GOP can take lesson from Arkansas Senate race

You’ve likely already read that a Rasmussen poll recently found more likely voters would choose a third party Tea Party candidate than a GOP candidate if given that opportunity in next year’s congressional election.  When asked to assume the Tea Party organized as a political party, 36% said they’d choose the Democrat, 23% the would pick the Tea Party candidate, 18% would select the Republican, and 22% were undecided.

Liberals will see the results above and salivate, already tasting a split of the conservative vote.  They can point to last month’s special election in New York’s 23rd congressional district as more evidence that 2010 will be a year of infighting that will temper the historical advantage of the opposition when one party holds the White House and both houses of Congress.

In NY-23, when the GOP threw its nomination to a candidate with virtually no conservative credentials, the Tea Party mobilized to support a true conservative running as an independent in the race.  Even though the National Republican Congressional Committee spent nearly a million dollars promoting the liberal GOP candidate, she was forced from the race when polls showed her placing last in the three way race.  Democrat Bill Owens won the traditionally Republican seat, with the conservative candidate Doug Hoffman coming in a close second.

So the question is, “How can the GOP avoid the mistakes of NY-23 and win the support of the 23% who would prefer a Tea Party candidate?”

Before we can answer that question, it’s important to understand the dependence of the Tea Party on the internet and social networking sites.  The mainstream media largely ignored the protest movement as it grew and often understated the size of crowds who attended.  The movement’s growth was made possible by news spread through non-traditional sources such as blogs, conservative online news organizations, and social networking sites.  Its members work, play, socialize, and organize via the internet.  So a candidate’s ability to win the support of the Tea Party voters will largely depend on his/her ability to function in this online environment.

In Arkansas, Republican candidates for US Senate are beginning to recognize that their chances for success may hinge on their ability to win the support of Tea Partiers in the state.  This Saturday, Tea Parties across the state have teamed up with other conservative groups to sponsor a rally that will feature Michelle Malkin as keynote speaker.  But, all seven announced 2010 GOP Senate candidates and an independent running for the seat will speak at the event as well.

Last week, the Republican Party of Arkansas held an Iowa-style Straw Poll for next year’s Senate race at its annual Winter Leadership Conference.   The value of a strong Tea Party-GOP alliance was evidenced by the stronger than expected second place finish of Curtis Coleman.  Some had already written Coleman off, declaring State Senator Gilbert Baker the front runner who would crush all his primary opponents.

Coleman is the founder and former CEO of Safe Foods, Inc.  He’s not a politician, but a businessman who says “We are now suffering the greatest erosion of our personal liberties in history.”  He promises to do everything he can to stop that erosion if he’s elected to represent Arkansas in the US Senate.  And his message is resonating with the people of Arkansas.
In August, polls already showed Arkansas’ Democrat Senator Blanche Lincoln trailing Coleman by one point. A December 3rd Rasmussen poll now has the businessman leading the Democrat politician by 4 percent!  Though Baker was practically announced the winner of next May’s primary, Coleman finished only two points behind him in last week’s straw poll.  In a press release following the straw poll, Coleman points out several reasons the two point loss was really a win for his team:

The Baker campaign spent an estimated 5 times as much as our campaign did on the straw poll. There is an unconfirmed report that the Baker campaign bought more than twice as many delegate tickets as our campaign. About 40 of our delegates were not able to be in Hot Springs and vote in the straw poll and, based on the approximate number of total votes cast, we estimate that we placed second by only about 14 votes. Approximately 80 people voted for us who were not there as one of “our” delegates.

So how has Coleman, whose name recognition was virtually non-existent at the outset of the campaign, spread his message and connected with enough Arkansans that it now looks like he could defeat the incumbent Lincoln in November?
To start with, he’s attended Tea Party events since last spring.  Coleman’s been seen shaking hands, introducing himself and telling people face-to-face what he plans to carry to Washington if elected.  He’s spoken at several of these events and connects with this group of voters who identify themselves more as conservatives than as Republicans.

When asked whether he thought the Rasmussen poll mentioned earlier spelled a GOP-3rd party split of the Republican vote, Coleman says “I’ve found that members of the TEA Party and the foundation members of the GOP are looking for the same things in a candidate: principle, passion, conviction, courage, and commitment to do far more than just win the election.  My message to the our TEA Party supporters is the same as to our Republican supporters:  I am a conservative Republican.  Conservative first, Republican second…Members of the TEA Party and the Republican Party agree on this:  we are much stronger united than divided.“

Coleman is capitalizing on the fact that Tea Party and GOP voters can soundly defeat the Democrats next year, if they can become allies.  Remember, a combined Tea Party/GOP candidate takes 41% vs. Democrats’ 36% in the Rasmussen poll.  In fact Coleman states, “I think the TEA Party can strengthen the GOP, but– to a large degree – that’s up to the GOP.“

In other words, not just any GOP candidate is guaranteed the support of Tea Party voters.  The NY-23 congressional race discussed above proves his point.  The Republican Party can’t count on voters’ dissatisfaction with Democrats to win votes, but must enlist candidates who satisfy the demands of conservatism, responsibility, and accountability to bring Tea Party voters into the GOP camp.

Coleman also recognized, early on, the benefits of a strong internet presence.  With the mainstream media fawning over every Socialist turn taken by the Obama administration, there was little airtime available for coverage of a largely unknown upstart candidate for US Senate in Arkansas.  Coleman compensated by taking his campaign to the internet from the start.  He says, “The internet and its related social media have certainly given us the opportunity to build state and national name ID that probably would not have been possible otherwise, and therefore have facilitated our critical grass-roots organizational efforts.“

His campaign was still in its exploratory committee stage when he made his first post on his blog.  He’s diligently updated his blog since then, posting a total of 44 articles while maintaining a busy campaign schedule traveling to all corners of the state for the more traditional campaigning methods of stump speeches and handshakes.  But his blog is only part of his online strategy.

He’s also discovered the tremendous value of social networking sites in today’s political campaign.  He’s active on Facebook and Twitter, often posting into the wee hours of the morning.  One young supporter who traveled to Hot Springs from Malvern for last week’s straw poll was heard saying, “The reason I’m supporting you is because you’re so accessible,” speaking of their Facebook correspondence.  He responds to emails personally, and often at hours when most people are snugly tucked in their beds.

Though some of his GOP opponents have made use of the internet and Tea Party to a lesser degree, and most now seem to be ramping up their presence in these arenas, Curtis Coleman has been building his grassroots base on the internet nearly from day one.  His strategy seems to be paying off after defying formiddable odds in the straw poll last week.

The Republican Party needs to pay attention to what’s happening in Arkansas.  New York showed us what will happen if the GOP simply hopes to exploit the Tea Party and depend on a nominating process that has failed the party miserably.  This Arkansas Senate race is showing what can happen if the party actually embraces the ideas of the movement, welcomes them into the fold, and uses the internet to get its message out in spite of a mainstream media hell bent on furthering the Democrat agenda.

Opaquely Transparent Democrats Strike Again!

Apparently some of those anti-socialist, profit-seeking special interest groups got to Democratic Senators in their closed-door meetings and inserted language into Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s Obamacare bill that will allow insurance companies to place annual limits on benefits to cover costly medical conditions.

That’s right!  The supposedly compassionate, caring, sympathetic, empathetic Democrats gave ear to insurance company interests who want to make a profit on their policies.  From the AP article, Health care loophole would allow coverage limits.

A loophole in the Senate health care bill would let insurers place annual dollar limits on medical care for people struggling with costly illnesses such as cancer, prompting a rebuke from patient advocates. The legislation that originally passed the Senate health committee last summer would have banned such limits, but a tweak to that provision weakened it in the bill now moving toward a Senate vote. As currently written, the Senate Democratic health care bill would permit insurance companies to place annual limits on the dollar value of medical care, as long as those limits are not “unreasonable.” The bill does not define what level of limits would be allowable, delegating that task to administration officials.

Then of course, in the now commonplace Democratic example of so-called transparency, nobody seems to know who changed the language in the bill! It seems these jackasses aren’t quite clear on the definition of transparent.

Officials of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network said they were taken by surprise when the earlier ban on annual coverage limits was undercut, adding that they have not been able to get a satisfactory explanation. “We don’t know who put it in, or why it was put in,” said Stephen Finan, a policy expert with the cancer society’s advocacy affiliate. Democratic officials of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee would not comment publicly but said the bill contains numerous provisions that will benefit patients with cancer and other life-threatening illnesses, not to mention improvements in preventive care.

And, of course, the ever opaquely transparent Democratic dishonesty continues in the form of a linguistic shell game designed to confuse and confound the American people. It’s as if the Dems’ promise the people an immediate $1000 benefit and simultaneously take away $10000 in benefits next year.

Democrats have touted a series of consumer protections as immediate benefits Americans will secure through the legislation. Both the Senate and House bills, for example, ban lifetime limits on the dollar value of coverage. But Finan said the change in the Senate bill essentially invalidates the legislation’s ban on lifetime limits. “If you can have annual limits, saying there’s no lifetime limits becomes meaningless,” he said. A patient battling aggressive disease in its later stages could conceivably exhaust insurance benefits in the course of a year.

Not to mention the fact that no one lives forever! If you’re 35 and a $100,000 annual limit was placed on your insurance benefits, you’ve certainly got a lifetime limit of less than $10 million because it’s pretty much certain you won’t live to be 135.

And now we’re told a group of 10 Senators has come up with a compromise that strips the bill of its public option, but they won’t let the American people see it!

Kill this bill and make them let us in on what they have planned for OUR health care system!

Michelle Malkin to Speak at Little Rock, AR Rally Saturday

from LCRC Blog

By now it’s certain you’ve heard about the near trillion dollar health care bill being debated in the Senate. But you may not have heard that Governor Beebe believes the bill will also bust our state budget wide open–to the tune of $205 million!!!

In an effort to educate the public about this under-reported concern by the highest ranking elected Democrat in the state of Arkansas, Tea Parties across the state have banned together and teamed up with Americans for Prosperity to sponsor the 12-12 @ 12:00 rally this Saturday at 12:00 noon.

The focus for Saturday will be to call Arkansas’ elected officials’ attention to this budget busting bill so they will stand against it and assert Arkansans’ interests in this matter.

Nationally syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin will be the keynote speaker, but numerous Arkansas legislators and several Republican candidates for US Senate will be addressing the crowd as well. Several candidates for US Congress will also be present and available to answer questions. This will be an event you won’t want to miss if you hope to stop this Obamacare atrocity!

And if you’re worried about the weather, don’t be. The event will be held inside at the Little Rock Doubletree Hotel Ballroom. It’s scheduled to last for an hour and a half. The first 1000 to arrive will be admitted to hear the speakers.

Where	Little Rock Doubletree Hotel 424 W. MARKHAM AND BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS
When	12:00-1:30 pm Saturday, December 12, 2009

Speakers

Todd Sharp
Dr. Carlos Ramon
Jeannie Burlsworth, Chairman of Secure Arkansas
Teresa Oelke, Representative for Americans for Prosperity
Michelle Malkin
State Senator Gilbert Baker
State Senator Kim Hendren
State Representative Mark Martin
State Representative Ed Garner
State Representative Dan Greenburg
State Representative Allen Kerr
Tachaney Evans, Independent Candidate for State Senate, District 4
Curtis Coleman
Col. Conrad Reynolds
Tom Cox
Fred Ramey
Buddy Rodgers
Trevor Drown, Independent

Obama Approval Hits New Low

The number of likely voters who “Strongly Approve” of President Obama’s job performance to date has dipped to a new low. The Rasmussen Presidential Approval Index has remained in the negative double digits for the past three weeks and today stands at -14%, only one point off its all-time low of -15%.

But, significantly, the percentage of respondents who “Strongly Approve” of the job Obama is doing has dipped to only 25% of likely voters. This is the lowest number of likely voters who remain staunch supporters of the President since his inauguration!

Obama using war, climate change, & jobs as distraction for health care

by John Allison III

After spending the summer and fall trying to cram an unwanted government takeover of the US health care system down the throats of the American people, he’s finally managed to get a bill passed in the House and its companion bill debated on the floor of the Senate.  Now’s the time most would expect a final push, a strategic surge, a call on the very reserves of his energy and effort, to cross the finish line with legislation that could ultimately define his presidency.

But, instead of a network news health care infomercial starring the President, he decided to shift gears this week.  Suddenly he’s stepped forward with a response to General McChrystal’s request for more troops in Afghanistan, decided to attend the climate change conference in Copenhagen, and Thursday held a “jobs summit” at the White House. Is he counting his chickens before they hatch?  Does he believe he has this battle won, so he’s already tackling the next challenge?  It’s just hard to imagine after he’s focused on little else for months now, that suddenly the issue no longer draws his attention.

Of course, it could be by design.  All smoke and mirrors to confuse and confound.

Sort of like Nancy Pelosi’s Saturday at midnight vote to pass her vision of “reform” that places our health care decisions in the hands of government bureaucrats, or Harry Reid’s choice to hold the vote to move his bill forward on the Saturday night before Thanksgiving, President Obama is now hoping to take the eye of the American taxpayer off the ball in the last seconds of the game.

His jobs summit isn’t so much about jobs, but it’s just one part of a plan designed to turn the heads of the majority of voters who oppose his vision for the health care system, distracting them long enough to let the bill squeeze through before they realize it.

Think about it…three months after McChrystal issued his request for 40,000 troops, three months of facing harsh criticism for “dithering” while American troops twisted in the wind, he comes forth with a decision that sends the health care story to the inside pages of newspapers across the country.  Just one month after we heard the President wouldn’t be attending the climate conference in Copenhagen, Obama has suddenly done a 180 and decided not only to  attend but to promise a 17% cut in US carbon emissions by 2020.  And now the “jobs summit.”

Don’t be surprised to see the front page too crowded by all these announcements to adequately cover the health care debate over the next couple of weeks.  Look for the mainstream media to fall in line and lead with these stories and others to give cover to Democratic Senators trying to tow their party line while their constituents are distracted.

Obama and his Democratic lackeys in the Senate know Americans don’t trust the government to administer the health care system, but THEY DON’T CARE!  In their minds, we’re incapable of knowing what’s best for us.

They’re creating a diversion, hoping to distract us and force us to swallow their “reform.”

Don’t take your eyes off the health care debate until it’s dead!

Uncertain Trumpet

by Charles Krauthammer at Townhall.com

We shall fight in the air, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields, we shall fight in the hills — for 18 months. Then we start packing for home.

We shall never surrender — unless the war gets too expensive, in which case, we shall quote Eisenhower on “the need to maintain balance in and among national programs” and then insist that “we can’t simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.”

The quotes are from President Obama’s West Point speech announcing the Afghanistan troop surge. What a strange speech it was — a call to arms so ambivalent, so tentative, so defensive.

Which made his last-minute assertion of “resolve unwavering” so hollow. It was meant to be stirring. It fell flat. In August, he called Afghanistan “a war of necessity.” On Tuesday night, he defined “what’s at stake” as “the common security of the world.” The world, no less. Yet, we begin leaving in July 2011?

Does he think that such ambivalence is not heard by the Taliban, by Afghan peasants deciding which side to choose, by Pakistani generals hedging their bets, by NATO allies already with one foot out of Afghanistan?

Nonetheless, most supporters of the Afghanistan War were satisfied. They got the policy, the liberals got the speech. The hawks got three-quarters of what Gen. Stanley McChrystal wanted — 30,000 additional U.S. troops — and the doves got a few soothing words. Big deal, say the hawks.

But it is a big deal. Words matter because will matters.

…More

Do Smoking Guns Cause Global Warming, Too?

by Ann Coulter at Townhall.com

As we now know (and by “we” I mean “everyone with access to the Internet”), the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has just been caught ferociously manipulating the data about the Earth’s temperature.

Recently leaked e-mails from the “scientists” at CRU show that, when talking among themselves, they forthrightly admit to using a “trick” to “hide the decline” in the Earth’s temperature since 1960 — as one e-mail says. Still another describes their manipulation of the data thus: “[W]e can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”

Am I just crazy from the heat or were they trying to deceive us?

Global warming cheerleaders in the media were quick to defend the scandalous e-mails, explaining that, among scientists, the words “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage” do not mean “trick,” “hide the decline” and “garbage.” These words actually mean “onion soup,” “sexual submissive” and “Gary, Ind.”

(Boy, it must be great to be able to redefine words right in the middle of a debate.)

Also, of course, the defenders said that the words needed to be placed “in context” — the words’ check was in the mail, and they’d like to spend more time with their families.

I have placed the words in context and it turns out what they mean is: gigantic academic fraud.

The leaked e-mail exchanges also show the vaunted “scientists” engaging in a possibly criminal effort to delete their own smoking-gun e-mails in response to a Freedom of Information request. Next, the fanatics will be telling us that “among scientists,” this behavior does not indicate knowledge of guilt.

If I recall correctly, their next move should be to fire the special prosecutor late Saturday night.

These e-mails aren’t a tempest in a teapot. They are evidence of pervasive fraud by a massively influential institution that has dominated news coverage of global warming.

…More

The Left Turns Off Obama

by Dick Morris and Eileen McGann at Townhall.com

While the smoke rises from the Capitol building where the health care debate proceeds, Obama is losing his political base on the left.

His decision to send 34,000 more troops to Afghanistan, an odd move for a peace candidate, his failure to close Guantanamo, our continued military presence in Iraq, and his failure to act on liberal priorities like gays in the military and immigration reform are all sapping his support from those who voted for him.

And, even in the health care debate, the under-30 voters are learning that they are targeted — just like the elderly — for special punishment in Obama’s health care bill. When they realize that they must spend $15,000 on average per family for health insurance or face a fine of 2.5 percent of their income or go to prison, the bill loses its appeal. And, when they find out how shallow the subsidies are (only after they spend 8 percent of their paychecks if their household income is $45,000 a year and 12 percent if it is $65,000), they begin to turn off both the bill and the president for whom they were once so enthusiastic.

Then there is the loss of popularity that has nothing to do with ideology. It all begins with unemployment. While voters still believe by 50-42 (Rasmussen) that George W. Bush is more at fault than Obama for the economy, Bush is not on the ballot. The high jobless rate nurtures a belief that Obama doesn’t really know what he is doing. This discontent need not take the form of ideological opposition to the stimulus package or the deficit spending. It can merely be a sense that things aren’t going right.

And then come the adjectives. Voters are increasingly complaining that Obama is weak, vacillates, does not keep his promises, spends too much time on other priorities than jobs and seems egotistical.

…More

Five More Amateur Mistakes By the Obama Administration

by John Hawkins at Townhall.com

“My fellow citizens, the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of personal discovery.” – Sarah Palin

Since he has been elected, Barack Obama has been like a four year old wearing water wings and desperately trying to reach the edge of the pool. In other words, he has been completely out of his depth. Who could have known that giving soaring speeches about “hope” and “change” while voting “present” on the tough issues wouldn’t be enough preparation for the most important job on Planet Earth — oh wait, millions of Americans knew that and pointed it out at every opportunity. Unfortunately, the media was too busy obsessing over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe and parody songs on the Rush Limbaugh show to actually consider whether or not a man whose biggest accomplishment was winning a Democratic primary against Hillary Clinton was qualified to be President.

Of course, we can debate Obama’s ideological decisions all day. Does the country need socialized medicine? Should he have pursued that staggeringly expensive stimulus program? Has he been applying enough pressure on Iran? The answers to those questions are no, no, and no — but, there’s a more important question we need to consider: does Barack Obama know what he’s doing?

Early on, the Obama Administration made a lot of foolish mistakes. Obama selected numerous tax cheats for his Cabinet. They gave the Russians a button that was supposed to say “reset”– but that actually said “overcharge.” They gave our best allies, the Brits, 25 DVDs of American movie classics — that were not only wildly inappropriate, but wouldn’t even play in their DVD players. Unfortunately, those early gaffes have not only continued; they’ve begun to have more serious policy implications.

…Read more about the following Obama administration mistakes

1. What are we trying to do in Honduras?
2. Russia’s missile defense date dupe:
3. Putting Khalid Sheikh Mohammed on trial in New York:
4. Cash for Clunkers:
5. Why all the bowing?