Kean moves ahead of Menendez in latest Rasmussen poll
Republican Tom Kean, Jr. now leads Democrat Robert Menendez by 7 points according to
Scott Rasmussen. Will The
Blogging Caesar be updating the projections as a result? I've often said that one poll is not enough for a rating change. However,
the same poll last month showed Kean with a 3-point lead. Judging from those two polls, I think a reasonable conclusion would be that
Kean is indeed slightly ahead of his opponent.
A rating change is in order then, right? No, I don't think so. See, in addition to crunching the numbers, I try to take into consideration
intangible aspects of the race that might impact the outcome. New Jersey is a classic example. This state tends to poll quite a bit more
purple than it actually is. It is blue through and through. So, early polls tend to raise GOP hopes, but voters here eventually return
home to roost.
I think this is exactly what is happening here. By early November, Menendez may still be a point or two behind in the polls, but that will
change once the election booth curtain closes. Now, if Kean gets to a sustainable double-digit lead, I might consider making a change in this race.
Or, if he maintains a strong 6-8 point lead into October, I also might consider a change. For now though, I'm leaving it as is because I believe
the folks in New Jersey are just up to their old tricks again.
posted by Scott Elliott at 11:35pm 04/18/06
Link to this post |
Some final thoughts
I had a great time this past weekend listening to so many talented and passionate speakers. The content of the messages
was superb, and the interaction with other conservatives was invigorating and inspiring. I'm grateful to Luke Wake and the Civitas Institute for
the invitation. I hope I will be able to return next year.
I was not the only blogger there. Many other bloggers were invited, and several were able to attend. I only met one, Frank Williams of
NCRepublicans.org. He met a couple others and posted them on his website. Here are the bloggers of whom I know at the conference.
You can find excellent articles and reactions to the conference on these sites.
NC Republicans blog - Frank Williams, contributor
Thoughts and Ideas to RIGHT out Nation - Frank's excellent personal blog
Also be sure to check out Frank's homepage
Ogre's Politics and Views
The Cultural Report
I welcome all these guys onto my blogroll.
Now to my reactions to the conference. I think the most noteworthy aspect of the conference was the importance of the illegal immigration
problem we're facing. This theme ran deep and wide throughout the weekend. Near unanimous disapproval of any guest worker/amnesty
legislation was voiced on all sides.
A second theme I noticed was the effort to distinguish between "conservatives" and "Republicans". The GOP is not the political face of the
conservative movement, and the two are at odds right now more than perhaps they have been in recent memory. While it's true the GOP reflects
conservative ideals better than other political parties, conservatives themselves have many quarrels with the direction in which the party seems
to be moving. My own reaction is one cautious optimism that these disagreements will not ultimately significantly injure the party's chances
in upcoming elections. If there is a significant backlash, this immigration problem will be the catalyst. I think that much is clear
from the tone and content of this weekend's conference.
Moving on to the speakers. I'm disappointed that I missed Rep. Virginia Foxx's speech Saturday morning. From what I hear it was excellent.
I did get to hear both J.D. Hayworth and George Allen speak. I thought Hayworth was much more passionate and effective in his address - not that
Allen wasn't great. Hayworth just had that fire about him. It wouldn't surprise me to him mentioned as a potential presidential candidate
some time soon.
Senator Allen is the focus of the current presidential election cycle, however, and my one serious misgiving about him is the office he now holds.
Senators have a real hard time getting elected to the White House. Ideologically and character-wise, I would have little issue with him
representing the GOP in 2008. I'm just not sure he is electable. Of course, past results do not assure future performance, and he might
buck the trend. I hope he will if he gets the nomination; I think he'd make a great president.
In closing, let me share some personal notes from the conference. One of the forums I attended discussed talk radio. Bill Lumaye,
Raleigh's own late-afternoon talk show host, was there. I was able to chat with him and restart a conservation
Lorie Byrd of Polipundit, another North Carolina native and blogger, had begun with him last year. To
make a long story short, Lorie, Betsy Newmark and I will probably join Bill on his show in the near
future. That should be very exciting.
I also got the chance to meet J.D. Hayworth and his parents and talk with them for about 20 or 30 minutes Friday night. On Saturday, I met
with Barbara Holt, president of NC Right to Life. I shared with her about my upcoming book and discussed some of the issues facing the
right-to-life movement. Our conservation was a very encouraging. She is a delightful lady.
All in all, the conference was a resounding success. I look forward to attending many more functions sponsored by the
Civitas Institute in the future.
posted by Scott Elliott at 6:25pm 04/12/06
Link to this post |
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
George Allen, Jeffersonian conservative
Senator George Allen delivered what sounded much like a campaign speech Saturday night at the Conservative Leadership Conference.
Touting his record as a former governor of Virginia and addressing many of the issues near and dear to the hearts of his audience, Mr Allen capably
and firmly established a solid conservative rationale for electing him President in 2008.
Early in his message, Senator Allen espoused a portion of the first inaugural address of fellow-Virginian President Thomas Jefferson in 1801.
"A wise and frugal Government," Allen quoted, "which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their
own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Based on this declaration of the role of government, Allen labeled himself a "Jeffersonian conservative."
Allen then focused on his governership of Virginia. Crime in Virginia was curtailed during his time in the statehouse, he said, not by passing
more gun restricting legislation, but, in contrast, by passing legislation legalizing concealed weapons and revamping state parole laws.
Pedophiles who once spent only 3 years in prison, now face the full 26 years that their crimes deserve by law. He highlighted his welfare
reform as well which now demands more presonal responsibility and a greater work ethic among those who receive it. No longer do welfare
recipients receive more funds for having more babies, and mothers must provide the identification of the father of their children to become eligible for
government welfare assistance.
In the field of education, Allen said that under his leadership, Virginia moved from an outcome-based system that
operated on the "dumbing-down" concept of social promotion to the next grade to a system of accountibility where students must earn promotion.
Dumbing down is not the answer to better schools, and self-esteem must be earned through excellence, not conferred by sympathy.
Transitioning from what had been accomplished to what still must be accomplished, Allen outlined three major areas where the conservative message
must be implemented. First, securing the freedom of our country should be paramount. He expressed whole-hearted support for President
Bush's doctrine of taking the fight to the terrorists and maintaining an unwavering committment to a "We Win, They Lose" outcome in the war on terror.
He also reaffirmed the essential importance of providing troops with the tools they need to execute their mission successfully and taking care of them
during their service. In this vein, Senator Allen pointed to his pivotal role in raising the death benefit for our soldiers who die on the
battlefield from $12,000 to $100,000.
Supporting the troops and winning the war over there may have little benefit for Americans, however, if we don't secure our borders. Allen reiterated
what was perhaps the most prominent theme of the entire weekend - the need to address the illegal immigration problem in this country. While we
are indeed a nation of immigrants, Allen said, we are also a nation of laws, and amnesty of any kind for illegals will only lead to more illegal
activity. Moreover, securing the borders must be central to any real solution to this problem. As the senator said, "A nation cannot control its
own destiny if it cannot control its own borders."
Second on the conservative agenda should be increasing the availability of opportunities for our citizens. To this end, Allen cited several
areas of focus. Gaining energy independence through alternative energy sources and greater utilizatiion of indigenous energy supplies is critical
if our nation and our economy are to remain strong. In the area of education, we must begin to foster interest in our students for scientific and
engineering fields, especially among women and minorities. Allen then touched on the tax issue by asserting that we must maintain an internet
free of taxes and touting his co-sponsorship of all three rounds of President Bush's tax cut legislation. Continuing on the issue of taxes,
Allen expressed his disapproval of the inheritance tax by stating that he did not believe "death should be a taxable event."
Tax revenues, after all, are not the problem. They are at record levels due to a booming economy. Rather, he said, it is
irresponsible spending that must be confronted and controled. To that end, he endorsed both the line-item veto and a balanced budget amendment.
Poking fun at the snail's pace of congressional negotiation on the budget, Allen suggested that if the budget was not passed on time, every
congressperson's paycheck should be withheld until they got it done.
Finally, Allen contends that we must preserve our conservative values in this country. Nowhere else are these value more at risk and under
assault than in the judiciary. We see this phenomenon threathening issue after issue of importance to conservatives. Allen listed several
examples where the battle for our values is being fought outside the legislative process our Constitution prescribes. The Pledge of Allegiance,
the definition of Marriage, the operating policies of the Boy Scouts, the scourge of abortion, the unAmerican practice of judging state laws
based on international standards, the unconstitutional seizure of private property to increase tax revenues - all these are being dicated by a court
system overstepping its proper role in our government. To confront this menace, Allen emphatically declared that we must appoint judges who
will stop legislating from the bench.
In closing, Allen issued a broad invitation to join the conservative movement. Who is welcome here? Allen says anyone who pays taxes
or works for a living or cares about their family. If any one of these three attributes describes you, then you will find a home
with conservatives. But we must act for our movement to move forward and for our nation to benefit from our ideals. Allen ended his
speech by asking the conservatives in the room these questions: "If not us, who? If not now, when?"
posted by Scott Elliott at 1:10pm 04/10/06
Link to this post |
Saturday, April 8, 2006
Issue Forum 2 - Talk Radio
Moderator:
Lockwood Phillips, Newpaper publisher and radio personality
Panelists:
Bill Lumaye, Talk show host WPTF 680, Raleigh, NC
Brandon Randolph, Former radio host - youngest midday host in nation
Jim Bishop, Former talk show host, Georgia, North Carolina
Jason Lewis, Talk show host WBT, Charlotte, NC
This was the most lively and crowded forum I've attended by far with several animated characters in the audience vying with
the moderator and four excellent panelists to be heard. The discussion opened with Mr. Phillips posing the question, "What is conservative radio?"
Bill Lumaye, my hometown radio host and favorite of mine, said it is founded upon intellectual honesty and that the core principles of conservatism
lend themselves to truthfulness and facts.
Brandon Randolph brought up the community aspect of it and the personal relationships that become such a part of the medium. Nowhere else in
media can that type of community be found. (I might argue that the sense of community we have here at Election Projection would rival that of
talk radio, but I'd probably be biased about that!) Jim Bishop continued the theme Bill initiated by saying that it is being honest to your
principles and relating them with conviction.
Finally, Jason Lewis, far and away the most colorful individual on the panel, said it is essentially principled conservatives talking on the radio.
By that he meant they are conservatives first who went on the radio, not broadcasters who became conservative talk show hosts. As he put it, DJ's
flop when they try talk radio.
Lewis then spoke of the rise of the conservative viewpoint on the radio and how it was allowed to gain its vast following through the fortuitous
actions of President Reagan in the 1980s. Back then, something called the Fairness Doctrine mandated that equal time to opposing views must be
allowed on the air. Since liberal talk shows have such a hard time drawing an audience, AM stations, by and large, decided not to air either side.
To quote Lewis, "They started airing home and gardening 24/7." Then one day, Lewis continued, Reagan called the FCC in and basically told them
to stop enforcing the law. At that point, conservatives exploded on the radio. Liberals didn't. Why? Ratings. Conservative
radio sells; liberal radio doesn't. But that's ok, the panel agreed, they have NPR (National Public Radio), and Lewis quipped (he's a guininely
funny guy), "Liberals don't need ratings, they have the government!"
One important thread that ran through the entire time was the idea that true conservatives are not necessarily Republican. Conservative radio
routinely stands at odds with Republicans on many issues. In fact, the GOP is now in trouble, the panelists contend, with conservatives because of
their willingness in recent history to discard any semblance of fiscal responsibility. From my own experience with Bill Lumaye, I can vouch for
the veracity of that contention. Many times on spending and, especially, illegal immigration, I hear him emphatically opposing the actions
taken by many Republicans on Capitol Hill and in the White House.
The discussion then turned to the demographics of the talk radio audience, specifically as it relates to age. Brandon Randolph, the youngster
on the panel, asserted that talk radio has reached a plateau due to the tuning out of his generation. Lewis and Lumaye countered with the argument
that conservative talk radio has always targeted those who are more mature and who have already built a career and a family. In his frank manner,
Lewis remarked that talk radio doesn't need the younger demographic anyway. (I wanted to add that as this younger generation grows older, their
affinity for talk radio will increase, so the audience listening will not shrink - but I didn't get a chance.)
Next, the panel explored the changes confronting talk radio. Some are boons, some are not. One good thing - the next big thing in talk
radio - will be the expansion of talk to the FM dial. With the advent of satellite radio and ipods, FM music stations are experiencing a decline
in demand. Talk radio will be their to fill the void. Already some of the larger media companies, such as ClearChannel, are moving talk
radio shows from AM stations to FM stations. On a negative note for talk radio is the ever-increasing reliance on the internet for news.
(Personally, I don't see this having much of an impact because so much of the audience for talk radio is either in their cars or at work. Moreover,
the personalities of talk radio hosts bring a measure of entertainment value that you can't find on the internet.) The panel did bring up one
facet of the internet phenomenon that will impact talk radio - streaming. More and more of talk radio will be accessible online in the coming years.
At the end of the time, several audience member expressed their appreciation for the influence talk radio has had on the conservative movement.
Lewis tried to downplay that by saying that if that were true, Mike Easley would not have been elected governor in North Carolina. I adamantly
agree with the audience on this account. Personally, it has been talk radio that has taught me the truth on so many issues - from the fallacy
of the extremist environmental view to the greatness of Ronald Reagan's presidency. Truth that was and continues to be mostly absent from
the world of the mainstream media.
posted by Scott Elliott last updated at 6:30pm 04/08/06
Link to this post |
Friday, April 7, 2006
U.S. Rep. J.D. Hayworth, crusader for immigration law reform enforcement
Arizona Congressman J.D. Hayworth delivered a powerful and timely keynote address tonight at the Conservative Leadership Conference. In it, he
forcefully confronted the movement in Washington which is attempting to grant what amounts to amnesty to an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants
now residing in this country.
Passionate and engaging, Hayworth used a mixture of anecdotal accounts and statistical data to drive home the message that the mass migration
of illegal immigrants onto American soil constitutes nothing less than an invasion. Remarkably, an average of between 6000 and 6500 individuals
attempt to cross the Arizona border with Mexico each and every night. Of those, 4000 to 4500 are successful. In a post-9/11
world, the easy access our defenseless borders afford illegal immigrants should terrify us into decisive action. Hayworth notes that during 2004,
650 illegals from countries of national security interest, such as Iraq and Iran, were arrested by border patrol officers.
With such an enormous, wide-open security breach at our doorstep, why aren't politicians in Washington taking the necessary steps to shut the door?
The answer, Hayworth asserts, lies in a strange union between leadership in the Democratic and Republican parties. Some Republicans, listening
to the National Chamber of Commerce and agriculture lobby, view these illegals as "cheap labor". On the other hand, Democrats,
seeking to expand their Hispanic special interest group to prop up their electoral chances, view them as "cheap votes". While Hayworth reiterated
his support for President Bush's policies of tax reforms and his doctrine of taking the battle in the War on Terror to the terrorists, he emphatically
stands against the President on this issue of illegal immigration.
The problem is not so much the need for immigration law reform, he says, but the need for existing laws to be enforced. In a conversation
I had with him after this evening's session, he told me to imagine seeing a couple of corporate CEO's on TV being marched off to prison in handcuffs for
their companies' practice of hiring illegal immigrants and the effect that alone would have on the illegal immigration problem. Certainly, if
companies were afraid to hire those whom, by law, they are forbidden to hire, the motivation for people to illegally cross the Rio Grande would dry
up overnight.
To illustrate just how far from enforcement of our immigration laws we have drifted, Hayworth pointed to a disturbing development in the state of
Oregon. Every Saturday, illegal immigrants gather in schoolhouses across the state for what are called Carousels of Caring. During this time,
illegal immigrants are granted a de facto ID card like those issued by the Mexican Consulate. With these cards, illegals can gain access
to social benefits and other perks of citizenship.
Ah, citizenship. To be an American citizen is an awesome privilege. Our Founding Fathers knew they were bestowing great responsibility
on the citizens of their fledgling country. In closing, Hayworth recounted a question Benjamin Franklin posed as he stared at a painting during
the Constitutional Convention. In the picture was a sun perched close to the horizon. Looking at it, Franklin pondered, "I wonder if that
is a rising or a setting sun." After the convention came to an end, the octogenarian was asked what their meetings had created. Franklin
said, "A republic - if you can keep it."
Today, that republic and the values it represents are being threatened. Hayworth hightlighted the disgraceful way he has seen immigrant
workers being treated and shared incidences of gang warfare that take place not for drugs but for human chattle and contends that by our nation's
unwillingness to enforce the laws it has passed, we risk retreating in "social decay and anarchy." We can and must solve this problem of illegal
immigration without amnesty. Enforcement, not reform, is the answer. Choose that path, the congressman concluded, and we will see a rising
sun and "remain a nation of laws with a bright future ahead."
posted by Scott Elliott sometime after 11:55pm 04/07/06
Link to this post |
Issue Forum 1 - Health Care
Speakers:
Edmund Haislmaier, Research Fellow, Center for Health Policy Studies
John Hood, President, John Locke Foundation
Introduction: As a compassionate conservative, I have long felt a burden for the uninsured individuals and families in this
country. I am all too familiar with the "cold-hearted agents of the rich" label that has been so often attached to conservatives. I know
personally that such a label is patently wrong in all but the most extreme cases. Still, I haven't had the opportunity to be exposed to
conservative ideas that address this real and large and growing problem in this country. That's why this forum caught my attention.
Liberals, by and large, see the solution to be the same as every other solution to society's ills - let the government fix it. Nationalized
health care has been the path many on the Left have endorsed to make sure everyone is insured. I think that idea stinks for many reasons, but
without an alternative, my only recourse was to say, "hey, that idea stinks!" It is a situation akin to many among the anti-Bush crowd who
constantly berate him and his policies while remaining essentially void of real and substantive counter-plans.
That was the story for me and health care - until today. There have been many brain cycles spent on this issue in conservative circles
(proving once again the fallacy of that "cold-hearted" label). And there are viable compassionate solutions which utilize our market-driven
healthcare system to meet the needs of the uninsured.
In this forum, Edmund Haislmaier, who had a significant role in crafting a new health care blueprint in Massachusetts (of all places), described
the direction in which we should go to fully insure our people without resorting to a governmental monopoly of the health care industry. Then,
John Hood, President, John Locke Foundation, put an interesting perspective on our health care "crisis" and highlighted some aspects of it that were
previously unknown to me.
Edmund Haislmaier
The main focus of Mr. Haislmaier's time was his explanation of the Massachusetts healthcare plan
recently passed by the state legislature. Without knowing
all the intricacies of geographic regions, play or pay models, and federal high-risk pool laws, let me try to boil down the essence of the plan.
(A fuller explanation of the plan is offered by Mr. Haislmaier in this
article on National Review Online. Since he so effectively explains the different attributes of the plan in that article, I'm just going to
post the high-level points here.)
First, the plan creates a health insurance exchange which allows insurance to become tied to the consumer rather than the employer. Hence,
there would be no lapses of coverage when a worker is laid off or quits his job. This option is also available to the self-employed who can
use pre-tax dollars to participate in the plan.
Second, it supports those who are currently without insurance but whose income is greater than the allowable limit to participate in Medicaid.
As Haislmaier says, this facet of the plan removes the "provider safety net" and replaces it with a "people safety net." Each year 30 to 40
billion dollars of our tax money is given to hospitals and other healthcare providers to subsidize patients who cannot pay for their services.
This plan takes the portion of that money spent by Massachusetts and redirects it to subsidize these individuals' participation in the healthcare
exchange program.
I believe this plan is a major step forward in the quest for a non-governmental form of universal healthcare. As a conservative, I want as little
regulation as possible over my financial decisions. However, as an American, I just can't get around the need for my fellow citizens to have
access to healthcare. Mitt Romney's plan, crafted to a large extent by Haislmaier, one of the Heritage Foundation's own, is a solution that
fulfills my compassion without overstepping - too much - my aversion to greater governmental control of my checkbook.
John Hood
One of the major hindrances to meaningful healthcare reform occurs when the discussion is built on the premise that our healthcare system is
all wrong. Instead, we need to focus more on what is strong and right about it before we can effectively and efficiently address its shortcomings.
So says John Hood, President of the John Locke Foundation. In his speech today, Mr. Hood brought out some interesting points about the nature
of our healthcare system and asserted that we sometimes lose sight of certain realities when framing the healthcare debate.
The first point of note that Mr. Hood raised is the ever-increasing value of healthcare in our society. He is not talking about value
as in "a good deal" but rather in terms of worth and benefit to Americans. Before 1900, he notes that doctors and hospitals were more dangerous
many times than helpful to the sick and injured. Back then, you might have had a better chance of surviving your ailment on your own than of
surviving the infection and other harms you might encounter seeking medical help.
Nowadays, we continue to reap a growing benefit from our healthcare industry. Procedures available to us today that were not available 20
years ago have added significantly to the value we receive from our healthcare system. These advancements partly explain the increasing costs
we are facing. Think of it this way. How much do you think Mr. Ford could get if he were selling a new version of his Model-T today?
It certainly wouldn't be worth the 10 or 20 thousand dollars we customarily pay for today's automobiles. Why? Because all the automotive
advancements that make today's cars so attractive have increased their value manifold. Likewise, when we see astronomical growth in the cost
of healthcare, we need to factor in that healthcare today is worth so much more because it does so much more for us.
Now don't get me wrong. In no way does Mr. Hood mean to say that all the increases in healthcare costs are warranted. That fact is
the basis for the second intriguing point he bought out. Currently there are some areas of healthcare which are not managed and governed by the
insurance/government bureaucratic machine. These areas are driven almost exlusively by the market. They include cosmetic surgery and, to a
large degree, optometrics. How telling it is, Hood points out, that lasik surgery, the surgical procedure to correct bad eyesight, has improved
markedly over the last decade while its cost has been dramatically reduced. When we overlay that trend onto what we see in other areas of
healthcare, we see an ominous testament to the effects of government intervention in healthcare, a testament which should be a warning to all who would
advocate a single-payer form of nationalized healthcare.
posted by Scott Elliott, last updated at 9:15pm 04/07/06
Link to this post |
Thursday, April 6, 2006
