Raul Labrador For Republican Majority Leader In The House

It appears that somebody in the Republican House of Representatives gets what happened this past Tuesday when the soon to be former House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor, was handily defeated in his Virginia primary election.
Two days ago, on Wednesday, Mr. Cantor announced that he would step down as majority leader on July 31 but stay in the house until the session ends later this year.
And this past Thursday, House Majority Whip, Kevin McCarthy (R-Ca.) announced that he would seek the now open position and a vote was scheduled for next Thursday, June 19.
A slew of conservative candidates that considered running for the post began to drop like files.
Some of that list, per National Journal, included Reps. Jeb Hensarling (R-Tx.), Jim Jordan (R-Oh.), Tom Price (R-Ga.) and Pete Sessions (R-Tx.) said no, not at this time. Maybe even one or more added that it wouldn't be prudent. And who really knows why they decided not to challenge Mr. McCarthy.
In comes second-term Rep. Raul Labrador (R-Id) to take the mantle to challenge Mr. McCarthy and by extension, Speaker of the House, John Boehner (R-Oh.)
And good for Mr. Labrador for making the move.
Radio talker Hugh Hewitt makes a great point about what it would mean if Mr. Labrador were in fact elected by members of the GOP caucus. For one, a fresh face. For two, someone that speaks Spanish and will not be afraid to show up in Spanish-language media. While Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fl.) is the leading Republican Hispanic, there is always room for more. I have watched and listened to Mr. Labrador and he is very articulate and a solid conservative. And yes, he has done a much better job explaining his view on immigration reform and its simple. No strong, verifiable border security, no go on everything else. In other words, Mr. Labrador follows the KISS rule. Keep It Simple Stupid.
Sometimes situations like this come once in a Blue Moon. A chance to do something bold, new and yes, different.
That is why I think Mr. Labrador is putting all Republican house members on notice. That they need to get a clue. That the buddy-buddy days yucking it up with the Wall Street and K Street crowd has to come to an end. That the Republican party needs to return to a party of not willy nilly making the federal government larger (but allegedly conservative). The fact is that while the GOP had the whole shooting match in Washington for much of the George W. Bush presidency, federal government spending (outside of defense spending) rose dramatically. The infamous No Child Left Behind only strengthened the federal government stranglehold on education. Now it is being furthered by the Common Core program.
Now, the GOP have paid in many ways a righteous price for this so-called "Compassionate conservatism".
A base that believes, as I do, conservatism is compassion. That it does not take more government spending to affect change in such things as the rise in homelessness, poverty and the stagnation of wages among the middle class. It does take a shift in priorities. And that is why a crack in those that are beneficiaries of the largess of Washington, be it Democrat constituencies or Republican ones, needs to occur.
That is one of the reasons I support Mr. Labrador's run for the House Majority Leader.
Because he will be one to begin to break the House leadership that is almost all Blue and or Purple state representatives.
To breakdown the current Republican House leadership and where they are from, here it is.

Speaker of the House                                John Boehner (Ohio-Purple state)
Majority Leader                                       Eric Cantor (Virginia-Purple state)
Majority Whip                                          Kevin McCarthy (California-Blue state)
Republican Conference Chair                  Cathy McMorris Rogers (Washington-Blue state)

Republican Policy Committee Chair         James Lankford (Oklahoma-Red state)

 

See, of the five Republicans in leadership, of the top four, two are from Purple, at best, states and two are from very Blue states. You have to go down to the fifth position, GOP policy chair to get to a Red state representative.

No one from Texas. No one from Florida. No one from the Mountain West.

In other words, there is no one from the Republican base in high leadership.

In contrast, the Democrats do a better job as in their top four, only one is from a Red state and the rest are from Blue states.

Why does this make a difference?
Well, Mr. Labrador is from Idaho, probably the second most Republican state in the nation after Utah. He has served in the state legislature and his best accomplishment was fighting against raising the state gasoline tax. Already he has anti-tax bonifides.

In 2010, he defeated a military veteran, Vaughn Ward, in the GOP primary for the First District. And the seat was held by Democrat Walt Minnick at the time. Not easy for a Democrat to win anything in Idaho let alone a congressional seat. After Mr. Labrador dispatched Mr. Ward, he went on to ride the Tea Party wave and defeated Mr. Minnick by 10 points, 51%-41%. In his second run for the seat, Mr. Labrador defeated Democrat Jimmy Farris handily, 63%-31%.

Although only in his second term there is potential baggage for Mr. Labrador that no doubt the GOP congressional establishment types will point out.

Yes, Mr. Labrador was a part of the so-called Gang of Eight seeking to enact so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform. Like Florida senator Marco Rubio, Mr. Labrador dropped out when he realized that any border security was an afterthought and not any real priority of the "reform".

And yes, Mr. Labrador did vote for the controversial 2014 Farm Bill. That legislation for some hard-liners is almost right up there with support for "comprehensive" immigration reform with no conditions. It was a bad bill that was going to pass no matter what and Mr. Labrador's vote turned out to be inconsequential.

Sometimes, one has to pick and choose the battles to fight wisely.

And that is Mr. Labrador has done.

FTR, Mr. Labrador has a lifetime American Conservative Union rating of 97%, which is more conservative than his Idaho GOP congressional ally, Mike Simpson who has a 92% rating. And in the Heritage Action score card, Mr. Labrador scores strong there as well with a 77% rating. Again, his fellow state colleague, Mr. Simpson, had an abysmal 46% rating. Whats more, Mr. Labrador is in a less Republican district than Mr. Simpson.

Most important as I have noted, Mr. Labrador is not in congress long enough to be corrupted by the business as usual in congress that infects both parties. And at 46, he is actually part of the next generation of Republicans.

I want to be clear that I have no animus against Mr. McCarthy. As a fellow Californian, yes a part of me does want to see him move up the ladder of leadership. And from all that I have heard or read about Mr. McCarthy, he is a good guy that has really built relationships with fellow House Republicans.

But now is not the time for a safe choice in a leadership vacuum.

It is time for something bold and different. Let's face it, Mr. Boehner will leave leadership at some point. Mr. McCarthy would still be of great value as the Republican Whip. Mr. Labdrador will bring a more aggressive approach to be sure but not reckless. Again, he knows how to pick and choose the battles worth dying on a hill for.

It is with all of the above that this blogger joins all those who celebrate the challenge of Raul Labrador for GOP Majority Leader in the House. I urge people to let Republican members of congress know you want them to vote for Mr. Labdrador and not Mr. McCarthy. If you want to contact Republican congressmen to voice your thoughts, the Capitol switchboard phone number is 202-224-3121. You can also at the link put in your zip code for contact information. If you are represented by a Democrat, try to figure the closest Republican and give them a call direct.

Please note that the GOP establishment is already anointing Mr. McCarthy as the new majority leader. Note that this kind of arrogance is part of the reason Mr. Cantor will not be a part of the 114th congress.

Join me in supporting Raul Labrador for GOP House Majority Leader.

Yes, I Voted For Tim Donnelly For California Governor This Past Tuesday

Oh, I am now probably the only one to make this admission, but yes, I did vote for California assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) for the Republican nomination for governor.
Mr. Donnelly was well on his way to being the Republican standard-bearer this November against the current governor, Democrat Jerry Brown.
And had Mr. Donnelly won the GOP nomination, he would have lost, and lost badly.
The reason that Mr. Donnelly is not the GOP standard-bearer is summed up in two words.
Neel Kashkari.
Mr. Kashkari is not a household name in California politics. And really, neither is Mr. Donnelly. But Mr. Kashkari came in late to be the moderate great hope in wresting the nomination from the clutches of the strong conservative Mr. Donnelly.
Before I explain why I voted for Mr. Donnelly over Mr. Kashkari, let me explain why I could not vote for Mr. Kashkari now.
Mr. Kashkari, IMO, biggest problem is that he essentially was one of the leading figures in the Troubled Asset Relief Program, better known as TARP.
Why is TARP so bad?
Because it is essentially a bailout of big banks that got in trouble for primarily signing off on many, many bad loans essentially to people to buy homes. People that, regrettably, should not have been encouraged to buy a home in the first place. Because of this, the federal government bailed out big banks and forced some to merge with others.
Ever heard of Washington Mutual savings bank?
That was my bank when the crap hit the fan back in 2008. WAMU, as it was better known, was knee-deep in the mortgage problem. To cut to the chase, WAMU filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and the feds made a marriage of sorts by merging their assets with JP Morgan Chase bank. WAMU is no more and I am now a customer of Chase.
And to top off his helping craft the TARP scheme, Mr. Kashkari also supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, also known as EESA. That is essentially companion legislation to TARP.
Bottom line is this.
Mr. Kashkari believed that the federal government had to save the American banking industry.
I, and many conservative and Republicans did not. I should point out that even some Democrats were not supportive of the legislation.
Yet in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, Mr. Kashkari said that he was a "free-market Republican."
Really?
A free-market Republican would never have done what Mr. Kashkari did to be the power behind the largest government bailout ever. A free-market Republican, note he did not say conservative, would have let the chips fall where they may. Yes, the economy would take a large hit. But new banks would have emerged from the damage that at a level they themselves created.
So, I find Mr. Kashkari would not have a problem using big government to obtain a certain outcome. Something that a conservative Republican would not.
Yes, Mr. Kashkari is very much a "libertarian" on the left's two favorite social issues.
Mr. Kashkari supports same-sex marriage and abortion.
And just to infuriate people like myself, Mr. Kashkari also so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Where have I heard this before? Where, oh where?
Ahh, that would be the former governor of the once Golden State, one "Republican" Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
My problems with Mr. Kashkari is that he is essentially another Gov. Benedict Arnold and would not be all that different from the current occupant of the governor's office, Gov. Brown.
So, why would I vote for Mr. Donnelly, a certain loser in November?
Some of it is that he is the devil I know.
Basically, Mr. Donnelly is a one-issue kind of legislator. And the issue that he is heavily involved in is illegal immigration.
Mr. Donnelly cut his teeth in the so-called Minuteman movement of the mid-2000s. They were citizen volunteer patrols along the United States-Mexico border. They were controversial because some members bordered on being outright racists. But most who were members and or supporters are not racists. They are concerned about the problem of illegal immigration and the then George W. Bush administration lack of control on the Southern border.
Regrettably, they have been right all the way along about the damage illegal immigration has done especially along the border states of California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
Mr. Donnelly rode his credentials and took on an embattled Republican assemblyman, Anthony Adams, and defeated him in the last closed party primary in 2010 and won election to the assembly with 57% of the vote. Mr. Donnelly won reelection in 2012 as well.
On most issues, Mr. Donnelly is standard conservative. For lower taxes, less government regulation. Against same-sex marriage and abortion on demand and so-called "comprehensive" immigration reform.
Part of why in the end I daubed the ink blot on Mr. Donnelly's name on the ballot is that I find him to be a fighter. somebody that does have a set of beliefs about government and it's proper role in society. Someone not afraid to take on Democrats as well as even some fellow Republicans.
Mr. Donnelly also showed how a shoe-string campaign can be done and almost successful.
Here is a big difference between the two men.
Mr. Donnelly announced that he was seeking the GOP nomination on January 22, 2013. Mr. Kashkari announced his intentions on January 21, 2014, almost a full year later. Mr. Donnelly was busy trying to get support from all over California and of course among Republican rank-and-file voters and the activists that any candidate needs to work for the eventual candidate. Mr. Donnelly used the internet to promote his candidacy and this internet ad gave a lot of publicity for his campaign:

OK, maybe citing Mrs. Donnelly as the sexist girl in California may have been over the top in the polite circles of politics, but the point is, Mr. Donnelly got a lot of free publicity.
Mr. Donnelly was racking up endorsements from many county GOP committees, including the Los Angeles county party.
But, in a telling sign, the California Republican party convention in March did not endorse either Mr. Donnelly or Mr. Kashkari. In the past election in 2012, the state GOP endorsed candidates in the first "open primary" since passage of an innitive in 2010 that ended closed party primaries.
Mr. Donnelly was doing very old-school retail politics the best he could on limited funds and not gaining a lot once Mr. Kashkari entered the race in January.
Mr. Kashkari, again IMHO, came in late because the establishment could not bear the thought of losing to Gov. Brown by 30 points. I mean, even the guru himself, Karl Rove, made the lamest "endorsement" of Mr. Kashkari with this awe-inspiring quote:

"If the Republicans have to pick someone to lose to Jerry Brown, they’d be stupid not to pick Kashkari."


To people like Mr. Rove and his ilk, we California Republicans should lose, but gracefully, to Gov. Brown.
And yes, almost all of Mr. Kashkari's endorsements were from the usual establishment types such as Mitt Romney, Jeb Bush, et al. But, congressman Darrel Issa, a strong conservative, endorsed Mr. Kashkari late enough in the game that probably helped him and made some fence-sitting potential Donnelly voters to switch and vote for the moderate Mr. Kashkari.
In the end, Mr. Kashkari did win the California Republican gubernatorial nomination in the open primary by finishing with 20% of the vote over Mr. Donnelly's 15%. That is good enough for second place in the open primary and he earned the right to fight with Gov. Brown in November.
That does not sound like much but if you limit the vote both men had among those who voted for a Republican candidate, both have decent numbers.
As of this writing, 1,467,947 voted Republican in the open primary. In and of itself it is a good number as not many more voted Democrat in the open primary. Of that number, Mr. Kashkari got 48% of the vote and Mr. Donnelly got 37%. The remaining 15% was scattered among four other candidates including a convicted sex-offender. That is another post in and of itself.
While I will end up voting for Mr. Kashkari in November, there could be some hard feelings that he needs to heal before then especially among conservatives and Donnelly supporters.
Look, I would vote for either of my two dogs over Gov. Brown. While I may not be Mr. Kashkari's most important backer, he will be a marginal improvement over Gov. Brown.
But I was able to vote for Tim Donnelly in the primary this past Tuesday because I do believe that the conservative wing of the party deserves to be heard and I helped that cause.