Cost Benefit Analysis of Excluding Independents From GOP Primaries

Anytime an individual or a group is agonizing over an important decision, it's time to use a cost-benefit analysis to tally up the pros and cons of doing or of not doing something.

The issue of the day is whether or not to allow independents to participate in the GOP primary voting.

Both sides have good points. Arguments for excluding independents are many. It forces fence sitters in voter registration who lean Republican to register that way. Also it reduces the chance that Democrats could change registration to manipulate a key election.

However, consider the costs? The liberal press will certainly bash Republicans for being a small state party that finds a way to exclude people who would otherwise show interest. Conservative outlets may even join that chorus for reasons of their own. Bad press represents a cost even though ideally it should not serve as a factor.

Also, how often do we have a situation where we have close primary races between one very electable candidate and one extremely awful candidate? Not many Democrats in West Virginia would drop their registration at this point to intentionally smack down an electable GOP alternative.

Finally, how many registrations would we pick up to offset the costs? A few hundred? Maybe.

A better plan lies in remembering our free market ideals. We have competition from the Democratic, Independent, and in some races, Mountain brands. Instead of finding ways to reduce the competition for registered voters, let us embrace the system as it is and create a product that voters will choose. An exciting, energetic, innovative GOP will attract registrations and voters come election day. Building up the party is the answer.

No Title of Nobility Shall be Granted

231 years ago the 13 British colonies declared independence, in the Declaration of Independence, they clearly stated, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Five statesmen from Massachusetts signed that document; John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine and Elbridge Gerry.

March 4, 2009 British Prime Minster, Gordon Brown stood before a joint session of the US Congress and stated, “I want to announce that Her Majesty The Queen, has awarded an honorary Knighthood for Sir Edward Kennedy.” Now our founding fathers knew that titles of nobility inferred inequality of men. They promptly outlawed titles of nobility in the Articles of Confederation to insure the equality of men.

When considering the new constitution the Founding Fathers had very strong convictions. The outlawing of nobility titles was so important that James Madison had this to say about including that prevision in the new constitution, “The prohibition with respect to titles of nobility is copied from the articles of Confederation and needs no comment.” - January 25th, 1788, Federalist Papers #44

Alexander Hamilton ranked the banishment of nobility titles at the top, he even used all capital letters for emphases when he wrote, “The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY, TO WHICH WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDING PROVISION IN OUR CONSTITUTION, are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any it contains” He went on to say, “Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner-stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.” Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers #84

As we know from history the pleas fell on receptive ears, because the banishment of titles of nobility made it into the US Constitution under Article 1, Section 9, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Today Senator Ted Kennedy and the US Congress have to make a decision. Are they statesmen or politicians? I think we can guess what the first Massachusetts Senators Caleb Strong and Tristram Dalton would recommend. Senator Kennedy should politely say, “No, thank you,” sighting the US Constitution. While Senator Kennedy has a long and distinguished career he is our equal nothing more. Congress should grant no exception and if Senator Kennedy wishes to accept, then he should resign from his office and renounce his US citizenship, just as the founding fathers renounced their British citizenship in order to form a nation of equals.

Barnes vs Blair: Rhetorical Cagematch Between Good Republicans

Anyone paying attention to the news lately has seen the state GOP finally capture the headlines for something positive.

Delegate Craig Blair has used his aggressive rhetoric to outline a plan to drug test all applicants for welfare. He contends that the taxpayers are served poorly when their funds go to enable continued drug use by aid recipients. To those who argue that the plan is cost prohibitive, Blair argues that the savings created by drug users shying away from identification will make up for the price of drug testing.

Senator Clark Barnes contends that this violates the constitutional right to privacy as well as rights explicitly spelled out in the 4th Amendment. To Barnes, Republican ideals mean that government ought to stay out of the lives of individuals until they give an overt reason to bring the police power of the state upon themselves.

This debate has overshadowed Governor Manchin and the Democratic Legislature and at times has become heated. However, this debate demonstrates the strength inherent in the ties that bind Republicans together. At the beginning of the day, Craig Blair and Clark Barnes are good friends. At the end of the day they will remain friends despite disagreements. At the end of the day, the party appreciates the efforts and different strengths each man brings to the table.

Compare this to how the Democrats have responded to Blair's proposals. Delegate Sally Susman (D) Raleigh, openly ridiculed Blair in a transparent attempt to deflect the debate into the margins. Senator Barnes debates the issue on principles and merits. Democrats wish it would go away because they fear open and honest discussion.

The strength of the state Republican party lies in our ability to disagree and remain supportive of each other. Senator Barnes opposed the presidential nominating convention last year, but remains one of the most respected Republicans in the state. When Democratic United States Senator Joe Lieberman backed President Bush, his party essentially banished him. They tried to run him out of office with a primary opponent more loyal to the party line, showing a distinct intolerance for diverging points of view. The same is about to happen to Representative Heath Shuler, Democrat from North Carolina (yes the former Tennessee quarterback.) His opposition to Nancy Pelosi has earned him banishment to the political wilderness and most likely a well funded liberal primary opponent. That is the way Democrats operate. Thank God we in the Grand Old Party are different!

Republicans understand that sometimes we have to agree to disagree. Debates among different points of view, such as between Blair and Barnes, leave us stronger at the end of the day. Even when our party members respectfully disagree with the party itself, this is not a negative. Republicans gain a reputation for free thought and ideological tolerance. Think of our state party without Clark Barnes?

Respectful debates between free thinking Republican leaders create an atmosphere of excitement that will help recruit young people to be active in the cause. We need to recognize this buzz that Blair and Barnes are creating and continue to build upon it. Respectful, honest, and open public debates over issues always help our party and its image.

Throw another Law on the Barbie

In the movie "The Philadelphia Experiment" the destroyer USS Eldridge is part of an experiment to make warships invisible and everything goes wrong. Well maybe Delegate Jeff Eldridge (D-Lincoln) needs to become invisible, because he has gone all wrong.

Delegate Eldridge has proposed a bill to ban the sale of Barbie. Yes, Barbie, the Mattel doll that is turning 50 years old this year. The same doll that has taught generation of young girls they could strive for more. In 1965 Mattel introduced Astronaut Barbie years before real life women were accepted into NASA's Space Program. Barbie has worn the uniform our all branches of our armed services, competed in the Olympics and been part of the corporate world. While Barbie may just be a doll in the world of the imagination she has shown lots of young girls what they could be and many have gone on to achieve more than even Barbie, because they dare believe in themselves.

Now it has not been reported if Delegate Eldridge is going base his bill off another law. One law that I did find that was similar was passed by Saudi Arabia in 2003 in which Saudi's outlawed the sale of Barbie dolls, saying that she did not conform to the ideals of Islam. Perhaps the real reason for outlawing Barbie in West Virginia is because she is shown taking career paths that are unlikely to be available in our state because of the tax and legal structure that keeps us at 50th in the states rankings?

Delegate Eldridge should be introducing legislation to improve the economic conditions in West Virginia by putting in a business friendly tax structure and revamping our legal system to attract businesses to the state. Let's create the economic opportunity for the young girls in this state to actually have the jobs that Barbie shows them are available, so they don't have to leave the state to find those careers. Instead changing West Virginia for the better, what the delegate proposes is to take away the young girls dreams of being something better because his party is unwilling to offer it to the people of this state and they don't want the people to leave to find it.

Shelley Moore Capito Criticizes Porkulus Package

The Wheeling News-Register recently editorialized on the dangerous amount of government spending in the pork laden stimulus package passed by Obama and Congress. One thing the president and Congress agreed upon in the first month of office was the need for an unpopular Democratic Congress to toss money at temporary or useless projects instead of refurbishing America's infrastructure or putting money back into the hands of taxpayers.

Token tax relief does exist. On average, workers will have $13 more per paycheck than before. This may buy an additional two lunches per month, but it fails to help spur the big ticket purchases that will help the manufacturing sector. Congresswoman Shelley Moore Capito stated that the nearly $800 billion package needed "more overall tax relief and less government bloating."

Over 25% of the package goes to the states and most will use it to help balance their budgets. However, typical of liberal Democratic over management, responsible states such as West Virginia find their money has been allotted for specific purposes that our state government does not have. So the money is sent, can only be spent on specific things, and any unused money must be sent back. Republicans tend to prefer block grants allowing states to decide for themselves what to do.

Where were Senators Byrd and Rockefeller when this was all decided? Why didn't Rahall and Mollohan intervene with the Democratic leadership on behalf of their own state? Why did they not confer with Governor Manchin and determine what his priorities were? Surely they are on speaking terms, right? Such powerful senators then could have gotten what we needed. After all, that was the main reason they gave for being reelected. Would that have not made some sense?

At least West Virginia taxpayers have one congressional representative working for them this year.

********************************************************************

For Congresswoman Capito, the stimulus issue hits close to home. Her husband is an executive with troubled Citicorp, a target of stimulus money. Capito voted her principles and for her country's future despite its conflict with teh short term interests of her husband's employer.

Is it any wonder that West Virginians are clamoring for Ms. Capito to take a stronger role in the leadership of this state when the time comes?

Missed Opportunities

J. C. Watts went to Charleston recently to speak at the Kanawha County Republican Executive Committee Lincoln Day Dinner. The state and county organization publicized this visit heavily and over 250 GOP faithful packed the Civic Center to hear and greet him. He gave a charismatic and rousing address that was much appreciated by a party needing leadership and optimism.

In Gary Abernathy's Republican Gazette Watts is referred to as "former congressman." This is a high honor certainly, but certainly in the past few years this man could have been given some task to build a national resume.

One of the few major complaints I have with the Bush administration is the fact that they did not reach out to cultivate and develop GOP talent. The Republican Party in the United States is gifted with a large group of pragmatic and experienced minds that need some resume building. J. C. Watts is a perfect example. This man proved his leadership and conservative credentials in Congress. Could he not have been entrusted with some office or task that would have enhanced his reputation?

Closer to home we have a former state party chair with experience in Eastern European affairs currently serving as president of West Liberty. Was he ever offered an ambassadorship? He would seem to be a natural choice. Robin Capehart is still an intriguing figure who has earned bipartisan respect and could be a factor in congressional or gubernatorial elections in the future. A couple of years serving in a position of high honor would have built upon what is already a solid reputation. The Democrats eased Bill Richardson into the governor's office in New Mexico after a successful diplomatic career. Why can't we do something similar?

Although no one in power should say it, when we are in, we should always have an eye towards developing electable talent through appointments. Certainly you should only select people capable of doing the job, but there is no reason to not have a "farm system" of political leadership in operation when you can do it.

Change, Hope . . . Harding. Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Weeks Ago?

Apologies in advance for breaking the 11th Commandment (Thou shalt not speak ill of a fellow Republican) but honesty demands that we compare Barack Obama to Warren G. Harding. We warned before the election that we were electing a Harding, meaning a machine politician with zero ideas, zero experience, and tremendous potential for problems. We got something worse.

Harding, who incidentally figured out very soon that he was unfit mentally for the presidency, actually worked with a Republican Congress to craft economic policies that ended a post World War I recession. How did this happen? The GOP had stepped in to force him to select competent men for his Cabinet. He got statesmen and individuals who had found success in the private sector in the most important positions instead of political hacks. They did well despite him. In the end he was undone by some of his old machine buddies, but he died before the scandal could break.

Obama has blundered through his first month of the presidency. The stock market gains of the Bush era are gone. While Mexico dissolves, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton goes to our former enemies to beg for hard currency to finance the Democratic Porkulus package. The United States has lost the respect that Bush worked so carefully to build for eight years. We send $900 million to the Palestinians to rebuild Gaza while Keyser STILL waits for $9 million to rebuild its water treatment facility. The kindest commentators call Obama's transition "amateur hour" while the most critical describe a "deer in the headlights look." Meanwhile the president tells us we have everything in the world to fear and hopes to goodness something happens before he loses his friendly Congress in 2010.

The only positive of the last four weeks is that Americans have lost their faith that the federal government can solve all problems. Democratic leadership has undone the myth they have tried to cultivate since the 1930s. Every day, people are understanding what conservatives have taught all along. The federal government is not the answer, but it generally is the problem. Every move Obama and his administration makes solidifies that conviction. It is time for the states and the people to step forward and take the initiative. The federal government has failed. Let us get back to state sovereignty and individual initiative.

Let's rephrase that olf campaign question from 1984. Are you better off than you were four weeks ago?