Allegience to conservative principles

Image via Wikipedia

That is what Sarah Palin showed this week.

Former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin has endorsed a third-party candidate over the GOP-backed contender in New York’s congressional special election, saying her own party has abandoned its core values.

The former Alaska governor, who was Arizona Sen. John McCain‘s running-mate last year, said Thursday she was backing Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman over Republican Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava in the 23rd Congressional District race.

Palin said Hoffman, a businessman, stands for Republican principles — smaller government, lower taxes and a commitment to individual liberty — and that Scozzafava is more aligned with Democrats.

It’s not just Sarah Palin that has shown that allegience though.

Hoffman has been labeled a spoiler by some, but he’s looking more like a contender lately, with support from prominent Republicans, including former U.S. Sen. Fred Thompson, former House Majority Leader Dick Armey and former presidential candidate Steve Forbes, who endorsed Hoffman on Friday.

“The other candidates in this race are far too similar in their records and stated support for much of the Democrats’ agenda in Washington,” Forbes said. (Source: Palin backs 3rd party candidate in NY House race – AP)

It’s Sarah’s endorsement via a note on her Facebook page that’s garnered the most attention though.

A good round-up of reaction to Sarah’s endorsement can be found here and here.  A sampling of the round-up:

“This is a good example of [Sarah Palin] understanding something that seems lost on most politicians. The tea party movement and the general disaffection of the electorate isn’t necessarily pro-Republican, and unless the GOP realizes that and start standing for principle, they are simply going to continue to be marginalized.” (Joshuapundit)

“Sarah Palin’s decision to endorse the Conservative Party candidate over the Republican nominee in a special House election in upstate New York is the latest example that the former Alaska governor’s allegiance is to her conservative principles rather than the edicts of the party.” (Chris Cillizza)

“Sarah Palin puts forth her argument for her NY – 23 position on social media site, Facebook. Newt, otoh, has his posted internally on his own association’s site. Does that tell us anything about where both are coming from today, about which is actually more in step with today’s culture and electorate?” (Dan Riehl)

“She said this summer that she would work for the election of conservative candidates regardless of party, and now she’s backed up those words by standing against her own party to support a candidate she can believe in.” (The Spyglass)

“Palin’s quote of Ronald Reagan‘s timeless speech ‘A Time For Choosing’ makes it clear that she has chosen to stand apart from the GOP leadership.” (Another Black Conservative)

Ian Ransom points out that the endorsement was a “daring line-in-the-sand” to the GOP leadership:

The brilliance of this trigger-pulling comes at an ideal moment for Palin and for the teetering party. Make no mistake: instead of throwing herself under the bus (as some in her own party would like), Palin’s invocation of Reagan-conservatism in connection with such a move generates light that will be very difficult–and unwise–for waffling GOP leaders to ignore, even in the midst of their thickening fog. (Source: Palin shows true grit with Hoffman endorsement – Texas for Sarah Palin)

Josh Painter, in a post on the same site, may have summed it up best:

With her endorsement of Doug Hoffman, Sarah Palin has taken a stand in solidarity with the gathering storm known as the grassroots movement in this country. The disaffected conservatives, conservative libertarians, common sense independents and blue collar Democrats (aka Reagan Democrats) who are mad as hell and not going to take it anymore always seemed to us to be former Governor Palin’s natural base constituency. These are the the people who have turned out for TEA parties and Townhalls across the country, but there are many more of them who were not able to demonstrate, but feel the pain none the less. It’s a big step for the 2008 GOP vice presidential candidate to take toward earning their trust as the national public figure who best voices their concerns.

As for the Republican Party, its establishment has refused for too long to listen to the rank and file, and now it has officially been put on notice by Sarah Palin. Hopefully, it will finally pay attention to the voices of the people. (Source: Some Personal Thoughts on the Endorsement – Texas for Sarah Palin)

Proof that despite the best efforts of liberals and RINO’s that true conservatism will win out in the end.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sarah Palin Weighs In (online.wsj.com)
• Palin snubs Gingrich, endorses conservative candidate (seattlepi.com)
• Palin aims to shake up Republican establishment (nationalpost.com)
• Palin Backs Third-Party Candidate in New York Race (usnews.com)
• Does A Party Toady Dither In The Media? (norunnyeggs.com)

Congress and exemptions

Interesting piece on Congress and exempting itself from laws.

Most Americans think that all citizens should have the same rights and privileges, and that the same laws should apply equally to all. So it is that the president has just one vote in any election, as does the grocery clerk. And the Treasury secretary or chairman of the Ways and Means Committee must pay taxes just like anyone else (well, more or less).

But one powerful group in our democracy rarely misses a chance to exempt itself from laws that apply to the rest of us. We’re talking about members of Congress. Most seem to think it’s just too inconvenient to have to abide by those pesky laws they foist on the rest of us.

A prime example of this is unions and rules.

As my colleagues James Sherk and Ryan O’Donnell point out in a recent Heritage Foundation Backgrounder,many members of Congress can advocate new laws to push workers into joining unions with enthusiasm because their own congressional employees do not and will not have the right to form a union.

It is time for Congress to work under the same rules it imposes on the private sector. If members think that the burden of these unionization laws is not excessive, then they should apply them to their own offices. If they are not prepared to do that, they should not impose them on businesses in Main Street America.

So folks like Steve Kagen want to impose new rules that won’t apply to his own employees.  What’s up with that?

It seems that Congress — at least for their own offices — understands the downside of unionization.

Yet members of Congress who support the current bills — which would do such things as end secret ballots in labor elections and in other ways push workers into unions — claim that the proposed laws would actually improve the workplace without curtailing workers’ rights or burdening employers.

If that is so, they should be happy to add an amendment at last permitting their own staffs to unionize under the NLRA.

How about it Congressman Kagen?  You support the Employee Free Choice Act, so why not propose that amendment permitting your staff that freedom?

Perhaps this is why not.

It would be interesting to see just how gung-ho about promoting unionization these members would be with that equal-treatment requirement in place. Would they accept the idea that their offices could be unionized merely if a majority of their staff were pressured into publicly signing cards — the so-called “card check” — rather than voting for a union in a secret ballot? That’s what one major proposal would mean for private businesses.

And another thing, the NLRA current definition of “supervisor” means that managers cannot be included in a union. But one of the union-backed bills before Congress would eliminate this definition. This means that congressional chiefs of staff or legislative directors would become part of the bargaining unit. So automatic seniority, rather than decisions by a senator or congressman, would generally determine who got such promotions, as well as pay rates and job classifications. Let’s see how many lawmakers would tolerate that.

But that shouldn’t matter Congressman Kagen.  If it’s such a great thing to force changes to unionization rules on companies across the country, it should be great to apply those same rules to your staff.  (Source: Hill is above the (labor) law – Heritage Foundation)

Unless of course you think there are two sets of rules in America, one that applies to your constituents and one that applies to members of Congress.  Would that make you a hypocrite, an elitist or both?

Related articles by Zemanta

• Majority Sign-Up Dropped from Employee Free Choice Act (dailykos.com)
• U.S. Chamber Steps Up Fight to Sink Labor Board Nominee (blogs.wsj.com)

That’s gotta hurt

Quite the punishment.

A Saudi court sentenced a female journalist Saturday to 60 lashes for her work on a controversial Arabic-language TV show that aired an episode in which a man bragged about his sex life, two sources told CNN.

The court in Jeddah also imposed a two-year travel ban on Rosanna Al-Yami, according to a Saudi Information Ministry official, who could not be named because he is not authorized to speak to the media. The ban prevents her from traveling outside Saudi Arabia.

The bragging man got much worse.

On one episode, a Saudi man, Mazen Abdul Jawad, bragged about sex and got into trouble with Saudi authorities for his boasts. Abdul Jawad was put on trial and sentenced to five years in prison and 1,000 lashes. (Source: Saudi journalist sentenced to 60 lashes – CNN)

Phantoms to host Truckers

Image via Wisconsin High School Helmets (www.mghelmets.com)

Post season play begins Tuesday night and 13 time Bay Conference champ West DePere begins it’s quest for a Division 3 state title with a home game against a former Bay Conference foe – the Clintonville Truckers. For those unaware Clintonville was in the Bay Conference until leaving in 1999.

The Truckers (5-4) finished tied for 4th in the Easten Valley Conference.

Game time is 7 pm.