It’s (Almost) A Race In New Hampshire
Good news for New Hampshire Republicans has come out of the New Hampshire Union Leader <a href=”http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=AG+Ayotte+resigns%3b+eyes+Senate+run&articleId=21957806-a45d-4ac6-8166-bdd0c18e6281″>today</a>- Attorney General Kelly Ayotte, known in the state for her <a href=”http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Kelly+Ayotte%3A+Woman+of+convictions&articleId=15fb436f-8fa7-488f-b337-b9174f9cd2e3″>tough law enforcement views</a> and nationally for <a href=”http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/tomorrows-argument-ayotte-v-planned-parenthood-of-northern-new-england/”>Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England</a>, has resigned “to explore a campaign for the United States Senate.”
This throws a whole new twist into the race- since former Senator John Sununu decided <a href=”http://www.politico.com/blogs/scorecard/0709/Sununu_not_running_for_the_Senate.html)”>not to run</a> for the seat last week, hope has been pinned primarily on Ayotte, since businessman Fred Tausch is <a href=”http://briefingroom.thehill.com/tag/fred-tausch/”>not well-known in the state</a> and<a href=”http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090628/OPINION/906280327&template=single”> supported President Obama last year</a>, and former Representative Charlie Bass has been very careful in describing where he would prefer to return to national politics, <a href=”http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/former-n.h.-rep.-bass-eyes-return-to-politics-2009-04-21.html”>whether in the House or Senate</a>. Bass does <a href=”http://briefingroom.thehill.com/tag/fred-tausch/”>poll well</a> against Hodes, and the anti-Republican mentality won’t be the same in 2010 as it was in 2006, but I think the fresh face of Kelly Ayotte would be a welcome one for New Hampshire. If Bass were to run for his old House seat again, I think he would destroy all opposition- it’s an incredibly open race on both sides, and Bass is known to be a moderate, which is an advantage in the more liberal of the two districts- which would be a great start to a Republican reboot in New Hampshire and New England.
Hodes has more money than Ayotte- over a million dollars, according to Politico, and over 80% of that since the end of the first quarter- and a more obvious track record to boast about than does Ayotte. The former Attorney General, however, seems to be fairly canny, and can easily shape herself however she wishes, since her track record politically is practically unknown. Furthermore, New Hampshire Union Leader has written glowingly of her since she took the Attorney General position. Given their status as the state’s largest newspaper, and their conservative bent, that will be of great benefit to Ayotte. Lastly, on the negative side of being a public office holder, Hodes has a lot of dirty laundry to bring up, not the least of which is his alleged support of PayGo in 2007- he supported the stimulus package this year, and he supported the Bear Stearns bailout last year, despite telling myself and other Plymouth State University students that he felt conflicted about because of PayGo. Furthermore, Hodes has also <a href=”http://granitegrok.com/blog/2008/02/from_the_little_acorn.html”>broken New Hampshire campaign laws</a>, and that should be easy fodder for any candidate.
While I have never met Attorney General Ayotte, it is my hope that she will run, and her campaign will be based upon her very strong support for law enforcement, her representation of New Hampshire to the Supreme Court and making clear the differences between herself and the very liberal voting record Hodes has amassed while in Congress on issues such as <a href=”https://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=42473″>abortion, spending and immigration</a>. With this campaign, and with the support of the NH GOP- which is finally out from under the bumbling leadership of Fergus Cullen and in the hands of former New Hampshire governor and Bush I Chief of Staff John Sununu, Sr.- Ayotte should give Hodes one heck of a fight.
- dustin
Pawlenty: The Real Winner in Minn. Senate Race
The Minnesota Supreme Court has awarded the Senate seat to Al Franken and Norm Coleman has conceded the race. Yet there is a more important story: the brilliant way Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty handled this race, both politically and ethically.
Pawlenty was under great pressure a couple months ago to make a decision regarding Franken- however, the risks involved were tremendous. On the one hand, if he ran for governor again, he risked losing if he supported his fellow Republican, Coleman. On the other hand, if he supported Franken, he risked losing a lot of support with the Republican Party on the national scale in the 2012 race for the Republican presidential nomination, as that would have given the Democrats a filibuster-proof 60 votes in the Senate. By holding back the way he did, he let the legal system work, and showed an ability to appear above partisan politics. Politically, it was brilliant.
Emblematic of the ethical and political risk Pawlenty overcame was his statement Sunday, where he said it “…would be a dereliction of my duty” to not sign Franken’s certificate if the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of Franken. Fortunately, Norm Coleman has taken this decision out of Pawlenty’s hands by conceding, but to me the important thing in the governor’s consistent position on this election was that of a legal one for the state of Minnesota. Beyond the political game he masterfully played, his consistent message was one of legality and his duty to his constitutents, something that is rare on both sides of the aisle.
Pawlenty is not the ardent conservative many Republicans would prefer, but he is young, charismatic, articulate and talks of the future of the Republican Party with great hope. In short, he’s the Republican Party’s version of President Obama, except with a legitimate resume (among other things, he went eight years as governor without raising taxes) and clear electability in a state Republicans will need in 2012.
-dustin
How To Win Again
As a young conservative I find myself very concerned about the way the country is going- in fact, I’ve been so since the middle of 2006. Obviously I didn’t expect the blowout in 2008, nor the economic circumstances we find ourselves in, but the concerns were building. Now, the Republican Party finds itself in dire straits after the departure of Arlen Specter.
Since November, and peaking yesterday and today, many liberals and Democrats have declared the Republican Party dead — and one could find reasons to agree with them. I, however, have great hope for Republicans. As Ed Feulner, The Heritage Foundation’s president, said when I was an intern at Heritage, “…there are no permanent victories in Washington.” Below is what I see as at least part of the path back to power for the Republican Party.
1) We need a leader– not necessarily a hard right-wing conservative, but a qualified, successful leader who is at least moderately conservative in the traditional fashion of small government, low-spending, low-tax, strong national defense conservatives (two examples are Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani). Few Republicans agree completely with either man, but Romney is amazingly successful in politics and business, and Giuliani did a good job as associate attorney general, as mayor and in business.
This part will happen eventually- I just hope sooner rather than later.
2) We need to stay away from gay marriage. If asked, we should be honest about our opinions, but most of the moderates and independents that we must attract disagree with us on this issue, and many young people (including myself) who are against it believe it’s the 50th or 100th important issue facing the country. Why should we concentrate on a losing issue that’s not going to solve the greatest problems facing the nation, especially when it’s nearly impossible to say, “I’m against gay marriage, but still think a gay person is no less of a valuable person than I am.” It’s how most conservatives feel, but it’s incredibly difficult to get that across effectively to a public that is increasingly in favor of, or neutral towards, gay marriage.
3) We need to change our rhetoric. In particular, we need to do so in three areas: illegal immigration, race relations, and the role of government.
Regarding immigration, we need to get the Hispanic vote, and we won’t do it by talking like former Congressman Tom Tancredo (whom I supported for president during the last primary). Many or most illegal immigrants are here to work, not take our welfare, health care, etc. We need to stop talking about a wall on the border — it’s alienating, and not as effective as economic prevention such as diminishing or eliminating the illegal immigration welfare program in America. We need to streamline the legal immigration process while still making certain that immigrants speak English and will be productive members of society. We also need to stop the drug cartels, gangs, and other criminals that want to cross the border by policing with more troops that are allowed to shoot. We need to show Hispanics, who tend to be socially conservative, how our view on immigration is better for them — after all, illegal immigrants badly affect the legal immigrant Hispanic population’s public image, as well as take their jobs and endanger their families.
Regarding race relations, we need to show how affirmative action is bad for everyone, particularly minorities — talking about how bad it is for whites is an old, tired argument that just won’t win minority votes. We need to use statistics like Stuart Taylor did in the February 28th edition of National Journal, which stated (among other things) that “more than half of entering black law students never pass the bar and never become lawyers” because affirmative action puts unqualified candidates into classrooms. We need to show how this helps maintain negative race relations, as whites will feel they are being ignored for a less-qualified candidate (see the current term Supreme Court case regarding firefighter standards in New Haven, CT), and blacks will feel whites are trying to keep them down (see Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, etc.). We also need to make sure we push for voucher systems like the one in D.C. to show minorities we ARE the better party for them, on issues from schools to families to employment.
Lastly, we need to stop saying “small government.” Though the current economic crisis was caused largely by government intervention — Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, low interest rates, government housing programs, high government spending, mark-to-market accounting regulations, Democratic refusals to reign in Freddie and Fannie, etc.— the general population feels like Republicans caused it. Whatever we conservatives may think actually happened, we have to think about how the populace views us. We need to change the rhetoric to “effective government” and show how we can use government more effectively than liberals and Democrats. The time for privatization of Social Security, for instance, is definitely not now, despite how great a concept it is.
4) We need to bring back some of the intellectuals who believe the Republican Party is void of such thinking. Republicans have always been charged as being anti-elite, but we have scared away some of the very kinds of people who formed the core party ideals that created the last 40 years of Republican successes. With due respect to the strengths of former President Bush, Senator McCain, and Governor Palin, they are not going to bring the intellectuals back. We need to bring back to the forefront the William Buckleys, Ed Feulners, etc. of the world, as well as encourage young people like Heritage researchers Rachel Sheffield and Thomas Qualtere to take up the intellectual conservative standard.
5) Opportunities arise periodically, and we must take advantage of them. For example, right now is a great opportunity for conservatives to help with race relations, the education system, and showing the weaknesses of unions. The D.C. School Voucher debate has conservatives defending empirical data showing education for poor minorities improving against the powerful teacher unions and Democrats in Congress. This is a great opportunity (and the CATO Institute and The Heritage Foundation are taking full advantage) for us to show how we have better ideas for fixing our terrible education system through vouchers, getting rid of tenure and teachers unions, and specifically for improving the education of poor minorities, who will thereby put themselves on the path to greater employment, family, and other opportunities.
Conservatism is not dead — like liberals did after 2004, we need to find effective leaders, an effective local, state and national strategy, and take advantage of the opportunities the natural sway of politics, economics, and societal circumstances will offer us.
-dustin
