Tea Party – Law Street https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com Law and Policy for Our Generation Wed, 13 Nov 2019 21:46:22 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.8 100397344 Republicans in Disarray After Kevin McCarthy Leaves Speaker Race https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/republicans-disarray-mccarthy-leaves-speaker-race/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/republicans-disarray-mccarthy-leaves-speaker-race/#respond Thu, 08 Oct 2015 21:14:41 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.com/?p=48524

Is the Republican Party out of control?

The post Republicans in Disarray After Kevin McCarthy Leaves Speaker Race appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
Image courtesy of [Phil Roeder via Flickr]

Representative Kevin McCarthy just abruptly announced that he will no longer be seeking the Speaker of the House position. McCarthy, the current House majority leader, was the clear frontrunner for outgoing Speaker John Boehner’s seat. The election for the speakership, which was scheduled for the end of the month, will now be postponed to a later date. McCarthy’s decision surprised nearly everyone, most notably the Republican leadership who was prepared to back him.

While it is currently unclear exactly why McCarthy decided to stop pursuing the speakership, several recent events may have shaped his decision. McCarthy recently faced a lot of scrutiny after his comments on the Select Committee on Benghazi implied that Republicans used their investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for political gain. In an interview with Fox News, McCarthy said,

Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen.

That comment was perceived by many to imply that the ongoing investigation into Clinton’s response to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya has been used to damage the public’s perception of Clinton–and that those efforts were yielding results. McCarthy later said that his words were misunderstood and defended the integrity of the Benghazi Committee.

Despite these efforts, his original comments have already had important consequences. Hillary Clinton began using what he said in campaign ads and House Democrats initiated an all-out campaign to end the Benghazi Committee based on McCarthy’s gaffe.

But what is arguably the most significant factor at play is the emerging control that the conservative Freedom Caucus is exhibiting over the rest of the Republican Party. In recent years, there have been several signs of the emerging disagreement between the establishment wing of the Republican Party and the more conservative Tea Party wing, but the emerging leadership crisis is particularly significant. Past examples of this include recent budget fights–like the government shutdown over Obamacare in 2013–and the battle over the Department of Homeland Security’s funding, which was due to conservatives’ intense disagreement with the President’s executive action on immigration.

One of the reasons why John Boehner resigned from his position as Speaker was the challenge that the Tea Party created for him and the rest of the Party leadership. This was made clear when North Carolina Representative Mark Medows, filed a “motion to vacate the chair” in July, which in effect was an attempt to fire Boehner as speaker. Although the motion didn’t make it to the House floor–Boehner had to seek out Democratic support to prevent a vote–the message was clear. He eventually stepped down as means to help keep the Republicans together, but the factions within the party remain pronounced.

Although McCarthy was a pretty clear frontrunner for Speaker, he did have challengers. Representative Jason Chaffetz from Utah announced his intention to run for the speakership last week, and the Freedom Caucus recently endorsed Representative Daniel Webster from Florida. The Freedom Caucus, which has about 30 members, has enough influence to render the Speaker election particularly challenging. Once it comes to a vote, the incoming Speaker will need at least 218 votes to secure the position. There are currently 247 House Republicans, which means that if the caucus votes together, a candidate would need to get support from some Democrats to win the election.

While it is unlikely that McCarthy’s decision was because he didn’t think he would win the speakership, it does highlight the influence of Republican infighting on the Speaker election. Sources close to McCarthy told Vox,

It certainly wasn’t about getting the votes. That could’ve happened. However, he’s not going to be repeatedly attacked by 40 members of our conference. Nothing will ever be good enough for them, and Kevin doesn’t want to put his family through that and he doesn’t want to put the 200-plus other members through that.

Regardless of whether McCarthy thought he could win the election, he knew that without the explicit support of the Party’s conservative wing the speaker’s role would be extremely challenging. Republicans will now need to find a leader that can unite the establishment and conservative wings of the party, which will certainly be a tall order.

Kevin Rizzo
Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Republicans in Disarray After Kevin McCarthy Leaves Speaker Race appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/republicans-disarray-mccarthy-leaves-speaker-race/feed/ 0 48524
I’m a Libertarian, and You Just Might Be Too https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/libertarian-means/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/libertarian-means/#comments Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:30:53 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=29375

Like with any party, being a Libertarian doesn't mean just one thing.

The post I’m a Libertarian, and You Just Might Be Too appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
[Featured Image courtesy of Kelsey Kennedy]

I am a Libertarian.

Well, I think I’m a Libertarian, and I believe that this is in the same sense that I used to think I was a feminist. (I am definitely a feminist.) But everyone’s idea of what being a Libertarian actually means is still evolving.

The other day, I made this confession of politics to my roommate who is very much a Democrat. (My other roommate is a self-proclaimed Communist–it’s a very interesting household.) He responded, “Oh, so you’re one of those people who doesn’t give a shit what anybody does as long as it doesn’t affect you?” We laughed because he was joking, but it did make me think.

I’ve heard people use the word Libertarian as a replacement for Tea Party (um, no) and in association with Ron Paul (um, yes!). That’s pretty much it for references in daily life, other than the stray notion during the 2012 election that there was this mysterious third party on the fringes of society that could maybe be something someday but probably not because two-party system AM I RIGHT?

So let’s have a chat about what this term really means.

And I’ll go ahead and place my disclaimer here: I’m still learning about Libertarianism (as I think the vast majority of society is). Just as there are nuances for Republicans and Democrats (yes there are), what I think about this party won’t align perfectly with every party member.

Wanting this to be more than what the party means to me, I started where everyone seems to start in 2014–a quick Google search. The first result was the party website. Okay, I thought, this is an excellent sign. If they didn’t have a website, I might have to rethink some things.

The first thing I saw on the website was the party slogan (who knew?), which is “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom.” Even though these are my beliefs in a grossly oversimplified form, I still started to panic. Is this crazy? Is this a viable point of view? Then, I panicked a little more when I saw the link to a quick political quiz, which asked, “Are you a Libertarian?I… I don’t know anymore. Am I? Is my whole system of belief a sham? (I imagined the website asking me in an intimidating, booming voice. I don’t know why.)

Well, I took the quiz and easily landed in the little Libertarian sector. My results didn’t show perfect 100 percent Libertarianism, but that wasn’t what I was expecting. (Side note: The quiz is literally ten questions, I highly recommend it just because it’s interesting.)

Having reaffirmed my party choice, I started to explore its values. First, let’s revisit the slogan. While to me “Minimum Government, Maximum Freedom” sounds heavy-handed, “We Should Reduce the Size of Government so Citizens can Have the Utmost Freedom and Control Over Their Own Lives Except When They Need to be Protected from Unjust Harm” just doesn’t have the same snappy ring to it. I would consider “Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative” a strong contender, but it’s probably a bad idea to create a party identity that relies on other parties’ definitions.

Then they have this excellent little table that shows the differences between Libertarians, Democrats, and Republicans; however, it’s a little smart-ass-y and doesn’t go into further details, so I’ll explain a few of these that I think exemplify key Libertarian traits.

On education: “Return control to parents, teachers, and local communities.” Essentially, Libertarians believe education shouldn’t be standardized (or, in my belief, as standardized) so a teacher can find what works for his or her classroom. In addition, not all teaching responsibility should be laid on the school system, as learning starts at home. I realize that one can’t count on all parents to value their child’s education (which is a sentence that makes my heart sad), but right now we’re talking about party ideals, not the complexities of execution.

On the war on drugs: “End it! Release non-violent prisoners. Allow medical cannabis.” Why are we spending taxpayer dollars incarcerating someone who wanted to smoke a little weed? Plus, there’s a grievous sentencing disparity in drug-related crimes. Ignoring the racial aspect of drug arrests (because that’s a whole other blog post), punishment for drug offenses is often just plain excessive. As of January of this year, at least 25 people were serving or had served life in prison for selling pot–and not all were at the top of distribution, either. Life. In. Prison. For a nonviolent crime. While rapists and murderers get released. Let me tell you, I would much rather have someone try to sell me drugs than rape or murder me. And that goes for my hypothetical children, too (since the default argument is always “think of the children”). In addition, if medical marijuana can ease a patient’s discomfort (especially in terminal or very series cases), why would we say no? All pharmaceutical drugs used to treat patients come with risks, too. Quite frankly, I’m a little surprised the chart doesn’t just say legalize marijuana use, but maybe that’s still just a little too radical to put on an entire party’s platform.

On military spending: “Reduce spending dramatically. Defense, not offense.” It’s worth noting that these idealistic cuts in military spending come with cuts pretty much across the board. Libertarians aren’t antimilitary, they just aren’t imperialists. Let’s stay out of other countries unless invited or needed to ensure our own welfare. I agree this gets tricky when atrocities are happening abroad, and I’m all for lending a helping hand in theory, but it’s also not quite kosher to storm another country in the name of help at the cost of hundreds or thousands of lives that get caught in the crossfire.

On taxes: “End the income tax. Abolish the IRS. Never raise taxes.” I realize a good portion of readers just rolled their eyes, and I get it, I really do. I’m not sure if we could ever even get to a point where the IRS could be abolished. But I do firmly believe that our tax system is broken, quite possibly beyond repair. And I think if we can’t end the income tax, it should at least be drastically reduced. I would be a lot more comfortable giving my money to the government if they could manage it responsibly, but they just haven’t proven that yet.

This was a central idea Ron Paul expressed when he came to my alma mater, the University of Missouri — Columbia. I wish I could quote him directly, but it was in 2012. Although this was a nearly spiritual experience for me because it was the first time I heard a politician speak and my views aligned accordingly, I can’t quote the Bible, either. However, Ron Paul did a great interview with Charlie Rose in which he defines Libertarianism as nonintervention.

Note: During the video they make the association with the Tea Party again. I still deny this. Maybe there’s something I don’t get about the Tea Party, but these are still two distinctive groups as I understand them. Maybe the Tea Party is the more socially conservative cousin of Libertarianism?

Now, just because I love Ron Paul doesn’t mean I agree with 100 percent of what he says, but I thought this video contained a lot of really good explanatory moments, as well as a few that would need to be elaborated on or revised completely.

I would say one of the biggest concerns about Libertarianism is that it is idealistic. In an ideal world, people wouldn’t need to be policed. But we don’t live there, and I get that. That’s where compromise comes in. I am all for having some standards in education, and I think even if it’s a personal choice to do meth, there are a lot of social, environmental, and safety risks to its production and use. To me, the point of Libertarianism is pushing the government out of where they aren’t needed and reforming the areas where the government is needed to heal a broken system. Stop creating laws to repeal laws–just abolish the unnecessary or archaic ones. Simplify taxes to where an average human can understand them. Don’t tell a group of people they can’t get married so you don’t have to justify your values to your children.

Maybe this third party is just a way for me to rebel against an infuriating system, but maybe the system as it stands is something worth rebelling against.

Kelsey Kennedy
Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post I’m a Libertarian, and You Just Might Be Too appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/libertarian-means/feed/ 6 29375
Kansas’ Topsy-Turvy Election Year https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/kansas-topsy-turvy-election-year/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/kansas-topsy-turvy-election-year/#respond Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:25:41 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=24007

If you're looking for a weird political race to follow during the 2014 elections, I have a suggestion for you: Kansas. There are actually multiple weird political races to watch there, so get ready to keep your eyes focused on the Sunflower State come November.

The post Kansas’ Topsy-Turvy Election Year appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

If you’re looking for a weird political race to follow during the 2014 elections, I have a suggestion for you: Kansas. There are actually multiple weird political races to watch there, so get ready to keep your eyes focused on the Sunflower State come November.

It’s important to point out that Kansas is a solidly red state. So red in fact, that until fairly recently, it was pretty much assumed that a Republican was going to win both the gubernatorial and senatorial races. Let’s face it, the last Democratic Senator from Kansas was a man named George McGill, who stopped serving in 1939. But the assumed Republican domination isn’t looking so certain now.

Let’s start with the current Senate race, because there’s been a lot of news there in the last 24 hours. Up to this point in the race there have been three candidates: current Republican Senator Pat Roberts, Democratic challenger Chad Taylor, and Independent Greg Orman. Pat Roberts is pretty conservative — socially, economically, and diplomatically. He’s also not that popular. He’s been a Senator from Kansas for three terms now, and has been accused of being out of touch with the average voter. He doesn’t even have a residence in the state anymore. He narrowly defeated a primary challenge from a tea partier named Milton Wolf, and after that primary he had an approval rating of 27 percent. He also hasn’t been running a very good campaign, probably because he’s never really needed to before. In 2008, he beat his Democratic challenger by more than 20 points; in 2002 he had no Democrat challenger and won with 82 percent of the vote. Through his three terms in the Senate, and three in the House of Representatives, he’s never won an election by less than 60 percent.

But now, things are getting weird. Taylor has been faring surprisingly well. The real standout start though, is Orman. He’s a good candidate — moderate, pro-business, and he’s been running a solid campaign. He has a real shot to win this race. Taylor even announced yesterday that he was stepping down, which watchers assumed would up Orman’s chances even more, given that Democratic voters are way more likely to rally around him than Roberts.

Complicated and weird enough for you, yet? Well I hope not, because there’s more fun ahead. The Republican Secretary of State Kris Kobach has said that Taylor can’t remove himself from the ballot. He claimed that after reviewing Taylor’s request, his team had not found “sufficient evidence” to show that Taylor would be incapable of serving the duties of the office. This is good news for Roberts — now the liberal vote will remain split between Taylor and Orman.

So, the Democrats are suing the Republicans to get the Democrat off the ballot in order to give the Independent candidate a good chance. Yes, it’s as complicated as it sounds. And that right there is the state of politics in Kansas right now.

In comparison, Kansas’s weird gubernatorial race seems almost calm. Here’s a great in-depth look into what’s happening, but long story short, a Democrat named Paul Davis is doing pretty well against Tea Party-backed uber-conservative Sam Brownback. He’s wildly unpopular, and Davis is capitalizing on the Republican split between Tea Party and establishment. He’s received the endorsement of many prominent Republicans in the state who don’t want to see Brownback receive another term and damage the Republican reputation even more.

Only one thing is certain: Kansas will definitely be fun to watch this November.

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Sean Ganann via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney
Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kansas’ Topsy-Turvy Election Year appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/kansas-topsy-turvy-election-year/feed/ 0 24007
How to Fix the House of Representatives https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/fix-house-representatives/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/fix-house-representatives/#comments Mon, 28 Jul 2014 14:49:41 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=21301

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation's government--the House of Representatives doesn't actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) published an op-ed in the New York Times last week that points out a major problem with our nation’s government–the House of Representatives doesn’t actually represent the American people. Schumer is right, and our electoral system deserves much of the blame.

As Schumer mentioned in his piece, roughly a third of Americans are right-leaning conservatives, a third are left-leaning liberals, and a third are independents with moderate views. Schumer explained that because voter turnout is so low in primaries, the extreme ends of both parties or, the “third of a third” decide who wins in primary elections. The Tea Party is a prime example of this idea in practice. Roughly 10 percent of Americans identify themselves as Tea Partiers, so if the House of Representatives was truly representative, the Tea Party would have 10 percent of the seats. But because they are way more active in elections than more moderate Republicans, 144 of 435 current congressman, or 33.1 percent, support the Tea Party. It would be easy to just blame this problem on those who don’t vote. Unfortunately, the problem is much more complex than that. According to his op-ed, Sen. Schumer’s proposal to reform our primary system is to institute a “top-two” primary. In this system, all candidates run in one primary and all voters vote, regardless of party. The top two candidates then enter a run-off, or general election. This means that you may have a general election with two Democrats, or two Republicans, but no matter what, they will represent the district’s two favorite choices. However, this reform may not be enough.

The roots of the problem stem from gerrymandering and our first-past-the-post, single member congressional districts. Let’s start with the problem of the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system. Imagine a state that votes roughly 70 percent Democrat and 30 percent Republican. Under any definition of fair, roughly 70 percent of the state’s representatives should be Democrats and 30 percent Republicans. But this hardly ever happens. For example, I used an approximation of Massachusetts’s party breakdown for the description above, yet Democrats hold all nine of its congressional seats. Thirty percent of Massachusetts is not represented in Congress. This occurs because our congressional districts have only one member and are elected by FPTP, meaning the first candidate to break the 50 percent barrier wins the one seat and all those who voted for the loser are not represented.

Because the 30 percent of voters who are Republican are not concentrated in any one congressional district enough to break the 50 percent barrier, they have no representation. This may have been aided by gerrymandering–the process of drawing districts to favor a political party. But even without gerrymandering, Republicans in Massachusetts would be lucky if they won one or two seats. Where gerrymandering really amplifies the problem is when it creates completely uncompetitive districts, meaning one party is all but guaranteed to win it. This makes the primary election much more important than the general election. This brings us back to the issue raised by Sen. Schumer–the more extreme candidate often wins these primary elections, and then succeeds in an unchallenged general election. This allows the extreme 10 percent of voters to decide who represents the whole district. This is how our House of Representatives has become so polarized, and a terrible representation of the views of many Americans.

So, what is the solution to this giant mess? Unfortunately, Schumer’s solution has not been proven to work in the states that have already implemented it. This problem requires a more drastic solution, something called proportional representation. A detailed plan for a proportional representation system is described by the organization FairVote, but I will give you a simple version. Under this new hypothetical plan, there would no longer be single member congressional districts, but larger districts that would have either three or five representatives. The representatives would be elected using ranked choice voting, a method in which voters rank their favorite candidates. How exactly this would work is described here. But essentially, in these three or five seat districts, the minority party would have the chance for its voice to be heard. In a five-seat district, where exactly 60 percent of voters are Democrat and 40 percent are Republican, three seats will go to the Democratic Party and two to the Republicans. See the infographic below to see how this plan would impact a state with a party breakdown similar to Massachusetts.

Proportional representation is a system that distributes seats in a much fairer way than FPTP does. It will get moderates back in Congress and increase voter turnout, because voters will feel like they can actually elect someone who represents them. It will fix the House of Representatives by making its name match its definition–the House will finally represent the American people.

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [PBS NewsHour via Flickr]

Editor’s note: The author of this piece previously interned at FairVote.

Matt DeWilde
Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How to Fix the House of Representatives appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/fix-house-representatives/feed/ 1 21301
Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/moderates-rebel-tea-party-kansas/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/moderates-rebel-tea-party-kansas/#comments Thu, 17 Jul 2014 20:08:32 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=20792

“We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” That must be what Kansas Governor Brownback is thinking right now, after over 100 Republicans defected and offered their support to his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis. The defectors are mainly moderate Republicans that have been bullied by Brownback and the Tea Party movement and are now striking back.

The post Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

“We aren’t in Kansas anymore.” That must be what Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback is thinking right now, after over 100 Republicans defected and offered their support to his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis. The defectors are mainly moderate Republicans that have been bullied by Brownback and the Tea Party movement. This major political defection is their way of striking back. In the continuing war between the Tea Party and the Republican establishment, this sends a powerful message–a centrist Democrat is closer to moderate Republican values than a Tea Partier is.

This defection comes partly as a form of political payback and partly from an actual belief that Paul Davis is the better choice for Kansas. Early in his governorship, Brownback led a charge to purge moderate Republicans from the state government. For example, Steve Morris, former president of the Kansas State Senate, was ousted by a primary challenger whose political beliefs fell further to the right. He has said that Brownback privately told him that he could have stopped the upset but chose not too, as Morris and Brownback often fought over policy. So it shouldn’t be surprising that Morris is now supporting Davis. In a recent interview, in reference to Brownback, Davis commented, “he essentially declared war with moderate Republicans during the last State Senate election. Many moderate Republicans saw that, and they are coming to support my campaign.”

Many of the other 100-odd defectors, including state legislators, mayors, and delegates to the Republican National Convention, broke from Brownback for ideological reasons. The list of reasons why is long, with many focusing on the consequences of Brownback’s extreme tax cuts. The tax cuts have caused an increase in deficit spending, massive cuts in education spending, a depletion of Kansas’s highway funds, and have offered none of the promised job creation. Other reasons for the defection include Brownback offering judgeships as political prizes and pushing extremely socially conservative legislation.

Even before this defection, Brownback faced a challenging reelection bid. Nate Silver’s  prediction on fivethirtyeight.com gave Brownback only a 60 percent chance of winning based on polling data. Though still favored, 60 percent was a relatively small margin for a state as red Kansas. Now with this defection, I have to imagine his chances have shrunken significantly.

In many ways this election is not a Republican versus a Democrat, nor is it an election where voters have to decide between traditional Republican or Democratic values. It is an election where voters have to choose between Tea Party values or very centrist values; a continuation of the war between moderate Republicans and the Tea Party.  Davis is setting himself up to win by opposing Brownback on hot issues such as taxes and spending on schools and highways, but has taken a more conservative view on issues that could rile up Brownback’s base–the religious right. For instance, Davis has said he would leave Kansas’ very strict abortion laws in place. This election is now about moderate Republicans striking back at the Tea Party, not a Democrat challenging a Republican.

Brownback would probably deny the moderate legitimacy of his challenger, saying voters do not know who Davis is, and that he is just an Obama-style Democrat. Brownback has said that voters will have to choose between a Reagan approach or an Obama approach to government. What Brownback may be failing to realize is that moderate Republicans would never abandon someone who governed like Reagan, but they may not fall in line with someone who governs like a Tea Partier.

As much as I would love to think that this will become a trend and we would see moderate Republicans defect across the country, that is probably not going to happen. Kansas had a perfect storm of conditions that led to this rebellion. One is that Kansas has a particularly inept governor that went out of his way to exile moderates and pass much-maligned laws. Another is that there was a very centrist Democratic candidate that already had a chance to win. This was important because it gave the Republican defection substance; it was not merely symbolic. It is unlikely that this would happen under any other conditions–we really shouldn’t expect moderates from either party to defect anywhere else, anytime soon. Which is unfortunate, because our country sure could use movement towards the center of the political spectrum like we are seeing in Kansas.

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [mar is sea Y via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde
Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Moderates Rebel Against Tea Party in Kansas appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/moderates-rebel-tea-party-kansas/feed/ 1 20792
Sore Loser: McDaniel Challenges Weird Mississippi Primary Laws https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/chris-mcdaniel-blame-mississippis-primary-system-concede/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/chris-mcdaniel-blame-mississippis-primary-system-concede/#respond Wed, 25 Jun 2014 16:40:17 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=18739

Last night, in one of the most heated runoff elections in recent memory, Senator Thad Cochran narrowly defeated his Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, by 6,600 votes. This was a come-from-behind victory for Cochran and practically guarantees him a seventh term that many experts never thought he would see.

The post Sore Loser: McDaniel Challenges Weird Mississippi Primary Laws appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Update: August 5, 2014

Last night, in an incredibly heated runoff election, Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran narrowly defeated his Tea Party challenger, Chris McDaniel, by 6,600 votes. This was a come-from-behind victory for Cochran and practically guarantees him a seventh term that many never thought he would see. This is a win for Republican establishment figures, who are still reeling from the defeat of Eric Cantor just two weeks ago. Cochran’s victory will be finalized as soon as McDaniel decides to concede, but that could take a while given he is considering legal action.

In order to understand why a legal challenge may be fair here, it’s important to understand what exactly happened in the primary. McDaniel is upset because of the methods Cochran employed to win the race. Cochran knew he was trailing among the Republican voters, so he turned to Independents and Democrats for support. In Mississippi, that essentially meant appealing to the African American population. Cochran courted African American voters by playing up his credentials as a veteran senator who knows how to bring money into the state. At the same time, he showed them how he would be a better option overall than McDaniel. You can watch this video to see some African American voters explain their decision to support Cochran.

His strategy worked fantastically, with African American turnout up almost 40 percent in the 24 counties with an African American majority. So, the question now becomes, why does this increased African American turnout have McDaniel considering legal action?

Under Mississippi Law, any registered voter may vote in a primary election, but they must have the intention of voting for the winner of that primary in the general election. The law reads, “no person shall be eligible to participate in any primary election unless he intends to support the nominations made in the primary in which he participates.” Looking beyond the glaring naiveté of this law, it is easy to see McDaniel’s complaint. It is improbable that the African American voters who voted for Cochran would vote Republican in the general election.  In his “anti-concession” speech McDaniel declared, “today the conservative movement took a backseat to liberal Democrats in Mississippi.” Ray Nicholson, the founder of the Mississippi Tea Party, claimed, “this is such a perverting of a fair election system that we are outraged the secretary of State has not stepped in.”

McDaniel was concerned enough about the African American vote to have supporters watch the polls to make sure fraud did not ensue, which caused the NAACP to install their own poll watchers. Thankfully, this had little effect on voter turnout for the election, but the whole ordeal felt like a battle to keep African Americans from voting. Some McDaniel supporters have called Cochran’s move dirty politics, but McDaniel’s move to limit free voting is even dirtier.

Looking at Mississippi’s primary law, it is possible to see where McDaniel could present a legal challenge, but it is very hard to imagine any way in which he could win it. McDaniel would obviously claim that many of the African Americans who voted for Cochran would not vote for any Republican in the general election, meaning that they should not have been able to vote in the party’s primary. But this is a nearly impossible law to enforce without seriously infringing on a person’s right to vote. For one, the general election is four months away. It would be easy for a voter to say they do not know who they would support for that election or to just pretend they intend to vote for the winner. There is no plausible way to enforce this law on a mass scale. Therefore, McDaniel, if he insists on blaming someone for his loss, should blame the Mississippi primary system. And then he should stop being a sore loser and just concede.


Update: A week after his loss, McDaniel still has not conceded. He is currently fundraising for a legal challenge, asserting that Cochran stole the election. In his fundraising pitch, McDaniel wrote, “last week’s runoff election was a sham, plain and simple.” A representative for the Cochran campaign brushed off the legal challenge, saying this is most likely an effort to pay off campaign debts. The representative called McDaniel’s efforts “pure sore loserism.”

Update: It’s been well over a month, but Chris McDaniel has still not let his loss to Thad Cochran go. Yesterday, McDaniel announced that he will formally challenge the results of the runoff election. McDaniel is demanding that the Central Committee of the Mississippi GOP–a sort of governing body made up of 52 members–vote at a public hearing to declare him the winner. If this does not happen, he will consider a challenge in court. McDaniel is claiming that there were 15,000 ballots cast by ineligible voters, meaning voters who did not intend to vote for the winner of the Republican primary in the general election. Voting in a primary but not intending to vote for the winner of the primary in the general election is against the law in Mississippi. McDaniel lost by 7,667 votes, so if he those 15,000 votes are dismissed, he will win.

While it is easy to understand the logic of McDaniel’s anger, it is still misplaced anger. Most of these 15,000 “ineligible votes” were cast by Democrats who did not vote in the Democratic primary. So while these Democratic voters might have no plans to vote for Thad Cochran, there is no way to prove it. In fact, many voters from both political parties may not vote in the general election, including McDaniel supporters, because Thad Cochran is going to win easily. So unless McDaniel can also prove every single person who voted for him will vote for Cochran in the general election, I suggest he focus his efforts on election reform. He should have a lot of time to do so, because its highly unlikely he is going to be a United State’s Senator.

Matt DeWilde (@matt_dewilde25) is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Joe Shlabotnik via Flickr]

Matt DeWilde
Matt DeWilde is a member of the American University class of 2016 majoring in politics and considering going to law school. He loves writing about politics, reading, watching Netflix, and long walks on the beach. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sore Loser: McDaniel Challenges Weird Mississippi Primary Laws appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/news/chris-mcdaniel-blame-mississippis-primary-system-concede/feed/ 0 18739
Tom Ridge Tells GOP: Tolerate the Gays, Don’t Make Their Lives Better https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/tom-ridge-tells-gop-tolerate-the-gays-dont-make-their-lives-better/ https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/tom-ridge-tells-gop-tolerate-the-gays-dont-make-their-lives-better/#respond Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:15:31 +0000 http://lawstreetmedia.wpengine.com/?p=6432

Wednesday night, the Republican Party was given an interesting task. Stop being so judgmental. That’s what former GOP politician Tom Ridge told the Log Cabin Republicans when he spoke at their Spirit of Lincoln dinner this week. Folks, this is a pretty interesting development, so let’s delve into this story a little bit, mmkay? Let’s start […]

The post Tom Ridge Tells GOP: Tolerate the Gays, Don’t Make Their Lives Better appeared first on Law Street.

]]>

Wednesday night, the Republican Party was given an interesting task.

Stop being so judgmental.

That’s what former GOP politician Tom Ridge told the Log Cabin Republicans when he spoke at their Spirit of Lincoln dinner this week.

Folks, this is a pretty interesting development, so let’s delve into this story a little bit, mmkay?

Let’s start with the characters. First, we’ve got the sensible, yet colorful, Log Cabin Republicans. Picture an entire room filled with variations of Will and Grace’s two leading men. Jack McFarland and Will Truman ALL THE WAY. Get it, girl.

jack and will

Then, we’ve got the esteemed Tom Ridge—a former Congressman, Pennsylvania Governor, and Secretary of Homeland Security. He’s a pretty stand-up guy, and back in the ’90s he signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law in Pennsylvania.

He arrived at the Spirit of Lincoln dinner a bit apprehensively—he doesn’t have a great track record with the LGBT community. Now is his time to prove himself. Now is his time to shine. As he prepares for the big moment, he wonders if he should open his speech with a musical number? Maybe sprinkle his speech with some Bette Midler or Cher references?

Nah, he decides. Let’s keep it professional. He goes in for the kill, rocking a nice suit and a well-prepared speech. Let’s revamp this disgraced party, he thinks to himself, determined to cobble together a conservatism that doesn’t reek of Ted Cruz and Boehner/boner jokes.

So Ridge gets up there, and delivers a message that could redefine conservatism.

He tells the Republican Party to stop being so judgmental. Stop ignoring the separation of church and state and attempting to govern based on your church’s teachings. Stop discriminating against the gays. Stop being a bunch of unreasonable, out-of-touch assholes who throw tantrums and shut down governments.

Basically, Ridge told the GOP to cut the Tea Party crap and get it together.

 

But, that’s actually not as revolutionary as it sounds.

See, Ridge is no progressive. And he doesn’t think the American people are either. (He’s probably right about that one.)

In a statement to Buzzfeed prior to the address, he said, “I truly believe Americans are more conservative than liberal, but I also think they may be conservative, but they are far more practical than ideological and I know, particularly among young people, they are far more tolerant than judgmental.”

What does that mean? It means that Ridge sees LGBT discrimination as a simple issue of tolerance. For him, queer folks’ marginalization isn’t the product of systemic oppression, but rather, of ideological bullies. If we’d all just be nice to each other, he urges, we could fold the LGBT community into the conservative movement, instead of shutting them out.

And really, nothing could be better—or more practical—for the GOP than adding a new chunk of the population to its camp. Not only would welcoming queermos into the fold increase their voting block, but it would also give them some diversity street cred. And that counts for a lot these days, when the Democratic Party is credited as being the political home for everyone who’s not a straight, white, grey-haired man.

It’s important to note that Ridge’s urging to focus on practicality and tolerance, so as to include gays in the conservative platform, doesn’t seek to fundamentally change conservatism itself. That’s a big deal.

It’s also not surprising. I’ve written before about how the Republican agenda is all about conserving privilege for a particular group of people—specifically, straight, white, middle-to-upper class folks. And Ridge is one of them. He’s a straight, white, man, who earns boatloads of money serving as a board member for a few Fortune 500 companies.

So, it makes sense that Ridge isn’t interested in fundamentally changing the conservative platform. It works for him. Conservatism has done nothing but bolster his privilege, and consequently, his earning power. Really, he’s just interested in making that platform more palatable to a greater number of people. In this case, it’s the gays.

 

And that’s why his speech didn’t say anything about making sure women, queers, and people of color are able to earn a living wage. He didn’t mention making access to quality, affordable healthcare for all people a priority. He didn’t talk about ameliorating the United States’ ridiculous wealth disparity.

These are all problems that disproportionately affect women, people of color, and members of the LGBT community. These are also problems that are exacerbated by conservative policies. And as Ridge stood in front of an LGBT political group, he made no mention of any of them.

And this is exactly why his speech is so fascinating.

It’s relatively revolutionary, because, finally, a high profile Republican is trying to make the party more open and inclusive. Finally, someone on the Right is agitating for a less divided, and more effective, government.

And in the age of the Tea Party, that’s a really big, exciting development.

But at the same time, Ridge’s speech is also sorely disappointing. It’s another example of a conservative politician who’s out of touch, who can’t see past his privilege, who’s only interested in surface level changes. Most queers have nothing to gain by being welcomed into the GOP’s fold, and everything to lose from conservative economic policies that increase the wealth disparity.

So the bottom line? Ridge’s speech was pretty complex–it simultaneously invites positive, political change, while continuing to bolster policies that create inequality.

Ultimately, it’s refreshing to hear a Republican tell his party to stop being a bunch of assholes. But unfortunately, this particular call-to-action is too superficial to get excited about.

Featured image courtesy of [Hubert K via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten
Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tom Ridge Tells GOP: Tolerate the Gays, Don’t Make Their Lives Better appeared first on Law Street.

]]>
https://legacy.lawstreetmedia.com/blogs/culture-blog/tom-ridge-tells-gop-tolerate-the-gays-dont-make-their-lives-better/feed/ 0 6432