USD College Republicans

Liberal "tolerance"

Posted at 10:08PM Oct 12, 2008 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

Another successful convention!

The USD College Republicans have just finished hosting the 2008 South Dakota College Republicans Convention- and it was one of the most successful in recent memory!

Representatives of several colleges around the state converged on Farber Hall on Friday night, then Raziel's today in order to hear speeches from local candidates and elect new leadership.

Congratulations to Ryan Budmayr of USD and Brandon Lindstrom of SDSU for being elected Chair and Vice Chair, respectively.

This upcoming Wednesday at 6pm, the USD chapter will elect its leadership for the 2008-2009 year. Be sure to attend and vote!

We of the USD CR chapter would like to thank everyone that spoke, including Sam Kephart, Joel Dykstra, and Chris Lien, as well as the representatives from other chapters who attended. Thanks also to the USD CRs who helped make this event a great success!

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 04:58PM Apr 19, 2008 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

Gingrich on lobbyists

The New York Times Freakonomics blog

He has an interesting take on lobbyists and size of government. Those Democrats (Like Hillary and Barack) that want to remove lobbyists from the political system would do well to read this.
-----
Q: Do you think that corporations have too much power in government, through lobbyists and monetary incentives? What should be done to correct what I see as an imbalance of power between voters and the rich/powerful?

A: There is a direct relationship between the size, influence, and power of a government and the influence of lobbyists on that government. If we are serious about limiting the ability of lobbyists to dictate government policy, we should be serious about limiting the size and scope of the government’s power. Until that happens, the wealthy and powerful will always be able to have influence through lobbying.
----
The Democrats (if elected) will only grow the size of government, therefore making the lobbyist "problem" worse. That's why we should vote McCain.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 04:52PM Mar 14, 2008 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

In defense of the Bush presidency

William McGurn has a great op-ed in today's Wall Street Journal.

It highlights several areas about which the White House Press Corps- and Democrats- tend to give Bush grief.

His tax cuts:
-----
"Critics attacked on all fronts. The tax cuts were unfair because they only helped the rich. They would blow out the deficit, and do nothing for the economy. And when the economy began to improve, the focus shifted to a "jobless recovery."

We now know that "jobless recovery" in fact produced the longest period of consecutive job growth in our history. We now know that the tax cuts that were supposed to blow a hole in the federal budget deficit actually contributed to economic growth that has in turn yielded record tax revenues. As for unfairness, we also know that if the Democrats have their way and allow the Bush tax cuts to expire, a family of four with $60,000 in earnings in 2007 would see their taxes go up by about $1,800. So who's being stubborn?"
-----
Stem cells:
-----
"Or take stem cells. Shortly after taking office, the president had to make a tough decision about federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that holds out hope for life-saving treatments. The problem was that getting the stem cells requires destroying embryos. In July 2001, Mr. Bush announced a reasonable compromise. The solution was that the federal government would support embryonic stem cell research, but would not support the creation of life just to destroy it.

For more than six years, the critics have reacted by suggesting America was regressing into a new Dark Ages. "An act of self-serving political Houdinism" said one columnist. A later editorial after a presidential veto ran under the headline "The President's Stem Cell Theology." The science reporter for ABC News put it this way: "We talk to a lot of scientists who believe nothing will change until the next inauguration in 2009."

Well, we didn't have to wait until 2009 for something to change. Last November, scientists discovered a way to reprogram adult skin cells to act like embryonic stem cells. In other words, we now have the potential to cultivate adult cells with the same pluripotent qualities that make embryonic cells so valuable -- and without having to destroy human life. That sure sounds like a welcome development. So let me ask: How many stories or editorials have you read giving the president his due?"
----
Iraq
----
"Finally there is Iraq. By the end of 2006, sectarian violence was tearing Iraq apart, the terrorists were getting away with spectacular acts of murder, and our strategy plainly was not working. For a man said to resist unpleasant truths, the president acted boldly. He replaced his defense secretary, replaced his commanders on the ground, and completely overhauled his strategy. Granted, it would have been better had it come earlier. But it was a tough thing to do, he did it -- and he did it knowing full well that the critics would jump all over him.

The president announced the surge in a nationally televised address in January 2007. A conservative columnist accused the president of offering nothing but "salesmanship and spin." A cable TV host went on a rant declaring "the plan fails militarily, the plan fails symbolically, the plan fails politically." Columnists and commentators either hedged their bets or predicted disaster ahead, with allusions to Vietnam sprinkled in for good measure.

Yet the surge went ahead. In Anbar Province, Marines were sent in to take advantage of a popular Sunni revolt against al Qaeda -- and by April the capital city of Ramadi was being taken back from the terrorists. By September, U.S. and Iraqi forces were clearing out Baquba, a one-time al Qaeda town in Diyala Province. And though Gen. David Petraeus says that the gains can still be reversed, sectarian killings are down, civilian deaths are down, and the people of Baghdad are getting a taste of normal life. Surely the president deserves a little credit here."
----
Unfortunately, the Press Corps and Democrats are too busy trying to vilify the President to give him credit for any of this.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 01:14PM Feb 19, 2008 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

Republicans happier than Democrats

It seems that study after study shows Republicans to be happier that Democrats, on average.

I'm just going to post some snippets because I think this article is funny and fascinating.
------
"A 2006 Pew Research poll found that 45 percent of Republicans describe themselves as "very happy," compared with only 30 percent of Democrats (and 29 percent of independents). This is a sizable gap and a remarkably consistent one, too. Republicans have been happier than Democrats every year since the General Social Survey, conducted biannually by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, began asking about happiness in 1972.

What to make of this finding? Is there something about being a card-carrying member of the GOP that induces a warm, fuzzy feeling, a sort of political Prozac? Or does the river of causality flow in the other direction: Are happy people more likely to become Republicans than Democrats? Or maybe neither explanation holds water and it only appears as if Republicans are happier than Democrats.

The most obvious place to look for an explanation is, of course, with money. Wealthy people are marginally happier than poor ones, and Republicans, according to some surveys, tend to be wealthier than Democrats, so that must be why they're happier, right? Nice try, but no dice. Even after adjusting for differences in income, the Pew researchers still found a marked happiness gap: Poor Republicans are, on average, happier than poor Democrats, and wealthy Republicans are happier than wealthy Democrats.

Maybe the answer is power. Republicans have controlled the White House for most of the past 35 years, and nothing spells happiness like p-o-w-e-r. Wrong again. Republican bliss persists even if a Democrat -- be it Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton -- resides in the White House."
------
"If this isn't depressing enough for liberals, it turns out that some of their own pet policies are to blame for their unhappiness. Once in power, Democrats tend to focus on issues that, according to the science of happiness, have little effect on our contentment -- income equality, for instance, and racial diversity. Neither is linked to greater happiness. Countries with large disparities between rich and poor are no less happy than more egalitarian ones, studies have found. And the happiest countries in the world tend to be homogenous ones, such as Denmark and Iceland, not the ethnic melting pots that liberals celebrate."
-------
"All things being equal, voters choose the more optimistic candidate.

This may explain why Republicans have dominated presidential elections in the past 40 or so years. They, of course, have as their happy standard-bearer Ronald Reagan, who smilingly urged us to ask ourselves if we were better off (read: happier) than we'd been four years earlier. On the Democrats' side, John F. Kennedy knew how to play the happiness card, but most of his would-be followers haven't. Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry (Jimmy Carter, too, even though he managed to win an election): Happiness does not come to mind when you think of these people. Only Bill Clinton, with his "bridge to the 21st century" and his "Third Way" (part Democratic technocrat, part Republican mirth), managed to break through the happiness barrier."
-------
"There is, though, an exception to the Happy Republicans trend. More Democrats than Republicans say they're excited about the current election, according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News survey conducted in November, and Republicans are more likely than Democrats to say that the election season leaves them frustrated and bored. Might Democrats be on the verge of transforming themselves into the party of happiness? If so, that would be the ultimate flip-flop."
-------

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 10:17PM Feb 10, 2008 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

The battle for the Republican Party

Peggy Noonan had an excellent column in Friday's Wall Street Journal

There's too much to discuss here, but the basics are this: Clinton is dividing the Democratic Party like Bush has done with the Republicans:

"On the pundit civil wars, Rush Limbaugh declared on the radio this week, "I'm here to tell you, if either of these two guys [Mr. McCain or Mike Huckabee] get the nomination, it's going to destroy the Republican Party. It's going to change it forever, be the end of it!"

This is absurd. George W. Bush destroyed the Republican Party, by which I mean he sundered it, broke its constituent pieces apart and set them against each other. He did this on spending, the size of government, war, the ability to prosecute war, immigration and other issues."

I won't write much more because I think you should read this in its entirety.

-Matt Hittle

Posted at 01:59AM Jan 26, 2008 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

The battle for the Republican Party

An excellent article by Daniel Henninger in today's Wall Street Journal details the internal turmoil within the Republican Party.
-
The Party's identity crisis can be best viewed by the vastly different candidates running for its nomination for president- "...a former big-city mayor who revived his city after 9/11, two former governors, an admired former senator from central casting, a senator of deep experience who is a certified war hero and a libertarian with a medical degree..."
-
The Party has been confused for a few years now. Our president is a "compassionate conservative" who likes to grow government to suit his constituents' concerns, while many of us are free marketeers who like government out of our lives. The battle between these two sides is evident.
-
It will surely be fascinating to see which direction the Party moves in 2008. I'm not putting my money on anyone just yet.
-
-Matt Hittle

Posted at 09:26AM Dec 27, 2007 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

Economists dig the GOP

Greg Mankiw reports that economists go for the GOP!
-
-Matt Hittle

Posted at 07:18PM Dec 10, 2007 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[1]

Republicans have better mental health?!

I'm not sure of the significance of this report- interpret it how you wish!
-
"Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.
The basic data -- based on an aggregated sample of more than 4,000 interviews conducted since 2004 -- are straightforward."
-
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102943/Republicans-Report-Much-Better-Mental-Health-Than-Others.aspx
-
Matt Hittle

Posted at 02:35PM Dec 01, 2007 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[1]

Republican Party at a crossroads?

The Cato Institute's blog had a great post yesterday about the ideology of the Republican Party (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2007/11/29/greenwald-on-the-gop-and-limited-government/).
-
While I'm not advocating one over the other- we CR's accept all Republicans, despite our personal views- it is an interesting account of the discussions taking place within the party.
-
"But neoconservatism — which is really what the right-wing pro-Bush movement has become — doesn’t believe in any of that, and Brooks’ column demonstrates that they are admitting that more and more explicitly. Instead, it touts a radical and authoritarian nanny-statism that seeks, at its core, to provide feelings of protection, safety, and moralistic clarity — “security leads to freedom” — all delivered by political leaders using ever-increasing federal government power and limitless militarism. Whether one believes in that radical and warped vision of the American federal government is, more than any other factor, what now determines one’s political orientation."
-
It's a great, informative post- read it!
-
-Matt Hittle

Posted at 08:13AM Nov 30, 2007 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]

Should the Republican Party be like this guy? You be the judge

This article (http://opinionjournal.com/la/?id=110010922), by John Hulsman in the Wall Street Journal discusses a new book by Bush's genius speech-writer, Michal Gerson...and how he's a neo-con. The book is called "Heroic Conservatism."
-
"Michael Gerson, long praised (some would say over-praised) as President Bush's genius speechwriter, is also, it turns out, a would-be moral philosopher and political strategist. In "Heroic Conservatism," he calls for the Republican Party to redefine itself and brighten its future by casting aside its suspicion of big government and pursuing lofty projects of statist do-goodery. Let us hope that Republicans ignore him."
-
"What about the longtime conservative belief that limited, accountable government works best--that it is the form of government least likely to squander resources, thwart private initiative, impinge on freedom and avoid harmful, unintended consequences? Unheroic, says Mr. Gerson. What about the quaint notion that government should live within its means?"
-
Hulsman calls Gerson's views "Christian socialism."
-
"Siding with FDR and Woodrow Wilson, his acknowledged heroes, he [Gerson] assumes that traditional conservatives do not care about American society's problems. He never stops to ponder whether traditional conservatives disagree with his statist prescriptions precisely because they do care."
-
"The book has a hectoring tone, blithely claiming the moral high ground and ignoring a great deal of chastening experience. Such self-satisfied thinking runs counter to the Burkean temperament, which is painfully aware of the limits, and potential flaws, of even well-intentioned men."
-
No offense to our Democratic brethren, but to many Republicans, this sounds way too much like an ultra-liberal... "moral high ground...ignoring experience...self satisfied."
-
One is easily able to assert that Gerson's views are what is wrong with the Republican Party. Of course, this isn't my personal blog, so I'm not passing judgment- merely reporting.
-
-Matt Hittle

Posted at 12:57PM Nov 29, 2007 by College Republicans in Republicans  |  Comments[0]