Above is the live stream of a new weekly conversation with some of our conservative members of Congress, who will discuss issues of the day and answer questions submitted via Twitter . The event goes live at 11:30 ET. [Update: Rescheduled for noon.] From their description: Conversations with Conservatives is a group of free market and liberty-minded members of Congress that will meet monthly with traditional press and bloggers to discuss the most important issues of the day. Chaired by Representatives Tim Huelskamp (KS-01), Jeff Landry (LA-03) and Raúl Labrador (ID-01), each meeting will feature different conservative members of Congress to share their ideas and field questions from the media. While questions are not limited to these topics, members are expected to talk about appropriations and the upcoming reconciliation package.
Original post:
Heritage Foundation’s Conversations with Conservatives
In a matter of just a few years at the beginning of the millennium, we succeed in adopting marriage amendments in 30 states. It looked like we were well on our way to preempting one of the greatest assaults on our values. But over the past few years, between the liberal courts, the Obama administration, and blue states adopting gay marriage, we have lost a lot of ground. Next Tuesday, North Carolina voters will get a chance to launch a counterattack by voting for a marriage amendment on the state’s primary ballot. The language of the amendment also bans civil unions. Civil unions are one of the biggest tools of the homosexual lobby in their aggressive and officious push to redefine marriage. That’s why 19 other states have adopted a similar marriage amendment. It goes without saying that all elected Republicans in North Carolina will enthusiastically campaign for the marriage amendment, right? Well, everyone except for freshman Renee Ellmers. Ellmers has been one of the most disappointing freshmen in the entire class. Not only did she throw in with leadership to support the debt ceiling deal and all the budget capitulations last year, she allowed herself to be used as an on-camera prop to whip other freshmen in line. Her district has been redrawn in a way that makes it dramatically more conservative, yet Ellmers has not moved rightward. Quite the contrary, she is publicly announcing that she will vote against the marriage amendment – but only because of the civil union issue, of course. Now she has the unbridled temerity to air the following TV ad to her conservative constituents: “Woman of faith;” “shares our conservative values;” “she fights for traditional marriage” Wow – it would be nice if establishment hacks would run on their record for once, instead of pandering during election time. But to call herself a fighter for traditional marriage? Really? There are a lot of candidates who were handpicked by leadership to run, yet are now running as inviolable conservatives – against the records of their strongest supporters. [see the post below ] This one is taking the hubris to a new level altogether. Unfortunately, we couldn’t find a viable challenger to Ellmers in district 2, although I’d vote for Micky Mouse over her next Tuesday. Luckily, we do have other conservatives to vote for; Scott Keadle in NC-8 and Mark Meadows, who has been a real leader on the marriage amendment, in NC-11.
Continued here:
The Hubris of Renee Ellmers
There is an interesting factoid that was overlooked from last night’s largely pro-forma presidential primaries. According to University of Minnesota’s Eric Ostermeier , Romney was the first GOP frontrunner who failed to reach 60% in contests “conducted after his last major challenger dropped out of the race.” Romney won just 56% of the vote in Delaware and 58% in Pennsylvania. Over the past few months, we’ve been implored by the GOP establishment to coalesce around Romney in the all important battle to defeat Obama. Undoubtedly, despite my serious concerns about the presumptive nominee, I plan to fully support Mitt Romney in the race for the White House. The alternative is just too perilous. I suspect that there are millions of Republicans who feel the same way. However, we must remember that ultimately it’s not conservatives who must coalesce around Romney; it’s Romney who must coalesce around conservatives. During the Bush years Republicans in Congress (and many outside of Congress) abrogated their conservative principles to conform to the policies of the Republican president. We must not make the same mistake this time around. Again, it is vital that we replace Obama with Mitt Romney, but we must not corrupt our cherished principles in order to accommodate him. Quite the contrary, it is he who must accommodate our principles. After all, he is running as the Republican nominee. It is in this vein that I call attention to this article from Alexander Bolton at the Hill about Republicans caving on the issues of Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and student loans: Senate Republicans, seeking to avoid a public policy dispute with Mitt Romney, will let legislation on domestic violence pass the upper chamber despite having concerns about its constitutionality. […] Senate Republicans lost political leverage last week when Romney’s campaign said the candidate supported the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. He stopped short of endorsing the bill Democrats crafted, however. […] Senate Republicans have also closed ranks with Romney on Obama’s proposal to extend for one year low-interest loans for low- and middle-income college students, despite misgivings about the program. Romney endorsed Obama’s proposal on Monday. On Tuesday, McConnell told reporters that Republicans would likely support it. As we noted earlier this week, VAWA is unconstitutional and socially corrupt. The student loan boondoggle will merely continue the inflationary pressure on the costs of higher education, engendering a further need for government assistance in a circuitous cycle of government/Big Education collusion. Nonetheless, congressional Republicans are ready to go along to get along in order to accommodate Romney’s election strategy. Yes – we know that this is all a grand strategy to take Obama’s demagoguery of “popular” issues off the table until the elections. After Romney wins the election, we’ll really stand by our principles. But will we? At some point we have to be willing to draw a line in the sand and tell Romney not to cross it – before we endure 5 or so years of compassionate conservatism. Cross-posted from The Madison Project
Go here to see the original:
Romney Must Coalesce Around Conservatives, Not Vice Versa
Erick Erickson offers some helpful advice to Mitt Romney about not taking Evangelical voters for granted. Again, this is
AMEN! Thank you Lord for Conservatives who do not mince words!!!! Sarah Palin takes on the Secret Service scandal in the following interview with Greta. Chicks on the Right had this to say about the video this morning: Dude. In case you weren’t paying attention (you were probably too busy posting pictures of chicks other
Originally posted here:
“I’ve Had Enough of These Men Being Dogs”
