows me knows that’s quite the opposite,” said Gosar.
In reality, Gosar wasn’t even in Congress when Obamacare passed without a single Republican vote in 2010. He has voted for numerous proposed repeals of the law.
He says the truth doesn’t matter as establishment Republicans look to push him.
“They’re trying to do the same thing they did to Tim Huelskamp in Kansas, throw out all these negative ads and build up a fever frenzy in people that haven’t voted once in the last four elections. What they’re trying to do is get the angry mob to label someone like myself, who is definitely not an insider and would have to be one of the true outsiders, being labeled as that and then try to oust them,” said Gosar.
The special interest money is coming through the Right Way SuperPAC. The largest donor to the group is the Western Grower’s Association, which Gosar says doesn’t like his strong stance on border security.
“It’s no different than leadership wanting people to go along with their strategy that’s got us into $19-plus trillion in debt and the same old crap we see over and over again,” said Gosar.
While Right Way is spending more than $23,000 in support of Strauss, the vast majority of the SuperPAC money is aimed at defeating Gosar. The congressman says that proves that Strauss may talk tough about border security but is really in alliance with the national GOP leaders and their deep-pocketed donors.
“He’s backed by open borders illegal amnesty folks that want cheap labor. He’s backed by western growers, who have procured and tried to promote Gang of Eight and cheap labor. He’s also got ties to this group that has ties to past leaders like John Boehner and current leadership,” said Gosar.
He says the misrepresentations about his record on immigration and other key issues in Arizona leave him very disappointed in an opponent who is a member of the clergy.
“They want a go-along, get-along type person instead of holding accountability, living through the constitutional framework and the rule of law. It’s quite contradictory when you see a guy who claims to be a pastor that continues to lie over and over and over again about the things we have accomplished,” said Gosar.
Gosar says his record of accomplishment is clear, starting with border security.
“I’ve been a workhorse, putting amendments forth to defund sanctuary cities to making sure our border patrol has adequate funding, to making sure of reimbursement to local communities when Uncle Sam isn’t doing their job,” said Gosar, while also mentioning his efforts to defund President Obama’s executive actions on Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA).
Gosar also touts an A+ grade from the immigration group Numbers USA
He says he says also led House fights to stop the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule and other environmental overreach, while fighting to give patients more power in their health care choices and pushing back against the Obama housing initiative that seeks a racial and religious balance in all neighborhoods.
Gosar is also proud to run on the same ticket as Donald Trump, who Gosar says is very popular in the fourth district. He says residents are craving the return of the rule of law and that includes a sizable percentage of Hispanic voters in the district.
He says the choice between Trump and Hillary Clinton is a no-brainer.
“When anybody gives me any guff in regards to that, I’m like, ‘ Can you really vote for a criminal? Come on now. Have we stooped that low?’ Donald Trump is talking the right language. he may not always use the right words, but boy he’s articulate because he knows there’s a problem and a pulse that needs to be taken care of,” said Gosar.
Three Martini Lunch 8/26/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America get dizzy as Donald Trump articulates his third immigration position in less than a week. They slam Hillary Clinton for her race hypocrisy and liberals for watering down “racist” by accusing every Republican of being one. And they shudder at the growing fringe trend of women marrying themselves.
‘You Need to Know Something About Your Signature Issue’
A leading amnesty foe is blasting Donald Trump for moving far away from his earlier proposal on how to handle the millions of people in the country illegally and says the Republican presidential nominee now holds a position largely identical to those offered by Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and the Senate’s Gang of Eight.
On Tuesday, Trump told the Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity that many people have approached him about softening his plan to create a national deportation force to expel everyone in the U.S. illegally.
“I’ve had very strong people come up to me, really great, great people come up to me. They’ve said, ‘Mr. Trump, I love you, but to take a person who’s been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and the family out. It’s so tough, Mr. Trump.’ I have it all the time,” said Trump on “Hannity” Tuesday night.
He then explained why allowing those who followed the law since entering the country illegally would not amount to amnesty.
“They’ll pay back taxes. They have to pay taxes. There’s no amnesty as such. There’s no amnesty,” said Trump.
Center for Immigration Studies Executive Director Mark Krikorian says this is a stunning reversal for the candidate who won the GOP nomination based largely upon his commitment to secure the border and remove those living here illegally. He says this new Trump approach doesn’t seem to differ much at all from the 2013 Gang of Eight bill that passed the U.S. Senate but died in the House of Representatives.
“Not that much honestly. The Gang of Eight was obviously a lot more detailed with a lot more explicit, whereas Trump is talking off the top of his head. But really, he is now the unofficial ninth member of the Gang of Eight,” said Krikorian.
“You’ve got to wonder when Jeb (Bush) was watching this on TV, he probably spit out his drink and started yelling, ‘That’s my immigration plan,'” said Krikorian.
He says Trump used the same verbal tactics that amnesty supporters also employ.
“He was using phrases like’ it’s not really an amnesty’ or ‘it’s not an amnesty as such’ and ‘they’ll pay back taxes.’ Those are buzzwords of the pro-amnesty people. Every politician pushing an amnesty says it’s not really an amnesty,” said Krikorian.
Krikorian asserts that, just like 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney, Trump doesn’t speak the language of conservatives and really has no idea what they believe.
“The guy has been running on immigration for a year. And he still doesn’t have the three bullet point summary that you need to be able to articulate if you’re running for office on your signature issue. You need to know something about your signature issue. He doesn’t. Nothing,” said Krikorian.
Krikorian believes it’s that disconnect with conservatives that led Trump to mistakenly conclude that the party base favored mass deportation through deportation squads. He says Trump may well have offered that idea out of genuine concern over our poor border security, but he was going to have to ease his position eventually,
“He was going to have to walk back his ridiculous comments about deporting all the illegals. There was no question. No immigration restrictionist has ever called for that. That’s just something that was sort of gut reaction of his . That was Archie Bunker yelling at the television,” said Krikorian.
In the wake of Trump’s major policy shift, there is some speculation that internal polling convinced Trump to change course. Krikorian says if that’s the case, it should not be taken as a sign that American oppose blocking citizenship or legalization for those in the U.S. illegally.
“What the polling would likely show is that saying you’re going to deport all 12 million illegal aliens in two years with deportation squads, or whatever term he used, that doesn’t poll well. You bet it doesn’t. That’s why no one in the restrictionist movement has ever suggested anything like that,” said Krikorian.
But Krikorian says Trump walked it back in entirely the wrong way, by listening to his Latino advisers, who all backed the Gang of Eight and the immigration proposals of President George W. Bush.
“They’re all Bush people. They were all for the amnesty in the Gang of Eight and they were all for the earlier Bush amnesty. Presumably, with this meeting, people were saying, ‘Well Donald, it’s not really an amnesty if you don’t give them citizenship and make them pay back taxes,'” said Krikorian.
“They made the same assumption that Republican and even Democratic politicians always make – that there’s only two options. Either deport them all with deportation squads or amnesty. It is not a binary choice,” he said.
Krikorian says the right way to back away from mass deportation was obvious. In fact, it’s been on Trump’s website for months. The strategy includes consistent enforcement of the law, monitoring businesses as they hire and keeping track of visa holders in order to reduce the number of people in the U.S. illegally.
“Then when you re-establish control, you can have a discussion about what we do about the people who are left here,” said Krikorian.
While Krikorian slams Trump for flip-flopping on his signature issue, he is far more critical of Hillary Clinton. Krikorian says Clinton has the most radical immigration plan ever put forward by a major party nominee in the U.S., to the point of refusing to deport anyone here illegally unless they are convicted of a violent felony. She would also grant amnesty to all current illegal immigrants.
“That is radical. Trump does look pretty good compared to that. My point is not that they’re the same or that Trump is worse. Hillary is unbelievably worse on immigration, to the level of irresponsibility and dereliction of duty,” said Krikorian.
Three Martini Lunch 8/25/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America dissect Donald Trump’s massive shift on immigration policy towards allowing the “terrific” illegal immigrants to stay if they go through a process – the very policy he blasted during the primaries – and they marvel that many of his strongest supporters are perfectly fine with it. They also hammer Hillary Clinton for saying there is a lot of smoke but no fire behind evidence a majority of her private meetings while at the State Department were with big Clinton Foundation donors. And we unload on the Republican Louisiana lawmaker who wants to force people to be certified and pay a permit fee to rescue their neighbors during natural disasters.
Faith-Based Colleges Win…For Now
Faith-based colleges and universities in California dodged a major threat to their existence from Democratic state lawmakers, but the leader of an effort to block financial aid from the state to schools that do not adhere to the left’s position on sexuality vows to bring the matter back next year.
As reported in June, Democrats led by State Sen. Ricardo Lara were pushing an amendment to the California Equity in Higher Education Act. The act forbids discrimination based on religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression. But it also contains a significant exemption for religious colleges and universities, allowing them to hold students and staff to codes of conduct and use faith and other criteria in admissions and hiring.
The Lara bill originally called for removing that exemption, meaning student tuition assistance through the state’s Cal Grant program could be cut off to those schools.
But following the legislature’s summer recess, Lara unexpectedly changed his bill.
“The bill was significantly modified and the most devastating provisions were removed by the bill’s sponsor,” said Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel Gregory Baylor, who also directs the ADF’s Religious Schools Team.
“Namely, the provision that says if a school wants to participate in the Cal Grant program, they can’t consider religion, they can’t have traditional Christian codes of conduct having to do with sexuality, they can’t consider religious beliefs in employment and admissions. Those things have been taken out of the bill,” said Baylor.
The bill does require the schools to inform the California Student Aid Commission that they have an exemption and to inform student and staff applicants of their exemption. Baylor says those policies already existed.
Sen. Lara has not fully explained his decision to withdraw the more contentious provisions from his bill. Lara simply says he did not want the bill to create unintended consequences. Baylor believes fierce resistance from the schools and church leaders played a major role in Lara backing down.
“There was a vigorous effort on behalf of the schools themselves lobbying against passage of this legislation. The schools activated their students, the parents of those students, their employees, their alumni. And many of California’s churches, including prominent leaders of African-American and Hispanic churches made their voice known to the legislature,” said Baylor.
Lara’s decision to back down is even more stunning considering that some liberal groups were pushing him to go even further in than targeting exemptions in his legislation.
“The ACLU, in one of those committees that the bill passed, testified against the bill, not because they understand that it violates religious liberty, which it does, but rather because they didn’t believe the bill was punitive enough,” said Baylor.
The ACLU was not alone.
“We heard similar stories about Planned Parenthood, hoping to use this bill to punish schools that have pro-life values and policies,” said Baylor.
But there is no time for the faith-based schools to breathe easy. Sen. Lara says he plans to pursue this issue again next year because of the “appalling and unacceptable discrimination against LGBT students at these private religious institutions throughout California.”
Baylor says Lara and other liberals are relentless on this issue for many reasons, beginning with having little appreciation for the value these schools add to our society and the hope they provide for those coming from difficult backgrounds.
“They don’t comprehend how these schools, uniquely in many instances, reach out to economically disadvantaged and minority students. I don’t think they value the character education these institutions offer, the quality character of the graduates, the contributions they make to our economy and our society. I think they undervalue that,” said Baylor.
A more basic assessment, says Baylor, is that Democrats and liberal groups have zero tolerance for views contrary to their own.
“The purpose of a law like this is to make a statement that their views of sexuality are correct and Christian and other traditional religious views of sexuality are wrong,” said Baylor.
Baylor says the schools in question certainly have codes of conduct for students and employees, such as no sexual activity outside the marriage of one man and one woman. He says Lara and other critics have this image of Christian schools expelling gay or lesbian students as a knee-jerk reaction to violating the code. He says that narrative is false.
“If they encounter a student who has violated these rules, the first response is not to suspend or expel these students. I think that’s a myth that opponents of these schools have propagated. The real response is one of compassion, of ministry and of redemption,” said Baylor.
If lawmakers forbid Cal Grant dollars from helping to pay for tuition at faith-based schools, Baylor says poor and minority students will be hurt most.
“They are more interested in making an ideological and political statement than in protecting the interests of economically disadvantaged students,” said Baylor.
As for the schools, Baylor says they would be left scrambling.
“I’m not convinced that significant sum of money is available to them right now. Most of these institutions, although they’re economically stable, don’t have the endowments of a Princeton or a Stanford,” said Baylor.
Baylor says if the schools could not raise the money to stay open, many thousands of students would be forced to make other decisions. He says many thousands would be forced into the University of California or California State University systems, throwing both of them into chaos. However, he says another possibility is even more disturbing.
“The worst possible outcome is these students who would have gone to a school like Westmont or Thomas Aquinas College, if they can’t afford it, they may not have anyplace else to go. They end up not having a college education at all just because there are folks who want to make an ideological statement to show their cultural power about issues of marriage and sexuality and that’s unfortunate,” said Baylor.
Three Martini Lunch 8/24/16
Jim Geraghty of National Review and Greg Corombos of Radio America applaud the Associated Press for discovering that more than half of Hillary Clinton’s nongovernmental meetings as secretary of state were with Clinton Foundation donors. They also unload on Venezuela’s socialist government for trying to end bread lines – by fining bakeries if the lines go outside. And they discuss Dr. Ben Carson getting involved in the debate over Hillary’s health.
Debunking the Myth of Nordic Utopia
Liberal American politicians often cite Nordic countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, as proof that big government or socialist policies can lead to a vibrant, prosperous nation, but a leading economic scholar says those countries are successful despite more government and are actually proof that such policies are a failure.
Dr Nima Sanandaji is author of “Debunking Utopia: Exposing the Myth of Nordic Socialism”. He says liberals and socialists in America and beyond frequently extol the Nordic countries for one simple reason. The Nordic countries are Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland.
“If you remove the Nordic countries, the left doesn’t have any role models left. The Left doesn’t say, ‘Look at California. They have big government. It works.’ They don’t say that. They don’t say, ‘Look at Italy. they have social democratic policies. That works.’ They only point to the Nordic countries,” said Sanandaji.
But even that example is badly misleading. Sanandaji says while there are some socialist policies in place, those are not socialist countries and they don’t see themselves that way.
“The policies of Nordic countries are not socialism. It is capitalism. Denmark is used by the U.S. left as the main role model for socialism. The Danish prime minister came to Harvard University at the end of last year. He said, ‘Stop saying Denmark is socialist. Denmark is a market economy,'” said Sanandaji.
While citizens of Nordic countries pay up to 60 percent of their income in taxes, Sanandaji says other policies help to keep the economy humming.
“To a large degree, these companies compensate for high taxes by having economic freedom in every other area. Denmark has the same economic freedom score that the U.S. does. Why? Besides having higher taxes, in virtually every other part of their economy, they’re much more capitalist than the U.S. is,” said Sanandaji.
But even more significant than economic freedom, says Sanandaji, is the renowned work ethic and strong responsibility culture of the Nordic people, qualities he says were in place long before the big government policies came along.
“The Nordic countries have a culture of success that gives them prosperity, that gives them social success. This culture of success predates the welfare state. I systematically show in my book, ‘Debunking Utopia,’ that the admirable features of the Nordic countries predate the welfare state,” said Sanandaji.
However, his research shows that the ‘culture of success’ is even stronger in Nordic immigrants to the U.S., proving the big government policies are actually a hindrance.
“All of [the admirable features] are found equally or even more among Nordic Americans who live in the American capitalist system than their Nordic cousins who live in the social democratic system. It is not about social democracy. It is not about big government. It is about a unique Nordic culture,” said Sanandaji.
Liberals in the U.S. and beyond point to Nordic life expectancy exceeding that of the U.S., including Denmark, which has a life expectancy 1.5 years higher than Americans. Sanandaji says that’s true, but government-run health care is not the reason.
“True. They do live longer, but I look at history. In 1960, Denmark had lower taxes than the U.S. had. At that time, before the welfare state, Danes lived 2.4 years longer than Americans. The difference has actually shrunk when Denmark is moving toward the highest tax on the planet,” said Sanandaji.
He also says Denmark has the lowest life expectancy among the Nordic countries despite having the biggest government. Iceland has the smallest government but also boasts the longest Nordic life expectancy.
But while the Nordic nations are doing much better than socialist nations like Venezuela, Italy and Greece thanks to a strong culture and market economic policies, Sanandaji says other big government policies are harming those countries.
“All this social capital, work ethic, responsibility ethics has been grinded down by the welfare state. Many, many people are trapped in welfare dependency. That creates social poverty. So while the welfare state is supposed to combat poverty, it is actually to some degree creating poverty and social problems,” said Sanandaji.