Mercifully, we approach the end of this two year orgy of pandering, prevaricating, and pomposity known as the 2008 presidential election.  On the eve of the election, the Grand Old Party stands on the precipice of its greatest defeat since the Great Depression and the days of FDR.  In the heady post-9/11 days, few would have thought that such good will could be so quickly squandered.  What of the new dawn born of the Contract with America,  a brief shining moment when it appeared that Reagan's promise of a new federalism may bear fruit?

All gone, confined to the dust bins of memory and nostalgia.  The GOP, come Wednesday morning, faces the stark realization that its eight year, lust filled power trip of frenzied spending, foreign adventurism and ongoing federalization has been soundly rejected by the American voter.  Oddly, though, not for those reasons.  Indeed, the voters are about to put in power a team that promises even more spending and increased federalization of all areas of your life and our economy.  No, the GOP is about to be replaced by the party that is actually better (worse?) at all of those things than the Bush "conservatives."

It should come as no surprise that Democrats do it better.  It has been the foundation of their party for some 75 years.  It should come as no surprise that when both parties campaign on a platform of bigger government, more nanny state, and more spending, the voters will choose those who wish to do it biggest.  Once the GOP ceded the ground of reducing the scope of government, the die was cast.

So we find ourselves here, with the worst nominee since Nixon, with the most intellectually bereft campaign in my memory, facing what seems to be an inevitable onslaught of losses at the legislative and executive levels, and by extension, at the judicial level as well.  All the while, from the national GOP to the candidate's committee, to the "independent" PACs, we see negative, hate filled attacks on our opponents and in cyberspace, by our so called allies, preposterous attacks, insinuations, conspiracy theories, and distortions.    It is small wonder the "ideas" behind the McCain campaign are being roundly rejected.  It is small wonder that our down ticket candidates will pay the price for this lack of vision from the top.  If a rising tide lifts all boats, surely a collapsing wave swamps many in its wake.

I want you to think back to the primaries.  The popular opinions around the blogosphere and on the conservative talk shows was that John McCain was simply too liberal to survive the primary process.  Rush Limbaugh vilified him.  Now, today, the same people that called out McCain for what he was - an enemy to true conservatives - extol his virtues and attack his opponent.

Friends, this campaign is not about ideas; it is simply about power.  The same lust for power turned conservatives from the class of '94 into big spenders when the voters handed them the reigns.  The ideas that won power in 94 became inconvenient hindrances to the exercise of power.  Given the choice between power and principle, we chose wrongly, and the nation has suffered.  In the name of party loyalty, we have been disloyal to ourselves, and the nation has suffered.

Tuesday is going to hurt.  It is going to hurt for a long time.  However, unless we can reclaim the mantle of the the Gingrich Republicans, unless we can put principle above power, and unless we can hold true to conservative principles and make ideas, not idiocy, our means of persuasion, we will be just another big government party trying to compete with the Dems.

And remember, they will always be better at big government than us.  Let's leave that to them.

I've recently been deluged with e-mails and phone calls urging me to support McCain-Palin because they will "protect life" and because the Obama-Biden ticket will ensure the continued travesty of abortion.  I am told that as a "pro-life" voter, I must support McCain-Palin because of the grave risks associated with an Obama presidency.  While I have no doubt that Obama-Biden would see a continuation of the senseless slaughter of the unborn, I am hardly convinced that a McCain-Palin administration would hold to "pro-life" values.  You see, pro-life is just a code word for abortion activism.  It has nothing to do with the sanctity or sacred nature of life.  How do we know?  Because the same "pro-life" activists that condemn abortion have no moral qualms over capital punishment or the death of Iraqi children as "collateral damage."

Now, to be fair, that paints with a broad brush.  There are some "pro-life" activists who consistently respect all God-created life.  But they are rare.  However, when they speak, as in the Some Have Hats Blog, they usually draw quick responses.  The blogger writes "When liberals tell conservatives that it is completely inconsistent to be anti-abortion and pro death penalty, they are correct."  However, with barely any passage of time, the predictable response comes:

I'm not a big death penalty guy (at least as it's currently employed), but here's the anti-abortion moral maxim:

"It is never morally permissible to kill an innocent human being."

I just don't see how the death penalty enters into that equation. That means there's nothing hypocritical about Palin's position..

Let's parse that out a little bit:

"It is never morally permissible to kill an innocent human being."  Let's focus on the meaning of the word innocent.  Clearly, the writer speaks from a legal context.  The death penalty convict cannot be "innocent" because they have been convicted in a court of law.  We'll bypass the possibility of wrongful conviction, and just talk about that phrase in terms of the unborn.  When using the word innocent to describe the unborn, we cannot be speaking of innocence in the sense of the criminal justice system.  Before the age of seven, the criminal justice system does not recognize the possibility of criminal culpability because of the immaturity of the actor.  A fetus, by fact and legal construction, cannot commit a criminal act, much less be considered innocent or guilty of the act.  So when we speak of innocence with respect to the unborn, we must be speaking in a theological sense.  If we are speaking in a theological sense, then we presume quite a lot when we bestow on humans the right to end another human life.

My God is great.  My God has the infinite power of mercy, such that to a repentant sinner, even the most egregious sin may be forgiven.  God's mercy, through the death of his Son, can heal and make whole the most vile among us.  Is your God that powerful?  If so, then how can you justify destroying human life via capital punishment.  If you execute a man who God has redeemed, does that not make you the taker of innocent life?  You see, you must have consistency to be truly pro-life.  You can't use the word innocent in two different contexts to justify taking a life.  If you wish to view life as sacred, then you must honor He who makes it sacred.

Consider the 7 year old Iraqi child.  Is his life not also innocent?  Does it depend on his religion?  By late 2004, the estimates of child deaths in Iraq as a result of coalition activities ranged from 7,000 to 46,000.   Like abortion, isn't even one innocent life too many?  So, is McCain-Palin truly a pro-life ticket?  McCain has voted to expand the death penalty and limit death penalty appeals.

Sarah Palin's gubernatorial campaign website states:

If the legislature passed a death penalty law, I would sign it. We have a right to know that someone who rapes and murders a child or kills an innocent person in a drive by shooting will never be able to do that again.

Both McCain and Palin support extending the presence of American troops in Iraq.  On top of that, McCain's support for human life in the context of abortion is tepid, at best.  Palin recognizes exceptions to any restriction on abortion.  So tell me, exactly how is the ticket "pro-life"?

I'll support a pro-life ticket when I see one, but don't insult my intelligence by painting McCain-Palin as protectors of life.  And while you are at it, unless you are willing to respect all life, please just call yourself anti-abortion.  There's no shame in that label.

Cuba.

For 50 years we have embargoed the island nation in hopes of bringing about regime change.  For 50 years the trade embargo has failed to weaken the Cuban regime, while ordinary Cuban citizens have borne the brunt of the sanctions.  As 2008 approaches, John McCain, the liberal's favorite conservative, promises more non-free trade, pledging to maintain the harsher sanctions that big government loving George Bush put in place.

The collapse of the Soviet Union was preceded by unprecedented levels of trade with the communist regime.  Increased travel, a thriving black market, and yes, interaction between the peoples, all laid the groundwork for social change in the Soviet Union.  We should follow the path of engagement and free trade with Cuba if we want to influence their society and sow the seeds of regime change.

McCain doesn't get it.

Offshore drilling?  Ethanol?  Wind and solar subsidies?  Nuclear energy?  Higher fuel efficiency standards?  These are the typical stopgap, short sighted solutions to rising energy costs being bandied about by the lifetime politicians who seem incapable of thinking originally about energy and oil issues.

Proposals to drill offshore are certainly practical, but of course they have long start times and are temporary sources of relief at best.  What we need to do is think in terms of crafting economic policy that rewards innovation and research and development to create more efficient vehicles and alternative sources of energy.  To wit, I propose:

The 4PVC - the Four Passenger Vehicle challenge.  This challenge will reward the company that can first produce an alternative fueled vehicle that can transport a family of four at 70 mph with a minimum range of 300 miles, at a cost of 5 cents per mile or less.  The vehicle must be capable of mass production at a base price of $30,000 or less.

A similar prize can be awarded for the hydrocarbon fueled vehicle that can do the same at a cost of 1.5 cents per mile or less (based on $4.00 a gallon gas).

What prize, you ask?  Simple -- profit!  I would propose that the company that first attains this challenge will first receive a double length patent.  In addition, all income derived from that patent will be tax free.  Investors in companies pursuing the prize will not be subject to capital gains taxes.  Moreover, since many more companies will fail than succeed, investors in those companies that fail will be entitled to write off double their capital losses.  By economic incentives, we can drive companies to participate and investors to contribute.

Now take this approach and extend it to alternative fuel and alternative power development.  We can set appropriate goals and incentivize research and development and reward investment while minimizing downside risk. For better or worse, tax policy has always been a means to social engineering.  We use it to stimulate construction, savings, to reward procreation and (under the death tax) to punish the accumulation of wealth.  Why is it that our policymakers are so averse to using tax policy to address energy issues?

One of my endeavors for this occasional blog has been to call out fake conservatives who threaten the Republican Party by retreating from conservatism and embracing liberal socialism.  Nobody has ever confused John McCain for a conservative, but he reminded us clearly of that today.  Speaking in Florida today, McCain promised the Sunshine Staters that no American should ever fear losing their house to a natural disaster.  As President, he would insure insurance coverage for all Americans facing such disasters.  Seriously, people.  Is that what our federal government is for?  Leave it to the private sector senator, and leave individual homeowners to decide whether they want to go bare and assume the risk, or buy insurance at a cost that reflects the risk.  Government mandated, premium subsidized disaster insurance is a recipe for more disasters.  If you make it easy and affordable to live on a flood plain, guess what?  More people will live on flood plains.  Ditto hurricane and tornado areas.    And if you legislate the premiums below their actuarial risk, then I and all my neighbors in the heartland can help pay for Joe Moviestar's beachhouse.  Ridiculous.

Well I am disappointed to once again have to out a fake conservative.  The AP reports that Mike Huckabee, once my second choice for president, decided to take Fred Thompson to task for suggesting that the Roe v. Wade should be repealed and the regulation of abortion left to the states.


Huckabee's proposal to federalize abortion law once again points out the problem with the party, and why we must have conservative principles on every issue.  Principles that don't waver or change in order to get votes.  Outraged that the NRTL committee has endorsed Thompson, Huckabee says "If morality is the point here, and if it's right or wrong, not just a political question, then you can't have 50 different versions of what's right and what's wrong."   Well that's great, but you can really spin that 100 different ways - particularly nasty socialist ways.  Because once you accept that the federal government can legislate simply because something is a moral issue, you open the door to all the Democratic socialists who believe that (a) a good education (b) a good roof over your head or (c) a living wage, as just a few examples are "moral issues".  If all it takes to empower the federal government to act is the declaration that something is a moral issue, look out!  The Democrats must love that idea.  Every wasteful, intrusive, power consolidating program that FDR, JFK and LBJ ever dreamed of can be cast as moral issues.

We can all agree that murder, theft, perjury and the like are moral issues.  But we haven't federalized them.  We have a system of 50 sets of criminal law, each with their own standards, that address them.

Huckabee's cheap pandering for votes, at the expense of principle, once again demonstrates what is wrong with the GOP and why someone has to say enough!!!!  It is a moral issue.  And state legislators have morals and can address it.  Now go re-register as a Democrat, Mike.  Hillary has a lot of other moral issues you can help her address.

Yeah MoveOn.org gets all the media attention.  They are the darlings of the MSM.  Look what they have done.  Look how they mobilize people, so on and so forth. 

Of course we all know the truth.  The Republicans/conservatives are just plain better at issue advocacy.  Whether it was the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or the new kid on the block, Freedom's Watch, conservative advocacy has historically been far more persuasive to the masses, huddled by their television sets than the whiny, self-inulgent efforts of MoveOn and the left.

I think we all have appreciated the folks at Freedom's Watch, led by master attack dog Matt David, finally telling the truth about the motives of the left and nailing MoveOn for the General Betray-Us ad.  Now word on the street is that a new group is starting production on commercials that will talk boldly about not just terrorism but issues like immigration, socialized medicine, taxes and the like.

I do not know any details, but while I was on a plane from NY to Dallas, I sat next to an ad exec and we were talking politics and he was on his way to a meeting with these folks.  When he found out I was a conservative activist, he asked if he could use me as a one person focus group.  Well, with nothing else to do on the flight, he showed me his basic story boards for an ad on the War on Terror and let me tell you, I hope we see it soon on all the lefty cable networks.

He couldn't tell me the name of the group or who the people behind it were, which I certainly understand, but I have been scanning the net trying to find them.   If I do, I'll post it up here.

The latest AP poll on the war in Iraq is out and the results have to be of interest to supporters of Ron Paul.

Asked if the U.S. made a mistake going to war in Iraq in 2003, 57 percent said yes, about the same number who said so in April. Most Democrats and independents agreed with those assessments, along with about three in 10 Republicans.

This poll illustrates both the tantalizing opportunity and the frustrating obstacle facing the Paul campaign.  Here Ron Paul stands, the only candidate in an 11 candidate field (give or take a few, who can keep track these days) espousing a position that 30% of the party agrees with.  Think of what that could mean.  In the latest Fox News poll, no candidate polled 30%.  Yet here sits Ron Paul, mired at 3%.  And what will that number be when the votes start to count? There is still a long time until January (give or take a month, who can keep track of what state wants to be first these days).  If the fall and early winter bring flareups or setback in Iraq, will that 30% swell to 40%?  Will it remain the same but become single issue voters?  And how does Ron Paul capitalize on this?

These numbers must pose nagging questions to the Paul campaign.  First, how do you reach these voters?  Ron Paul's name recognition still lags behind all the majors outside of the internet.  Yet here are 30% of your party's voters, and you are the only candidate they agree with on the issue.   Which raises the second question:  how important is this issue to the 30%?  Hopefully the Paul campaign is spending some of its hard earned money polling that very issue.  If 30% think the Iraq war was a mistake, but they all rank it as the fourth or fifth most important issue, things look dim for Paul.  If Iraq is a priority issue for those voters, Paul must find a way to motivate them and target them.  If it is not a top priority issue, the he needs to figure out if there are other common issues for them, and how he compares with them on those issues.  Third, and worrisome for Paul, are these Republicans so disaffected with the party, that they may simply not participate in the primary process?  After all, it is Ron Paul who has been warning the party that Iraq is costing them elections.

If the 30% are pro-life, pro-border security voters, who else can they vote for to address those issues AND oppose the war?  There is nobody else in the race.  However, if that 30% represents a moderate wing of the party, looking to expand entitlements, cave in on abortion or keep the tax structure intact, then Ron Paul has little hope of reaching them unless they are single issue voters on Iraq.

From this 30%, if the other demographics align, Ron Paul could carve a sizeable voting bloc that makes him a force in the primaries.  His campaigns primary research goal at this moment should be to learn everything they can about this 30%.  When that is done, Ron Paul will know if he has any shot to make noise when the real votes are cast.  We know, and have to admire, one thing about Ron Paul.  He is not going to change his positions to cater to that 30%.  So right now, he needs to figure out if this is a crowd he can woo. If not, even Ron Paul supporters have to ask, what issue, what stance, what differentiation between Paul and the other 48 declared candidates (slight hyperbole) will raise Paul into double digits.  I dare say, there is none.  For Paul to make noise, it's the war issue or npthing. 

I am confused as well.  What is it about this issue that makes conservatives forget what they stand for.  From an article reporting the ruling:



Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the only Democrat to offer a reaction. Clinton said she favors civil unions "with full equality of benefits." But she said the question of same-sex marriage should be left up to the states.

"The states have always determined age of marriage, other conditions and over time we've gotten rid a lot of discrimination that used to exist in marriage laws," she said. "That's now happening. People are making decisions. Civil unions, marriage. They're deciding in the states and I think that's the appropriate place for that to be.""

Let me get this straight (pun intended).  The "conservative" wants the federal government to take action to impinge on an area that has traditionally been reserved to the states for legislation, hence expanding the reach of the central government.  The "liberal" wants the federal government to defer to states rights and stay out of their business.

It is no wonder the Republican party is lost.  It forgets what conservatism means.  You can oppose gay marriage all you want.  But you don't do it by sacrificing the underlying tenets of conservatism - state's rights, limited federal government, a 10th amendment with teeth.  Using federal power to correct perceived bad policy by states is a LIBERAL BIG GOVERNMENT position.  Why is this so hard to understand????  You don't sacrifice principles for political expediency without losing your soul.  Mitt Romney is an idiot and he is NOT a conservative.  In fact, on this issue, Hilary is more conservative than Mitt.  Fight it on the state level where it has been for 200 years and needs to stay!