MASON CONSERVATIVE

Chris Perkins, The Blue Dog Republican

Its starting to get around that 11th congressional district candidate Chris Perkins did not vote in the 2010 election between Keith Fimian and Gerry Connolly.  You know, the one Fimian lost by 981 votes?  Rob and Nikki pretty much have the analysis covered.  But more worrisome to me isn't necessarily that Perkins didn't vote.  Look, things happen with folks' jobs and other things.  It happens.  I know it was an important election but things just happen sometimes.

What worries me more is that Perkins spent so much personal time and treasure supporting Rep. Gene Taylor, the Blue Dog Democrat from Mississippi that was finally beaten by Alan Nunnelee Steve Palazzo (thnx Spiker) that November.  Taylor was one of those maddening faux-moderate Democrats that consistently got in everyone's way by trying to form or backing various Gangs of Whatever Numerical Value.  Despite trying to show his "independence" by not voting for Nancy Pelosi as speaker, Taylor was still a Democrat enabling the agenda by being elected.  He was a huge target fro Republicans and a major swing district that we needed to win the House.

The story here is that in 2010, in a major election that for the first time in six years Republcians FINALLY had the winds at their backs, Chris Perkins didn't vote in his own swing district and went to another swing district to work for the DEMOCRAT!  We won 60+ seats in the House of Representatives in 2010 and Perkins was not in his district and he was volunteering and giving money to a Democrat in Mississippi!  Seriously?

Combine this with his establishmnet endorsements and support from Tom Davis, its clear that Chris Perkins will just be a Generic Republican congressman if he were to be elected.  He wouldn't fight for conservative constitutionalism because he doesn't want to.  He's going to be go along, get along.  He will be a Republican Gene Taylor.  The Blue Dog Democrats are dying fast, and they are being replaced by Blue Dog Republicans, obsessed only with defeating Democrats simply so they can have the levels of power and actually fight for nothing deeper or more meaningful.

Chris Perkins, Blue Dog Republican.

Vote Vaughn.

Should Romney Look To The Judiciary?

So this is how my mind wonders . . . I love the veepstakes.  I always do, because it is the first real sign we get to see in how a presidential candidate thinks and evaluates.  Of course, maybe my thinking doesn't always match with most folks but I was blown-away by Gov. Sarah Palin's choice four years ago and I adore the women to this day.  She is a modern Thatcher.  On the other end of the spectrum, I've always thought Barack Obama's selection of Joe Biden was the first sign of how shallow his talk of "hope and change" always was.  Big word and big dreams, but in the end Obama fell back to a tried and true liberal.  Its a process he has repeated over and over again.

So that gets me to my point.  Would it be improper for a presidential nominee to select a Supreme Court justice?  I understand that it has never been done before and that there is a perception that the judiciary is above politics, but constitutionally it a co-equal of three.  Presidents have been senators, congressmen, governors, and generals.  Why not a judge?

The first thing I know what will come up is the "impartiality" of the judge being compromised.  Yet I expect senators and congressmen and governors to act to represent all the people and not just the ones that voted for them.  Furthermore, judges generally come out of politics in some way or another.  Some, like Justice O'Connor, were actually politicians.  Others, like Justice Thomas, were members of the executive branch by political appointment.  Most all of them were law partners or lawyers aligned with various politicians.  Let's break down the political backgrounds of our justices:

• Chief Justice Roberts:  Served as deputy solicitor general in Bush White House
• Justice Alito:  Deputy attorney general, deputy solicitor general, US Attorney for New Jersey
• Justice Scalia:  General council in Nixon Administration, Deputy Attorney General
• Justice Kennedy:  Private practice and university professor
• Justice Thomas:  Assistant to Missouri AG Danforth, legislative assistant to then-Sen. Danforth, assistant Education secretary, chairman EEOC
• Justice Ginsburg:   General Counsel ACLU
• Justice Breyer:  Counsel to various congressional committees and deputy AG
• Justice Sotomayor:  Private practice and judge
• Justice Kagan:  US Solicitor General

So of our current Justices, only two (Sotomayor and Kennedy) have no political background.  Furthermore, all of them shared the hyper-political experienced of being nominated and approved by the US Senate for various jobs including their present one.  Justices are an integral part of a political town and they often just as capable, if not moreso, of handling power.

The problem is that there is no real precedent.  The Supreme Court is, when occupied by famous politicians, generally where careers end.  William Howard Taft, Charles Evans Hughes, and Hugo Black are three of the biggest political names I can think of that ended up on the Court.  The only real name of any consequence I could think of was antebellum political figure John McLean of Ohio.  He ran for various political presidential nominations over and over.   Another problem is the distaste many may have for injecting politics in the Court.  I would argue that there is no part of the government where politics is injected more is the Court.

The point of this exercise is to outwardly wonder if someone like Mitt Romney shouldn't look at someone like Samuel Alito to be his running mate.  If executive and legislative branches can interchange with each other and the judiciary, why can't the judiciary interchange the other way?  We all know its a fallacy that politics is not a part of our judicial system.  The judiciary might be loaded of men and women of the left and the right that are smarter and more capable of handling our country than the current crop of politicians we are forced to choose between.

Thoughts?

 

Cuccinelli's Commonwealth

As I've said over and over, let me not pretend that I am some sort of unbiased, faux-reporter.  I'm in the tank for Cuccinelli, so let's get that out of the way.

So now that that is out of the way.  With the completion of the Virginia congressional district conventions, the story is now that Ken Cuccinelli has taken over the Republican Party of Virginia State Central Committee.  The Attorney General's slates swept district after district, and he has set the high benchmark of adding 10-20,000 additional volunteers for his campaign.  He is being cagey on if he wants a convention or a primary, and I understand why.  A lot of people will be mad if the State Central Committee switches from primary to Convention, but I'm not sure it even matters.  Barring some huge scandal, I cannot for the life of me find a way Bill Bolling can defeat him.

Ken already has proven his muscle in conventions . . . in 2009 he completely blew away John Brownlee, who had the full support of Bob McDonnell, when many thought it would be very close.  Within the Republican Party his base is large and deep - Northern Virginia businessmen and lawyers, rural conservatives, home-schoolers, tea party activists, Ron Paul supporters - the only hold out seems to be the old line Richmond interests that are the backbone of Bolling's support in his home area.  I honestly think Bolling might have a better shot a convention then a primary because it will more than likely be in Richmond where his "base" will be closest.

This leaves the only logical question: should Bolling even go through with his run?

 I'm not going to tell anyone what and where to run, but Bolling has aleady gone negative by sending trackers Southwest while Ken held town halls on electrical rates, released snarky and angry press releases, and he is basically stuck running on the work of someone else.  It will only get worse.  I suspect slowly but surely all the attacks we have seen from the left on Ken slowly find their way into Bolling's message.  We have already seen phrases like "common sense" and "pragmatic" peppered into his description of his own brand of conservatism.  

But Bolling is largely an isolated figure now.  Ken has control of the party and its apparatus, and I imagine the sitting governor will not look to anger those supporters that will be key to any future race he might have in mind after he leaves office.  I suspect McDonnell will do what he can to check Cuccinelli where he can, but you cannot ignore the machine Ken is building in this state.  It is unmatched, and one Republicans haven't seen since the Allen heyday.  He has found a way to finally bridge Northern Virginia with the rest of the state inside the Republican Party.  It is a move that I cannot see how Bolling can out-flank.  The ankle-biters will no doubt complain if the SCC changes the method of nomination, but most people who actually know understand that it really doesn't matter.  

The question then is, if Ken can execute what he is planning, can he translate it to a general election campaign?  A campaign that might be against Senator Mark Warner.

Davis vs.Connolly in 2014?

For the record, I support Ken Vaughn's campaign for Congress 100%, but this story from the DCPost's The Fix is too incredible not to talk about.

ex-Rep. Davis vs. current-Rep. Connolly in 2014.

Though we aren't talking about Tom Davis.  Amazingly, The Fix is hearing that former Alabama Democratic Rep. Artur Davis is thinking about running in Northern Virginia against Rep. Connolly in 2014, should CongGer (not the same as ChairGer, admittedly) win reelection this year.

Just bizarre, this game of politics.

"The Case For A Romney-Paul Ticket"

by A. Barton Hinkle.

For the record, I think those newsletters are enough for this not to happen.  Second, this is on Reason.com, a libertarian outlet.  Still, if you are those in Romneyworld that are starting to see their convention in Tampa endure paper cut after paper cut with the way these state and district conventions are going they have to know there is some kind of reckoning that must be made with the Paul supporters.

I believe that if Romneyworld were smart and where looking for a way not only to redefine the Republican Party brand from the failed Bush era of compassionate conservatism but also to take a critical constituency away from the President, they would give this some thought.  It is high risk, high-reward for sure.  The media has thus for laid off Rep. Paul because he's a good story to frame how weak Romney is as a challenger to their idol President.  But if Paul becomes a real threat to Obama than the newsletters and every other piece of raw libertarian theology that Paul was pushing throughout the 80s and 90s will come roaring back.

And yet those young activists that are not rabble anymore, that have (unlike anyone else) taken the time to learn and master the rules of state parties in order to take them over.  They have a motivation that can't be taught and can't be bought.  It could be a key constituency that, if harnessed, could help put Romney over the top.  Unlike any other of the potential veep candidate, Paul could bring an actual constituency.  

But honestly, I give this about a 10% chance of happening.

Raw Numbers Of 11th District Convention

See it HERE.

It took over five hours to figure all of this out.  Since the link only works with gmail, here are some pics aftrer the jump.