Mitt Romney’s performance in last Thursday’s GOP debate in Jacksonville was widely praised for his assertiveness against Newt Gingrich and it may have effectively neutralized the former House Speaker’s victory five days earlier in South Carolina. If Romney earns a decisive victory in Florida, it could prove to be the turning point in winning the Republican nomination. But his debate performance should have instead raised a big red flag. Romney hoisted and waved the red flag early in the debate during a discussion about illegal immigration. When debate moderator Wolf Blitzer asked Romney about an ad his campaign was running which asserted that Newt Gingrich had called Spanish the language of the ghetto, Romney said, “I haven’t seen the ads. I’m sorry. I don’t get to see all the TV ads.” Romney then turned to Gingrich and asked him if he had said that Spanish was the language of the ghetto. Gingrich denied singling out Spanish and emphasized the importance of learning English. To which Romney replied, “I doubt that’s my ad but we’ll take a look and find out.” Blitzer said he would do just that. A few minutes later, Blitzer informed Romney that it was one indeed of his ads and that it was running on radio stations in Florida with the tag line, “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message.” The audience responded by jeering Romney. But Romney cleverly put the issue back on Gingrich and again asked him if he had said Spanish was the language of the ghetto. Instead of asking Romney if he had listened to what he said two minutes earlier, Gingrich again denied he had singled out Spanish in that manner. What he should have done was said something along the lines of, “If Mitt Romney doesn’t know what’s going on in his own campaign, how can we expect him to know what’s going on in the White House?” Unfortunately, Newt didn’t ask the question and it may have cost him the Republican nomination. Nevertheless, it is question worth asking and it isn’t too late to ask. To start with, Romney made a point of saying, “I haven’t seen all the ads. I don’t get to see all the ads.” Well, why doesn’t he get to see all the ads? How many new ads does the Romney campaign release in a day? One? Two? Five? Ten? Does he simply not have time to see his ads? If that’s the case, is Romney telling us he can’t spare thirty seconds during the day to preview an advertisement that is not only going out in his name but explicitly says, “I’m Mitt Romney and I approve this message”? Well, how can Mitt Romney approve a message he hasn’t seen nor heard? Then there’s the issue with Romney saying, “I doubt that’s my ad.” At the very least it suggests that he either doesn’t know or doesn’t care about the content of his ads. It might be useful for Romney to vet his ads in case he comes across something that isn’t to his liking and can send his team back to the drawing board. At worst, Romney knows damn well it’s his ad and he’s just being dishonest about it. Either way, Romney might be able to get away with feigning ignorance against Newt but chances are he won’t be able to get away with it against President Obama. But let’s suppose that Romney does get away with it and he defeats Obama this November. If Romney is sworn into office next year, I have a very bad feeling that we could spend a great deal of his presidency writing articles asking, “What did Romney know and when did he know it?” Now I understand the need for a chief executive to delegate authority whether that chief executive is in charge of running a company, a charity or a country. You don’t want a micromanager like Jimmy Carter who early in his presidency personally reviewed requests to play on the White House tennis court. But there are also limits to delegation, as Ronald Reagan found out during the Iran-Contra scandal. There has to be a healthy balance between trusting your subordinates to carry out their duties and knowing what your subordinates are doing in your name and, more importantly, in the name of our country. Mitt Romney says we should elect him President because of his experience in the private sector. But I have to wonder if he’s minding the store.
View post:
Is Mitt Minding the Store?
Rising GOP star Sen. Marco Rubio (FL) gave an impressive speech on immigration Friday to the Hispanic Leadership Network conference, an event led by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. The Miami Herald reports that Sen. Rubio’s “sweeping” immigration speech took swipes at both Republicans and Democrats for playing politics with an issue so crucial to hispanics, calling for a compassionate approach for dealing with the issue of illegal immigration. The presumptive top pick for running mate to any of the remaining Republican presidential candidates conquered an early challenge during his remarks, addressing a group of protesters at the event who stood and interrupted Sen. Rubio’s speech. “Let me tell you guys something; these young men and women raise a very legitimate issue,” Sen. Rubio said. “They came here to a crowd that they know might not be kind to their point of view on issues. And they had the bravery and the courage to raise their voices. I thank God I’m in a country where I can do that and I want them to hear what I have to say.” CBS Miami notes that in his speech, Sen. Rubio spoke of the main problem in immigration being how to balance and honor “our legacy of immigrants” with “our legacy as a nation of laws.” “It’s impossible to walk a block in Miami, in Los Angeles, San Antonio without running into someone who is being deeply impacted by a broken legal immigration system,” Sen. Rubio told the conference. Sen. Rubio had a message to fellow conservatives similar to comments he made earlier in the week when he denounced the language used an ad attacking Mitt Romney produced by the campaign of Newt Gingrich. “For those of us who come from the conservative movement, we must admit that there are those among us who have used rhetoric that is harsh and intolerable, inexcusable, and we must admit, myself included, that sometimes we’ve been too slow in condemning that language for what it is,” Sen.Rubio sad. “But at the same time, on the left there are those that are using this issue for pure politics creating unrealistic and unreasonable expectations among those in the Latino community across this country.” Sen. Rubio did not directly address the DREAM Act, but said that “there is broad support in America for the notion that for those children that were brought here at a very young age, by their parents through no fault of their own, who have grown up here their entire lives, and now want to serve in the military or are high academic achievers and want to go to school and contribute to America’s future, I think there is broad bipartisan support for the notion that we should somehow figure out a way to accommodate them. “Figure out a way to accommodate them in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future.” Sen. Rubio’s remarks Friday have received acclaim from several media commentators. “GOP Golden Boy Marco Rubio revealed the magnitude of his star power today,” writes the Business Insider’s Grace Wyler. “Delivering an impassioned speech on immigration that showed exactly why he is the true heir apparent of the Republican Party.” “Senator Rubio did little to disappoint the party’s faithful,” FIU Professor Ediberto Roman writes in the Huffington Post . “He was indeed impressive. Whether his impressive approach elevates the conversation and results in change that benefits this country is, however, still an open question. Nevertheless, his poise was remarkable.” Fox News reports that even as Sen.Rubio called for a softer tone on immigration, he reiterated his emphasis for bi-partisan support for the need for a modernized system, a new Visa program, E-Verify, tougher border security and a functional guest worker program. “I challenge the Republican nominees and all Republicans to not just be the anti-illegal immigration party,” he said. “That’s not who we are and that’s not who we should be, we should be the pro-legal immigration party.” Here’s a transcript and video of Sen. Rubio’s speech: View post: The Marco Rubio Speech on Immigration That Everyone’s Talking About
Read the original here:
The Marco Rubio Speech on Immigration That Everyone’s Talking About
It is central to a free society that every man owns his own soul. Thus the First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion. A free society must not live in fear of the state: hence the Second Amendment. We do not trust democracy or the separation of powers to protect freedom of religion or of the press, or the right to keep and bear arms. In those cases, the Constitution was specifically amended to highlight the danger and protect us. Then where in the U.S. Constitution, designed primarily to limit the power and scope of the federal government, is there a limit to the size and cost of the state? Did everyone in Philadelphia just assume this was understood? Sort of the way they forgot to mention property rights–because everyone assumed they were assumed? For at least 30 years now, conservatives have been working to enact a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the federal Constitution to prohibit or limit Congress’s ability to borrow money. In 1975, the National Taxpayers Union, founded by James Dale Davidson and William Bonner, despaired of two-thirds of the 435 congressmen and two-thirds of the 100 senators actually passing a BBA and sending it out to be ratified by the required three-fourths of the states. Instead, NTU began a drive to exercise the portion of Article V of the Constitution that allows two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures to call for a constitutional convention to propose an amendment that would then become part of the Constitution only when ratified by three-quarters (38) of the states. Such a maneuver has never been successful in the history of the U.S. NTU reasoned that the problem was Congress’s spending, so the states would use the Constitution’s second method of amending itself to bypass Congress entirely. It was a close run thing. Thirty-two states did eventually enact convention calls for the sole purpose of proposing a balanced budget amendment. Understandably, labor unions poured millions into the effort to derail the convention calls. Criticism also sprang from the right: Phyllis Schlafly and the John Birch Society feared a “runaway” convention that would rewrite the entire Constitution. The effort stalled, and over time many states rescinded their convention calls. Then, in the 1980s, liberals hijacked the language of balanced budgets. Throughout the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s it had been conservatives who denounced “deficit spending.” They had criticized government spending and viewed “deficit” as an intensifier. When Reagan’s tax reductions were enacted, however, the left borrowed the language of the right and cloaked their support for restoring higher tax rates as “deficit reduction.” Note the clever removal of the word “spending.” And opposition to “deficits” became the bumper sticker argument against tax cuts and for tax hikes. “Deficit Hawks” has ever since been the preferred label for tax increasers, just as abortion advocates prefer to be called “pro-choice.” That soured the ardor for the balanced budget amendment, and it receded into the background until the 1994 Republican landslide put the BBA front and center. The promise to vote for a BBA was the first of 10 promises in the “Contract with America.” But the freshmen who swarmed into Washington well remembered the Democrats’ misuse of the “deficit” issue to oppose tax reductions and push tax increases. They met with newly elected Speaker Gingrich and adamantly refused to vote for the BBA unless it included a two-thirds vote requirement in order to pass a tax increase bill. They felt that a simple or weak balanced budget amendment would strengthen the hand of those who would use deficit spending as a weapon to demand not spending restraint, but tax hikes. In a 30-minute meeting, a deal was cut. The freshmen would hold their noses and vote for the weak balanced budget amendment without any limits on taxes–knowing that the Senate would never pass the amendment anyway–in return for the Speaker’s commitment that every year the House would vote on a stand-alone constitutional amendment to require a two-thirds vote to raise taxes. The deal was kept. The House voted 300–132 to send the BBA to the states for ratification. The Senate failed to pass it by just one vote. The House held votes on an amendment requiring a two-thirds supermajority vote to enact any tax hike on or about April 15 throughout Gingrich’s speakership, and that commitment was also kept by his successor, Denny Hastert. That amendment garnered a majority of the House each year–but never two-thirds. THE BBA was pushed to the fore once again this summer by the 87 freshmen Republican congressmen, many of whom demanded that a vote on a BBA be part of the debt-ceiling deal with President Obama. That vote for a BBA must take place before January 1, 2012. But that agreement did not stipulate which BBA would be voted on in the House or Senate. If one body passes an amendment with the requisite two-thirds, then the other body must vote on the same wording. Otherwise, the House might vote on one amendment and the Senate a different one. There is a growing agreement among conservatives that the best vehicle for both chambers is what is known as the “Senate consensus amendment” because every single Republican senator, from Maine to Alaska, has cosponsored this amendment. Now, anything with the words “Senate” and “consensus” in the title usually shouts, “lowest common denominator” and “not worth the candle.” But the earth’s axis has shifted. The Senate Republican “consensus” is the toughest of all the amendments being considered. It requires a three-fifths vote to borrow money, a two-thirds vote to increase taxes, limits total federal spending to 18 percent of GDP (we are now at 25 percent), and forbids the federal courts from using the amendment to force tax hikes to balance the budget. The robust “consensus” amendment is sponsored by every single Republican in the Senate, with chief sponsors being Utah senators Mike Lee and Orrin Hatch and Kentucky senator Rand Paul. In the House the robust amendment is cosponsored by Illinois congressman Joe Walsh and Virginia’s Robert Goodlatte. The main alternative is the weak amendment that requires a BBA without any limit on spending or the taxing power of Congress. There are two other ideas that have great appeal but are not viewed as options this go-around. Michigan congressman Justin Amash’s amendment limits federal spending to the average of the last three years’ spending. California congressman Tom McClintock’s amendment would simply forbid Congress from borrowing money. For an amendment to win two-thirds of the House and Senate–if it is to pass this Congress–it must garner the votes of all 242 House Republicans and all 47 Republican senators, plus 48 Democratic congressmen and 20 Democratic senators. Neither amendment could possibly pass that test. But after the 2012 election and after the 2014 election the odds shift. THE EMERGING consensus strategy is to put forward the robust amendment with spending and tax limitations already endorsed by 47 senators and now cosponsored by 133 House members. It would receive House Republican votes. Few Democrats could vote for such a strong amendment. All those voting against the “balanced budget” amendment because it limited spending and/or makes tax hikes too difficult would be targets for defeat in 2012. Democrats have 23 Senate seats up in 2012 and 20 up in 2014. Republicans could add to their 47 Senate votes all those they replaced in 2012 and all those they scare with scalps taken in 2012. Ditto the House drive to get to the magic number of 290. The key negotiation strategy is developing as follows: Republicans will refuse to change the robust language. They will offer to negotiate with any Democratic amendment that is brought to the table by 20 Senate Democratic cosponsors and 49 House Democratic cosponsors. No watering down the robust amendment in the hope of winning five or 10 or “many” Democrats. Everyone remembers the game Democrats have played with the BBA in the past, allowing those up for reelection to vote yes, while those like Montana senator Max Baucus–who won election promising to vote for a BBA–vote no when not in cycle. (They play the same musical chairs game in defeating repeal of the death tax.) Those Republicans who actually expect to pass the amendment this year argue for the watered-down version that would maximize Democratic votes. That, of course, would minimize the number of Democrats who could be defeated in 2012 using the BBA issue and collapse Democratic support in 2013 and beyond. The drive for a Balanced Budget Amendment remains the quest for the Holy Grail for limited government advocates. But as the penultimate scene in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade reminds us, there is all the difference in the world between grasping the correct Grail and grabbing the wrong one.
Visit link:
A Balanced Budget Consensus
When President John F. Kennedy included a call for “affirmative action” as part of an executive order he issued in 1961 , the phrase was widely viewed as a proactive extension of the civil rights movement. The idea was to adopt corrective measures that would reverse discriminatory practices and for employers to open up new opportunities to minorities who had been denied equal treatment. However, for Americans living in the 21st century, the concept of affirmative action in employment, college admissions, and government contracting has conflicting connotations. For some, the term is synonymous with the use of racial quotas, set-asides, and other preferential policies at odds with constitutional rights. For others, affirmative action continues to register as a benign, anti-discriminatory policy measure aimed at compensating minority groups for past injustices and safeguarding hard fought gains. But the existing legal regime that sorts out individual Americans on the basis of race is no longer tenable in a society that has become more multi-ethnic at the turn of the century, Roger Clegg, the president and general counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO), told listeners during a recent Federalist Society luncheon in New Orleans. In fact, in some parts of the country, it is no longer clear which group is actually in the minority, Clegg noted in his talk. Moreover, many individual Americans check off more than one box when asked about their ethnicity in census samples, he points out. But there is another option gaining momentum at the state level that appeals to long-standing constitutional ideals. In defiance of academic elites, far-left pressure groups and establishment figures in both major political parties, average Americans are voting down race and gender preferences as a matter of government policy; and they are doing so by sizable majorities. The demographic shift that has become evident in recent years is at least partly responsible for the public’s heightened opposition toward preferential policies, Clegg suggested. “There is a form of affirmative action that is not controversial, that no one is trying to abolish,” he said. “It does not violate the original meaning of the phrase. The idea was that companies that may have had a history of discrimination could not just sign a piece of paper and pretend that it wasn’t a problem anymore. Instead, they had to take proactive measures.” But affirmative action does become controversial, Clegg added, when it is attached to policies that treat people differently based on their ethnicity or gender. This approach, which is still operative in many government agencies and academic institutions, no longer sits well with a growing majority of Americans. Up next for voter approval, is the Oklahoma Civil Rights Initiative (OCRI), which will be on the state ballot in November. The proposal would amend the state constitution with language prohibiting government-sanctioned discrimination. State Sen. Robert Johnson, the prime sponsor of the resolution to put the civil rights initiative on the ballot, has invoked language reminiscent of Martin Luther King Jr. to make his case. “I have always believed we should be evaluated by our character and merit, not by the color of our skin,” he has observed. “Equality of the law is a fundamental American value. This proposal would give Oklahoma voters the opportunity to reaffirm the importance of that value in state government.” The proposed amendment declares: “The state shall not grant preferential treatment to, or discriminate against, any individual or group on the basis of race, color sex, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.” The Oklahoma initiative is closely patterned after California’s Proposition 209 , which passed with 54 percent of the vote in 1996. While the language is as clear and unambiguous as the public sentiment behind it, the mixed messages of the U.S. Supreme Court have created an uncertain legal environment that allows for continued judicial mischief at the lower level. Writing for the majority in the 2003 Grutter v. Bollinger opinion, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ruled that it was permissible for the University of Michigan Law School to use race as one of many factors in a “narrowly tailored” fashion to achieve student diversity. But in the concurrent Gratz v. Bollinger ruling, the majority of justices rejected the point system used at the University of Michigan undergraduate school. When the two rulings are blended together, it is evident that the high court is opposed to the use of overt quotas and set-asides. Left-leaning political figures who are working to overturn or block the civil rights initiatives typically aim their arrow through the Grutter ruling. Gov. Jerry Brown of California filed an amicus brief last year backing up the latest legal challenge to Proposition 209 that is now before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But just a few months later, Brown also saw fit to veto legislation that would have reinstated race and gender preferences. Even as he attempts to placate his far left base, Brown recognizes that he faces an uphill climb in the court system. Ward Connerly, the former University of California regent who was the galvanizing influence behind the civil rights initiative, had threatened to take legal action if Brown signed off on the bill. Moreover, the 9th Circuit and the California Supreme Court have already upheld the constitutionality of Proposition 209. “By Any Means Necessary” The key instigator behind the continued legal challenges to Connerly’s initiatives is a highly aggressive pressure group known in full as the Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary (BAMN), which came together in response to Proposition 209. Shanta Driver, a 1975 Harvard graduate with a J.D. from Wayne State University Law School, founded the organization in 1995. BAMN claims it is out to “restore the real meaning” of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. To this end, it has repeatedly filed suit in an effort to overturn the initiatives. Last year, on July 1, two Clinton appointees, who formed a majority on a three-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals , embraced BAMN’s tortured legal reasoning. Judges R. Guy Cole Jr. and Martha Craig Daughtrey ruled that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative (MCRI), widely known as Proposal 2, is unconstitutional because it alters the state’s political structure in a manner that unduly burdens racial minorities. The case could conceivably go back to the U.S. Supreme Court if the ruling in Michigan stands and remains in conflict with court decisions that uphold Proposition 209 in California. “When it comes to race, nothing is unbelievable and nothing is surprising,” said Connerly, who now heads up the American Civil Rights Institute (ACRI) based on Sacramento. “This is the kind of decision that reaffirms the idea that some groups will work to preserve preferences ‘by any means necessary.’ I know they [BAMN attorneys] believe they have hit pay dirt here. But I have spoken with very good constitutional scholars and I am absolutely convinced that this case will be overturned before the full sixth circuit. If by some chance this case does go to the U.S. Supreme Court, I expect that we’ll get the ruling we have long desired on the issue of preferences and they will bite the dust once and for all.” Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette has successfully petitioned the Sixth Circuit to rehear the case en banc (in full). He issued his first brief in defense of MCRI earlier this month. The civil rights law remains in full force pending a final court ruling, which is expected within the next few months. While BAMN and other hostile litigants continue to invoke Grutter as a rationale for the continuation of race and gender preferences, they persistently misconstrue the larger point behind the ruling, Jennifer Gratz, the executive director of the MCRI, explained. “While it’s clear that O’Connor favored a holistic approach that included race, she also said it was acceptable for voters in states to make preferences unconstitutional,” observes Gratz, who was also the plaintiff in the other Supreme Court case that struck down quotas at the University of Michigan. “She [O'Connor] certainly did not mandate the use of preferences and made it clear that over the next 25 years [from the time of that decision] race should ultimately cease to be a factor.” O’Connor specifically cited state laws in California, Washington State, and Florida (that were in effect at the time of her ruling) banning race and gender preferences as examples of what other states should be emulating. Since then, Arizona and Nebraska have also passed constitutional amendments banning preferential policies. While Connerly continues to encourage grassroots activists who are ambitious to pass new initiatives in their home states, he cautions them against placing too much faith in either major political party. Despite embracing post-racial sentiments during his 2008 election effort, President Obama has inserted race and gender preferences into the Dodd-Frank finance bill, the health care bill, and the stimulus package, which are highlighted in a report from ACRI. In Michigan, former President Gerald Ford joined with other Republicans running for state-wide office in 2006 to oppose the initiative banning preferences. Those Republicans lost; the initiative passed with broad support across party lines. There’s a lesson in that.
Read more:
Affirmative Action Reconsidered
NBC moderator Brian Williams announced before Monday’s Republican presidential candidates
