Congress

The Democratic primary for the newly drawn CD-09 in Arizona will be one of the most interesting races in the nation to watch this year.

Kristen Sinema is an unapologetic liberal who will have a field day with positions that Andrei Cherny took during his run against Republican Doug Ducey during the Arizona State Treasurer’s race in 2010.  Cherny, who is much more liberal than his campaign positions of 2010 would suggest, is likely to spend most of the campaign explaining why he said some of the things he did.

And in politics, as the saying goes: if you are explaining, you’re losing.

Sinema will almost certainly get early support from EMILY’s List and other left wing interest groups because of her national profile during her time in the Arizona Legislature, when she was the only openly bisexual office holder.  She took a lead role in pushing for Obama’s health care bill and has been a happy and effective warrior for all things left of center.

I predict that she will outraise the one-time wunderkind Cherny and that she will beat him soundly in the CD 9 primary.  The real question is why Cherny allowed his ego to propel him to what will be almost certainly be a humiliating loss.  Proof that ambition has real consequences.

Bob Robb, one of the best political commentators in Arizona, wrote a very insightful column yesterday headlined “Gingrich anti-establishment?”

Exactly.

There are some real gems worth repeating here:

Sometimes politics is staged as farce, as in the narrative in the Republican presidential primary that Newt Gingrich is the anti-establishment candidate.

The guy is a former speaker of the House of Representatives, for goodness sake. You know, third in line to be president.

Since being ousted as speaker, Gingrich has made himself wealthy as a political entrepreneur and operator. In fact, he got ousted in part because he starting doing too much of that while he was speaker.

***

Gingrich was as responsible as anyone for turning the Republican Party into the party of pork. Under his speakership, earmarks as a re-election tool proliferated.

In fact, virtually everything the tea party doesn’t like about the Republican establishment can be traced to Gingrich and his Majority Whip, later Majority Leader, Tom DeLay.

I remember the frustration of some of the true believers of the Class of ’94 when Gingrich and DeLay were advising the freshmen that the best way to win re-election was to send the bacon home.  Guys like my former boss John Shadegg and a his cohorts like Tom Coburn and Mark Sanford fought those guys every day.

Gingrich is no conservative.

Obama told some real whoppers in is State of the Union address. Here are just a few:

This country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy – a strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.

C’mon, do you really expect us to believe that you support an “all of the above” strategy less than a week after you strike down the Keystone pipeline?  Get serious.

On clean energy – in particular, Solyndra, he said this:

Some technologies don’t pan out; some companies fail. But I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy. I will not walk away from workers like Bryan. I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here. We have subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough. It’s time to end the taxpayer giveaways to an industry that’s rarely been more profitable, and double-down on a clean energy industry that’s never been more promising. Pass clean energy tax credits and create these jobs.

Really?  There are already more tax credits for “clean” energy than any other form of energy.  To ask Congress to pass MORE tax credits and incentives – while billions of tax-payer dollars have been wasted, is irresponsible.

Speaking of taxes:

Right now, we’re poised to spend nearly $1 trillion more on what was supposed to be a temporary tax break for the wealthiest 2 percent of Americans. Right now, because of loopholes and shelters in the tax code, a quarter of all millionaires pay lower tax rates than millions of middle-class households. Right now, Warren Buffett pays a lower tax rate than his secretary.

First off, does he really argue that the government SPENDS money on tax breaks? That is a typical Democrat talking point, as if it’s THEIR money to begin with. Secondly, Obama is purposely trying to confuse the American people by not acknowledging the difference between “earned” income and “unearned” income.  Warren Buffet doesn’t take a salary – so he doesn’t have “earned” income.  He has enough wealth that he can live on his investments and interest.  Those are called capital gains.  The capital gains tax rate is 15%, for good reason – because it is capital gains that fund new businesses, which in turn grow the economy.  If Obama actually doubles the tax rate on capital gains, economic growth will grind to a halt.  This is a cynical attempt to engage in class warfare, while trying to claim that it isn’t class warfare.

Obama continues:

But in return, we need to change our tax code so that people like me, and an awful lot of Members of Congress, pay our fair share of taxes. Tax reform should follow the Buffett rule: If you make more than $1 million a year, you should not pay less than 30 percent in taxes. And my Republican friend Tom Coburn is right: Washington should stop subsidizing millionaires. In fact, if you’re earning a million dollars a year, you shouldn’t get special tax subsidies or deductions. On the other hand, if you make under $250,000 a year, like 98 percent of American families, your taxes shouldn’t go up. You’re the ones struggling with rising costs and stagnant wages. You’re the ones who need relief.

Notice his crafty addition of the word “earning” when he is talking about people who are millionaires?  He knows, as well as anyone, that people who are “earning” millions are paying a much higher rate than the 15% of unearned income. They don’t get special subsidies or deductions – it just may be that their deductions are higher because they give more to charity, etc.

Obama continues again:

Now, you can call this class warfare all you want. But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.

They only call that common sense when you confuse earned income with unearned income.

And here is the biggest whopper of the night:

We don’t begrudge financial success in this country. We admire it. When Americans talk about folks like me paying my fair share of taxes, it’s not because they envy the rich. It’s because they understand that when I get tax breaks I don’t need and the country can’t afford, it either adds to the deficit, or somebody else has to make up the difference – like a senior on a fixed income; or a student trying to get through school; or a family trying to make ends meet. That’s not right.

What’s not right, Mr. President, is for you to demagogue taxes in a way that is cynical and anti-productivity.

It’s sad that the President of the United States cannot be honest with the American people.

This is an interesting take on tonight’s State of the Union.  A group called American Future Fund owns the domain: TheRealStateOfTheUnion.com .  Interestingly, TheRealStateOfTheUnion.org is owned by the Democrat Congressional Campaign Committee.

Here is a new ad from American Future Fund:

Everyone knows that State of the Union speeches are mostly for show.  Still, the news that Warren Buffet’s secretary is going to be Michelle Obama’s guest in the First Lady’s box takes this speech from ridiculous to absurd.

Typically, the guest of the First Lady is a hero of some sort.  Nancy Reagan was the first First Lady to have guests at the State of the Union.  Her first State of the Union guest, in 1982, was Lenny Skutnik, a Congressional Budget Office employee who had jumped into the icy waters of the Potomac River to help rescue survivors after Air Florida Flight 90 crashed into the Potomac River in 1982.

Reagan said Skutnik demonstrated “the spirit of American heroism at its finest.”  He then said, “We saw the heroism of one of our young government employees, Lenny Skutnik, who, when he saw a woman lose her grip on the helicopter line, dived into the water and dragged her to safety.”

Other guests have included: Alma Powell and Brenda Schwarzkopf, the wives of Gens. Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf, who were leading military operations in Iraq; Richard Dean, a Social Security Administration employee, who helped rescue victims of the Oklahoma City bombing; flight attendants Christina Jones and Hermis Moutardier who helped thwart an attempted bombing by Richard Reid, the so-called “Shoe Bomber.”

The other guest tonight with Michelle Obama is Mark Kelly, husband of Gabby Giffords.  It is pathetic that someone who has demonstrated incredible courage and persistence in helping with the recovery of Giffords is sharing space with Warren Buffet’s secretary, who is merely a prop for more arguments for class warfare.

Warren Buffet pays a lower rate than his secretary because he does not have any “earned” income.  All of his income comes from his investments so it is passive income – or capital gains – and taxed at the 15% rate.

This is why Mitt Romney pays the same rate.  He doesn’t have earned income – it’s all investment income.

So we’ll get to see Obama demagogue wealth creators tonight, using a (well-paid) secretary as a prop.

This is an incredibly touching video.  Gabby has shown true courage and poise, and that is on display here.  Knowing that politics is the worst place for keeping things quiet, kudos to her husband and staff for managing this roll out under her own terms.  Well done. Obviously, this will create a mad rush of political activity in Tucson, but for now, it’s Gabby’s time.

God speed, Gabby. We continue to pray for your complete recovery.

Gabby's Departure Video

This is a must-see of watching someone trying to defend the indefensible.  The Democratic National Committee Chairwoman is Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  She is smart and articulate, but when trying to defend President Obama regarding his Solyndra disaster, she doesn’t look smart and she isn’t articulate.

This is an issue that will haunt President Obama and his surrogates for months to come.

Check it out here.

Yesterday, Congressman Paul Gosar announced that he is running in the new “River District,” CD 4, which is comprised of Yavapai and Mohave counties and parts of Pinal and Yuma counties.  This move sets up a showdown with Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu (and potentially other candidates).

Gosar has the advantage of incumbency and having represented nearly a third of the district, in particular Yavapai County, the heart of the old District 1.

On the other hand, Babeu, as Sheriff, only represents a small portion of the new CD 4.

Babeu’s ambition for higher office has been obvious since right after he got elected to Sheriff of Pinal County in 2008.  He quickly set out to establish a reputation of being tough on the border and sought the national spotlight – which wasn’t difficult given his good looks and how much more articulate he is than another anti-immigration Sheriff from Arizona.

However, at the end of the day, Gosar has the upper hand in a primary with Sheriff Babeu.  Despite some of the chatter about Gosar’s staff, he has some very solid folks on board and will have top-notch political advice for 2012.

(For the record, Gosar is not a client of mine or my firm)

Additionally, Gosar has taken the lead in holding the Obama administration accountable for the outrageous behavior of the Justice Department and the execution of an ATF operation called “Fast and Furious.”  Already, U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke and the head of ATF, Kenneth Melson, have resigned and been reassigned, respectively, as a result, and when it’s all said and done, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder may end up resigning.  And it was Gosar at the front of this investigation.  Not bad for a freshman.

With Gosar having his strongest base in Yavapai County, it will be difficult for anyone to beat him in a primary.

Tony Blankley, a long-time communications guru, passed away the morning of January 8^th at the age of 63.  He was battling stomach cancer.

I knew Tony – he didn’t really know me – and I always admired him and marveled at his skill.  When I first met him in 1994 he was serving as a special advisor to Newt Gingrich, and stayed with Newt through 1997.

From 2002-2007 he was the editorial page editor for The Washington Times.

He was smart, witty, and a great writer.  He was born in London, and became a naturalized U.S. citizen after his parents moved from England to California.  He still had a bit of an English accent and for a young, impressionable kid fascinated by communications, to me he seemed an even more commanding presence.

He was one of the happy warriors in the conservative cause, and he will be missed.

UPDATE

C-SPAN has a great page up for Tony with all his appearances – you can find it here.