Current Date

The Conservative Reader:
Iowa

Latino Heritage Festival:  A Time of Celebration  & Time to Consider Who Best Serves Latinos

Latino Heritage Festival: A Time of Celebration & Time to Consider Who Best Serves Latinos

(The following piece is a guest writer contribution from Chad Brown)

Iowa’s Latino Heritage Festival is celebrating its 10th anniversary this year and has grown into the largest cultural event in our state.  This is a family event that offers something for everyone.  It is a time of celebration.  I also feel it is time to engage in an honest conversation.  I want to present my argument for why the Republican Party is the best Party to advance the best interests of Latinos in our city, state and country.

We are witnessing the progressive growth of Latino businesses in Iowa. They generate millions in sales every year and create thousands of jobs for Iowans.  Latino businesses are among the fastest growing   segments of the small-business-community in our state.  In a time of economic doldrums, we wish success on all business.

The health of the Latino business community depends on the risks taken by everyday people who want to take a chance and build something out of nothing.  This is how business has always operated in the United States.  This is the American Dream.  Small business embodies the hope of this nation to build a better life for ourselves and our children.  The Latino community has much to celebrate during the Latino Festival.

Republicans encourage the Latino community to continue their pursuit of the American Dream. We disagree with Obama that business owners don’t build their businesses.  We have countless examples in the family-owned small businesses that now face unprecedented government regulations. Republicans sympathize with the individuals who struggle day and night to make ends meet and keep their workers employed.  We share the worries of the workers who are concerned they will find themselves unemployed due to a stagnant economy.

Republicans, like Myself, are optimists. We believe this century can be a time of incredible prosperity for every single person in our country who is willing to try – if we create an environment where entrepreneurs, both in the Latino community and in all communities, can flourish.  This growth in the Latino community can be sustained by low taxes and energized by new technologies.  Prosperity for small business and workers can be reached if their businesses are unleashed through lighter regulation.  We can expand our growth through free trade with our neighbors.  We have an opportunity beyond all our expectations that is within our grasp.

The Latino community, along with all other communities, can reach unprecedented levels of success through allying the Republican Party. Every group owes itself the ability to flourish in the United States. The Republican Party has candidates who know how to encourage the growth of both large and small businesses.  Together, we can accomplish goals beyond anyone’s wildest expectations.

 

The post Latino Heritage Festival: A Time of Celebration & Time to Consider Who Best Serves Latinos appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


Latino Heritage Festival:  A Time of Celebration  & Time to Consider Who Best Serves Latinos

2012 Debates Story Update: Fired and Disgraced Yahoo Bureau Chief Tied To Moderators Employers

The news last week that recently hired Yahoo News Washington DC Bureau Chief David Chalian was fired for a truly unbelievable “hot mic” moment was bad enough–but digging into his background re-enforces the mess that likely awaits Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan come debate time.

Chalian was fired for yucking it up with fellow reporters by saying that “They (Republicans) are not concerned at all.  They are happy to be having a party while black people are drowning (Hurricane Isaac).”  You can hear the “hot mic” comment here along with the, almost as disturbing, huge laughs this got from the reporters he was talking to.

In an earlier piece, I made the point that the folks selected to moderate the three Presidential debates and the one VP debate were very concerning–and possibly incapable of approaching this crucial role objectively.  This revelation regarding David Chalian should win over any of those who thought I was making too much of this story–here is why.

David Chalian’s Background

As noted by Tucker Carlson, Chalian was not a mere media foot soldier.  He had risen through the ranks to become Political Director at ABC news (2007-2010), Political Editor for PBS NewsHour (2010-2012), and had just been hired as the Washington DC Bureau Chief for Yahoo News (November 14, 2011-last week).  Not too shockingly, his professional accomplishments include an Emmy nomination for producing Charlie Gibson’s infamous Alaska interview with Sarah Palin in 2008.  There is simply no chance that his personal hyper-partisan and crass political viewpoint did not come up in the private job interviews he had with the network brass that eventually hired him.

Worse yet is that, recalling the four news organizations who are supplying the moderators, two of Mr. Chalian’s former employers will be controlling the conversation in what will be the most watched debates in political history.

First, you have the PBS NewsHour.   This is both where Chalian had worked until last November as Political Editor and the home of Jim Lehrer who will moderate the first debate.  Second, you have ABC News, where Chilian served as Political Director for three years.  This news room is providing Martha Radditz as the moderator for the Paul Ryan vs. Joe Biden debate.

This is not to say that these moderators share the same despicable view of Republicans that Chalian was revealed to have, but what it does point to is the internal culture that thrives in these organizations.  Simply put–there is a great chance that this bias not only exists in the other “journalists” who have climbed the totem pole at these networks, but that it will shine through one way or another in the upcoming debates.

Upon being hired by Yahoo News last year, Chilain did an interview in which he said working with Yahoo would provide, “an unparalleled opportunity to deliver high impact, high quality storytelling in what is shaping up to be a really consequential presidential election.”  Huh…I wonder what he meant by “high impact” storytelling?

 

((To read original story click here– “The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate” ))

 

 

The post 2012 Debates Story Update: Fired and Disgraced Yahoo Bureau Chief Tied To Moderators Employers appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


Latino Heritage Festival:  A Time of Celebration  & Time to Consider Who Best Serves Latinos

The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate

Lost in the sea of coverage following Mitt Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan as his running mate, was the news that the moderators for the three Presidential debates, and one VP debate, were also selected.

There is a certain kind of news one receives that falls into the category of “this may or may not be bad—but it can’t be good”.  For Republicans, learning of the moderators that will be at the helm for these four debates certainly earns this distinction.

In order of appearance they are- Jim Lehrer (PBS News Hour), Martha Raddatz (VP Debate-ABC News), Candy Crowley (CNN), and Bob Schieffer (CBS News).

Since the Romney campaign had to sign off on each moderator, it is hard to imagine that they could not have demanded better (even given that the Obama camp also had to sign off on each).  By any measure, Jim Lehrer, Candy Crowley, and Bob Schieffer all lean to the left, and the networks that employ them all trail badly in the ratings to their direct competition.

Even if you were to say that these three were the fairest that both sides could agree to, giving a green light to Martha Raddatz for the VP debate was certainly inexplicable.  The reason for this being, she is a “foreign affairs correspondent” which is not Ryan’s forte, and in fact he was brought into the race for his economic mastery.  One has to wonder how much focus will be put on non-domestic topics just based on her area of expertise.  On the surface this seems a major concession to the Obama campaign, and one that needed not be given.

The reason these moderators are so important is three-fold.  First, with all the polls showing that the election has a likelihood of being razor-close, every small detail that goes into them has a chance to be huge.  Second, like was the case with the Republican Primary debates, these four showdowns will smash records for viewership and the audience will include millions of Independents sizing up the candidates for the first time.  Lastly, and most importantly, the questions asked of the candidates have the ability to dominate the crucial weeks of news cycles leading up to Election Day.

So What Should The Focus Be?

Poll after poll shows that for the American people ground zero in this election is the economy.  A Pew Research Poll taken from June 7-17 asked voters to name the top issue that they will be considering in the voting booth in November.  The top four answers were Jobs (35%), the Budget Deficit (23%), Health Care (19%), and Social Security (11%).

The danger in having biased moderators was on full display for the Republican Primary debate moderated by George Stephanopoulos, when, seemingly out of nowhere, he felt the need to drill down with Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum on the issue of female contraception.  This gave birth (no pun intended) to the Sandra Fluke phase of the campaign and a multi-week sidetrack by the media away from the serious issues of the day.  There is simply no doubt that, should they choose to, a moderator can actively push the focus to issues that are not widely being considered by voters—and into territory that favors one candidate or another.

As will be the case in October, it just so happens that the issues voters themselves say are paramount are the exact issues that President Obama is desperate to avoid talking about.  In theory this would make the debates a huge opportunity for Romney and Ryan to drive home their message—something tells me it won’t quite go down that way.

Perhaps I will be proven wrong, but will these moderators have the gumption to ask President Obama why a myriad of the promises he made while running in 2008 have been unachieved or even un-attempted?  Will they remind the American people that twice the President had budgets voted on by Congress, and he failed to receive one solitary vote for either of them?  Will they ask why he promised to cut the deficit in half but instead oversaw three years of trillion dollar plus deficits?  Or will they inquire why he has not laid a plan on the table for reforming entitlements, after saying himself this was crucial in 2008?

Republican Are Right to Be Nervously Skeptical

All things being equal, and according directly to the polls, the topics discussed during all four of the debates should almost exclusively be jobs, the deficit, the long term health of entitlement programs, and foreign policy.  What I fear instead is painful subjection to multiple questions on gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and student loan debt— knowing all the while the fruit is rusting on the vine.

It is true that the level of professionalism that the four moderators will show is yet to be determined, and perhaps at least three of them will be fair (I hold no hope for Bob Schieffer).  But given the track record of behavior the major media outlets have shown to Republicans in recent years, I’d say a mildly-crippling nervousness is more than justified.

After all, barring a phenomenal performance by both Republican candidates, one thing is certain—“it may or may not be bad…but it won’t be good”.

 

 

The post The 2012 Presidential Debates: When Moderators Aren’t Moderate appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


Latino Heritage Festival:  A Time of Celebration  & Time to Consider Who Best Serves Latinos

Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions

The bedrock of winning elections at every major level of politics is building coalitions of supporters for whom you can count on to head to the polls and cast a vote for you.  Especially in a country as large and non-monolithic as ours, coalition building on some level is a requirement for victory and often explains why politicians are so willing to speak often, but say very little.

A close look at President Obama’s effort in this area reveals that he has elevated this process to an art form—but far from art, what he has created is an ugly picture beneficial to himself, but terrible for America.

While the Supreme Court’s ruling on Thursday to uphold the Affordable Care Act certainly carries the negatives of energizing Republicans and leaving him to defend a tax increase, it is foolish not to acknowledge the potential political windfall that he has unleashed.  He has managed to cement a new member in his group of coalitions—a group with millions of potential voters.

As we have discussed here before, for decades the Democrat party in America has used the social safety net and the laws of this country to build a formidable coalition of voters.  The newest members are the up to 33 million people who will now be guaranteed health insurance by virtue of being a breathing American.  For the first time in history an American president will be able to say ‘if you vote Democrat you will have (possibly for free) health insurance, and if you vote Republican you will not’, a potent motivator.

The addition of the health care voter coalition can now be added to the two others that he has bolstered recently, in what may be the most cynical and politically motivated two months in American presidential history.

First it was going on record with the news that he had “evolved” on the issue and now supports gay marriage. This was followed by a surprise move to essentially remove the possibility of deportation for young illegal aliens.  While the gay community is relatively small, bolstering his claim to the Hispanic vote was a huge benefit to his Electoral College math.  Early next week, we will have a story detailing how the health care law really has more to do with sealing up the Hispanic vote than anything else.

Besides the Latino vote, Obamacare allows the Democrat Party to further stack the deck against Republicans as they try to implement the Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid reforms in the Paul Ryan budget over the next few years.  Top Democrat strategists have to be secretly celebrating, knowing full well that the already difficult politics of reforming these programs just got down right suicidal now that 16 million more people have been added to the rolls.

Moving Forward

The Presidents relentless coalition building will continue from now until November.  With the economy not in position to rebound at all, and the two major initiatives of his Presidency either unpopular (health care) or ineffectual (the stimulus), he really has no other choice.  I am predicting that sometime in the next few months he will make a shocking public policy jester to the unions, who remain the last sizeable group he has not tried to directly entice.

Though it goes against the grain, at this point I would consider advising Mitt Romney to not moderate on illegal immigration and stay as far right on this issue as he was during the presidential primary.  The reasons for this are several.

First, it is the law and the right thing to do—we simply cannot be the only nation on earth that doesn’t enforce its borders.  Though many are quick to forget it, this is a message that resonates with nearly all Republicans, and millions of Independents.  Second, there is simply no way for Republicans to match what Democrats can offer.  While Republicans and Latinos have large overlaps in religious beliefs and family values, Democrats are in essence offering citizenship, free or nearly free health care, and an ever-expanding web of financial assistance that delivers from birth to death.

It may be high time to face the facts—winning over the Hispanic community is not going to happen anytime soon, and the more Republicans bend and soften on these issues the more they enrage fellow Republicans and appear hypocritical to Independents.

The irony here is that many of the Republicans who have been hesitant to support Mitt Romney, largely due to their belief that he tries to be all things to all people, are the same people that are urging him to cow tow to the Hispanic vote and moderate his position on illegal immigration.

There are still tens of millions of Americans who still believe strongly that we are a nation of laws.  Should Mitt Romney take a stand on this issue and add this too often ignored group to his list of coalitions, it may end up being a net positive in November.

 

 

The post Healthcare Fallout: Obama’s Growing List of Coalitions appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


Latino Heritage Festival:  A Time of Celebration  & Time to Consider Who Best Serves Latinos

In the Age of the Selfish Voter

In a Representative Democracy, voting for a particular political candidate or philosophy is the most impactful way a citizenry can change their country.  While the “who” a person votes for is what actively shapes a Republic, digging into the motivation behind that vote is far more telling, and ultimately reveals far more about ourselves and where we are heading.

As government involvement in Americans day-to-day lives has expanded, the possible motivating factors at play driving each citizens vote has also expanded—and the effects of this have been devastating.  Boiled down to the most basic level, there are two motivations that influence a political vote—you can vote in what you believe is in the best interest of the country, or you can vote in your own personal interest.

In past generations, before the American government was so deeply involved in the giving business, the vast majority of our population largely had only the best interest of the country as a whole to consider.  Unfortunately, today nearly half of our citizens have the legitimate option of choosing to vote for their own personal gain at the ballot box.

Not Your Grandfather’s Democratic Party

Though it sounds crass, the modern day Democratic Party has evolved into a selfish group of constituencies that have something to gain in voting for Democrats and against Republicans.  While the most obvious entries on the list involve financial assistance from the economic safety net—unending unemployment benefits, housing subsidies, food stamps, Title 19, etc.—in recent years this list has grown to include several other things.

Hispanic Americans can now vote Democrat to ultimately allow their friends and relatives who are here illegally become citizens.  Gay Americans can now vote Democrat to gain the right to marry and the economic advantages that come with it.  Union members can vote Democrat in order to receive more favorably negotiated salaries and benefits at the bargaining table.  Those Americans who, for whatever reason, did not have health insurance can now vote a straight Democratic ticket in hopes of retaining it, since they have now been given it.

In large part this massive constituency of selfishly driven voters explains what the mind-boggling national debt has become so out of control.  Far more than any other issue, not running annual deficits and paying down the national debt are two things that are in the best interest of the country—and not necessarily in the best interest of each individual American.   The polling data bears this out showing that, even with the national debt north of $16 trillion, only 66% of Democrats cite lowering this number as a major priority.

Contrarians to this line of thinking will make the charge that Republicans vote in their own best interest by voting for politicians who believe in lowering their taxes.  As usual this charge leaves out one unavoidable fact—that the money taken by the government for taxes is earned, and it belonged to the individual in the first place.  Put simply, voting to keep more of your own money and not giving it away to a largely wasteful entitlement state (especially one with a progressive tax code) is not a greed driven motivation—rather it is a logical one.

What It Means

The selfishly motivated voter is the single biggest reason why European style democracies are self-feeding, self-defeating, unworkable, and unsustainable.  Yet in spite of the real-time evidence playing out across the Atlantic, a near majority of Americans refuse to change course.  Increasingly, it is hard not to assume a major reason why American voters are unwilling to do so is that they would be putting themselves out to do so.

The only way to break this cycle is for the Democrat Party to shift away from promising things to an ever-widening group of voters.  The sad truth though is that they have built a political base only able to stand upright through some combination of deficit spending, large tax increases, and social pandering.  They have become so politically dependent on various sub-groups that making decisions for the economic good of the country, even if they wanted to, would quickly result in them paying a huge political price and losing elections.

Whenever Americans choose to overlook our national interest and instead vote in favor of their own, neither is well served.

 

 

The post In the Age of the Selfish Voter appeared first on The Conservative Reader.


    Log in