That Louisiana Governor's Race

This past Saturday, Democrats had a substantive win in the Louisiana governor's race with their candidate, Jack Bel Edwards defeating Republican U. S. Senator David Vitter by a healthy 10 point margin.
Needless to say this made the Dems happy and the thought that maybe they are turning the corner in the South and Republicans should be weary of these results.
I agree with the thought that yes, it should be of concern for Republicans. It was not helpful to run a candidate like Sen. Vitter, a man with a lot of baggage. Mostly it is his role in a sex scandal in 2007. While he was able to win reelection, another bit of baggage was his frosty relationship with the current governor and former GOP presidential candidate, Bobby Jindal. That is noted here in this excellent analysis by Taylor Millard. In fact, their dissonance goes back to the 2007 prostitute scandal and then gubernatorial candidate Jindal not offering support and or forgiveness to Sen. Vitter. In fact, Mr. Millard gives us this from a local political blog:

The main source for voter hatred of Vitter, the 15-year-old extramarital behavior which came to light in 2007, didn't defeat him then. But the constant drumbeat of "hookers, hookers, hookers" an "hypocrite, hypocrite, hypocrite" in this election created and insurmountable gender gap and wiped out his chances of getting the job he always wanted.

In other words, his behavior, still even in a horribly corrupt state as is Louisiana, came to bite him in the butt when it counted.
But here's an odd thing.
It did not go down ticket to the race for Lt. governor as the Republican candidate, Billy Nungesser, defeated the Democrat candidate, Melvin Holder, by about the same margins as Mr. Bel Edwards defeated Sen. Vitter.

 Also, the Democrat attorney general lost to the Republican challenger. And the state legislature is one of the most solidly Republican in the South.
There is no question that some voters did vote against Sen. Vitter to also vote against Gov. Jindal. Some voters probably did not like that fact that he was running for president and his statewide popularity numbers were in the 30s. So who knows if Gov Jindal did more to help Sen. Vitter would it have helped or hurt more?
What is clear is that this is more of a blip for Democrats than a preview of 2016. In fact this was much more of a GOP year than not. Look at Kentucky as a Tea Party Republican, Matt Bevin, won the governor's mansion. Look at Virginia as the GOP kept control of the senate and the state legislature.
In about two months, we will see what all of this means for the Republicans as caucus-goers in Iowa and voters in New Hampshire will set the pace and if it is going to be a Republican year all the way around.

Birtherism: The Cancer That Won't Go Away

Oh I know that many people will suggest that birtherism, the belief that the Dear Leader, President Obama, is nothing but a bunch a crazy right-wingers wanting to delegitimize his presidency.
I'm here to tell you that in fact, birtherism is alive and well and involved with some announced and non-announced candidates for the Republican presidential nomination.
It is a cancer that will not go away.
Here are some of the names that the birthers are saying are "not qualified" to be president of the United States:

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida)
Gov. Nikki Haley (R-South Carolina)
Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-Louisiana)
Gov. Brian Sandoval (R-Nevada)

Now two, Sens. Cruz and Rubio, are announced candidates. Gov. Haley is not going to run but could be a possible serious contender for vice-president. Same for Gov. Sandoval. Only Gov. Jindal will probably make a serious run at the Republican nomination.
I suppose that birthers will make a serious claim that there is nothing partisan about their zeal to make sure that all candidates and potential candidates meet the requirements for being president. But I do notice all do not exactly have WASPy-sounding names.
So what are the constitutional requirements for being a potential president?
It's right here in Article 2, section 1 and paragraph 5:

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Pretty simple and straight forward, right? And since the current occupant of the White House was born in the then new state of Hawai'i in 1961 and his mother was a citizen of the United States, the first two requirements are met. And yes, the Dear Leader, President Obama, has lived in the United States for 14 years and was a bit north of 35  years old when elected.
So what is the beef of the birthers?
Since they can't, although some do, harp on the "real" birth certificate, the main thrust is the meaning of being a "natural born citizen". This is basically what the birthers say not only disqualifies the current occupant of the White House, but a slew of Republicans that want to replace him. One thing that this conveniently ignores is the 1790 Naturalization Act. As well as the 14th Amendment that not only expanded who could be a citizen, which at the time was very limited and essentially whites or Europeans only. Essentially, for the majority of birthers, the main problem for the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the aforementioned above is that while they may all have been born in the United States and or have at least one American citizen parent, both parents are not United States citizens and that should disqualify the Dear Leader, President Obama and the aforementioned above.
While the current birther movement gets all the publicity, this is nowhere near the first time a potential president's citizenship and or birth has been questioned. Of the nine mentioned in the link, only two became president and that would be Republican Chester A. Arthur and Democrat Barack H. Obama.
Why has the current birtherism been even given any credibility in the first place?
Well, it was not a Republican effort to discredit the Dear Leader, President Obama. In fact as the linked article points out, it was the Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign that decided to go for the jugular and throw the kitchen sink to discredit Mr. Obama. Here is a relevant point:
That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.

“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008

That theory first emerged in the spring of 2008, as Clinton supporters circulated an anonymous email questioning Obama’s citizenship.
“Barack Obama’s mother was living in Kenya with his Arab-African father late in her pregnancy. She was not allowed to travel by plane then, so Barack Obama was born there and his mother then took him to Hawaii to register his birth,” asserted one chain email that surfaced on the urban legend site Snopes.com in April 2008

And let's not forget that Team Hillary was, not one bit of doubt in my mind, behind this infamous photo of Mr. Obama in full Islamic garb.

Yet some fringe conservatives and or Republicans have kept this whole birtherism nonsense going and going. And now like a cancer kept at bay, birtherism is metastasizing way into the Republican field. And if one of those aforementioned above should become the Republican nominee, it will be a nagging enough diversion to keep the leftywhore media amused.
It is time to stop this birtherism right now. All the candidates, announced and unannounced are qualified to be potential presidents. Even Ted Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, to an AMERICAN mother is qualified under the constitution and subsequent laws.
You know, there are actual and real issues that all candidates should be vetted on. Too many to list here. But where they were born and if they are "natural-born citizens" or not are not one of them.

Is The GOP FINALLY Getting It?

Well, nothing makes a political party think more than losing a winnable presidential election than, well losing.
Sure, the Republican party did gain ground in governor races in 2012.
And expanded on their majority of state legislatures.
But, as mentioned, they lost the presidential race. They lost winnable senate seats and thus are in the minority. And they did lose eight seats in the House of Representatives.
So this week, the Republican National Committee is meeting and judging by what the leadership of the party is suggesting, it is time not just to come up with a new playbook, but a new way of reaching beyond the reliable Republican voter.
While the party reelected the chair, Reince Priebus (what sick parents would actually name their child REINCE?!), some conservatives will grumble that under his leadership, the party did not take back the White House as many expected in 2012.
I will defend Mr. Priebus in this respect.
Once Mitt Romney won the nomination, he pretty much assimilated his team with the RNC. In reality, Mr. Priebus was but a face and more figurehead while Team Romney ended up on a crash and burn.
Now let us see if he can actually lead the party on his own.
It appears that he is on the right track.
Michael Walsh over at National Review Online highlights this from the RNC chair:

"It’s time to stop looking at elections through the lens of “battleground states.” We have four years till the next presidential election, and being a “blue state” is NOT a permanent diagnosis.
Simple “outreach” a few months before an election will not suffice. In fact, let’s stop talking about “reaching out”—and start working on welcoming in. Political support is cultivated over time—not collected on Election Day."

BANG!
Mr. P is totally spot on!
And Mr. Walsh goes on to state the obvious.
That the RNC basically writes off states and whole regions now before an national election even begins.
The Great Litany of states the Republicans did not even bother with:

California
Oregon
Washington
The three above states make up the Pacific Coast.

Illinois
That is one Midwest state the GOP seems to give a big fat "Meh" to in every election since Reagan.

Connecticut
Massachusetts
Maine
Rhode Island
Vermont
And there is most of New England save for New Hampshire which is becoming hard to figure out.

New York
New Jersey
Delaware
Maryland
The mid-Atlantic region. The GOP only plays for Pennsylvania and Virginia is not totally Blue just yet.

And my friends, the Republican party starts off a presidential election about 204 electoral seats that they simply give to the Democrats because they have decided most of these states are lost for the foreseeable future.
Why?
Mr. Walsh blames the permanent consultant class that many in the GOP think are Gods. And his big bugaboo is one Karl Rove.
And I do think that he is on to something there.
Yes, there are some states that maybe the GOP can't win now. But if the party stays at least competitive and builds up from the areas of a said state kind of out of the GOP orbit. Really, there is no reason for the Republican party to not be more competitive in California. Look at the map from the just concluded 2012 presidential death march, er election. There is a lot of Red in there. Imagine if the Cali GOP had the money and or resources to compete in San Bernardino county? San Diego county? And yes, even in my dreaded county, Los Angeles? Maybe Mr. Romney would have racked up better numbers here in Los Angeles county. Maybe he could have got as much as 40%. And maybe he would have won San Bernardino and San Diego counties. Had larger margins in Orange and Riverside counties.
It is doable.
But, here is a reality.
We know that the only time Republicans come to California, they leave with a boatload of cash and that is all. And many, many Republicans that I know personally shrug their shoulders and say that their vote does not matter because the Democrat will win. It is a self-suppression of voting. And I am certain that is how Republicans feel in many of the aforementioned states above.
That has to stop.
That is why we must hold Mr. P accountable that he is going to go balls-to-the-wall to fight in every single state, every single possible race and fight using the same successful tools that the Democrats used to win. And even the liberal daily Holy Bible, The New York Times, is noticing what the GOP is about to embark on.
And Ace over at the Ace Of Spades explains it right here. That yes, there are Republicans behind enemy lines. It is just that they have to be courted and looong before presidential election day if there is to be any chance of building up and getting said voters motivated and voting.
And this does dove tail nicely to this very interesting and worthwhile article by Aaron Renn for New Geography. Mr. Renn makes a good case why Republicans need to begin to look at, and yes, retake the cities. I think there are some good ideas, but Mr. Renn is setting up the conversation, not saying it is his way or the highway.
Remember that it was not a lifetime ago but the mid 1990s when Republicans mayors were leading in Los Angeles (Richard Riordan) and New York City (Rudy Giuliani). Now they are as Mr Renn wrote, Democrat cesspools with no end to the corruption in sight.
And the best is for last as Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal, makes the case that it is time to stop worrying so much about Washington D. C., political cesspool central, and worry about getting the conservative, Republican message to the masses.
Here are some remarks from Gov. Jindal made to the RNC meeting in Charlotte, North Carolina:

“We do not need to change what we believe as conservatives – our principles are timeless. But we do need to re-orient our focus to the place where conservatism thrives: in the real world beyond the Washington Beltway.
“Today’s conservatism is completely wrapped up in solving the hideous mess that is the federal budget, the burgeoning deficits, the mammoth federal debt, the shortfall in our entitlement programs. We seem to have an obsession with government bookkeeping. This is a rigged game, and it is the wrong game for us to play."
“The Republican Party must become the party of growth, the party of a prosperous future that is based in our economic growth and opportunity that is based in every community in this great country and that is not based in Washington, D.C.."

I could not agree more with Gov. Jindal.
It will be up to people like Gov. Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina, the new governor of North Carolina, Pat McCrory, people like that to take common sense conservatism to the people. They have to go over the heads of the Obamawhore media. They have to show Blue America why common sense conservatism works.
I think that finally, the Republican party is waking up and realizing that shrinking the field is not a way to win elections and thus not a way to govern this nation.
Hope is on the way.

Some More Post Election Thoughts

OK, can't seem to get enough of this self-flagellation over the presidential election a week ago Tuesday.
I mean, how else are we going to learn how Mitt Romney lost to Barack Obama, right?
Well, maybe this is another reason.
OK, on the surface, Mr. Romney is kind of right. But I think that is what politicians do, right? Especially Democrat pols. It is in the Democrat DNA.
But it was the tone and yes, bitterness, that Mr. Romney made the comment. That was surprising and tone deaf to a huge reason for his defeat.
That no matter how much he tried, he could not help that he was a wealthy, White male running against the United States' first Black president.
And he does not have to deliver any more red meat to the Republican activists. Nor give any more fodder to the American left.
Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal was correct to refute Mr. Romney and to state something that should be obvious.
That Republicans have to fight for 100% of votes in elections.
And that is what has ailed in reality both political parties, but especially the Republicans, in the last several election cycles.
So, who is ready for some wit and wisdom from The Architect, Karl Rove?
Well, this piece in The Wall Street Journal was actually very good.
And while he did make a buffoon of himself on election night, he offers some good advice for future campaigns.
This one caught my eye:

Republicans should also emulate the Democratic "50-state" strategy by strengthening the ground game everywhere, not just in swing states.

YES!
The Architect is correct.
Folks, the Republican party can not keep writing off states before campaigns begin. Sure, I don't think that Republicans can win in California or New York in the very immediate future. But it is possible that by the next presidential election, there is something in place that will make candidates actually come to those states. And that will excite Republican voters and get them out into the hustings to dig up some votes. After all, how are state parties supposed to get more than 38% of the vote in California? Or 36% in New York state? Maybe 40% in New Jersey? You get the picture.
There are a lot of nuts-and-bolts points that he made that are also good.
But what about the most obvious?
That since one Ronald Wilson Reagan, the Republican party has nominated moderate after moderate and lost almost every election since 1988.
It was not lost on RD Brewer over at the Ace of Spades. It was he who made the salient point.
The history is pretty bitter for the most part except for the two election wins by George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004.
In 1992, not long after George H. W. Bush caved on the infamous 1988 pledge to not raise taxes, his campaign was not even on autopilot. It was in total disarray. Pat Buchanan ran in the primaries and made some serious damage. And yup, I contributed to that damage by voting for Mr. Buchanan in the 1992 Cali GOP primary. And with the unwitting help of Ross Perot, we got Bill Clinton.
But if once was not enough, and the Republicans not exactly helping themselves, Sen. Bob Dole, a good man, was nominated and went on to defeat. Again, he could not really explain why he should be president and how a Dole presidency would be different from Mr. Clinton's.
By 2000, the Bush name was transferred in part to the oldest son, George W. Bush. A successful governor in Texas, he decided to run for president. He ran as a conservative reformer. he wanted to bring that to Washington. And after a brutal election campaign and the Electoral College debacle, Mr. Bush did eventually win the election. And in 2004 much the way one Barack Hussein Obama ran in 2012,  Mr. Bush did win reelection with similar if not eerie numbers as the current occupant of the White House.
But by 2008 and no anointed successor, the Republicans had an all-out war and the Vietnam vet and Arizona Solon, John "F--- You" McCain won the nomination and became the loser against the Dear Leader, President Obama.
And we all know the story of the just concluded campaign.
Mr. Brewer notes that not one of these candidates was as articulate or governed as conservatively as did Mr. Reagan.
And as Mr. Brewer notes, it is the elephant in the room.
But I think a good start is being made by Gov. Jindal of Louisiana.
After all, he is the governor of a Southern state that has long been, well I don't quite know how to say it nicely, a backwater and Democrat corruption factory.
And Gov. Jindal has been a strong reformer. And he won reelection by a staggering 66% of the vote in 2011.
And he does not run for a third term, he would be able to make that run for president.
He is saying the right things and doing the right things.
Thus he should be looked at very seriously and now.
My ending thoughts.
Mitt Romney can not be bitter about this loss. He can not say that the Democrats just bought off the very voters that they needed in a cold manner.
Republicans need to rethink a lot of the nuts-and-bolts about campaigns.
We must nominate a candidate that can articulate conservative ideas and not alienate anyone. The way that Ronald Reagan did.
And, Bobby Jindal is on my shortlist for 2016.