Pryor changing his views? Brummett says no!

Today in John Brummett’s article, “A Pryor offense? Surely not,” Arkansas News Bureau, August 28, 2011, noted:

Meantime, another e-mailer, a Democrat in Northwest Arkansas, was highly agitated that Pryor had sounded from press reports like a doctrinaire Republican in this Rotary address, advocating cuts to Social Security and Medicare while extolling a corporate giant like Wal-Mart as a generous federal taxpayer.

Yes, Pryor had told the Rogers Rotarians that we must cut spending and that Social Security and Medicare must sustain their fair share of reductions. But he thinks those can be made without much personal pain.

Brummett’s conclusion is that it is the same good ole boy in Pryor that we have always known. I wonder if that will be good enough for Arkansans since we know that the political climate has changed a lot the last few years here. Will the same political strategy of blaming the Republicans work this time around for Pryor. (In the clip above you see Pryor praising President Obama, will that go well in Arkansas?)

CaptainAmerica is the username for person who commented on Brummett’s article. I agree with CaptainAmerica that the same old Democratic strategies are not working. He points out that people are voting with their feet and going to states run by Republicans where lower taxes encourage business growth. Here is what CaptainAmerica had to say:

Hey Brummett, I hope will you read this column

For years in this column, you extolled the virtues of the heavily unionized, heavily regulated, high tax states . . . I hope at some point you will address in this column how these states are now losing population in droves, are economically depressed, and are financially bankrupt . . .


Dale Bumpers praises Obama


Below is the excellent article he talked about:

The Great Political Migration

Millions of people are, for good reason, abandoning big-government blue states for low-tax red ones. Michael Medved on the demographic shift shaking up the electoral map.

by | August 27, 2011 3:43 PM EDT

Conservatives yearn for a big, clarifying electoral victory in November 2012, but they’re already winning decisively whenever Americans vote with their feet—or their moving vans.

New Census numbers show citizens fleeing by the millions from liberal states and flocking in comparable numbers to bastions of right-wing sentiment. Call it the Great Political Migration.


Between 2009 and 2010 the five biggest losers in terms of “residents lost to other states” were all prominent redoubts of progressivism: California, New York, Illinois, Michigan, and New Jersey. Meanwhile, the five biggest winners in the relocation sweepstakes are all commonly identified as red states in which Republicans generally dominate local politics: Florida, Texas, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Expanding the review to a 10-year span, the biggest population gainers (in percentage terms) have been even more conservative than last year’s winners: Nevada, Arizona, Utah, Idaho, and Texas, in that order.

The shift in national demographics has already rearranged the playing field for the upcoming presidential election. States that Barack Obama carried were the biggest losers in the reapportionment that followed the 2010 Census, with New York and Ohio dropping two electoral votes each. Texas, meanwhile, gained a whopping four votes all by its Lone Star lonesome self. Even in the unlikely event that Obama carried exactly the same states he carried in 2008, he’d still win six fewer electoral votes in 2012. Even more tellingly, if the epic Bush-Gore battle of 2000 played out on the new Electoral College map, with the two candidates carrying precisely the states they each won 11 years ago, the result would have been a far more clear-cut GOP victory margin of 33 electoral votes (instead of the five-vote nail-biter recorded in history books).

political-migration-medvedHector Mata / AFP-Getty Images

If liberal approaches work so well, why are so many people choosing to pack their bags and desert some of the most big-government states in the union?

Fifty years ago, the United States saw a mass migration from east to west. Today we’re witnessing a comparable migration from left to right.

This significant shift in population not only presents progressives with significant problems in terms of practical politics, but also confronts them with profound ideological challenges.

If liberal approaches work so well, why are so many people choosing to pack their bags and desert some of the most progressive, pro-labor, big-government states in the union?

And if uncompromising conservatism is a cruel, fraudulent disaster, why do small-government, pro-business, low-tax, gun-toting, and churchgoing states draw such a disproportionate number of America’s internal immigrants?

In the emerging presidential campaign, it’s easy to see a version of these questions dominating the debate. Why should anyone choose to endorse liberal, Democratic policies when a single year (2009-10) saw 880,000 residents packing up their belongings to place Barack Obama’s Illinois in their rear-view mirror, while 782,000 new arrivals helped drive the robust economy in Rick Perry’s Texas?

Bill Clinton praises Obama


During the bad old days of the Cold War, so many people tried to leave East Germany that the communists built a wall to keep them in. The world rightly took that gesture as evidence of failure and corruption in the Stalinist system.

California can’t raise a wall to prevent people from abandoning the Not-So-Golden State, or somehow deter or return the 2 million who decamped between 2009 and 2010. Doesn’t this overwhelming outflow of residents count as powerful evidence of the failure, corruption, and bankruptcy of the state’s leadership—long dominated by legislative leftists, even under the moderate GOP governorship of Arnold Schwarzenegger? For the first time since statehood in 1850, a new Census brought no increase in California’s representation in Congress (or the Electoral College).

California has become a sad symbol of dysfunctional government at its shabbiest, shadiest, most sclerotic, and irresponsible—an exquisitely painful irony for those of us who recall the Golden State’s onetime position in the national imagination. Not so long ago, the whole nation (or at least its most enterprising and adventurous elements) seemed to envy the state and to embrace the notion of “California Dreamin’.”

My late parents cherished that dream and made the trek from Philadelphia to my dad’s first job (after graduate school on the GI Bill) in San Diego. They loaded a battered, gray ’53 Plymouth with their possessions and their 5-year-old son (me) and drove across the country for a thrilling new life. Growing up in the ’50s and ’60s, nearly everyone we knew seemed recently arrived from somewhere else, thrilled to experience the electric atmosphere of a place that seemed to define America’s bright future.

After my parents’ divorce, my father eventually decided to leave California for a corner of the earth that promised even more excitement and significance—Israel—and he spent the last 19 years of his life in Jerusalem. As for me, I finally persuaded my wife, Diane (a fifth-generation Californian whose ancestors arrived in Gold Rush days), to move our family to Washington state in 1996, and there’s never been a day when I regretted that decision.

To some, this move from one center for liberal lunacy to another progressive outpost made no sense: Seattle offered the lefty politics of California but with considerably less sunshine. But there is one striking difference between these two Pacific Coast states: When it comes to income taxes, California’s top rate recently crested to an appalling 10.3 percent (on top of federal tax burdens, sales tax, property tax, and much more). Washington, on the other hand, imposes no income tax at all, and ongoing growth makes Washington the only blue state (that’s right, the only one) that added a congressional seat in the recent Census.

The impact of state income taxes helps explain the flow of business and families to those states with more hospitable, less-intrusive attitudes toward enterprise. The dollars involved are hardly trivial. California punishes the stinking, selfish, filthy rich by imposing the second-highest rate–9.3 percent—on every dollar an individual earns beyond the obscenely lavish sum of $46,766. New York takes similar aim at privileged plutocrats, with individual tax rates of at least 6.75 percent for any earnings above …$20,000. But if those hard-pressed wage-earners make their way to Nevada or Utah, they’ll pay nothing in state income tax, and revel in their residence in one of eight states that avoid punishing earning and effort. Even in left-tilting Washington, voters in 2010 rejected (by nearly 2 to 1) a state income tax placed on the ballot by Bill Gates Sr.

There are no real political refugees within the United States, and few families move from one state to another to search for more congenial political leadership. Climate, family concerns, and job opportunities are all factors. But the contrasting cultures that state politics help to shape make a big difference in determining which parts of the nation seem more or less promising to potential migrants. With the Gallup poll showing self-described “conservatives” outnumbering self-proclaimed “liberals” by nearly 2 to 1 (41 percent to 21 percent) it’s not surprising that states with pro-business, pro-family attitudes draw disproportionate numbers of new arrivals. At the same time, it makes sense that those states with aggressive, intrusive bureaucracies, high taxes, and relentless experiments in multiculturalism will encourage mass departures.

The millions of resettlers who move their families to more sympathetic venues surely feel motivated by personal considerations more than ideology, but they still play a role in reshaping the nation’s political future. For generations, conservatives tried to convince doubters that their ideas were right in some ultimate, philosophical sense. Now, with countless frustrated families making fresh starts in right-leaning states, they’ve obviously made the case that in the real world, it’s the conservative approach that works.


August 27, 2011 3:43pm

Other posts dealing with Senator Pryor:

Senator Pryor asks for Spending Cut Suggestions! Here are a few!(Part 108)

Senator Mark Pryor wants our ideas on how to cut federal spending. Take a look at this video clip below: Senator Pryor has asked us to send our ideas to him at and I have done so in the past and will continue to do so in the future. On May 11, 2011,  I […]

Dear Senator Pryor, why not pass the Balanced Budget Amendment? (Part 2 Thirsty Thursday, Open letter to Senator Pryor)

Dear Senator Pryor, Why not pass the Balanced  Budget Amendment? As you know that federal deficit is at all time high (1.6 trillion deficit with revenues of 2.2 trillion and spending at 3.8 trillion). On my blog I took you at your word and sent you over 100 emails with specific spending cut ideas. However, […]

Potential 2012 Headlines: Beebe beats Pryor, Hillary beats Obama

It is my view that if the economy keeps stinking that Republicans will have a field day  in November of 2012. However, the same principle holds true that challengers to Democrats will be  very successful in Democratic primaries. In Arkansas many have longed for another Clinton in the White House. Could it happen? It is my […]

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: