Although Republicans have the House, Senate and White House now, there are still a lot of very liberal senators who need to be defeated in 2018. In Ohio, there is a very liberal and very old senator named Sherrod Brown who faces a challenge from a much young conservative candidate.
Josh Mandel, Ohio’s 39-year-old Republican state treasurer, is making his second attempt to unseat Democrat Sherrod Brown in the U.S. Senate by running as a conservative and defender of the Constitution.
Mandel, a former Marine who served as a state representative before winning election to two terms as state treasurer, spoke with the Washington Free Beacon about his 2018 campaign to “transfer the power from the politicians to the people.”
Among Mandel’s goals as a senator would be instituting term limits to “clean out” veteran politicians who have stayed too long in Washington, torching political correctness in the fight against Islamic extremism, and rolling back federal government regulations that have squeezed entrepreneurs and small businesses. He is also passionate about enforcing immigration laws and protecting Ohio’s oil, gas, and coal industries.
“I think that everyday taxpayers are fed up with the feeling that Washington is rigged on behalf of special interests and lobbyists and I think there is a hunger for a new generation of leaders to come shake this place up,” Mandel said in Washington, D.C., just blocks from the U.S. Capitol building.
The 2018 Senate race will pit the young conservative against Brown, a liberal politician 30 years Mandel’s senior who has been in Washington for more than two decades. The way Mandel sees it, Ohio voters will have a clear choice between a veteran politician who has stayed in Washington to “do well” and a leader from the next generation who is unafraid of standing up for conservative principles.
“I think the voters of Ohio are going to have a choice of do they want someone who ran on term limits and then changed [his] mind so he could spend his entire adult life in Washington like Sherrod Brown, or someone like me who is going to come here to Washington, do as much good as possible, and then go home and live under the budget and laws that I created,” Mandel said.
[…]The young Republican likely faces a fierce battle against Brown, who he unsuccessfully challenged in 2012. Brown defeated Mandel by six points to win reelection to the U.S. Senate.
Brown has served in the Senate since 2007 and represented Ohio’s 13th district in Congress for 13 years before that. The Democrat has had a long career in politics, serving as Ohio’s secretary of state and a member of the state’s general assembly before coming to Washington.
When asked about his accomplishments as state treasurer, Mandel pointed to his work releasing the Ohio checkbook online, which gives taxpayers a look at how the state spends its money, and improving Ohio’s rating on government transparency. Mandel also helped dig the state out of an $8 billion budget hole; Ohio’s finances have moved from 43rd to 7th in national rankings since 2011.
Under Obama (and Sherrod Brown), the US national debt went from $10 trillion to $20 trillion in 8 years.
Here is Mandel’s 2018 Senate race ad:
Sherrod Brown has a conservative rating of 7% from Heritage Action. Ohio is a purple state. I think Ohio can do better than 7% in 2018.
Ms. Haley seriously considered a number of potential contenders, particularly Jenny Sanford, the ex-wife of former Gov. Mark Sanford, who supported Ms. Haley in her race two years ago. But in choosing Mr. Scott, she selected a lawmaker with a strong conservative voting record during his two years in Congress.
Mr. Scott, 47, also offers a unique story and background, one that is in scant supply in the Republican Party right now. Raised by a single mother, he was, by his account, a lost child who struggled with school and with life until a Chick-fil-A franchise owner took him on as a protégé and schooled him in conservative principles.
“Coming from a single-parent household and almost flunking out of high school,” Mr. Scott said in 2010, during his bid for the House, “my hope is I will take that experience and help people bring out the best that they can be.”
[…]Mr. Scott will become South Carolina’s first black senator, and the first black Republican in the Senate since Edward Brooke of Massachusetts left in 1979. Over all, he will be the seventh black senator, and the chamber’s fourth black Republican.
He is the only black Senator in the Senate, from either party. Racism!
Since 2010, Republicans have either elected or appointed a black Senator, two Hispanic Senators (Marco Rubio of Florida and Ted Cruz of Texas) as well as two Hispanic governors (Susana Martinez of New Mexico and Brian Sandoval of Nevada) and an Indian-American governor (Nikki Haley of South Carolina). That group joins Gov. Bobby Jindal, an Indian-American, who was elected in 2007.
“As the country changes, our party is walking the walk in reflecting the role of all Americans in our politics today,” said Eric Ueland, a Republican lobbyist and one-tim chief of staff to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.).
Tim Scott with Nikki Haley and Michele Bachmann:
They also had some interesting facts about Tim Scott:
Rep. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) grew up in Charleston, S.C., where he was raised by his mother after his parents divorced when he was 7.
In 1997, he found himself at the center of controversy when he hung the Ten Commandments outside the Charleston County Council’s chambers to remind the members of the morals they must follow. The Commandments were later removed after the council was sued by Charleston residents and the American Civil Liberties Union. “I’ve always said and remain in this position: Whatever it costs in the pursuit of this goal (of displaying the Commandments) is worth it,” Scott said at the time.
He was first elected to the House of Representatives with strong support from tea party groups during the Republican wave election in 2010.
He was one of two freshmen selected in 2010 to join the House Republican leadership.
After graduating from college, Scott sold insurance and co-owned a real estate agency.
Scott crashed the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte with South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and Rep. Michele Bachmann (see picture above)
After his mentor died when Scott was 17, the future congressman wrote a “mission statement” setting the goal of having a positive impact on the lives of 1 billion people before he dies.
Republican Congressman Tim Scott, a black pro-life advocate, will replace pro-life Sen. Jim DeMint in the U.S. Senate, after DeMint stepped down to take over as the head of the conservative Heritage Foundation.
Gov. Nikki Haley of South Carolina announced today that she chose Representative Tim Scott to replace Jim DeMint in the United States Senate, a move which makes him the first black senator from the South in decades. Scott will serve until a special election is held in 2014.
Like DeMint, Scott is a staunch pro-life advocate who has a 100 percent pro-life voting record with the National Right to Life Committee. This year, Scott voted to stop abortion funding in Obamacare, de-Fund the Planned Parenthood abortion business, and stop taxpayer funding of abortion in various instances. He voted for a ban on sex-selection abortions, for enforcing parental notification laws, to repeal Obamacare, and to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy in the District of Columbia.
[…]In 2010, then candidate Tim Scott outlined the development of his political positions and party allegiance to The Weekly Standard, which wrote: “As he tells it, Scott became a Republican in three stages. First, there was the military influence… Second, there was his becoming a Christian in college. That turned him into a social conservative and strong foe of legalized abortion. This, too, turned him toward Republicans, he says.”
Conservatives online cheered the news on Monday that Rep. Tim Scott has been picked for Sen. Jim DeMint’s South Carolina Senate seat, citing both his conservative credentials and the diversity he brings to the table.
Guy Benson of Townhall.com noted on Twitter, “@townhallcom readership reaction is pretty much unanimous: Enthusiastic virtual applause for Gov. Haley’s pick of Tim Scott for US Senate.”
Katie Pavlich, also of Townhall.com, added, “Super happy about Tim Scott, great job Nikki Haley.”
[…]“So happy it’s Tim Scott that will replace Sen. DeMint!,” offered Kathleen McKinley, a conservative blogger.
[…]“Tim Scott has taken our core values seriously in the House and we have every reason to expect similar, principled behavior in the Senate,” said Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots group, in a statement.
[…]“Tim Scott is among perhaps the rarest kind of Washington official: One who knows how to articulate the moral case for conservatism and explain our fiscal challenges to the average American,” said Ned Ryun, the president and CEO of the conservative group American Majority Action, in a statement. “This form of leadership outweighs identity politics.”
[…]The conservative commentator Dana Loesch tweeted, “great news about Rep. Tim Scott.”
Colin Hanna, the president of the conservative group Let Freedom Ring, also heaped praise on Scott.
“Gov. Nikki Haley made a wise and courageous choice by nominating Rep. Tim Scott,” Hanna said in a statement. “Sen. DeMint was a voice for limited government, fiscal responsibility and the advance of liberty. We have the same hopes for Tim Scott.”
This makes up for losing Allen West in Florida – a Congressman I deeply admired and respected. Maybe he will win again in 2016.
Even though I am visible minority myself, I really only care if people are conservative or not, not what color they are. But when stories like this come out, I must mock the racist Democrats who are obsessed with things that don’t matter, like race. What matters is this – promoting policies that defend the rights and freedoms of all the people equally. And Tim Scott is going to do about as well doing that as anyone in the Senate can do. That’s why we like him.
The Weekly Standard evaluates Mitt Romney’s claim that Rick Santorum is fiscally liberal. (H/T Shane)
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU) has been rating members of Congress for 20 years. NTU is an independent, non-partisan organization that — per its mission statement — “mobilizes elected officials and the general public on behalf of tax relief and reform, lower and less wasteful spending, individual liberty, and free enterprise.” Steve Forbes serves on its board of directors.
For each session of Congress, NTU scores each member on an A-to-F scale. NTU weights members’ votes based on those votes’ perceived effect on both the immediate and future size of the federal budget. Those who get A’s are among “the strongest supporters of responsible tax and spending policies”; they receive NTU’s “Taxpayers’ Friend Award.” B’s are “good” scores, C’s are “minimally acceptable” scores, D’s are “poor” scores, and F’s earn their recipients membership in the “Big Spender” category. There is no grade inflation whatsoever, as we shall see.
NTU’s scoring paints a radically different picture of Santorum’s 12-year tenure in the Senate (1995 through 2006) than one would glean from the rhetoric of the Romney campaign. Fifty senators served throughout Santorum’s two terms: 25 Republicans, 24 Democrats, and 1 Republican/Independent. On a 4-point scale (awarding 4 for an A, 3.3 for a B+, 3 for a B, 2.7 for a B-, etc.), those 50 senators’ collective grade point average (GPA) across the 12 years was 1.69 — which amounts to a C-. Meanwhile, Santorum’s GPA was 3.66 — or an A-. Santorum’s GPA placed him in the top 10 percent of senators, as he ranked 5th out of 50.
Across the 12 years in question, only 6 of the 50 senators got A’s in more than half the years. Santorum was one of them. He was also one of only 7 senators who never got less than a B. (Jim Talent served only during Santorum’s final four years, but he always got less than a B, earning a B- every year and a GPA of 2.7.) Moreover, while much of the Republican party lost its fiscal footing after George W. Bush took office — although it would be erroneous to say that the Republicans were nearly as profligate as the Democrats — Santorum was the only senator who got A’s in every year of Bush’s first term. None of the other 49 senators could match Santorum’s 4.0 GPA over that span.
This much alone would paint an impressive portrait of fiscal conservatism on Santorum’s part. Yet it doesn’t even take into account a crucial point: Santorum was representing Pennsylvania.
Based on how each state voted in the three presidential elections over that period (1996, 2000, and 2004), nearly two-thirds of senators represented states that were to the right of Pennsylvania. In those three presidential elections, Pennsylvania was, on average, 3 points to the left of the nation as a whole. Pennsylvanians backed the Democratic presidential nominee each time, while the nation as a whole chose the Republican in two out of three contests.
Among the roughly one-third of senators (18 out of 50) who represented states that — based on this measure — were at least as far to the left as Pennsylvania, Santorum was the most fiscally conservative. Even more telling was the canyon between him and the rest. After Santorum’s overall 3.66 GPA, the runner-up GPA among this group was 2.07, registered by Olympia Snowe (R., Maine). Arlen Specter, Santorum’s fellow Pennsylvania Republican, was next, with a GPA of 1.98. The average GPA among senators who represented states at least as far left as Pennsylvania was 0.52 — or barely a D-.
But Santorum also crushed the senators in the other states. Those 32 senators, representing states that on average were 16 points to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections, had an average GPA of 2.35 — a C+.
In fact, considering the state he was representing, one could certainly make the case that Santorum was the most fiscally conservative senator during his tenure. The only four senators whose GPAs beat Santorum’s represented states that were 2 points (Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire), 10 points (Republican Jon Kyl of Arizona), 25 points (Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma), and 36 points (Republican Craig Thomas of Wyoming) to the right of Pennsylvania in the presidential elections. Moreover, of these four, only Kyl (with a GPA of 3.94) beat Santorum by as much as a tenth of a point. It’s an open question whether a 3.94 from Arizona is more impressive than a 3.66 from Pennsylvania.
Do you know who is a big tax and spend fiscal liberal, though? MITT ROMNEY.
So, why is liberal Mitt Romney telling lies about conservative Rick Santorum?
New national Rasmussen poll: Santorum leads Romney 39-27
Building on his triple play of victories in Minnesota, Colorado and Missouri, former Sen. Rick Santorum has now surged to a 12-point lead over Mitt Romney in the race for the GOP presidential nomination heading into a key battle in Romney’s home state of Michigan.
Political analyst and Democratic pollster Doug Schoen tells Newsmax that Romney’s presidential bid is in “deep trouble” and his campaign badly needs a win in the Great Lakes State before heading into the do-or-die Super Tuesday contests on March 6, where voters in 10 states will pick their candidate to become the GOP presidential nominee.
“Romney is in deep trouble. He’s out of arguments. People don’t buy the central premise of his candidacy that he’s a businessman who can get things moving again,” Schoen said in an exclusive interview on Wednesday. “He’s entirely negative — whether it’s about President Obama, Newt Gingrich and now Rick Santorum. And Rick Santorum’s ad basically sums up the case against Mitt Romney: He’s a serial attacker who offers nothing other than negative ads, super PACs, bundlers and special interest money. It’s a recipe for failure.”
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of likely Republican primary voters released on Wednesday shows Santorum leading with 39 percent support, compared with 27 percent for Romney nationwide.
The two latest polls in Michigan, a state where Mitt Romney grew up and where his father was governor, show Rick Santorum with a 10 point lead and a 9 point lead.
If I had to choose one Republican who gives great speeches on what it means to be a conservative, I would pick Marco Rubio. (25 minutes)
Here’s an article from Human Events about the speech, for those who can’t watch it or listen to it.
Rubio ranked the strength of the American people alongside the importance of economic and military strength, for it is our people – not our government – who have made us great. He sees critical institutions of society, which contribute to the strength of citizens and families, under assault by the Obama Administration. “We have a President who, just a few days ago, issued a mandate ordering religious institutions to follow his ideals… telling religious-based organizations that they must, by mandate of the federal government, pay for things that religion teaches is wrong. You may not agree with that religion’s teachings, but that’s not the point. The point is that the First Amendment still applies. Religious freedom still exists.”
He confessed he isn’t sure what the foreign constitutions Justice Ginsburg admires might have to say on the matter, but he knows what the United States Constitution says: “The federal government does not have the power to force religious organizations to pay for things that organization thinks is wrong!”
On the scale of history, only a “moment” has passed since world wars were fought against totalitarian evil. What followed could hardly be described as “world peace,” and cleaning the blood from the edge of the statist hammer has not softened its essential nature. “Today millions of people around the world are part of the middle class because of the rise of democracy and free enterprise. Did that happen on its own? Is that the natural state of man?” Rubio suggested a study of humanity’s long history beneath the boots of oppressors answers that question.
Democracy and free enterprise spread, not because they are humanity’s default condition, but because “the most powerful nation in the world believed in these things, fought for these things, spoke out for these things… and most importantly, was an example of these things.” The power of the American example transcends military and political force, because “all around the world, there are people who know there is someone just like them, living here, doing things they cannot.”
“What happens if we diminish, because we can no longer afford to be the leader of the free world?” Rubio asked. “What happens if we diminish because our leaders decide they don’twant to be the leaders of the free world anymore? What happens if we retreat? What happens is that we’ll leave a space, and that space will be filled by someone else.” The likely candidates for our successor as global hyperpower are totalitarian states like Russia and China… whose measure Rubio took by noting that they’ve vetoed United Nations efforts to rein in Syria’s dictator, Bashar Assad, because they reserve the right to use such brutal tactics against their own people.
Rubio understands that the clash of civilizations cannot be won from an easy chair, or a death bed. “The greatest thing we can do for the people of the world is be America,” he concluded. “That’s what’s at stake here. That’s what November will be about.”
It would be a shame if all the people who flee to America, to escape from socialist decay and totalitarian repression, found the very things they fled awaiting them on our shores. It pays to take a moment and see our exceptional nation through the eyes of those tired, poor, huddled masses, as Marco Rubio has done.
Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) is currently in the fight for his political life. Despite his status as the most senior Republican member of the US Senate, Lugar is in danger of losing his 2012 primary to Indiana State Treasurer Richard Mourdock. A poll conducted by Basswood Research on behalf of the conservative Club for Growth put Mourdock at 34% with Lugar trailing by 2 points. The numbers reflect the opinions of 500 likely Republican voters and come with a margin of error of +/- 4.4%.
[…]Lugar’s relationship with pro-life advocates has been rocky during his time in the Senate. Lugar should be commended for supporting pro-life initiatives like the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, the Mexico City Policy, the de-funding of Planned Parenthood and the repeal of Obamacare. However, Lugar alienated pro-life advocates with votes in favor of embryonic stem cell research and his enthusiastic support for President Obama’s two pro-abortion Supreme Court nominees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Even before Sotomayor’s nomination made it out of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lugar announced he would vote to confirm her. A year later, Lugar jumped at the chance to support Elena Kagan, becoming the first Republican not on the Judiciary Committee to support her confirmation.
Mourdock is a mainstream conservative: pro-life, opposed to gay marriage, and committed never to support a tax hike. As a trained geologist who worked in the energy industry, he speaks with authority on the need for more domestic production, as well as the dangers of global-warming alarmism. He’s a history buff, too. Recent readings include Lincoln’s Sword, a study of Abraham Lincoln’s rhetoric by Douglas L. Wilson. On the day of our meeting at a hotel in Indianapolis, Mourdock wore a yellow tie with blue script on it. “I can’t remember if this is my Emancipation Proclamation tie or my Gettysburg Address tie,” he said. (A close inspection revealed that it was the Emancipation Proclamation tie.)
[…]In most of his Senate races, Lugar has won about two-thirds of the vote, but that’s been against Democratic opposition. In 2006, his last election, the Democrats didn’t even bother to run a candidate against him, even though that was a good year for their party — the year of Nancy Pelosi. Perhaps they knew what they were doing. In 2010, only four Republican senators registered more liberal voting records, according to the American Conservative Union. In a separate analysis, National Journal ranked Lugar as the Senate’s fourth most liberal Republican. He’s a moderate to the core: a pro-lifer who voted to confirm both of Obama’s nominations to the Supreme Court, a hawk on farm subsidies who opposed the ban on earmarks, and a foe of Obamacare who has supported more federal spending on health care. Lugar also has favored stronger gun-control laws, minimum-wage hikes, and the DREAM Act, which would provide an amnesty to illegal aliens who attend college or serve in the military.
[…]Last summer, GOP activists began to approach Mourdock about running against Lugar. He says he didn’t take it seriously at first. “What did I ever do to you?” was his stock response. But the suggestions kept coming. After the election, Mourdock began to consider a race. “When Lugar refused to do away with earmarks in the lame-duck session, I decided to get in,” says Mourdock. “I’ll be the first to admit that in the world of budgets, earmarks are a rounding error. But I thought it was important.”
For the better part of his Senate career, Richard Lugar has defined leadership as reaching across the aisle to screw conservatives. He was a thorn in President Reagan’s side. He is a problem now for conservatives.
He has supported earmarks, refused to sign a brief opposing Obamacare, and routinely laments “polarization”, by which he means conservatives actually standing up and fighting back.
As much as conservatives need to stop Heather Wilson from winning the GOP nomination in New Mexico, conservatives and tea party activists can and should seize this moment and beat Richard Lugar.In fact, I hear that the GOP establishment in D.C. is deeply worried. There is independent polling out showing Lugar is extremely vulnerable to be beaten in a Republican primary.
Let’s do it. And let’s do it with Richard Mourdock.
While Lugar has been in the Senate fighting against conservatives, Mourdock has been in Indiana fighting for conservatives. Mourdock has been out on the campaign trail withstanding attack after attack from Lugar and his acolytes. And the attacks have all largely been to cast Mourdock as . . . wait for it . . . too conservative for Indiana.
You can see them compared issue by issue here. Lugar voted to confirm Ruth Bader-Ginsburg. RUTH BADER-GINSBURG!
Mourdock has also been endorsed by Mark Levin, so you know he’s better than Lugar. Now is the time to throw the RINOs out, while the people still know what socialism does to the economy and what secularism does to the unborn.