RINOs beware: Republicans have no use for phonies

Dierdre Scozzafava is a RINO.

That doesn't mean she is a large gray mammal with a horn on her nose. That's a rhino. The New York assemblywoman is a Republican In Name Only, meaning she claims to be a Republican but votes like a Democrat.

The Republican Party too often has supported RINOs like Scozzafava based on the theory that it's better for a wishy-washy Republican to win an election than a true Republican to lose it.

Unfortunately, that kind of thinking has led to trillion-dollar deficits and ever-expanding government. Moreover, it's proven to be a bad electoral strategy. Not surprisingly, voters often decide that, if they have a choice between a Republican who grows government hypocritically and a Democrat who does it enthusiastically, the result is the same and they might as well vote for the one who's sincere about it.

Thankfully, that's not the case with the Club for Growth. Founded in1999 by the brilliant free market economist, Stephen Moore, the Club lets other organizations argue divisive social issues and focuses on something most (taxpaying) Americans can agree upon — the need for lower taxes and less government.

The club supports candidates who believe in economic freedom regardless of party — Republicans most of the time, of course, but others willing to hold the line on taxes and spending.

Case in point: the recent 23rd Congressional District race in which the Club for Growth opposed Scozzafava and instead favored Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman. Unlike Scozzafava, the seat is reliably Republican, and had she won, she would have been one more big government congressperson who just happened to have an "R" beside her name. Thankfully, the club held firm in its principles and threw its support, and $1 million, behind Hoffman, the true conservative in the race. Scozzafava withdrew. Following the club when it should have been leading, the Republican National Committee threw its support behind Hoffman, and he almost won.

Future wishy-washy Republicans beware: The club has only begun to fight. In Florida, it's supporting House Speaker Marco Rubio, the true conservative, in his GOP Senate primary race against the party's establishment (and more liberal) candidate, Gov. Charlie Crist. And in Pennsylvania, it's supporting conservative Republican and former club Executive Director Pat Toomey in his race to unseat the incumbent, Republican-turned-Democrat Arlen Specter.

The two Pennsylvanians have a history. Toomey challenged Specter in 2004, and as too often happens, the party establishment closed ranks behind Specter, the RINO they thought would win. After his re-election, Specter voted as a liberal and then switched parties.

Check out the Club's web site, http://www.clubforgrowth.org . It provides a wealth of information and plenty of ammunition for any American who cares about limited government and economic freedom. In addition to hard-hitting opinion posts, it provides timely information regarding key votes in Congress and links to roll call tallies listing each senator's and representative's votes. There voters can see who really believes in less government and who only pretends to.

Ronald Reagan famously commanded, "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican." Unfortunately, some of today's Republicans might as well be Democrats. True Republicans who believe in less government and lower taxes have a choice: Support any member of their party regardless of their beliefs, or stand up for the conservative principles that create wealth and jobs.

The Club for Growth has made its choice: No RINOs.

Obama needs to listen to his generals

President Obama is hearing from widely different viewpoints as he reconsiders his policy on Afghanistan. The U.S. and NATO commander there, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, wants as many as 40,000 additional troops. Meanwhile, Vice President Joe Biden wants to shift our focus elsewhere. In other words, lose.

Let's hope President Obama listens to his senior military leader on the ground and not his vice president.

History has shown us that presidents shouldn't blindly trust their military leaders. But on matters of national security, if you give me a choice of placing my trust in generals or in politicians, I'll usually take my chances with the generals.

McChrystal, in particular, has earned that trust.

The general whose unit captured Saddam Hussein has been open and honest about the war's progress and about what he needs to win it. He got the nation's attention when he wrote in a report to the secretary of defense that, without a change of course, the war could be lost within a year.

He's known for walking the Afghan streets without armor so he can better connect with the locals, and his morning video teleconferences involve hundreds of people at all levels rather than a select few at the top.

He's even shaken up the way the United States and its NATO allies are conducting the war.

Convinced that the collateral damage from air strikes is turning the Afghan people against the effort, he's ordered troops to act with restraint, practically banning air strikes against residential areas even when they are sources of hostile fire.

He needs additional troops in order to effectively combat the Taliban and other insurgents who threaten the gains made by the United States and its NATO allies.

An additional 40,000 would bring the total number to 140,000 — not much less than the 150,000 that were in Iraq after the troop surge that proved so successful, and which Obama voted against as a senator.

Those 40,000 troops won't guarantee victory. But failing to provide them will make defeat a lot more certain.

After eight years, the United States is nowhere near accomplishing its objectives, so it's not surprising that some want to quit. But doing so would enable the return of an Islamic fundamentalist regime that oppressed its own people and supported the terrorists who killed 3,000 Americans on Sept. 11, 2001.

Afghanistan is hard. It is larger in both population and area than Iraq, and its geography, tribal society, and resistance to outsiders have made it impossible to invade, as the mighty Soviet Union learned a few decades ago.

But the United States is not invading. It is working to establish a democratic government so that Afghan society will be marked by smiling voters holding up purple-stained thumbs and not fearful women hiding in their black burkas.

It's a noble effort that so far has claimed the lives of 800 irreplaceable Americans. A competent and trustworthy general has asked for up to 40,000 troops so that they did not die in vain.

Let's give him what he's asked for and, until we're shown otherwise, trust that the power of America's ideals and the valor of its men and women in uniform will lead to victory in the end.

Let's win this war.

Obama closing door on school choice

On January 5, 2009, Sasha and Malia Obama arrived for their first day of classes at the Sidwell Friends Academy, a private Quaker school that also educated Chelsea Clinton. Tuition is about $30,000 per year per student.

Meanwhile, 2 million other children across the United States were also attending urban faith-based schools. But while Sidwell's ritzy student body assures its financial survival, those other, less fortunate students face a more uncertain future. Since 2000, the number of urban faith-based schools has fallen from 7,200 to 6,000.

Research tells us that students who attend faith-based schools are more likely to graduate from high school, more likely to attend and graduate from college and more likely to have higher incomes. Meanwhile, they are more likely to vote and to be engaged citizens. They'll more likely be more tolerant of diverse views than their publicly educated peers. When those schools close, many of their students are forced to attend failing urban public schools that won't provide them a decent education or a safe learning environment.

No one can blame the Obamas and the Clintons for wanting to give their daughters the best education possible. It's not hypocritical for political leaders to be outspoken proponents of public schools at the same time they want better for their own children.

The problem is when, after escorting their own children arm and arm into a safe and nurturing private school environment, they turn around and lock the door to those who would like to follow. A case in point is the Opportunity Scholarship Program, which provides vouchers of up to $7,500 for low-income students to escape D.C.'s poorly performing, inefficient public schools so they can attend a private school. While $7,500 is a lot of money, it's one-fourth the cost of a Sidwell Friends education and less than a third of the amount ($24,600) that taxpayers spend to educate each D.C. public school student.

Obama wants to end the program, though he would allow currently participating students to graduate. Helping these at-risk students attend superior private schools isn't only good for those students and their families. Public schools that compete with a vibrant private school sector are forced to provide a better education or risk losing students.

Obama's liberalism takes toll in polls

Democrats were giddy after last November's elections, and seemingly for good reason. President Obama had won an historic victory, and Democrats enjoyed overwhelming majorities in the House and Senate.

Democrat strategist James Carville wrote a book in which he argued that his party would maintain majority status for 40 years. Adding to the chorus, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned his fellow Republicans that the GOP was in danger of becoming a regional party.

But even the most popular political figures eventually come back down to earth — especially when they are wrong on the issues. Despite the never-ending lovefest between President Obama and the media, polls show his popularity is sinking faster than that wounded duck he threw for the ceremonial first pitch at baseball's All-Star Game.

According to Rasmussen Reports, as of July 26, more likely voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the presidency than approve of it, by a count of 50 to 49 percent. Meanwhile, while only 29 percent of likely voters strongly approve of his performance, 40 percent strongly disapprove. And why wouldn't they? Despite enjoying a nearly filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and a heavy majority in the House, all Obama has managed to pass is an $800 billion grab bag of a stimulus package.

That package has helped lead to a $1.7 trillion deficit, a figure unprecedented in U.S. history. Yet, according to Rasmussen, only 25 percent of likely voters believe it helped the economy, while 31 percent say it hurt it. Meanwhile, according to a Gallup poll, a majority of Americans don't believe he will be able to meet his stated goal of cutting the deficit in half in four years — to $850 billion.

Meanwhile, Obama's efforts to remake health care in government's image and to tax productivity in the name of fighting global warming have yet to get real traction.

The disconnect between Obama's positions and his popularity can be explained more by his personal charisma than his performance. I admit that he's a likable guy, but Americans eventually will expect results, and if Obama's liberal policies don't deliver them, James Carville can say goodbye to his 40-year majority.

Iran election exposes iron-fisted autocracy

Their mask has been removed," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told members of Iran's judiciary on June 27. Yes, it has.

Ahmadinejad was referring to President Barack Obama's recent criticism of his government's dictatorial actions. But it would have been far more accurate if he had been talking about his own morally bankrupt administration and the ruling religious clerics who control it.

Yes, the mask — and it's been a thin one — has been removed from a regime that pretends to be a democracy and then rigs elections. It's been removed from a government that rules by fear and intimidation. It's been removed from a theocracy that claims God's favor and then murders its people when they protest.

Ahmadinejad has always been a crazy-eyed thug whose threats against Israel and denial of the Holocaust called into question, at least, his judgment and perhaps his sanity. His government exports terrorism and seeks a nuclear arsenal whose existence would be frightening to imagine.

Now, not even the rosiest of rose-colored glasses could hide the fact that he is part of an illegitimate autocracy that squelches dissent and then clumsily tries to cover its tracks by expelling and even detaining foreign journalists. The authority Ahmadinejad and his ruling clerics exercise comes from the barrel of a gun, not by the will of the Iranian people.

Obama came into office with a televised appeal to Iranians and their leaders in which he called for a "new beginning" and for a future "where the old divisions are overcome." Hopefully, he now understands that divisions cannot be overcome between the United States and a government with no respect for human rights and a history of threatening us and our allies.

No matter what Ahmadinejad does now, Obama's response should be simple and forthright: We recognize no government of Iran until its people's will is recognized first. America must speak up for the cause of freedom, not attempt to overcome divisions with a government that doesn't really try to mask its true intentions. No new beginning is possible for Iran as long as its leaders practice more of the same. Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics must go.

Noelle Nikpour, a Republican strategist and fundraiser, regularly appears on Fox News, The Strategy Room and various political talk shows. Respond to this column by writing to letters@sun-sentinel.com.

Copyright © 2009, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

These two states have too much say

By Noelle Nikpour | Special correspondent

June 17, 2009

Welcome to the United States, where a few hundred thousand Iowans and New Hampshirites choose our presidential candidates.

It's undemocratic when voters in two states always vote first and get to know presidential candidates on a first-name basis while most of the rest of us can only watch the process from a thousand miles away.

Potential candidates in 2012 are already moving into Iowa. Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has been there more than once, while Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, former New York Gov. George Pataki, Nevada Sen. John Ensign and Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour are also making stops.

Iowa's presidential caucuses, followed by New Hampshire's primary, establish the front-runners. No one outside of Georgia had heard of Jimmy Carter in 1976 until he won Iowa. When George W. Bush won in 2000, the Republican nomination was effectively his, and it was in Iowa that Sen. John Kerry became the front-runner for the Democratic nomination in 2004. It was in New Hampshire that John McCain became the GOP front-runner in 2008 and where Bill Clinton became the "comeback kid" in 1992.

Iowa and New Hampshire's status in the pecking order mean they not only choose the front-runner, but they also winnow the field of candidates. By the time these two states are finished, there often remain only two or three candidates, one with so much momentum that the nomination is effectively sealed.

In response, states have moved up their own primaries in a mad dash to the front of the line.

We can't all have a private conversation with our presidential candidates, but can't we reform the system so that average Americans in other states can get face time with their future leaders?

The solution is the same one that we all learned in kindergarten: Take turns. Through a lottery system or alphabetical order, let's give a different set of four states the first pick each election cycle, and please, and let's start it in March. That would let voters in every part of the country have an actual conversation with the candidates at least once in their lifetimes.

Allowing the same states so much influence each election cycle isn't fair and isn't democratic. After all, you can't have a government of the people, by the people and for the people when some people's votes count a lot more — and a lot earlier — than others.

Noelle Nikpour, a Republican strategist and fundraiser, regularly appears on Fox News, The Strategy Room and various political talk shows. Respond to this column by writing toletters@SunSentinel.com.

Republicans must re-brand their message

The leader of the Democratic Party is a handsome, hip, and technologically savvy president who appeals to young people and to people from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. The leader of the Republican Party is … who?

You can't beat something with nothing, and that's the problem. Americans are concerned about their jobs, their health care, their futures, and President Barack Obama offers answers — the same big government solutions Democrats have always offered, but packaged in a way that appeals to voters.

Republicans counter with a handful of white, tired, boring senators tapping out a Morse code of despair: "Obama is bad. America is going to hell in a handbasket. Woe are we." A few bombastic radio hosts shout the conservative message to listeners who are already conservative.

Americans haven't rejected Republican values — less government, lower taxes, strong defense, and traditional values. Instead, Americans have rejected Republicans because Republicans didn't stay true to those values, because they haven't communicated them, and because they haven't applied them to today's real-world problems. 

Republicans must re-brand the party's message to appeal to young people, to people of various ethnic backgrounds, and to Americans who have seen their personal wealth evaporate in the past year. They must use today's tools and speak today's language. 

Party die-hards assure each other that, when Republicans run on conservative values, they win, and when they run as moderates, they lose. They're mostly right, but just because you don't run as a moderate doesn't mean you can't ally with them. Ronald Reagan won two terms not simply by throwing red meat to the party base but by appealing to Reagan Democrats — blue-collar, hardworking, family-oriented Americans, some of whom are now Reagan Republicans. 

There are still many Reagan Democrats out there. Many have recently reached voting age, or they speak with an accent, or they were raised by parents who do. Credible leaders must invite them inside the Republican tent. Otherwise, they'll keep buying what the Democrats are selling, and all of us will keep paying the price.

Memo to secessionists: See ya!

Noelle Nikpour | South Florida Sun-Sentinel

It was 1976, and the Republican National Convention had just voted for four more years -- of Gerald Ford.

Surely many conservatives there could foresee that Ford would not beat Jimmy Carter, setting the stage for the latter's one term of misery indexes and malaise. Surely they were disappointed that the GOP had rejected their candidate, Ronald Reagan. And yet as the convention wound to its end, there was Reagan standing next to Ford on the podium, full of optimism and hope knowing that, come what may, in American politics, there is always will be another election.

Fast forward 33 years, and Republicans have lost again. Now they have a chance to react as Reagan did -- patriotically and without compromising their principles. Instead, some in Texas (and elsewhere) are proposing seceding from the union, and some Republicans are expressing sympathy.

I'm sure Reagan would be shocked and saddened to hear this sentiment. I'm not sure what he would say, though I figure he would be as nice as he could. But I'm not Ronald Reagan, and I do have a simple word to describe these people. Traitors.

To those Texans and others who are talking about seceding -- we're not giving you our land. It's for Americans.

To Texas Governor Rick Perry and former Rep. Tom Delay, who have spoken sympathetically of this viewpoint, where do your loyalties lay?

To actor Chuck Norris, who is openly discussing turning his back on a country that has made him a multimillionaire and a household name -- if you continue talking this way, you're a traitor.

To would-be secessionists, I have another word: Go. I want you to be happy, and don't let the door hit you in the backside as you leave.

Pretty much every piece of the world's habitable real estate has been claimed, so although you would like to form your own country, you'll probably have to find an existing one that is more to your liking. May I suggest a relatively short trek across the Texas border into Mexico? Along the way, you'll probably pass a few of the millions of people worldwide who are trying desperately to come to America because of its freedoms and opportunities.

I'm reminded of those liberals who hated George Bush so much that they threatened to leave the United States. because of his election and re- election. Most decided to stay. Some did go, and I'm glad they did. Perhaps they're happier, and I know the United States is a better country because they are gone. It's a win-win.

The president of the United States is Barack Obama. Although not my choice, he was elected democratically, and I do like democracy very much. Instead of threatening to leave if I don't get my way, I'm going to do what Reagan would have done. I'm going to respect the people's will and then stand up for my party's principles: less government, lower taxes, a strong national defense, traditional values, and, last but not least, love of country. If Republicans will do that, before long, we will win again.

Until then, I'm not leaving.