Someone’s going all biblical

Turns out perennial non-candidate Sarah Palin is pissed at Marco Rubio for supporting immigration reform.  Apparently the Jr. Senator from Florida got a call from President Obama congratulating them on passing the bill.

The former-Alaska Governor responded on twitter with:

“Obama Calls Rubio to Congratulate Him on Immigration Reform” http://shar.es/xLWXm  …Hope it was worth 30 pieces of silver.

Ouch.  Equating someone to Judas is pretty over the top.  But it is also a code for religious conservatives that they can’t trust Rubio.  Yet another sign it is open season on Rubio when it comes to immigration.

Copperhead’s not using your head

It’s no secret the GOP has a problem being seen as the all white party.  And contrary to Sean Trende, I think this is a problem for the GOP and for politics in general.

For politics in general I don’t think it’sa good thing to have one party be associated with any race.  People should choose which party to belong to because of ideas not because of racial or religious identification.  A politics based on that ends in demagogues and race baiting.  Yes I know that is incredibly naive of me and you can probably start humming Imagine anytime now but if I can’t be idealist on my own blog where can I?

Back to practical political matters.  For the GOP this is also bad.  For no other reason than white folks (like yours truly) are not going to be the majority forever in the USA. We are heading fast toward being a minority-majority country.  The U.S. Census reported that by 2043 this will happen. Why:

The Census Bureau’s newly released population projections predict that non-Hispanic, white Americans will cease to compose a majority of the population in 2043, two years after the total population exceeds 400 million people.

This highly symbolic shift to a “majority-minority” nation is due in large part to two factors: While the Hispanic population is expect to grow by 75 million people in the next 48 years, the white, non-Hispanic population will decrease—not just as a percentage of the nation, but in total numbers. According to the Census predictions, there will be 19 million fewer people in this category in 2060 than there are today, based on the age of the population and projected rates of reproduction.

So if you keep being seen as just a party for white people you are going to have a problem winning in the future because there simply won’t be enough voters for you.  Based on that it would make sense for the GOP and conservatives to do everything possible to make Latinos and African-Americans feel more comfortable with the idea of supporting their candidates and policies.

Now what does this have to do with the movie Copperhead?

Well, Copperhead is a film about people in Upstate New York who during the time of the Civil War didn’t support the North.  They wanted an immediate settlement with the Confederates and an end to war.  Many Copperheads blamed the war on abolitionists (the crazy people who wanted to end slavery, I know they were horrible).  Now if the Copperheads got their way and the war ended in say 1863 than it’s pretty clear slavery would’ve continued in the South.   Why else would the Confederates agree to come back the Union?

I am sure the film is entertaining and all.  You can make a film or show about people who were WRONG that is also entertaining (anyone ever see Reds or Triumph of the Will?).  No, my beef isn’t with the film it’s with how some grassroots conservatives are marketing it.

Redstate.com, which is one of the biggest and most influential conservative political blogs has ads saying the movie is pro-Constitution and direct mail wizard/grassroots conservative icon Richard Viguerie sent out an email saying:

And while Copperhead is about the Civil War, believe me, it will hit close to home for every conservative fighting to preserve our constitution and our American way of life. Because Copperhead is about standing up for faith, for America, and for what’s right, just like you and I are doing today.

How tone deaf do you have to be to say a film about people who opposed Lincoln during the Civil War are “standing up for faith, for America, and for what’s right, just like you and I are doing today?”  Do you think African-Americans or Latinos look at a message like that and think “wow, I really want to be around people who think like that?”  It is as stupid as if in 1981 there were Democratic or progressive websites running ads or encouraging their supporters to see Reds because that story mirrored their efforts.

Interesting to see if any candidates jump on the Copperhead band wagon or if Rick Santorum (aka the new Robert Evans) makes any anti-Lincoln films.

Can they unite?

Looking back on 2008 and 2012 one of the things that benefited McCain and Romney was a divided opposition. Neither of the eventual nominees ever really captured the heart of their party’s faithful.  They simply won enough of the “Establishment” and moderates to put them over a divided opposition.

In this spirit a recent tweet by Erick Erickson of Redstate.com  tweeted:

Many of the people adamantly opposed to Rubio now were as opposed to Romney & McCain. Gotta unite behind one alternative to be effective.

This is a clear sign that the conservative activist base is going to try and unite around one candidate to stop someone from the “Establishment” from getting the nomination.  Of course getting politicians to step aside and let someone else command the army to glory is a whole other matter.

Not worried about Wendy

The Ricker (Rick Perry to everyone not in the know) is now in a back and forth with State Senator Wendy Davis.  In classic Ricker fashion he has been shooting his mouth off and brought her mother into it:

The thing is that the Ricker doesn’t care about Wendy Davis.  He knows he’ll win against her in 2014.  She’s a liberal woman running in the mid-term election of Obama’s second term in TEXAS.

What he’s worried about is a primary challenge.  The Ricker saw his Lt. Governor lose to Ted Cruz in a primary and knows that if he loses that his career is over – and yes that includes another run at the White House.  So to keep that from happening he’ll be running against Wendy Davis as long as he can.

Privatization = Salvation?

1_123125_123090_2077062_2085126_030702_marriage.jpg.CROP.original-originalIn the wake of Wednesday’s DOMA ruling you are hearing many voices on the right express their disgust.  Sooner or later coming out of this anger will be a call from the more-Libertarian wing of the GOP to privatize marriage.

This is an idea that’s been around since the late 90’s.  The idea simply being to get the government out of sanctioning marriages and treat it like any other contract.

Privatizing marriage was first articulated by David Boaz of the Cato Institute.  Boaz plan is that two (possibly more) individuals can set the terms of their own private marital contract that’s best for them. In the Slate piece Boaz wrote “When children or large sums of money are involved, an enforceable contract spelling out the parties’ respective rights and obligations is probably advisable. But the existence and details of such an agreement should be up to the parties.” The government would enforce the contract but may have no other role.

Under this line of thinking churches would be free to marry or not marry whoever they want.  Gay couples and straight couples could create contracts and have equal footing without a government sanction – aside from the government recognizing their contract which would probably reopen the whole can of worms about which contracts are and aren’t recognized by the government.

Given their defeat in the Supreme Court and their ability to read polls (not counting how delusional they were in 2012) a minority of social conservatives will see they are losing and may embrace this as a way to try and end the debate and allow their churches not have to marry gays and lesbians.

Rand Paul looks like the person most likely to advocate this position.  However, this is something most social conservatives will probably not go for. Why?

First, it is an admission that they have lost the debate.  Second it allows gay marriage across the the country.  Third, in their view it really does profoundly change the definition of marriage to not only allow gay marriage but also probably polygamy.  Lastly, it  would result in the government probably taking away many privileges that married couples already enjoy including hospital visitation rights, drawing Social Security of the deceased partner,  and filing joint tax returns  just to name a few – social conservatives like their goodies from the government just like everyone else.

Privatizing marriage really does expose the fault line between libertarians and social conservatives.  Interesting to see if Paul or anyone else brings it up during the campaign.

More Poll Dancing

You know we love the Polls at the 2016 Elephant Race.  Our good friends at Public Policy Polling have a new one from Montana.  As of right now the GOP race looks like this:

The top choice of Republican voters in the state for their candidate is Rand Paul. He gets 21% to 13% for Bush, 12% for Christie and Ted Cruz, 10% for Marco Rubio, 9% for Paul Ryan, 6% for Bobby Jindal, 3% for Susana Martinez, and 1% for Rick Santorum.

Big take aways from this is that Rand Paul has the supporters of his father and is starting to move out from being seen as a fringe or protest candidate.  For Paul Ryan and Rick Santorum these polls are bad news.  I know it’s early but both of them have been around the track and had more national exposure than Paul or Cruz but are trailing them.

Another question is what if Jeb Bush doesn’t run?  He gets 13% now, if decides not to run (which I think is likely) where do his supporters go?  Christie or Rubio probably seem the most likely choices.

Lastly, what can Rand Paul and his operatives do with these kind of poll numbers?  What they need to do is get an early contest out in the western part of the country to give them an early win and build momentum.

Let’s not forget his father did pretty well in Nevada in 2008 and 2012.  Granted Romney won the state but a good part of that was due to his obviously strong support from Mormons.  This time there will not be a strong Mormon candidate so the Rocky Mountain west could be very open for Rand Paul and his blend of libertarian economics/mixed bag of social conservatism.