I know you’re all enjoying the daily dole of the NRE awards. Steve, I and others worked hard last week on those so that we could take a little time off over this weekend. Of course, I could only use that excuse if I actually wrote on a regular basis…but that’s a separate issue.
I’m seeing a bunch of stuff flying around the internet about the RNC chair race. The “stuff” mostly surrounds Reince Priebus and issues about his law firm and whether they make him a RINO and therefore unfit to serve as RNC chair.
Let me first provide full disclosure:
1. I think Michael Steele has been the worst chair in some time. I don’t believe he is a conservative by any definition. I do suspect he is a closet racist or at the least, carries a huge chip on his shoulder regarding the color his skin happens to be.
2. While I blog here at NRE, I’m not a Wisconsinite. I’m from Minnesota Kentucky and am not a homer on this one.
3. I don’t know, or have even heard of Reince Preibus prior to a couple of weeks ago. I have no idea what he is about personally. Heck, I don’t even know how to pronounce his name!
Two issues have been raised against Mr. Preibus, suggesting that these make him unfit for chair:
1. That his law firm has taken the position that Placebocare is constitutional.
2. That he personally, and his law firm generally, solicited clients to assist with securing various funding from the stimulus bill.
As to the first issue. Let’s assume his firm has taken the position that Placebocare is constitutional. Preibus’ firm has over 200 attorneys. A firm of that size is not going to serve clients with a singular political ideology, In fact, it would not be uncommon for that firm to have argued both sides of the same argument in different cases with different attorneys.
Some have argued that because Preibus is a “partner,” that he is involved with determining what cases are taken and must concur with the firm’s stance with regard to Placebocare being constitutional. I cruised the firm’s website and noted that Preibus is NOT on the management committee. While he certainly would have latitude in determining cases he was involved with, I can’t see anything on the surface that would suggest he is dictating the firm’s direction.
As I look at the firm’s website, I note that they do patent work for green technologies. I assume that this would disqualify Preibus also because all green technologies are bad? Oh, even worse, they have on their site that they have achieved “Green Master Status!” Well, we know this is just code for being a lefty sympathizer!
Folks, I’ve worked for some companies that were pretty liberal in their ideologies (AT&T and domestic partner rights anyone?). There was nothing about those engagements that made me a RINO. Heck, there were a number of folks who moved further right in their beliefs as I worked along side them. My point is that where a person works and what that company believes does not have to be a reflection of the individual’s belief.
The second issue is even more ludicrous. Again, let’s assume that Preibus did solicit clients to secure stimulus funds? So what?
Mrs. Shoe and I tithe. While we don’t believe the Bible dictates that we do so, we do believe it to be an appropriate way to recognize that what we have received is a gift from God. Our tithing and our other charitable contributions, have nothing to do with the fact that we are able to deduct these contributions on our income taxes. In fact, I prefer a flat tax where no deductions are granted. Would the people who suggest that Preibus shouldn’t solicit work for a legal government program call me a hypocrite for taking a charitable deduction on my taxes?
There is a difference between working within the law to find economic advantages for yourself or your company and advocating for the policy in the first place. I have no problem with Preibus helping his clients get government money, no different than I have no problem with people taking every legal tax advantage they can; it’s the law. I would have a problem if Preibus had been lobbying for the passage of the stimulus bill but I don’t see any evidence of that.
In short, I don’t know if Preibus is the right person or not for the RNC chair. As I said, I don’t know anything about the man’s abilities or ideologies. The problem is that most of the people making the above accusations about Preibus are in the same boat as I am regarding his abilities and true ideologies. Unfortunately, that’s not slowing them down. I wonder why?
What I do know about Preibus is that he is the GOP chair in Wisconsin. I also know that Wisconsin just evicted one of the furthest left Senators from the Senate. Wisconsin also elected a Republican Governor and made substantial GOP strides in both of the State’s legislative bodies. Of course, it is possible that like his law firm’s support of Placebocare, there is no correlation between Preibus’ involvement and the election results in WI. If I were looking to vote, I’d want to get the facts on both of those issues.
The case against Preibus seems to be built on second hand or circumstantial versus first hand knowledge. Why do you suppose that is? Is it possible that inuendo rather than truth, better fits the accuser’s agenda?
We now return you to your regularly scheduled NRE awards!
