We Dislike Mike DeWine, But We will Support Him
As Hugh Hewitt aptly points out in Painting the Map Red the goal of the GOP should be to create a permanent Republican majority. Right now, we're working on a filibuster proof one in the Senate, and building on the gains in the House. With 2008 looming right around the corner, and the war far from over, it's essential now--more than ever--to ensure that we maintain the gains we have made.
We do agree with Hugh's assessment that the GOP tent is big enough to hold a lot of people. We can hold those on the right, and those in the center without much trouble. The trouble comes when some of those in the center decided to move off with some pet project, or a key vote, that is contrary to the party. Hugh, a month ago, or so, spoke about what it mean to be a "party man." No, he wasn't referring to the The Fraters Libertas quartet at Keegan's Pub. He was referring to people in the GOP who put their party above their ambitions.
We do think that the tent is big enough for the likes of Mike DeWine, but it still does not change the fact that we dislike him because of a couple key bone-headed moves he's done. First, and most glaringly near-unforgivable is his participation in the Gang of 14 deal. I know a lot of people (Hugh included) state that this single issue isn't enough to withdraw support from him. We agree. There isn't a "single" issue giving us fits. The Gang of 14 deal is a bad one--granting extra-Constitutional powers to 14 senators that serves to undermine the president's powers to appoint jurists to the bench.
EVERY ONE of our readers know where we stand when it comes to the Constitution. Few "lay" people understand it as well as we do (and Marcie is continuing that endeavor in school right now), and it irritates us greatly when people who have sworn to protect and defend it undermine it instead.
However, this past week as the debate raged through the Senate over immigration reform, Mike DeWine decided to jump on the RINO bandwagon, and voted against two key amendments under consideration. Those would be the Isakson and Ensign Amendments. (Isakson's called for border enforcement first and normalization second; Ensign's amendment would have cut the Social Security protections from McCain's bill--making it impossible for any illegal alien to draw from it if they have committed a crime in the country.) Mike DeWine voted against both provisions. He also voted to kill the Kyl/Cornyn Amendment. And, of course, how could we forget his hand in killing the ANWaR Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill. He and Chafee were directly involved in forbidding cloture along with about 40 Democrats.
The last decent votes I can pick out are the three that Hugh keeps bringing up. He voted for the war. He voted for Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justice Alito. That's good. That's wonfderful. And that is why we stated, for the record, yesterday morning that we would contribute to Senator DeWine's reelection. And we have. The ten races that Hugh has highlighted right below the "Painting The Map Red" advertisement each received $100 from both of us. That's a total of $1000. As the Ohio primaries are done, it is now up to us to make sure that Mike DeWine retains that seat. We don't like it. We think that he's a bit too moderate on certain issues, especially on immigration reform right now, but he did beat William Pearce in the primaries, and deserves the support of the party.
Geraghtyite mentality here: Every gain--no matter how small--is a step in the right direction. Despite our misgivings about Senator DeWine, we can't afford to lose that seat. And we must build on the gains made in the past. This is not a "flip-flop," as some of our e-mailers have accused. This is a simple decision; the lesser of two evils, if you will. Sherrod Brown is a deep-pockets, tax-and-spend liberal Democrat. Mike DeWine is a better candidate than Brown, and despite his occasional bouts of moderate idiocy, does understand what it means to be a party man on the issues that affect the GOP the most.
We may not like him because he is a lot like Senator McCain in many regards, but there isn't a reason we can find that makes us want to contribute to Brown's campaign over his. Brown, like the Democrat senators that serve as a pain in the Senate's collective @$$ on a daily basis, would join their ranks and make life even tougher on the president. So, please, we encourage our readers to contribute to the ten races that are key to this year's midterm elections:
Arizona's Jon Kyl
Maryland's Michael Steele
Minnesota's Mark Kennedy
Missouri's Jim Talent
Montana's Conrad Burns
Nebraska's Pete Ricketts
New Jersey's Tom Kean
Ohio's Mike DeWine
Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum
Washington State's Mike McGavick
Our differences with Mike DeWine are our own. But, we are willing to overlook those differences to ensure that we don't lose the Senate. The importance of this will be evident in the last two years of the president's term. The War on Terror is still going on, and it's almost assured that another Supreme Court vacancy could come over that time. Both of these issues are important; as important as any part of the fifteen word platform assembled by Hugh Hewitt, and agreed to by many conservatives:
Win The War
Control the Spending
Cut The Taxes
Confirm The Judges
Control The Border
This is the platform for 2006 and beyond. Those we've listed will (hopefully) hold true to this platform. If they do, a change is in the air. If they don't, then we pick ourselves back up, and fight again in 2008 and 2010. The fight doesn't end with one victory. It didn't end in 1994, 2000, 2002, or 2004. It won't end this year either. It will continue until the goal of "painting the map red" is achieved.
Publius II
As Hugh Hewitt aptly points out in Painting the Map Red the goal of the GOP should be to create a permanent Republican majority. Right now, we're working on a filibuster proof one in the Senate, and building on the gains in the House. With 2008 looming right around the corner, and the war far from over, it's essential now--more than ever--to ensure that we maintain the gains we have made.
We do agree with Hugh's assessment that the GOP tent is big enough to hold a lot of people. We can hold those on the right, and those in the center without much trouble. The trouble comes when some of those in the center decided to move off with some pet project, or a key vote, that is contrary to the party. Hugh, a month ago, or so, spoke about what it mean to be a "party man." No, he wasn't referring to the The Fraters Libertas quartet at Keegan's Pub. He was referring to people in the GOP who put their party above their ambitions.
We do think that the tent is big enough for the likes of Mike DeWine, but it still does not change the fact that we dislike him because of a couple key bone-headed moves he's done. First, and most glaringly near-unforgivable is his participation in the Gang of 14 deal. I know a lot of people (Hugh included) state that this single issue isn't enough to withdraw support from him. We agree. There isn't a "single" issue giving us fits. The Gang of 14 deal is a bad one--granting extra-Constitutional powers to 14 senators that serves to undermine the president's powers to appoint jurists to the bench.
EVERY ONE of our readers know where we stand when it comes to the Constitution. Few "lay" people understand it as well as we do (and Marcie is continuing that endeavor in school right now), and it irritates us greatly when people who have sworn to protect and defend it undermine it instead.
However, this past week as the debate raged through the Senate over immigration reform, Mike DeWine decided to jump on the RINO bandwagon, and voted against two key amendments under consideration. Those would be the Isakson and Ensign Amendments. (Isakson's called for border enforcement first and normalization second; Ensign's amendment would have cut the Social Security protections from McCain's bill--making it impossible for any illegal alien to draw from it if they have committed a crime in the country.) Mike DeWine voted against both provisions. He also voted to kill the Kyl/Cornyn Amendment. And, of course, how could we forget his hand in killing the ANWaR Amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill. He and Chafee were directly involved in forbidding cloture along with about 40 Democrats.
The last decent votes I can pick out are the three that Hugh keeps bringing up. He voted for the war. He voted for Chief Justice Roberts, and Associate Justice Alito. That's good. That's wonfderful. And that is why we stated, for the record, yesterday morning that we would contribute to Senator DeWine's reelection. And we have. The ten races that Hugh has highlighted right below the "Painting The Map Red" advertisement each received $100 from both of us. That's a total of $1000. As the Ohio primaries are done, it is now up to us to make sure that Mike DeWine retains that seat. We don't like it. We think that he's a bit too moderate on certain issues, especially on immigration reform right now, but he did beat William Pearce in the primaries, and deserves the support of the party.
Geraghtyite mentality here: Every gain--no matter how small--is a step in the right direction. Despite our misgivings about Senator DeWine, we can't afford to lose that seat. And we must build on the gains made in the past. This is not a "flip-flop," as some of our e-mailers have accused. This is a simple decision; the lesser of two evils, if you will. Sherrod Brown is a deep-pockets, tax-and-spend liberal Democrat. Mike DeWine is a better candidate than Brown, and despite his occasional bouts of moderate idiocy, does understand what it means to be a party man on the issues that affect the GOP the most.
We may not like him because he is a lot like Senator McCain in many regards, but there isn't a reason we can find that makes us want to contribute to Brown's campaign over his. Brown, like the Democrat senators that serve as a pain in the Senate's collective @$$ on a daily basis, would join their ranks and make life even tougher on the president. So, please, we encourage our readers to contribute to the ten races that are key to this year's midterm elections:
Arizona's Jon Kyl
Maryland's Michael Steele
Minnesota's Mark Kennedy
Missouri's Jim Talent
Montana's Conrad Burns
Nebraska's Pete Ricketts
New Jersey's Tom Kean
Ohio's Mike DeWine
Pennsylvania's Rick Santorum
Washington State's Mike McGavick
Our differences with Mike DeWine are our own. But, we are willing to overlook those differences to ensure that we don't lose the Senate. The importance of this will be evident in the last two years of the president's term. The War on Terror is still going on, and it's almost assured that another Supreme Court vacancy could come over that time. Both of these issues are important; as important as any part of the fifteen word platform assembled by Hugh Hewitt, and agreed to by many conservatives:
Win The War
Control the Spending
Cut The Taxes
Confirm The Judges
Control The Border
This is the platform for 2006 and beyond. Those we've listed will (hopefully) hold true to this platform. If they do, a change is in the air. If they don't, then we pick ourselves back up, and fight again in 2008 and 2010. The fight doesn't end with one victory. It didn't end in 1994, 2000, 2002, or 2004. It won't end this year either. It will continue until the goal of "painting the map red" is achieved.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 11:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home