Posts Tagged corbett

An Alternate Universe


News Item: “A cosmologist from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) believes he may just have found proof that an alternate and parallel universe does indeed exist.”  — Tech Times, November 5, 2015

The existence of an alternate or parallel universe has been the subject of scientific curiosity almost since the beginning of civilization.  But, the Caltech “proof” aside, recent statements by Left wing politicos does indeed prove that there is an alternate universe – because they are living in it.

Here in Penn’s Woods Philadelphia’s new progressive mayor, Jim Kenney made his first trip into the alternate universe within days of taking office.  City police officer Jesse Hartnett was shot point blank while sitting in his patrol car by one Edward Archer.  Archer was dressed in Muslim garb and said he shot the officer because “police bend laws that are contrary to the teachings of the Quran.”

Kenney immediately took to the podium to proclaim: “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen . . .”   Thus, Kenney continued the great tradition of the Left denying that radical Islam is at the heart of the terror assaults sweeping the globe.  Even when faced with an individual directly linking his actions to radical Islam, Kenney felt compelled to contradict the perpetrator’s own declaration of his motives.

In doing this Kenney takes his cue from President Barack Obama who refuses to even utter the words “Islamic extremism,” and as recently as his State of the Union message a couple of weeks ago continues to pretend the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, commonly known as ISIS, does not pose a significant threat to our national security.  In fact, just days before the Paris terrorist attacks he emerged from the Left’s alternate universe to proclaim that ISIS had been “contained.” Since making that comment ISIS sympathizers have carried out numerous attacks including the massacre of 14 people in San Bernardino, California.

Also spending time in the alternate universe of the Left is Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf.  One of the biggest planets in that alternate universe is the one on which dwells the fiction of public education spending cuts under former governor Tom Corbett.  Governor Wolf has made reversing those non-existent cuts his number one priority.  But when Republicans in the state legislature passed a budget giving him $400 million more in education spending, Wolf applied Common Core math to proclaim it was a $95 million funding cut.

Lest I be accused of lacking diversity, female politicians also populate the Left’s alternate universe.  Commenting on the selection of South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley to deliver the Republican rebuttal to President Obama’s State of the Union Address Democratic National Committee Chair-human Debbie Wasserman Schultz said: “It’s pretty clear that Nikki Haley is being chosen because the Republican Party has a diversity problem.”  Of course you demonstrate a lack of diversity by having a female of Indian background represent your party.

Days later, the white Democratic presidential candidates – which are, well, all of them, debated.  The GOP field has included an African-American, two candidates of Cuban descent, an Indian-American, a woman, and one guy who is good at getting people off beaches in a storm.

That brings us to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s alternate universe in which she claims that GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump has a “penchant for sexism.”  In making that statement Mrs. Clinton opened a black hole to that universe into which the outspoken billionaire poured the reality of former President Bill Clinton’s well-known dalliances with various women, one of which got him impeached.

And so, with all due respect to Caltech and the scientific community, the Left-wing of American politics has already pretty much proven the existence of an alternate and parallel universe.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Delco Special Could be Scott Wagner Sequel


While all eyes are riveted on the looming state budget deadline in Harrisburg, the political story of the summer is now playing out in Delaware County where a special election for a seat in the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has become the latest flashpoint in the ongoing internal GOP battle between union-leaning southeastern Republicans and the party’s pro worker freedom grassroots.

The drama began to unfold when State Representative Joe Hackett resigned at the end of April.  Despite having been re-elected just months earlier, Hackett decided he wanted to return to his old career in law enforcement.  That set the stage for a special election which will be held on August 4th.  Nominees in legislative special elections are chosen by the respective political parties rather than by voters in a primary.  Thus, a candidate not selected by committee members has no recourse other than to run a write-in campaign. Such write-in campaigns had previously proven to be fruitless, until Senator Scott Wagner scored a historic write-in victory in a special election in York County last year.

The Delaware County committee members participating in the selection of a nominee for Hackett’s 161st district seat chose a candidate who has riled grassroots conservatives across the commonwealth.  They picked as their candidate Paul Mullen who is president of the Delaware County AFL-CIO and business manager of IBEW Local 654.  In doing so, the committee passed over Lisa Esler, a local school board member and co-founder of the Delaware County Tea Party Patriots.

As a labor union boss, Mullen can be expected to oppose most of the pro worker freedom agenda being advanced by the Republican-controlled legislature in Harrisburg.  Pension reform, liquor privatization and paycheck protection are but three important issues that enjoy widespread support among the GOP grassroots and in the Republican caucuses in the legislature.  Progress on all three of these reforms has been blocked by the labor unions.  Worse, Mullen supported Barack Obama, Joe Sestak against U.S. Senator Pat Toomey, and Tom Wolf over Governor Tom Corbett, making his selection by the GOP even more curious.

The Mullen pick lit a power key of fury among conservatives.  Esler has stepped forward and will challenge the union boss in the upcoming special election by running a write-in campaign.  Her efforts should be taken seriously for two reasons: the Wagner win proves it can be done; and the district is almost evenly divided by party registration meaning this is more than just a GOP intramural competition

Senator Wagner’s election has changed the political landscape in a number of ways.  Most notably party domination of special elections is now a thing of the past.  With active and highly effective conservative groups now operating in the state, a write-in candidate such as Esler now has access to funding, consultants and grassroots workers previously unavailable to such challengers.

The Wagner write-in victory in York County, the first time in state history a write-in candidate won a special senate election, proved the playing field has been leveled.  Wagner was well funded, had substantial grassroots support from the local Tea party and benefitted from a voter backlash over the high-handed campaign run by those supporting the party’s nominee.

All of those factors are at play in the Delaware County race.  In what will be a low turn-out election in a small geographic district, Esler will be a force with which to be reckoned.  The outcome will have no impact on party control of the legislature. The GOP has a historically large majority, but it will impact the GOP caucus.  A small group of southeastern Pennsylvania Republican representatives, out of step with a majority of their caucus, have sided with Democrats on labor power issues. Those looking to enhance worker freedom in the state will be anxious to prevent another member from being added to their number.

And that is how what should have been a routine, sleepy special election in the dead of summer could turn out to be the political battle of the year.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

From Perception to Reality


There is an old saying in political circles that “perception is reality.”  Like many old saws there is a lot of truth behind that saying.  Perception is driven by messaging.  It is not necessarily the best policy that prevails, but the policy that benefits from the most effective messaging.  And effective messaging depends on sound arguments, superior strategy and a capable messenger.

Democrats and the GOP have arrived at a split decision when it comes to effective messaging in political campaigns.  Republicans have decimated Democrats at the legislative level.  In congress the GOP holds solid majorities in both chambers.  In the state legislature Republican majorities are at or near historic levels.  The executive branch is a different story. President Obama’s oratorical skills have laid waste to hapless GOP nominees.  Former Governor Tom Corbett was never able to effectively explain his policies to voters, paving the way for a Democratic victory.

Elections behind us, the task now turns to governing.  This is where the outcome of the messaging battle becomes more one-sided.  Congressional Republican leaders have been totally ineffective.  They have squandered their numeric majority by being strategically out-maneuvered, and are losing the perception war.

Despite the fact President Obama’s executive orders relative to illegal immigrants were ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge, and polls showing public opposition to his actions, the Republican congressional majority was unsuccessful in defunding the agencies tasked with implementing that policy.  Why?  They allowed Democrats to spin the defunding as a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.  In fact only a couple of small agencies within the DHS would have been affected.  Thus the debate changed from illegal immigration to national security. Congressional Republicans were backed into a corner, caved in, and gave the President a victory.

Now unfolding is a fight over the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as U.S. Attorney General.  Republicans have legitimate concerns relative to her interpretation of the constitution.  But, they have allowed Democrats to portray their opposition as sexist, or racist by opposing the confirmation of an African-American woman.  It was entirely predictable Democrats would play the race and “war on women” cards, but the GOP was unprepared to counter that message.  In the end, a woman who believes the President can effectively re-write the U.S. Constitution will likely be confirmed as Attorney General.

Here in Penn’s Woods the GOP has historically been equally inept at countering executive messaging.  Former Governor Ed Rendell was a master at backing legislative Republicans into a corner, picking off a couple of stragglers at the back of the herd, and winning enough votes for his budgets and policies.

Now, however, there is a new cast of characters in Harrisburg.  Governor Tom Wolf has opted to follow the Obama model and tack far to the Left in his first budget proposal.  New leadership is at the helm of both the House and Senate GOP and they represent caucuses far more conservative than those in office during the Rendell years.

Democrats have already begun spinning their message.  Rick Bloomingdale, president of the state AFL-CIO penned an op-ed calling Governor Wolf’s new budget progressive, conjuring up images of John Fitzgerald Kennedy daring us to be great.  This despite the fact working families will pay significantly higher taxes under Wolf’s budget proposals which amount to nothing either new or progressive, but are little more than a continuation of Rendell-era tax and spend policies.

The ball is now in the GOP’s court.  Republican legislative leaders must shed the yoke of the Corbett Administration’s failure to communicate and become effective advocates for a more responsible approach to governing.  Republicans have proposals that are time-tested, proven governing policies.  The challenge now is to effectively communicate that message and to stand strong against a governor – and mainstream news media – determined to spin false perception into reality.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

A Taxing Tale


President Obama’s claim that “If you like your health care plan you can keep your health care plan” was dubbed by pundits as the 2013 lie of the year. Fast forward to this year’s gubernatorial campaign and two lies are competing for top honors.  Take your choice between: Governor Tom Corbett has slashed spending on public education; and Marcellus Shale gas drillers, unlike other states, are not paying high enough taxes.

Pollsters for the four remaining Democratic candidates for governor seem to have all discovered that education funding has surpassed unemployment and the melting polar ice caps as the main issue concerning likely voters in the upcoming primary.  Thus a happy convergence of the two lies has occurred.  The candidates can promise voters their cake – more education spending – and they can eat it too because they will tax the robber baron gas drillers to pay for it.

Setting aside the fact more state dollars are being spent on public education than at any time in the history of the commonwealth, let’s focus on whether or not companies drilling in Pennsylvania’s Marcellus Shale reserve are paying their fair share.  One candidate claims on his website that we are giving “. . . away our state’s valuable resources without generating revenue for critical investments like schools . . . ”  His television ads point out that gas drillers in Penn’s Woods do not pay a severance tax as do companies operating in every other state in the union.

That is a true, but misleading statement.  Pennsylvania does not levy a severance tax, which is a tax applied on gas as it leaves the well, but the commonwealth does charge gas companies – as it does all other businesses – both a Corporate Net Income Tax and a Capital Stock & Franchise Tax.  We are the only state in the nation that levies both of those taxes.  That alone would place Marcellus shale drillers on an equal footing with the 49 other states.

But, it doesn’t stop there.  Act 13 of 2012 imposed an impact fee on natural gas wells in Penn’s Woods.  It is called a fee because Republicans supporting the measure did not want to be accused of raising taxes.  A rose by any other name, however, is still a rose.  The dictionary defines the word tax as “a sum of money demanded by a government for its support, or for specific facilities or services.” Thus, the Marcellus Shale impact fee is, by definition, a tax.

The impact tax is levied based upon the price of natural gas traded on the market and on the age of the wells.  Thus the amount of revenue generated each year fluctuates depending on market performance and number of wells drilled.  According to the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy in Pittsburgh, the impact tax generated $204.2 million in revenue in 2011 and $202.5 million in revenue in 2012.  Less was generated in 2012 because the market price of the gas had decreased.

So, to put this into perspective, an industry that supposedly is not paying its fair share over the past two years paid every tax every other business in the state paid plus an additional $406.2 million.  What sort of outrage would there be if, for example, we asked farmers to pay an impact tax? They use natural resources – soil and water – to produce their product.  Or, perhaps to make it fair we should enact a “success tax” – in addition to Corporate Net and Capital Stock & Franchise taxes – on any business in Pennsylvania that expands rapidly and reaps higher profits?

The current political debate focused on adding another layer of tax on Marcellus Shale drillers implies, and in some cases outright states, that the gas companies are taking a natural resources and we are left with no benefit.  But the Allegheny Institute’s analysis of where dollars from the impact tax have gone shows that a wide range of state agencies, county and local governments have received revenue from the tax.  These funds have gone to repair and replace local bridges, improve water and sewer projects, clean up acid mine drainage, pay for green space initiatives and watershed projects. Money has been set aside in the Environmental Stewardship Fund to pay for any future problems which may arise, and into community and economic development.  Counties – all 67 of them – have shared in over $21 million in revenue.

As in most political campaigns truth is the first casualty.  Candidates can certainly propose higher taxes, but they should at least not mislead voters. Instead they should tell the whole story and not just those parts of it that fit their campaign narrative.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

A Yogi Berra Election


Famed Yankee’s skipper and player Yogi Berra famously said the game “isn’t over until it is over.”  Always quotable, Berra summed up in one sentence the fact that in baseball, even in the bottom of the ninth with two out and two strikes, a team still has a chance to come back and win.  It has happened often enough to prove him correct.

The same can be said for politics; the game isn’t over until it is over.  Few will recall that at the beginning of 2008 conventional wisdom held the General Election would be a contest between Republican Rudy Guliani and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.  Neither, of course, was nominated.  So the early betting line is not always the winning one.

Over the past couple of years it has been an accepted political fact that Governor Tom Corbett would be a one-term governor. Coming into office facing a $4.3 billion budget deficit required the making of hard choices.  Hard choices are unpopular.  So too became Tom Corbett.  But, events of the past couple of weeks have demonstrated the power of incumbency.

Kicking off what was arguably the best political week of his governorship, Tom Corbett – holding the hand of his grandson awash in red, white, and blue balloons – accepted the unanimous endorsement of the Republican State Committee.  Incumbents of either party typically receive such a send-off, but given Tom Corbett’s consistently poor showing in the polls it is somewhat remarkable no viable candidate had emerged to challenge him.

With images of his political send-off still dancing across the commonwealth’s television screens, Governor Tom Corbett got to do something only incumbent governors get to do: deliver the state budget address.  For what is essentially a state-of-the-state address, the governor’s political team brought in an experienced speech writer to polish the message.  The polish put a shine on what is actually a very challenging fiscal picture facing state government.  Amid the pomp and splendor of the House chamber, the governor defended his record and doled out election year goodies.  His Democratic opponents were reduced to button-holing reporters in the hallways as they clamored for attention.

Then Mother Nature intervened.  A devastating ice storm struck central and eastern Pennsylvania.  Clad in a sweater, the governor was omnipresent on television dispensing news, advice, and comfort.  True, he had no Chris Christie-like get off the beach moment, but there he was calm, confident, and in charge.

Pennsylvania Democrats being, well Pennsylvania Democrats, then handed Corbett a political gift.  Their endorsement meeting devolved into a floor fight – with some actual fighting reported in the hallways – and, as a Corbett spokesman succinctly put it, they endorsed “none of the above.”  No candidate achieved even 50% of the vote, let alone the super-majority required by the party’s by-laws for endorsement.  That likely was a good thing, as endorsement by the state party has in the past been a kiss of death rather than a pathway to victory.

A pre-endorsement debate among the seven Democratic gubernatorial candidates also laid bare another political trap into which they have fallen.  In both political parties primary voter turn-out is heavier among the extremes.  For Republicans the primary voter pool is more conservative than the general election turn-out; for Democrats the primary electorate is considerably more liberal than that of the general election.

This means candidates in hotly contested primaries have to move to the extreme to win their party’s nomination.  The seven would-be Democrat governors have done just that with issues such as the legalization of marijuana dominating the discussion.  Whoever is nominated runs the very real risk of being unable to move back to the center far enough and fast enough to beat Tom Corbett in November.

Corbett, meanwhile, is free to moderate his position and he has done so by proposing more dollars for public education and offering up other election year spending.  In short, his General Election campaign has already begun while the Democrats are engaged in a primary fight already growing more contentious.

All of this does not mean that Tom Corbett is out of electoral trouble.  Recent polls show he has some serious ground to make up with the voters of Penn’s Woods.  But, events of the past couple of weeks prove Yogi Berra’s truism that it isn’t over until it is over.  And with the game just getting underway a lot of ball remains to be played.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal.  His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cited.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

Work In Progress


By Lowman S. Henry

There has been a lot of buzz among politicos over Governor Tom Corbett’s low polling numbers. While the governor struggles among the general voting population, he fares better among the state’s job creators. Half of the business owners surveyed recently by the Lincoln Institute of Public Opinion Research give Corbett a positive job approval rating; that’s up ten percent since last September.

The governor’s political opponents have already gone on the attack claiming he is cutting public education while lavishing tax cuts on business. The first part of that attack is false: more state dollars than ever are flowing into K-12 education. As for tax cuts on business; the main cut in taxes has been to reduce the rate of the Capital Stock and Franchise Tax. This is an arcane tax that businesses pay in addition to their Corporate Net Income taxes. Pennsylvania is the only state in the nation that levies both. That costs the people of Pennsylvania jobs as businesses locate in other states to avoid double taxation.

What is actually happening is the Corbett Administration is seeking to redefine the playing field by adjusting tax and regulatory policies to make Pennsylvania more attractive to business. Unemployment in the state remains stubbornly high, and putting more Pennsylvanians back to work is a top priority. For that to happen, the state’s business climate must be made more competitive. We are not there yet as 35% of the business leaders surveyed said the economy in Penn’s Woods continues to get worse, while just 17% think it is getting better. In fact, nine percent of the businesses participating in the Lincoln Institute poll said over the past six months they have considered moving all or part of their operations to other states.

So it is clearly wrong to suggest that the Corbett Administration has enriched business owners at the expense of school children – or anybody else for that matter. While business owners and CEOs report the state’s economy remains stagnant, they did voice strong support for the governor’s policies and his legislative agenda designed to get the economy back on track.

In particular, there is strong support for Governor Corbett’s approach to the state budget. While spending interests assail him for cuts or perceived cuts, the business community feels he could go further: 56% suggested state spending cuts should continue. Another 37% feel the current level of spending is appropriate, while just 4% think taxes and spending should be increased. Since the onset of the Great Recession in 2008 many businesses have had to cut spending, reduce the number of people they employ, delay expansion plans, and take other steps necessary to live within their means. They clearly expect state government to do the same.

As a side note, the so-called sequestration spending cuts at the federal level appear to have had virtually no effect on Pennsylvania businesses. Eighty percent say the cuts have had no impact on their operations, three percent report the cuts have actually had a positive effect on their business; just 12% said sequestration cuts have harmed their operations.

Support among the business owners and CEOs surveyed by the Lincoln Institute remains strong for other key components of the governor’s legislative agenda. Mirroring broad-based support in the general electorate, eighty-four percent approve of plans to privatize the state’s antiquated liquor store system. A majority also supports placing administrative operations of the Pennsylvania lottery into private hands.

A solid majority support lifting the cap on the Oil Company Franchise Tax to raise additional state revenue to improve roads and bridges, but that support virtually evaporates when the potential increase of 20 cents per gallon at the pump is factored into the discussion. Over 60% agree with Governor Corbett’s decision not to set up state-based Medicaid health care exchanges under provision of the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

Results of the 2013 Keystone Business Climate Survey tell us that the Corbett Administration’s efforts at retooling the Pennsylvania economy remain a work very much in progress. National economic factors, such as concern over the growing national debt, continue to weigh heavily on business expansion thus retarding job creation. The business community understands – and generally supports – what the governor is trying to do to improve the state’s business climate.

What hasn’t happened is the retooling has yet to manifest itself in job growth so that the general voting public understands why these policies are aimed not at enriching a few powerful CEOs, but improving the economy so that small and mid-sized businesses can grow, hire more people, and improve the lives of millions of Pennsylvanians.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

Permission to reprint is granted provided author and affiliation are cites.

, , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment

A Tale of Two Parties: Mainstream media bias evident in U.S. Senate appointment coverage


Given the portrait the mainstream news media has painted of the two major political parties, please identify which of the following actions were taken by the Democrat and which by the Republican:

Scenario One: A United States Senator resigns from office just two years into a six year term. The state’s governor, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India, appoints to the office the first African-American from the South to sit in the upper chamber since the Civil War.

Scenario Two: A long-serving U.S. Senator, a war hero and an individual of Japanese-American heritage, on his death bed asks his state’s governor to appoint to fill the remainder of his term a woman of similar ethnic background. The governor, a male Caucasian, spurns the request and appoints a political ally, his Lt. Governor, who also happens to be white.

If you attributed the first set of circumstances to Democrats and the second to Republicans you would fulfill the media stereotype of the two parties.

You would also be wrong.

U.S. Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) recently announced his resignation from the Senate to assume the presidency of the Heritage Foundation, one of the nation’s leading conservative think tanks. Governor Nikki Haley, herself a rising star on the national Republican scene, appointed Congressman Tim Scott to represent the Palmetto State in the Senate. Congressman Scott, will be the first African-American from the South to serve in the U.S. Senate since the Civil War and the first Republican to do so since 1979 when Democrat Paul Tsongas defeated incumbent U.S. Senator Edward Brooke of Massachusetts.

Meanwhile, in the nation’s 50th state, Governor Neil Abercrombie named Lt. Governor Brian Schatz to fill the seat vacated by the death of long-serving U.S. Senator Daniel Inouye. On his death bed Inouye, an honored hero of the Second World War, requested the appointment of Congresswoman Colleen Hanabusa to represent Hawaii in the Senate. Abercrombie ignored the request.

Imagine if you will if the party identities of these two casts of characters had been reversed. What sort of fire storm would have ensued if a Republican governor had ignored the dying wish of a revered U.S. Senator of minority ethnicity to appoint a white party loyalist to the position?

Conversely, little mention has been made in the media about the historic nature of the Tim Scott appointment, largely because Mr. Scott is a conservative Republican. The ascendance of black conservatives does not fit the media narrative, so it was conveniently ignored.

The recent history of the Democratic Party when it comes to appointing minorities to open U.S. Senate seats is as abysmal as the current instance. Of the last seven vacancies, going back five years, only one has been a minority. That would be the 2008 appointment of Roland Burris of Illinois to replace Barack Obama who resigned to become President. That turned out to be a dubious honor. Burris immediately became mired in an ethics scandal that resulted in the seat being lost to Republican Mark Kirk in 2010. Further, the appointing governor, Rod Blagojevich, ended up jailed because of the maneuvering that took place over the appointment.

Since then, Democrats have had the opportunity to fill six unexpired U.S.
Senate terms. Five went to white men: Brian Schatz of Hawaii, Carte Goodwin of West Virginia, Paul Kirk of Massachusetts, Michael Bennett of Colorado and Edward Kaufman of Delaware. One woman was appointed, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York who replaced Hillary Rodham Clinton when she resigned to become Secretary of State. Another white male, Congressman Ed Markey is the likely replacement for U.S. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts when he is confirmed as the new Secretary of State.

The simultaneous playing out of these two appointments dramatically underscores the hypocrisy and the double standard that exists when it comes to media coverage of the two political parties, especially when those of the conservative bent are involved.

Since the defeat of Mitt Romney on November 6th the narrative spun by the Left has been that the GOP cannot win because it fails to reach out to women and to minorities. Yet, in South Carolina you have a female governor making a historic appointment of an African-American and little note is made of the development. Meanwhile, white Democrats spurn the dying wish of a Senator of ethnic heritage and the decision, rather than being criticized, is ignored.

Clearly a double standard, but advantage to Governor Haley and to the GOP for picking Tim Scott, not because it was politically correct, but because it was the right thing to do. Perhaps someday Republicans will actually get credit for their diversity.

(Lowman S. Henry is Chairman & CEO of the Lincoln Institute and host of the weekly Lincoln Radio Journal. His e-mail address is lhenry@lincolninstitute.org.)

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a comment