CPAC, GOProud and a divided right

One of the growing online trends over the past several weeks has been about CPAC, GOProud and a division on the right. While there is some legitimacy to the stories – let’s be honest, some conservative organizations are openly against homosexuality – the heat has been turned up in recent days with some organizations signing on to the boycott that has been underway against CPAC since late 2010. The list of non-attendees includes – in no particular order and not a complete list – The Heritage Foundation, Family Research Council, American Principles Project, Liberty University, Media Research Council, National Organization for Marriage, Jim DeMint, Chris Christie and Jim Jordan.

The list goes on but you get the point. It is not often mentioned that the volume of organizations and individuals attending CPAC is massive nor is it widely reported that many of CPAC’s detractors have a great deal of concern over the financial questions that are currently surrounding the American Conservative Union – which is the organization that has hosted CPAC since 1973.

What the media has focused on is GOProud’s sponsorship of CPAC and the apparent insensitivity – some “media” organizations going so far as to call it hate -- of a few conservative organizations and individuals against the gay community. Citing the irony that these attacks are being leveled against GOProud by organizations and individuals who hold some of the same conservative values, the media and the left in general must be having a field day -- as one blog story referred to the conflict as a civil war in the conservative movement.

With the run up to CPAC, which is set for February 10^th to the 13^thin Washington, D.C., the media is trying to turn a dust-up between GOProud and a handful of social conservative organizations and individuals into a fracture within the “big tent” itself. The problem is that while much of this is media hype, the reality is that it could quickly expand into a very real divide that could be quite challenging for our Republican nominee to overcome in the 2012 elections next November. Adding fuel to the fire, tonight’s State of the Union Address by President Obama will have not one but twoRepublican responses. This is yet another example of where we are allowing for internal division – the GOP vs. the Tea Party – coupled with the media’s attempt to create the appearance of intolerance and hate by conservatives as a whole -- GOProud vs. American Principles Project – to prove to the rest of the country that we are not united.

And therein lays the single, greatest threat to Republicans, the GOP, Tea Party members, and the conservative movement as a whole which must be faced in the near future: are we going to make compromises and unify or are we going to allow for division within our base to defeat us in 2012 and beyond?

It is my opinion that we must set aside our fundamental differences and unify around a set of issues in which we all believe -- and the majority of Americans believe -- and as such I have compiled a short list of conservative values to start the ball rolling:

1)      Reducing our foreign debt and shrinking the Federal budget.
2)      A reduced Federal government with more power to the states.
3)      Cleaning up the pension funds and power of the unions.
4)      Lower taxes for business and consumers, not “stimulus” slush funds.
5)      Support of economic growth through capitalism, not control and regulation.
6)      Complete stop and/or repeal of at least:

• Net Neutrality
• ObamaCare
• Cap and Trade – any climate change related bills
• Bailouts of failed companies

7)      Strengthening our military and national defense.
8)      A strong foreign policy, re-establishing America’s might around the world.
9)      A congress and President that govern by the will of the people, not against.
10)   Uphold the Constitution at all costs, focus on American exceptionalism.

The reality is that there are hundreds of issues on which we all have opinions -- some issues hit closer to home than others for each of us – but the fact of the matter is that the discussion is irrelevant and our opinions become moot if we no longer have the basic freedoms afforded to us as Americans to debate the same issues that divide us today. If we cannot defeat this administration next November, allowing for a second term of President Obama, how many more of our freedoms will be stripped away? Can we afford to take the risk of not unifying behind a basic, core set of issues on which we can rally Americans behind?

The answer is simply no.

We do not have the luxury of dividing our ranks on issues like same sex marriage, abortion, prayer in school, abstinence, amnesty and the like. I very much look forward to picking up on all of these debates and working through each of them over time. My fear is if we do not focus on securing our freedoms as American citizens, protecting the Constitution from those that would shred or re-write it and work together -- in unison -- for victory in 2012 we will be defeated and face an unknown future.

United we will win in 2012. Divided we will lose. It’s just that simple.

This was first published on my blog at http://derekoberholtzeronline.com/

Is Obama the Billion Dollar Man?

There was a recent story in the Politico (read it here) about the President’s re-election team and their need to be the first campaign to raise more than $1 billion in donor contributions to defeat the Republicans and their “outside money” in 2012. With the 2012 campaign cycle rapidly approaching, I felt it was time to conduct some independent research into campaign contributions on my own.

First off, let’s start with a quick refresher on campaign contributions. When a candidate reports a number for his/her campaign contributions, that number can be easily matched — if not exceeded by — contributions in support of that same candidate through party committees and non-profit organizations. So when it is reported that the President raised $744,985,625 in contributions, only part of the picture is painted. The remainder of the money in support of any candidate — or the President for instance — comes in the form of party committees like the DNC; through independent expenditures by political action committees, unions – think SEIU, and 501c’s; and finally in the form of Federal funds which can be waived, as President Obama did in 2008.

During the entire 2008 election cycle there was a total (reported) of $5,285,680,883 raised in political donations for candidates in the House, Senate and for the Presidency. That is over FIVE BILLION dollars raised in an effort to impact the outcome of the elections in 2008 for all seats that were up for grabs. Since 2000 there has been an average increase in political contributions of 131% during Presidential election cycles versus a 132.76% increase during non-presidential election cycles. If this average holds true, then we are looking at nearly $7 billion in campaign contributions for 2012. Considering the President’s own fundraising efforts in 2008 represented roughly 14% of the total Federal contributions reported and factoring in the expected increase to $6,924,217,190 for 2012, the President definitely has the edge and could raise an estimated $975,927,678. Remembering what I said earlier, this is only a portion of the money that will be available for his re-election efforts.

Of course the President has many hurdles to overcome, as pointed out in the Politico’s story. However, it is a long election cycle and when many on the left are faced with a real conservative candidate from the right — which we were without in 2008 — their pocketbooks will most certainly open up and the funds will start to flow. The two main questions then become 1) will it be in time; and 2) will it be enough?

As the Politico piece mentions, I think the real reason for anxiety on the left is the rise of the new super PAC, which first became available for Federal election cycles in 2010. Super PAC’s allow for unlimited individual/corporate contributions, instead of the previous cap that was — and remains — in place for regular PAC’s of $5,000 per calendar year. With this new tool available to the right — and the left — the potential for a big surge of previously capped political contribution sources into a campaign – or many campaigns – has grown exponentially.

One of the most important pieces to understand about both PACs and super PACs is that they are entirely independent of the candidate(s) that they are supporting. The organization cannot be in communication with the candidate(s) campaign nor can they be seen to work together in the slightest. Many believe that this is a blessing as it allows the organization to run negative attacks focused on their candidate(s) opposition instead of simply supporting their candidate. This keeps the candidates hands clean of the attack, with complete deniability, while being able to enjoy the potential benefits the attack can have — especially in the form of an October surprise.

Imagine if BP decides they want retribution from the President’s administration for placing their “boot on the throat” of the company and its shareholders and extorting billions of dollars from BP? Not to mention the financial institutions and insurance companies that have been targeted by President Obama’s administration in the past few years. The list is quite long and those adversely affected have the resources to provide large amounts of funding to these super PAC’s, creating a potential advantage that has heretofore been nonexistent. I think this is one of the potential scenarios that keep the left up at night.

This was originally posted on my main blog site here: http://wp.me/p1hSjp-r

Source information:

- All contribution data was sourced from Center for Responsive Politics here:
 http://www.opensecrets.org/

- Politico story, "Barack Obama's 2012 cash challenge" can be found here:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47596.html

- Boot on the throat reference was sourced from the Fox News archive here:
nation.foxnews.com/robert-gibbs/2010/05/04/gibbs-well-keep-boot-throat-bp