In 1981, when I moved to DC to work for Senator Abdnor, there were two “social” Republican groups. These groups regularly met in the evenings, adult beverages were served, off the Capitol campus but near Capitol Hill. The members/attendees were mostly Senate and House staffers, and, with the recent inauguration of President Reagan, a sprinkling of lower level White House or Cabinet staffers. Lobbyists weren’t barred from coming but they weren’t really welcome. Members of Congress were usually only there if they were the speaker.
The Coolidge Society comprised GOP conservatives in the Dewey/Taft tradition: Socially conservative, international isolationists, and strong states rights advocates. With the recent take-over of the Senate and the new Reaganites in town, the Coolidge Society was ascendant.
The Ripon Society members were from the GOP’s more liberal and libertarian wing in the Wilkie/Eisenhower tradition. Socially liberal (affiliated with the gay Log Cabin Republicans and pro-abortion), willing to be internationally active on economic and military fronts, and libertarian on civil rights type issues. I was surprised that many of Goldwater staffers were more likely to be here than at Coolidge.
Because many of Ripon’s members had been pro-John Anderson in the 1980 Presidential election, the Ripon Society was definitely on the decline and its members were primarily from the Northeast part of the country. It seemed the Reagan staffers who belonged to the Ripon Society seemed to be those with an international focus because the isolationism of the Coolidge Society wasn’t warm to Reagan’s Cold War strategy. While Ripon was formed in Wisconsin, it really had become the home of the “Yankee Republicans.”
Despite (and maybe because of) the differences, there was substantial cross-over members because:
- We were Republicans and mostly worked for Republican Congressional members. Even though we disagreed on some matters, the success of our boss’ agenda depended on us having relationships with each other.
- On taxes, spending, and regulation, there wasn’t a lot of difference between the Societies except often times it seemed Coolidge was more pro-regulation while Ripon had greater fidelity to the free market and civil liberties.
- Because these two groups were competitive for standing in town, they both worked hard at having quality speakers and the Q&A was extremely topical. Sometimes as an Abdnor staffer, I was able to get insight into the view of another Senator because of the questions another staffer was asking.
- In reality, these gatherings were an “excuse” to leave the office before 7 p.m. and socialize. Congressional staffers work hard and by necessity most of our friends were from our home state. Frankly, I mostly went to the Ripon Society gatherings because a cute girl from Pennsylvania was a member. Whether true or not, when I see Ashton Kucher’s girlfriend, I remember this gal, whose name escapes me. Maybe I didn’t even know her name and had a crush from a distance.
I probably should say “membership” was a loose term. I don’t remember there being dues to either group or even a cover charge. I just kinda remember you labeled yourself as a member of one and a guest of the other and maybe paid a nominal amount to get an occasional newsletter. And, you seemed to be more diligent to going to one group’s gatherings or the other.
Why am I giving this background today? Last night, I saw that Martin Anderson had died. It got me thinking of one time I was in his presence. I never really met him but was a few times where he was.
Anderson was a long-time fellow of the Hoover Institution, Reagan’s Chief Domestic Policy Advisor, White House point person on Reaganomics, and member of the Economic Policy Advisory Board. Anderson was credited for articulating the intellectual underpinning for the Reagan-Kemp-Roth tax cuts. Even if you aren’t a Reaganite, I urge you to read something from Anderson. Anything. Personally, I think his “Reagan, in his own hand” is the best biography of Reagan out there where Anderson was essentially the editor of Reagan’s letters and speeches with commentary for context.
Martin Anderson was alternatively called a right-wing radical or the “Reagan’s Conscience” or something like that. Senators were often frustrated because he seemed insensitive to “political realities.” Senator Abdnor as Co-Chair of the Joint Economic Committee once said to him before a committee meeting something to the effect- “This is what we are talking about. Don’t go off on your crazy economic theories.” But, another time I remember Abdnor saying to Anderson “It isn’t the same since you aren’t around all the time (Anderson commuted to and from California after a few years). Those guys need you back here.”
Anyway, probably late in Reagan’s first term but before the re-election campaign was in full swing, Anderson was the speaker at a Coolidge Society gathering. I think his talk was about what was coming with regard to economic policy now that the tax cuts had passed. I don’t remember it very well.
But, what I’m reminded of today was, when he was thanking Coolidge for the invitation to speak, he made a point to say he wanted to be invited to the Ripon Society too. My first reaction was that it is a slap in the face to his Coolidge hosts.
Anderson then explained when he was a young man just out of college it was the Ripon wing of the GOP that advanced GOP support of the Civil Rights Acts over its state’s rights inclination. And then during Anderson’s tenure with Nixon, it was Ripon that supported his intellectual thesis we should end the military draft and stood behind Nixon’s trip to China.
Anderson’s point was clear. Both Coolidge and Ripon had a role in stimulating ideas within the GOP body of thought.
Martin Anderson was more than the economic and philosophical conscience in the White House. He was a thinker and loved ideas, even those ideas he opposed. But there are a lot of people who are like that. Abdnor and Illinois Senator Paul Simon weren’t friends because they agreed. They were friends because they disagreed.
What makes Martin Anderson special to me is that he was more than a critical cog in what we recognize as the Reagan legacy.
As Reagan began to drift away from Alzhiemers, Anderson knew the Reagan greatness might never be known to the next generation. So Anderson began his last endeavor* to use his up-close and personal experience in the Reagan inner circle to give us a glimpse of Reagan the deep thinker who mulled and contemplated both his positions and how to present them to the American people, Reagan’s basic understanding America is the people’s requiring Reagan to do more than rule but to also convince the people on the issues, and Reagan’s personal courage to see things through to the end.
In one of Anderson’s books (maybe “Revolution”), Anderson gives his explanation of Reagan’s charisma via a story where Reagan was asked why people like him and are willing to trust him. Reagan humbly replied, “When they look at me, they see themselves.”
As we now start to turn our attention to the 2016 Presidential election, maybe we should be looking for another deep thinker with great personal courage who recognizes the President is a steward of the American Experiment and not its author, one in whom we see our best selves.
Martin Anderson, American. Rest In Peace.
*Anderson’s final book will be released next month: “Ronald Reagan: Decisions of Greatness.”
(Sidenote: I’m writing this from memory. I apologize to Anderson and you if I have inadvertently misquoted him, especially the reference to “Revolution” which I can’t find anywhere (Schoenbeck, did I give you my copy?) and exactly the subject of his Coolidge talk. It has been almost 30 years. Speaking of “Revolution” which I read about the time Reagan’s Alzheimers became public. At the end of the book, Anderson talks about Iran-Contra. My impression was Anderson felt Reagan had lost his physical energy because of age and being in the mid to late 70’s. My reaction was maybe the disease had started to manifest itself, especially how Reagan could remember so little during the investigation.)
It’s a John Thune news day apparently.
Our Senior US Senator was officially installed as the chair on the Senate’s Commerce Committee. He commented on Nebraska’s Supreme Court tossing a Keystone XL pipeline court case which was holding Obama back from action on Keystone.
And now the Senator’s seat is in the mix for predictions from the The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call Race Ratings.
What’s the verdict for Thune’s South Dakota seat in 2016? It’s a no-brainer, considering that Democrats failed to run a candidate for the office in 2010. Thune’s Senate Seat is listed as Safe Republican.
With South Dakota Democrats at lows in terms of voters as well as potential candidates who could run at the level of US Senate, it’s doubtful that it’s going to move from a “safe Republican” status anytime between now and November 8th, 2016.
From the Argus:
The South Dakota congressional delegation, all Republicans, harshly opposed the White House threat.
“It’s disappointing that the president is going to fail his first big test as to whether or not he wants to work with Congress,” Sen. John Thune said. “He would be wise to remember the November election results and think twice before moving to block the Keystone XL pipeline, a project that clearly has public support.
With John Thune, Mike Rounds, and Kristi Noem letting the President definitively know where South Dakota stands is much more effective than the mixed messages we were putting out before.
This morning, as I’m still in my pajamas enjoying a snow day, the state Legislative Research Council finally continued in adding legislation to the list of pre-filed measures, which they already were a month late in the first place.
I’m left wondering if these measures were sitting on someone’s desk, or if they had been pre-filed, and not put up on-line? It seems as odd they’re so damn slow at this point, as I thought I’d heard that they already have some of the legislators there from appropriations.
Stay tuned as the big show starts this weekend!
Speaker of the House results:
Others: 24 (I think 7 were Dem’s not voting for Pelosi)
If I got the tally right, 29 GOP members voted for someone other than Boehner. Around 3-6 of the votes seemed grounded in a personal problem with Boehner. But, around 25 voted out of conviction and I think that took courage.
If their conviction was grounded in an idea the Republic is served by pushing issues that will go nowhere and will make people in the middle to doubt Republicans are fit to serve, I disagree. This fiasco of government policy wasn’t built in a day and I don’t believe it will torn down in a day. This will take hard work and not every battle is equal to other battles. I deeply and sincerely believe prudence and diligent focus on the long-run and big issues will serve America best and not less significant or short-term gains.
But, for many of them who didn’t vote for Boehner, I see a sincere expression wanting to have this majority mean something for the good of the Republic. This includes passing the most conservative legislation that will be RELUCTANTLY accepted by President Obama (moving the ball forward). None of us will get everything we want. But, hopefully, we can see steady progress toward a government that serves our interests vs. one that expects us to serve the government.
And yes, it will sometimes mean passing legislation that will be vetoed but will compare and contrast the differences between the two parties. We have a Presidential election in 2016 and a full and open debate of these differences is necessary for a successful Republic.
And, personally, I’m glad this will include Keystone, first hopefully a repeal and then incremental changes in Obamacare, and real reforms in government and spending.
According to the newspaper “The Hill,” currently, only 10 Republicans have specifically noted that they’re going to vote against John Boehner to be Speaker of the House, with Louie Gohmert of Texas announcing a run against the Speaker, as well as Ted Yoho.
One candidate below notes they’re supporting Daniel Webster. Like Yoho, both coming from Florida..
A small but growing number of Republicans say they will vote Tuesday to deny John Boehner a third term as Speaker of the House.
But ousting a sitting Speaker is a difficult feat, and a group of a dozen defectors failed two years ago to depose Boehner, the powerful Ohio Republican.
Because the House GOP expanded its majority in the midterm elections, 29 Republicans would need to vote against Boehner to force a second ballot. Even then, it’s improbable that Boehner would relinquish the gavel and step aside without a drawn-out fight.
The Hill is keeping a running list on Republicans who are opposing Boehner. Here is where the count stands. Please send updates/feedback to [email protected]
NO VOTES (10)
Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.) — Freshman who knocked off House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) had said he’d support Boehner, but flipped this week.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Okla.)* — Disapproved of how the $1.1 trillion spending bill was handled last month.
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas)* — Outspoken Boehner critic says he’ll run for Speaker. Gohmert is friends with Fox News host Sean Hannity, who has called for Boehner’s ouster.
Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.)
Rep.-elect Gary Palmer (R-Ala.) — Stated on the campaign trail that he wouldn’t back Boehner for Speaker. However, Palmer later said he regretted that pledge “to a certain extent” because it might threaten his ability to secure preferred committee assignments. Still, Palmer said he told Boehner he would need to keep his word.
Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.)* — Maverick lawmaker says he’ll back Rep. Daniel Webster (R-Fla.) for Speaker.
Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) — Hard-line opponent of immigration reform backed Boehner two years ago. Since then, Boehner reportedly called King an “asshole” behind closed doors. Boehner ripped his GOP colleague after King made his controversial “canteloupe” remarks regarding DREAMers.
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.)*
Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) — Stutzman lost whip race to Rep. Steve Scalise (R-La.). Bridenstine says he’s been told Stutzman will oppose Boehner.
Rep. Ted Yoho (R-Fla.)* — Challenging Boehner for Speaker.
Not a very big list of “No votes.” Certainly not enough to oust Boehner.
My opinion is that he was pretty good ally to South Dakota in terms of actively supporting the farm bill. So, what do you think? Has Boehner done a good job? Or does he need to be replaced?
The SDWC Daily Digest is out for 1/4/15 – Read it here. Sign up to receive in your inbox.
So, what happened to paying your debt to society? Republican State Senator Craig Tieszen want to give voting rights back to felons as soon as they’re out of prison.
According to KOTA news:
District 34 Senator Craig Tieszen will introduce a bill this legislative session to restore voting rights to felons as soon as they get out of prison.
State law dictates that felons have to wait until their parole is finished.
But keeping in line with the state’s mission to reform criminal justice, Tieszen said Friday that it is only fair that felons get the chance to take part in the voting process.
Sorry, but that’s just a bad move, and no reason to be soft on criminals. What’s next? A polling place at the state pen? The fact of the matter is that in 2012, South Dakota finally fixed what was a confusing patchwork system and clarified that:
Under South Dakota Codified Law § 12-4-18, a person convicted of a felony in either federal or state court on or after July 1, 2012 loses the right to vote. A person so disqualified becomes eligible to register to vote upon completion of his or her entire sentence. A person who receives a suspended imposition of sentence does not lose the right to vote.
Read that here.. If you look at that page, it details the mess we had before.
And, the truth is that there’s a lot more to sentences than jail time. There’s restitution, there’s treatment, and a host of other remedies and hoops the court may require before the felon has completed their sentence and has their full citizenship restored.
Why would we give someone less incentive to fulfill their obligations? Because while some think it might be fair for the felon, what about fairness for the victim? Shouldn’t, say an embezzler, meet the sentence requirement of restitution before having their right restored?
It’s even a worse idea this year. Why? Two words – Annette Bosworth.
Say this law passes. If Annette is convicted (or pleads guilty) to election violations, for a white collar petition felony charge, she likely would not spend one hour in prison. Which, under the Tieszen proposal, means her right to vote would suffer no consequences whatsoever.
Why would we want to do that for election violators? Shouldn’t there be some effect on a right to vote in that situation?
There are a lot of reasons to reject this. Most importantly, I keep coming back to the fact we just fixed this law in 2012. So why would we step backwards and make it a confusing mess again?
That’s just a bad idea.