This time the Politico is reporting on Senator Inhofe’s attacks. Inhofe, occasionally rated as the most conservative senator in Washington, uses that label with pride to give cover to his huge porkfest.

As we’ve seen repeatedly, earmarks always lead to bigger government. Inhofe, betraying his “most conservative” label, just the other day sided with the Democrats on their jobs bill solely because it funneled gobs of money into Inhofe’s pet program — the highway trust fund.

Republican senators running to the Politico to anonymously attack Jim DeMint is as regular an earthly occurrence as the sun rising in the east. It is also part of their stages of grief as they realize their political capital is dwindling while DeMint’s is rising.

First they denied DeMint was relevant.

“The only one who cares about Jim DeMint’s opinion is Jim DeMint. He’s not burdened with having to win races,” said a senior Senate aide.

His endorsements don’t matter.

A GOP strategist, however, said the latest endorsement by DeMint “means absolutely nothing” in Texas and only serves to further the Democratic narrative that Republicans are at war for the future of their party.

Then the new attack became only crazy RedState readers know anything about Jim DeMint and the rest of the world doesn’t care for him.

“Oftentimes some forget that while Jim DeMint may have a small universe of followers who read RedState, the reality is that the vast majority of Americans, including in Florida, don’t have the slightest idea who Jim DeMint is.”

Now Jim DeMint is a selfish press hound who people should ignore.

But even as most in the party concede they lost their way during the Bush years, the mere mention of DeMint’s name in the Capitol is enough to get GOP eyes rolling. The common view, which no official will voice publicly, for fear of giving the South Carolinian a higher profile, is that DeMint is a caucus of one who relies upon old tricks to draw notice.

All from mostly anonymous aides. A good number have come from the NRSC. Meanwhile, DeMint-style candidates are surging across the nation.

Folks, we need to get Jim DeMint some real allies and friends in the Senate. We need to get him some comrades in arms who will not run off to the Politico to attack him.

We can change our side and we must if we want to change Americans’ opinion that the GOP is tired, out of ideas, and corrupt. We know we are better than the other side, but when our side cannot clean up its own house, we cannot sell ourselves successfully to the American people. We must and can do better. We need more Jim DeMint-style conservatives.

We’ve been after Mitt Romney for a while for not going all in for Doug Hoffman or Marco Rubio then coming out for Bob Bennett.

Today he is really redeeming himself. Romney is going all in for Nikki Haley in South Carolina. The endorsement comes today. Huge news. CNN is now reporting on it (insert disclosure here related to post below).

Haley is going up in the polls thanks to RedState support.

What do we have to do to organize a money bomb for Nikki Haley? We need to make this happen folks. We need Nikki Haley in the South Carolina Governor’s Mansion.

I hope other 2012 potentials will take note of this. Palin and Pawlenty may have led in on Doug Hoffman, but this is a truly gutsy move for a 2012 candidate to involve himself in South Carolina, given the importance of South Carolina in 2012. Taking sides here is BIG.

Hey to all the South Carolina conservatives out there.  Can we get Graham out of there?  This guy has taken positions on things that are being to get really old.  He is now calling for Obama to push harder on immigration reform (read amnesty).  I do not live in South Carolina so I don’t know all the ins and outs of Sen. Graham’s track record.  I only know what I am hearing every day on the news.

So, any comments on what we can do?  Like I said I am not sure when he is running again but I wanted to start the ball rolling now.  I realize there are more important fish to fry this year and I am not putting a ton of energy into this at the moment.  I just read a story about the amnesty push and it frustrated me to no end.  And of course, Mr. Graham is leading the charge.  Way to go Lindsey!  Keep up the good work of being a voice for the Democrats on some issues.

Jeff Duncan’s website is revised and live. I’m all in for this campaign. Duncan is a terrific candidate and true-blue through and through conservative.

We can push this seat to the right and keep it in Republican hands.

I hope you might consider supporting him. The major competitor in the race is a fiscal squish who is going to not be good on either taxes or spending.

Duncan is the real deal.

From the diaries by Leon.

With national attention being placed on spending, healthcare “reform” and jobs, it’s easy to forget that, as Tip O’neill said, “All politics is local.”

With this in mind, I reached out to the Republican candidate for the 5th Congressional District in SC, Michael (Mick) Mulvaney.  Currently Mulvaney is a state senator, but he now seeks national office, and, more specifically, the seat of Rep. John Spratt (D).  Unseating Rep. Spratt will be no easy task.  He’s a 14-term incumbent and Chairman of the Budget Finance Committee.

In spite of this, Time Magazine named Sen. Mulvaney’s campaign to be of the top five (out of 500) races to likely deliver a stunning Scott Brown-style upset in the 2010 elections.

Mulvaney is a true conservative, the kind I believe any redstater can get behind.  If you aren’t convinced by the fact that he was one of only a handful of state senators to vote to uphold Gov. Mark Sanford’s veto of the state budget (which included stimulus funds), perhaps his view on government is best summed up in this quote from his website: “I believe that the federal government’s primary duty is to safeguard our personal freedoms so that we can reach our highest potential as individuals.  Somehow our government has forgotten that. In just a generation Washington has gone from ‘Ask not what your country can do for you…’ to ‘We will guarantee your GM warranty.’”

It’s funny ’cause it’s true.

Read More →

We need this woman in office. Help her.

Matthew Newman: What made you decide to run for Congress?
Neal Collins: I grew up in a mobile home subdivision. I also rode the school bus every day. It would pick our subdivision up and would go to rural ranch houses, apartment complexes and nice neighborhoods. I saw the wide range of opportunities for people. I was fascinated from a young age how law and politics affects everyone’s daily life. I vowed that I would obtain a good education, return home, and help the most people that I could. I feel I could do the most good for our community in this position.

MRN: With health care reform across the news and on the minds of many Americans, what free market based reforms do you feel would most benefit the American people?
NC: First and foremost is allowing individuals to deduct their health insurance. I believe the reason health care costs have risen is because the government has been involved through the employer based system. The employer based system discourages competition and provides no incentive to cost compare. Second, open the health insurance markets across state lines.

MRN: On your website, you mention that you “…support a high-speed rail through the Third District.” How would this impact your legislative agenda?
NC: Let me be clear, the federal government should not deficit spend. I am a proponent of a balanced budget amendment. We, as Americans, must agree and demand this or future generations will suffer consequences. That being said, once we have our budget, we do like every family and business - we prioritize. For me, infrastructure is a role of government. The federal highway system brought economic success across every region in America, especially in our District. I believe the same can be true for a high speed rail. It is forward looking right now, but we need forward looking representatives.

MRN: What is your opinion on HR 1207, the legislative proposal by Congressman Ron Paul to audit the Federal Reserve?
NC: I not only support auditing the Federal Reserve, but also believe every governmental agency should be audited on a routine basis.

MRN: If you had to rate President Obama’s first year in office, what grade would you give him and why?
NC: I would provide the grade of a “D” mainly because of his fiscal irresponsibility. A budget deficit of $1.42 trillion last year, projection of at least that much this year, and next year’s budget proposal with a projected deficit of $1.6 trillion are all examples of irresponsibility. From our founding until 2000, we had a national debt of $5 trillion. In just 3 years, we will accumulate a debt of $4.5 trillion. However, neither party is to escape blame. I’m a frustrated Republican because we had the power and we allowed power to corrupt.

MRN: As a brother of two siblings with disabilities, I was very interested in your discussion on the topic on your website. You mention that you support “…increased accessibility for people with disabilities…” and “…empathetic training for the community.” What, if any, legislation would you propose to support these goals?
NC: Rather than federal involvement, I would use the position as a platform to promote empathy and awareness of people with disabilities. I would support local charities and non-profit organizations. I want my next representative to be of the community and this is one example where I would be involved.

MRN: You come into this race as an underdog without the political experience of some of your primary opponents. How do you expect to fare in the primary and will you support the eventual nominee if you do not receive the nomination?
NC: We had obstacles when I announced July 4, 2009. However, over the past 7 months, I have proven that I am the hardest working candidate. I have a message that resonates with the constituents, and we have the largest grassroots organization. The “experience” of the other candidates who currently hold office has equated into deficits and government growth. In addition, this is a unique year. People do not want the status quo. Our state has grown at unprecedented levels and we are battling yet another deficit. There is a distrust for experienced, career politicians. With this, I expect to win. I wouldn’t continue a campaign and have all the supporters volunteering their time if I didn’t believe so.

MRN: One of your primary opponents, State Representative Rex Rice, supports the “Fair Tax.” What is your opinion on the “Fair Tax?”
NC: I support a simpler and more fair tax code. My mom works for H&R Block. I studied income tax in law school. The Code is ridiculous. The “Fair Tax” is a good idea. However, I have two issues with it: (1) there would have to be a constitutional amendment so that we wouldn’t be taxed both on income and consumption; (2) we would have to ensure that no deductions or special interests could complicate the sales tax. I can see special interests becoming involved and the new “Fair Tax” quickly becoming
a growing sales code. Rather than the monumental task of amending the constitution, I lean towards scrapping the complexities within the current Code to a simple, defined tax structure.

I thank Neal Collins for his honest discussions on the issues. Collins appears to be very down to earth and has some interesting ideas on the issues. If he doesn’t win the primary, I hope this is not the last we hear from Collins. We need motivated, younger conservatives ready to get out there and fight the good fight.

Cross posted to Old Line Elephant

Jeff Duncan (R) is a State Representative from South Carolina running for the open House seat in the 3rd Congressional district. Previously, I had reviewed / analyzed the 6 way primary in this district and found that Duncan was the best suited candidate for the job. Recently, the Club for Growth has come to agree with my assessment - as they endorsed Duncan today. Duncan was agreed to a web-based interview with me. His answers to my questions are included below.

Matthew Newman: Why did you decide to run for Congress?
Jeff Duncan: I am concerned about the direction that I see our Country headed. Four big things really: Spending, Debt, Taxes and too much government. I am concerned about the amount of debt that is being passed on to our children and grandchildren.

MRN: What real reform measures do you feel would benefit all Americans with regards to Health Care?
JD: Definitely try free-market solutions before passing this enormously invasive bill! 1. Use the Interstate Commerce Provision in the US Constitution to have the states drop the barriers preventing private insurers from operating state to state, increasing competition which will result in more affordable plans. 2. Frivolous lawsuit reform. 3. Dollar-for-dollar tax credits on personal tax returns for those small business owners and individuals who purchase their insurance outside of any employer-sponsored plan so they, too, can have tax-free insurance. 4. Allow associations such as the National Association of Realtors to offer health-care plans for their association members. 5. Give doctors the ability to take a dollar-for-dollar tax deduction for the value of free service they provide those in need.

MRN: What would be the first piece of legislation you would propose, if elected?
JD: Two things really: 1. Re-introduce the Government Ownership Exit Plan to get government out of the ownership of private businesses; and 2. A cap on the number of “Special Advisers to the President” (Czars) and this un-Constitutional expansion of the powers of the Executive Branch.

MRN: What is your opinion on HR 1207, the legislation by Congressman Ron Paul to audit the Federal Reserve?
JD: I agree that there needs to be an audit of the Federal Reserve - both on and off balance sheet transactions.

MRN: One of your primary opponents, State Representative Rex Rice, supports the “Fair Tax.” What is your opinion on the “Fair Tax?”
JD: I support replacing the income tax with a consumption tax. Most importantly, I support tax reform which is fairer, flatter and simpler for Americans to understand! The status quo is not acceptable.

MRN: On your platform, you mention how you want to bring your “…pro-jobs record to Washington.” What specific measures would you propose to help small businesses?
JD: We must look at the Tax and Regulatory environment in which businesses have to operate under here in America. Lower taxes and loosen regulations (OSHA and EPA for example) which will foster a better business environment. But this applies to large businesses as well. For example, we need to expedite the permitting process for nuclear energy - thus allowing for the creation of both good paying construction jobs and long-term, well-paying nuclear energy jobs.

MRN: If you had to rate President Obama’s first year in office, what grade would you give him and why?
JD: F. With an economic situation like we have, I would give high marks for “Reaganomics” style governing: lower taxes, loosening of regulations, limited government. Juxtapose President Reagan’s Initial Actions Project (plan for first 100 days in office) which did these things, with what we are seeing today under President Obama: runaway spending, increased debt, huge expansion of government and proposed tax increases (health care and Cap & Trade). Reagan’s policies yielded 20+ years of economic prosperity get an “A” - Obama’s policies of spending, debt and big government rate a “F”

MRN: As a brother to five adopted siblings, your comment on eliminating “…unnecessary government red tape in the adoption process, reducing costs and encouraging more families to consider adopting a child…” caught my attention. What specific legislative proposals do feel would help encourage adoptions and streamline the adoption process?
JD: Currently an adoption can easily cost a family between $25,000 to $35,000 in legal and other fees. We need to examine the adoption process, and create incentives for families to adopt domestically as well as find ways to reduce costs. Additionally, we need to improve efficiency in the adoption process to prevent children who can easily be adopted from being trapped as a result of a bureaucratic system while still protecting the best interests of the child. I don’t have all the answers to this problem, but I am passionate about bringing all the groups together and find solutions that are in the best interest of the child.

I thank State Representative Duncan for his honest discussion of the issues and like some of the ideas that he’s presented. If you would like to learn more about his campaign, check out his official website here.

Cross-posted to Old Line Elephant

South Carolina’s third Congressional district is one of the few in 2010 where the Republican candidate is not running for reelection. Congressman Barrett is currently a candidate for Governor of South Carolina. This creates an open seat and already it’s turning into an interesting primary. Current candidates include a local attorney Neal Collins, a Pastor Richard Cash, Ron Paul activist and local physician Mike Vasovski, and three State legislators - State Representative Rex Rice, State Representative Jeff Duncan, and State Senator Shane Massey. The incumbent has won in the past with over 60% of the popular vote, so a good look at the Republican primary because that winner will most likely become the next Congressman from that district.

First, let us look at the State Legislators. For the Legislators, one can look right to their records and their historic approval rating from outside organizations such as the Club for Growth, to determine their conservative credentials. Here are the approval / interest group ratings for Rice, Massey, and Duncan. The first thing I notice is that all three men are grade A NRA supporters. Also, Rice has a much larger record than the other two legislative candidates and, in 2006-2007, shifted sharply left on fiscal issue garnering below a 50% rating from the Club for Growth in 2007 and a 55% in the 2008 legislative session. On the other hand, Duncan started at the 75% in 2005 and has since had a rating of over 90% from the Club for Growth. Massey has an approval rating of above 90% as well, but a much shorter record to look at. In 2008, Massey and Rice both dropped below 70% support for “South Carolina Business and Industry Political Education Committee,” a SC specific “pro-business growth” PAC. Duncan remained above 70%. From these records alone, Duncan has the better record on fiscal issues. Rice and Massey have decent record - but Rice is more spotty and Massey’s is less complete, having only been elected in 2006.

To determine the benefit of the other three candidates - we need to review their platform and take them at their word. Collins specifically calls out spending federal funds on high-speed rail through SC-03 (pork) and increased spending on higher education by the federal government. Both of these platform items are not consistent with a fiscally conservative platform.

Vasovski has a very vague platform which mostly states, “I support small government.” He also states that he supports a non-intervention platform in his essay on the topic. He specifically states that this is not the same as isolation - which is good to mark that distinction. He’s also apparently been a candidate since 2008 for this office. Before I can make a serious analysis of the candidate - I would need to know more.

The final non-legislator candidate is Pastor Richard Cash. As expected, Cash spends a great deal of time discussing faith and God. He actually has an entire bullet point in his platform entitled “God.” He makes very clear his views on the issues - including support of laws which would prohibit pre-marital sex and homosexuality, and supporting Congressional intervention in the Supreme Court to pre-decide if cases are eligible for judicial review. I oppose those entire platform points - the federal government especially has no place in trying to police people’s personal lives and his idea on Congress goes against the entire spirit of separation of powers.

Based on this quick analysis of their platforms - none of the non-legislative candidates are truly all around conservatives. Based on their fundraising potential - none of the three of them are viable candidates. Of the Legislative candidates - Massey has the most money on-hand, but as you will notice over 50% of that is a loan from himself. Rice and Duncan have comparable amounts of money remaining on-hand.Both received around the same amount of PAC money. The difference? Duncan’s other donations have been primarily organic with a $10,000 loan to himself and nearly $100,000 of individual contributions. Rice loaned himself over $50,000 to his campaign. Sure, he’s raised more money - but only about 20% more than Duncan thus far.

Back to platform review for our legislative candidates. Rice mentions that he’s a gun rights supporter, pointing to his A rating from the NRA. Rice supports the Fair Tax - i.e. a federal sales tax combined with a “prebate” given to everyone at the beginning of the year. I, personally, oppose this venture - once people find out that the government can pay them money, they’ll actively try to vote themselves more money.

Massey and Duncan have similar platforms on fiscal issues. Both support tax reductions, both are “Taxpayer Heroes” from the South Carolina Club for Growth. What’s interesting is the entire lack of discussion of social issues in Massey’s platform. Massey does not mention gun rights, he does not mention abortion, and he does not mention immigration. While his platform is complete on most fiscal issue - many of the issues that matter to all around conservatives appear to be ignored. Duncan’s platform discusses that he’s pro-life, support of private parternships on energy independence, support of second amendment rights, and support of the State’s rights to enforce their own immigration laws.

Now, I’ll be honest - I don’t live in South Carolina and am not fully familiar with the district, but based on how these candidates look on paper alone - Duncan appears to be the most capable and qualified with a solid platform. Anyone who knows more and has additional insight would be greatly appreciated. This six way primary is an interesting one to watch.

Cross posted to Old Line Elephant

According to the Greenville News the Lt. Gov. of SC Andre Bauer recently proposed a somewhat novel idea for the state’s free and reduced lunch programs.

Bauer is running for the state’s Republican nomination for Governor of the state, and in a town hall meeting said that government should take away the assistance if parents did not pass drug tests, or attend parent teacher conferences.

I think this is a bold statement by Bauer and a strategy conservatives should take a look at. Let’s think about this in pragmatic terms. The social welfare state is here to stay and there will always be honest people who need assistance. Wouldn’t it be worthwhile to actually tie assistance to simple standards which law abiding and responsible citizens would have no problems meeting. Under this strategy you give the liberals little to complain about.

You can’t argue that the assistance isn’t being given, you just have to invest in yourself as much as you are asking other people to invest in you via their own money.

Twitter: @AshleyGarry

Read the story from which this post was based here:
(http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20100123/NEWS/1230308/Bauer-equates-%E2%80%98stray-animals-to-people-in-speech-on-aid-to-needy),