CRAP as in the, “Congressional Relief Action Program”:

The Pathology (of the left, and especially in Black America) III

There was a time for widespread government initiated affirmative action and Black History Month. That time passed over twenty years ago, with the election of Barack Obama as the first black President being the result of the proof of the passing of the need, not the cause.

The underlying reason for the need was the prevalence of white racism as a significant factor in preventing blacks from achieving the American dream. We celebrate Martin Luther King’s birthday as a national holiday because of his successful civil rights movement that brought an end to de jure, or legal, racial discrimination.

This majority white nation Congress passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act; made Sanford & Son, Cosby and Oprah its most prominent cultural icons in the 70s-2000s; and elected and re-elected Republican presidents that made blacks national Security advisers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Secretaries of State in the 80s-2000s; all before the Obama Inauguration.

In that process of growth in which the vast majority of whites embraced MLK’s moral argument for character content judgment, whites were rightly forced to shed their racist pathologies in public. No more would hatemongers be given mainstream status. No more could unrepentant (and even most of the repentant) white racists be serious contenders for cultural, much less electoral acceptance.

Last Spring, we suggested that the prominence of Obama’s candidacy (and especially the revelations of the racist and hateful anti-American statements of his mentor and pastor of 20 years, Rev. Jeremiah Wright) would force many leftist, but especially the sub-set of black pathologies to be exposed and dealt with.

Then candidate Obama was forced give three speeches on race and to disassociate himself twice from the man whose first sermon he heard inspired his first autobiography.

But the black community was still given a pass by the media. Otherwise, how can we explain the invitation to speak, on the day before Inauguration Day, from the most prominent predominately black university in the United States to a man that:

a) calls his country “G-d damned”America;
b) accused his country of bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki without batting an eye;
c) characterized 911 as America’s chickens coming home to roost; and
d) generally and specifically accused the United States as always having been and still being a white racist country complete with outrageous conspiracy theories to boot.

Reverend Wright, joined with such other prominent black leaders as John Lewis (D-GA) and Charlotte’s Mel Watt (D-NC) is suggesting that America was too racist to elect a black man as President.

How could such men be so out of touch?

Part of the reason is that the drive-by media shields their community from deserved criticism of their left wing kooky statements. I am reminded of Lewis (a true American hero for his role in the Civil Rights movement, esp at the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, Alabama) in his floor speech in the 90s when he accused Newt and the GOP of “coming for your children” when they merely reduced the increase in the school lunch program.

Another part of the reason is that drive-by media and many poverty pimps of both races perpetuate the myth of widespread white racism.

It is part of the Big Lie program of the left and its main organ, the national Democratic Party.

Rev. Wright is a disgrace. It was a disgrace for Obama to have his family in a church for 20 years that gives standing ovations to racist hatemongers incl. Wright and Louis Farrakhan. It is a disgrace that Rev. Wright is not considered persona non grata in January of 2009.

American history has always been a history of white and black. A black man was the first casualty of the Revolutionary War in which blacks fought side by side with whites, as they have in all of Americas wars. Blacks were instrumental in freeing themselves from slavery. Blacks became the 13th most prosperous group on earth from 1865-1965 despite Jim Crow.

And with the election of President Obama, they have climbed to the highest rung of the ladder.

Yet, the drive-by media gives Howard University and Rev. Wright a pass that the segregationists of the 60s did not deserve and did not get. I am especially disturbed by this statement of Wright at HU that was not put in context:

Obama, he said, had freed himself from “other people trying to put him in a prison, defining him as they saw him.”

To do so, Obama also had to free himself from Rev. Wright and his kind that scare blacks into thinking so many whites are racist that they can’t make it in America without poverty pimps challenging “The Man.”

When will the black community shed such vile pathologies and ostracize their kooks like most whites (the leftist media still protects many of the 60s radical kooks as mainstream), and all conservatives and republicans?

___________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published by Mike “gamecock” DeVine @ Examiner.com

When high-profile Democratic politicians like John Kerry — and Race42012 commenters like Tano — assert that George W. Bush and his allies “took their eyes off of the ball” by invading Iraq after 9/11, it unwittingly reveals a fundamental worldview difference between doves and hawks (often looked over, of course, is the fact that most of today’s doves in Congress themselves voted to “take their eyes off of the ball,” but I digress…). The two groups view this ongoing war against jihadism in starkly contrasting terms: while doves merely want revenge for 9/11; hawks want to fundamentally alter the world situation so that another 9/11 doesn’t happen.

What else can explain the doves’ quixotic obsession with Osama bin Laden? The man is, quite simply, isolated, operationally dead, and, at this point, little more than a figurehead. Apprehending him would be a fantastic morale booster, to be sure, but to those of us who care more about stopping future attacks than obtaining revenge for ones past, catching him would be fairly meaningless from a practical standpoint. To prevent future attacks, events like the War in Iraq are legions more important. But why?

When it is said that Saddam Hussein “had nothing to do with 9/11,” that’s of course true — in a highly literal sense. But that’s not quite the full picture. Obviously, Saddam had nothing to do with the actual events of the plane hijackings that caused the World Trade Center to fall. But as then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice pointed out in 2002, Saddam Hussein was cut from the same cloth as the sort of evil that begot 9/11; his oppression prevented the liberalization that prevents terror, and his willingness to fund terrorism, harbor its practitioners, and wage war against his neighbors made him a clear world threat.

Ironically, before 2002, it was the Democrats who more understood this: in the 1990′s, Bill Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act making regime change the official policy of the United States and Al Gore spoke out about the urgency of getting rid of Saddam Hussein. Men like Joe Lieberman led the way in Congress. George W. Bush himself ran in 2000 as a realist, even trending noninterventionist at times. The entire GOP had taken a sorry turn toward isolationism.

So what’s the point, then? Would Iraq even bother to work with terrorists? What about Iraq’s ‘secularism’? To which I say: well, what about it? For whatever reason, people — and both liberals and conservatives both do this — completely abandon rational thought when thinking about foreign cultures and governments, tending to think of them in black-and-white terms, refusing to understand the sort of nuances that would be relatively easy to grasp if they were taking place within our own culture. Yes, Saddam’s regime was officially a secular/Ba’athist/pan-Arab-minded regime. But secularists and religionists regularly work together, and continue to to this day. Syria and Iran work together in 2009, even though Syria is a Ba’athist regime a la Saddam Hussein’s Iraq — albeit less brutal — and Iran is a Shi’a theocracy. They work together for common goals. Iran funds Hamas, even though Hamas is Sunni and Iran is Shi’a.

Why? Common goals. Common enemies. It’s a marriage of convenience.

So too with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. The bombmaker in the 1993 WTC incident, for instance, was given safe harbor under Saddam’s regime. Saddam paid $25,000 to families of Palestinian suicide bombers who kill Israelis. Iraqi intelligence documents retrieved after the war indicated that agents of Saddam’s government had regularly met with representatives of Islamic terrorist groups — yes, including al-Qaeda — on several occasions. Couple this with the then-consensus belief that Saddam either had or was actively seeking advanced weapons of mass destruction.

No rational person can deny that there weren’t dots to be connected.

The Bush Doctrine was one of preventive war: we would not wait for threats to form before taking them out, Bush wisely noted. By the time threats are ‘imminent,’ it’s already too late to stop them. The latter point is important: George W. Bush never once said that Iraq was an imminent threat. The entire point of the war was that the threat was not imminent: we wouldn’t be waiting until it was! Instead, it was declared, we would learn from the mistakes from the past, put two and two together, and not bide our time, allowing our enemies to obtain the upper hand.

The insistence of doves that we wait until a threat is “imminent” wildly misses the point. The purpose of this war against Islamic fascism is not merely to enact revenge for a single act of terror, but to actively combat and deter future acts of terror. It’s not merely about bin Laden, and never has been. To obsess over bin Laden when there’s a wide, wide world of threats is to miss the forest for the trees. Revenge may be sweet — and believe me, hawks love it as much as the doves — but safe American lives, all things considered, must be considered much, much sweeter.

That’s the difference between doves and hawks.

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

The good news? Rudy Giuliani does very well against sitting Gov. David Paterson.

The bad news? Gov. Paterson may not be the Democratic nominee if Andrew Cuomo jumps in the race:

Quinnipiac University 2010 New York Senate and Governor Poll, conducted Feb. 10th-15th, 2009

2010 NY Governor Race

• Rudy Giuliani 43%
• David Paterson 43%

• Andrew Cuomo 51%
• Rudy Giuliani 37%

2010 Governor Democratic Primary

• Andrew Cuomo 55%
• David Paterson 23%

2010 New York U.S. Senate Race

• Kirsten Gillibrand 42%
• Peter King 26%

1,065 registered voters, 3% margin of error. 450 registered Democrats, 4.6% margin of error. Mode: live telephone interviews.

Here are the highlights from Gov. Palin and Bristol Palin’s appearance on Fox News Channel’s On the Record:

It is fitting that if we are to celebrate just one President on a national holiday, that it be the Father of our Country, without whose leadership and character there would be no Shining City on a Hill.

And yes, today’s federal holiday is still, and always has been, declared in federal law, as Washington’s Birthday, not any so-called amorphous “President’s Day” requiring celebrations of 43 Presidential oath takers:

TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart E > CHAPTER 61 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 6103. Holidays

The following are legal public holidays:
New Year’s Day, January 1.
Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr., the third Monday in January.
Washington’s Birthday, the third Monday in February.
Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
Independence Day, July 4.
Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
Veterans Day, November 11.
Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
Christmas Day, December 25.

This is the law.

So why do most calendars and so many people refer to this day as “Presidents Day“?

In 1968, Congress passed the Monday Holidays Act, which moved the official observance of Washington’s birthday from Feb. 22 to the third Monday in February. Some reformers had wanted to change the name of the holiday as well, to Presidents’ Day, in honor of both Lincoln and Washington, but that proposal was rejected by Congress, and the holiday remained officially Washington’s Birthday.

Nevertheless, there was a popular misconception that the day had been officially renamed…While the name change has never been authorized by Congress, it has gained a strong hold on the public consciousness, and is generally used on calendars, in advertising, and even by many government agencies. There have been attempts to introduce legislation requiring federal agencies to call the day Washington’s Birthday, but these have never gotten very far. No matter what’s in the law books, the popular usage is now well established…

Reformers? Code word for the liberals that have been trashing American history as a tragedy and the Founding Fathers as mere slave owners for the past 40 years.

Their propaganda in academia and media is the reason for the so-called “strong hold” of the false name of the holiday on the public consciousness. The liberal that wrote the above let’s her guard down when she mentions her dismissal of the law. Their contempt for the real America and the Founders extends to the framers of the highest law that is the U.S. Constitution, so why would they have any respect for a “mere” statute? The only “law” they respect are those made up by activist judges that violate their Oath to uphold the Constitution.

General George Washington watched thousands fall on the battlefield so that we could ordain and establish self government based on the rule of law as opposed to the tyrannies of the rule of men, whether they be Kings, Despots or Judicial Oligarchs. He nearly lost his life many times leading Revolutionary War battles. As our first President he astounded the world by peacefully giving up power to his successor.

Yet, all the “reformers” care to recall is that he was a slaveowner. Yes, he was a slaveowner, but he fathered a nation that put slavery on the path to destruction and which has freed more of humanity from tyranny than in all of human history. Ironically, many of the so-called reformers that would have us celebrate James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon, also conveniently looked the other way when evaluating the greatest enslavers and murderers of humanity in the Soviet Union and Red China.

The true reformer was the man whose birth we celebrate today. The man who admitted chopping down a cherry tree and went on to chop down the barriers to Liberty so that men could be truly free.

Happy Birthday President Washington!

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

My latest column for my university newspaper:

I am a gay Republican. I am not “self-hating.” I am not confused.

I am comfortable enough with my sexuality to think of myself in terms of traits other than simply my sexual orientation. I believe that my attraction to the same sex should have no bearing to my thoughts on tax policy, trade, foreign affairs or abortion. I believe that my sexuality is merely an incidental part of my life and should not be a major factor in my decision-making.

I am aware that there is a rich tradition of intellectualism, secularism and equality within the Republican Party outside of the Religious Right. I am aware that Hillary Clinton and Dick Cheney hold the same positions on gay rights. I am aware that Bill Clinton signed into law the last major anti-gay piece of legislation passed by Congress – the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. I am self-respecting enough to know that the words of the Democrats on gay rights are no substitute for their lack of action.

I believe that the virtues of classical liberalism – individualism, self-reliance and a rejection of cultural relativism – help gay men, just as they do all of mankind and are better exemplified by the Republican Party than by the Democratic Party. I am furthermore woefully confused by gay men’s ambivalence toward radical Islam, which holds them in a particularly low esteem.

I believe that the gay subculture is destructive. I am not completely sure why a person should be “proud” of his sexuality, which is not an accomplishment. I am confused by the discord between a group of people who insist that they’re just like everyone else on one hand and then on the other refuse to assimilate into mainstream society.

I am unable to relate to the faction of gay men who revolve their lives around their sexuality: their neighborhood is gay, their friends are gay, their music and movies are gay, their academic interests are gay, the stores that they frequent are gay – their lives are gay. I am not interested, though, in living my life as a gay man, but simply as a man. I envision a future in which a person’s sexual orientation will be an afterthought. I do not in any way whatsoever see the Democratic Party furthering that.

I have been discriminated against more by Democrats than by Republicans. I have been shunned and mocked by Democrats, many of whom will not accept me as a gay man unless I fit into their neatly-packaged view of what a gay man is “supposed” to be. I have yet to encounter, on the other hand, a Republican who has rejected my presence in the party, shunned me on a personal level or refused to engage me on the issues.

I have come to understand on a very personal basis that the stereotypes and caricatures of the parties are no substitute for experiencing their members up close. I see that the “tolerance” and “compassion” of the left only extends as far as a person is willing to further their ideological worldview.

I am not Alex Knepper, the gay man. I am Alex Knepper, a man who just so happens to be gay. I believe that my chosen virtues and the actions that I take, not my un-chosen sexual orientation, defines me as a person. I am a man who chooses to think for himself and shape his life on his own terms.

I don’t think that makes me so radical.

Signed,

Alex Knepper

Matt Sanders makes the case for us to increase taxes. I won’t disagree that we’ve vastly overspent these past few years.  Matt writes:

Objection #2 brings in the full force of Talk Show Economics. “Cutting taxes INCREASES revenue, and raises taxes DECREASES revenue.” This is only half true, and only to an extent. Generally, lower taxes stimulate growth, so it is fair to say that cutting taxes raises more revenue than would have been raised at the lower rate had the economy not grown. But it is not necessarily true that tax cuts raise more revenue than would have been raised had the rate not been cut. It depends on what part of the Laffer Curve you are on. And this is only common sense. If tax cuts ALWAYS brought in more tax revenue, then let’s cut taxes to 0.0000000000001% and we’ll have the debt paid off in no time!

Matt is actually giving short shrift to the objection that increasing taxes will cut growth. The idea that anyone wants to cut taxes to  0.0000000000001%. Indeed, most Flat Taxers want a Flat Tax of 13-17% depending on who you ask. While I would agree that whether a Tax Cut will produce higher overall revenue is dependent on the location of the Laffer Curve, I think we are not yet at the point of an ideal tax rate.

The problem with Matt’s idea that it’s time for a tax cut is that he assumes that a spending problem can be fixed by a tax increase. Matt declares:

We also cannot simply cut domestic spending and get out of this. The time for that is WAY past. Simply cutting “fraud, waste, and abuse” will hardly put a dent in it, despite popular fantasies about government bloat. If you really want to cut spending, make people pay for what the government is spending. If you want to shrink the government, make the voters actually pay for their government. Stop the free ride.

Citizens Against Government waste identified $1.9 Trillion in potential spending in cuts over a 5-year period including $269.9 billion in surplus. Before the Obama Generational Theft Act, the CBO predicted a total deficit of $257 billion in 2013. So, simply put the spending cuts in place suggested by Citizens Against Government Waste, cancel all of Obama’s long-term spending plans and we’ll be on the road to a surplus.

Problem. It’s politically difficult to do.  But then again, so is raising taxes.

I think Matt makes a flawed assumption when he assumes that raising taxes will make voters pay for spending. It won’t, because most voters don’t pay taxes. Indeed, thanks to the Earned Income Tax Credit, many are getting tax credits back without putting a dime in. The vast majority of voters will learn nothing.

Of course, Matt’s view of how to do this is even more unhelpful. He writes:

So what does this mean for 2012? I don’t expect any Republican to have the guts to propose a tax increase, no matter how high the debt. So I would look to a candidate who showed real leadership when faced with a deficit. Any knucklehead can cut taxes and run up the debt. That’s easy. Shoot, Bush could do it. I want to see a candidate who made tough choices that actually closed the gap, whether in the House, Senate, or Governor’s mansion. I want someone who was willing to do what needed to be done.

So you’re looking for someone who will tell the people one thing on election day and then lie through his teeth later and do what he thinks needs to be done? Lying about raising taxes is the surest route to a one-term Presidency for a Republican and the election of a Democrat who will raise taxes and spending even more.

Also, Matt’s piece seems to assume that the President has some type of extraordinary legislative power.  If the Legislative Branch is controlled by Republicans, it will be hard to get a tax increase through. If it’s controlled by Democrats, you can get a tax increase through, get them to promise to cut 3 dollars in spending for every 1 dollar in tax increase and see them spend as much money as they would have otherwise. (We’ve played this game before.)

The problem Matt’s proposition faces is that Republicans have won 1/2 of the argument. In 1993, President Clinton raised taxes during the recession. President Obama took the option off the table. He ran around promising tax cuts. Americans don’t like high taxes.

The argument that we need to reduce spending has been won in a philosophical sense. Polls show people think we have too much government, but when it comes right down to it, reforming big-government programs, the media plays their tiny violins about the harm to the recipients and a few questionable poll numbers come out and members of congress back down as happened with Social Security Reform.

The issue of the deficit is something that Americans, in principle, understand is problematic, but in practice they really don’t understand. Certain, we know people who’ve been hurt by changes in tax policy. You also see real people who are hurt by spending cuts. Tell me, when was the last time you saw a real person who was directly impacted by a higher deficit in a way that was easily understandable?

The issue of the deficit doesn’t have the emotional resonance with voters of tax increases or spending cuts. Only when one in five voters got mad enough about it that they supported Ross Perot did voters really care.

This is not to say the deficit is not important, It is to say that to your average American, it’s an abstract, rather than concrete.

If Republicans were to push for a tax increase, what would the consequences be? Certain, complete, total, and absolute final political defeat for a generation comes to mind. But what comes up with the regime that follows? A massive increase in taxes signals that Republicans now believe that individuals should live as slaves in order to finance an out of control federal government. When Democrats takeover, they will multiply further federal tax increases and make our country the most socialistic on the face of the Earth, because they have no reason not to raise taxes and spending through the roof.

If Republicans were to risk total annihlation for something, I’d rather it not be the GOP selling out it’s last few remaining principles to prop up the federal government complex. If we’re going to address our country’s fiscal situation and risk everything to do it, then I say we do it in a Conservative Republican way.

Issue spending cuts, reductions, and freezes to bring the government to balance within 4 years.

Reform Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.  Obsessing about our main national debt is somewhat offbase when we’re sitting on a time bomb that’s about to go off to the tune of $45 trillion.  To quote Larry the Cable Guy, “Get ‘er done.

Pass a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution to make sure no congress can continue to spend with impunity.

Finallly, pass the Fair Tax. A growing economy coupled with appropriate spending cuts can bring the country back and get us out of this fiscal mess. Most of the objections to the Fair Tax are either misleading or nitpicky. They’re usually based on the assumption that any spending or tax reform plan should be painless with everybody a winner and nobody a loser.

The Fair Tax opens the door to stronger investment in the U.S., it strengthens our exports, and catches the untaxed underground economy. It makes people aware of the cost of government in a far more transparent way.

All institutions arrive first through theory, then through trial and error.

Time-honored institutions are only time-honored because they were once brand-new institutions that ended up working.

About 200 years ago, a nation was founded on what Doug Forrester would call “new, untested plans based on nothing but abstract theory.” Contrary to Doug’s assertion that the Constitution was not a radical document, ideas like total freedom of speech — with political speech being of paramount importance — the free exercise of religion without interference or endorsement by the state, and the importance of private property were completely untested and utterly foreign to any existing notion of governance. The American Revolution was, quite simply, a very radical historical event incorporating abstract, philosophical notions of freedom and liberty into practical governance, on the theory that a free people would be a prosperous people.

That idea, as it turns out, was correct.

Today, we call that idea “time-honored.” But it’s only time-honored because someone bothered to put it into effect in the first place, crazy as it seemed to some people.

Classical liberals have no desire to “cast aside” time-honored institutions — only to build upon them where it would be progress-oriented. And as a corollary, as classical liberal F.A. Hayek reminds us in his book The Constitution of Liberty, we do not honor time-honored institutions for their age, but for their correspondence to our virtues.

Stability and practicality are utterly essential components of a functioning society, of course, which is why classical liberalism rejects modern liberalism.

But stability and practicality must have a purpose outside of themselves — and that is the chief difference between classical liberalism and classical conservatism.

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

In America there are two strains of mainstream political thought: Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism.

As the names imply, these philosophies share much in common. The assumptions of classical liberalism often become goals in modern liberalism.

• Classical liberalism proclaims that rights exist independent of government. Modern Liberalism proclaims government exists to provide rights.

• Classical Liberalism proclaims citizens are equal before government. Modern Liberalism proclaims government needs to make citizens more equal.

• Classical Liberalism proclaims liberty so one can be free from government interference. Modern Liberalism proclaims government interference so one can be free from consequences.

While, I’m no liberal (classical or otherwise) I can see how classical liberalism may be confused for conservatism.

Classical Conservatism (what little exists in America) is often on the same side as classical liberalism so it’s easy for people to mistake the two. Conservatism is often in opposition to the heavy and clumsy hand of Federal power. Conservatism is generally skeptical of government micromanaging of the economy through endless regulation.

How is Conservatism different than Classical Liberalism?

First, Classical Liberalism, like Modern Liberalism, is dogmatic. Classical Liberalism asserts universal truths just like a religion.

Classical Liberals cast aside time-tested institutions in favor of abstract theories without much concern. This is most evident in their rush to cast aside our understanding of marriage in favor of a new theory of marriage. This theory of marriage leads logically to a situation where government bestows rights and benefits to any group who like to swap fluids.

Our constitutional foundation in America was based as much in conservatism as classical liberalism.

Our first constitution, the Articles of Confederation, essentially returned America to the status quo ante bellum with Washington DC replacing the limited weak role the colonists believed the Mother Country should have. Each colony returned to the independence and freedom it had possessed prior to the British abrogation of colonial freedoms in the 1760’s and 1770’s.

Then our forefathers established the current constitution basing it on a mixture of time-honored British and European traditions. Very little in the US constitution was grabbed from sources younger than a few hundred years.

Conservatives have an innate respect for the time-tested institutions and traditions that form the structure of our society. These structures may require change from time to time, but the burden of proof is on the new abstract theories not on the old. Usually after careful study a conservative will support gradual less disruptive change in opposition to classical liberal’s revolutionary change or reactionary holding on to the status quo.

Conservatism is animated by humility where well-functioning old institutions are held to as a default but not as a dogmatic position. In contrast the classical liberal in their goal towards the ideal society hold dogmatically to new untested plans based on nothing but abstract theory.

Of course, change can occur in any direction, however in a society animated by two types of liberals the only question is how fast we advance towards rapidly changing goals.

Conservatism is not a perfect ideal, but in an era of wild revolutionary social change and untested tinkering every few years, conservatism may be more prudent.

Conservatism may not fulfill the need for a creed. It doesn’t provide a beatific vision of safe idealistic unrestrained liberty like classical liberalism. It doesn’t provide a glorious struggle of revolutions to “fix” society like modern liberalism.

Conservatism restricts itself to handling problems of today without an overriding vision but with pragmatism and respect for the fragility of society and those better, time-tested institutions of the past. In my view conservatism is the grown-up way of approaching politics.

I’ll gladly reach over to classical or modern liberals when they happen to accidentally support conservative approaches. It just so happens that right now Republicans are the group more open to conservative thought.

Let me begin by reprinting one of “theocratic anti-capitalist” statements made by members of the clergy that Alex finds troubling in his post below:

“One feels very sorry for those losing their jobs but in times of recession people have to rely on friends and neighbours and families and things that really matter to them. That may be a good thing“-Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor.

No matter how many times I go over the Cardinal’s statement, I simply cannot find the anti-capitalist sentiment that troubles Alex. It may just be the innate understanding that the religious possess (versus the secular) of the role of the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, etc…, in consoling their congregation during difficult times. It is, indeed, one of the primary duties of the cardinal, priest, etc…, to help his flock through life’s hardships by not only understanding that these are transitory, but also in seeing the positive that comes enduring and then transcending hardship.

What Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor is really saying in this case is that although the temporary hardship that comes with losing one’s job is difficult, the goodness that can come with reconnecting with one’s family, neighbors, and community to overcome hardship together lasts forever. When understood in the proper context, are the Cardinal’s words really so controversial from a conservative viewpoint?

Let’s review what I feel is the crucial element of the statement:

“…people have to rely on friends and neighbours and families and things that really matter to them.”

Isn’t this the message that conservatives have been trying to convey since the New Deal? Isn’t telling people to rely on their family, friends, and neighbors to help them through these undeniably difficult times profoundly conservative?

I understand that Alex’s intentions are good, as he is intent on expanding the reach of American Conservatism to include the secular adherents of Classic Liberalism that have been alienated by Bush Republicanism (and I will in no way defend the statements of the Socialist, Islamofascist-sympathizing Ass Clown that is Bishop Richard Chartres, who once called for the elevation of Sharia Law to equivalency with British Law.)

But there is a line that can be crossed to becoming reflexively suspicious and overly critical of the intentions of any religious person or leader; and Alex’s problems with Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor fairly benign and magnanimous statement, as well as his use of the infamously idiodic and irrelevant Bishop Richard Chartres as an example of “The Problem”, probably crosses it.

Whoever said that atheism and conservatism are incompatible?

The sort of anti-capitalist crap that I’m about to present to you is precisely what drives me to subscribe to not just an atheist, but an anti-theist mentality toward religion.

The Catholic Church, the same organization that is currently facing a contentious controversy over the re-admittance of a formerly excommunicated Holocaust denier, is now the focus of a statement made by Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor on the virtues of losing one’s job:

One feels very sorry for those losing their jobs but in times of recession people have to rely on friends and neighbours and families and things that really matter to them. That may be a good thing.

Um, what?

If such a statement — that it may be a good thing to have to rely on friends and neighbors to get by — had come from President Obama, you can be sure that the theocratic wing of the party would be calling for the head of the socialist. And rightly so! For whatever reason, however, religious leaders get a free pass on this sort of matter.

The Church of England, responsible for Exhibit A of recent times validating anti-theist conservatism, has produced another brilliant thinker, Bishop Richard Chartres, who opined:

Sometimes, people seem to be relieved to get off the treadmill and to be given an opportunity to reconsider what they really want out of life. One of the great implications of this turbulence for us is to re-boot our sense of what a truly flourishing human life consists of. The ‘CrackBerry’ culture is dangerously addictive and switching off from it is notoriously difficult…

You tell ‘em, Bishop Chartres: people who are losing their jobs right now need to use this unemployment period to get themselves off of the “CrackBerry” culture. Being unemployed is a great opportunity to ‘find yourself.’ Because having a job is really materialistic and all.

I’m sure it’s of great solace to those worried about paying their bills that they’ll finally be weaned off of the “CrackBerry culture.”

Bishop Chartres also extols the virtue of redundancy. The article notes, however, that:

At least one church in the City has had a poor take-up for its redundancy counselling sessions, however. An evangelical church has had almost no attendees at its lunchtime workshops on the recession. A lay member at the church speculated that this was because redundancy carries a stigma…

Or maybe — just maybe — it’s not because of the “stigma” attached to “redundancy,” but because they’re, like, you know, busy seeking employment.

Meanwhile, Bishop Chartres himself looks pretty comfortable:

Anything half as ludicrous as the statements of Chartres or Murphy-O’Connor coming from the mouth of President Obama, Majority Leader Reid, or Speaker Pelosi would be swiftly rebuked by mainstream Republicans as a prostration toward socialist, egalitarian ideology.

Why should they treat religious institutions any differently?

—

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

I have been wondering where Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi got this stimulus idea from. I thought where could they find a plan like this, so laughable, so ridiculous. Now, I think I have found the source of the Democrats’ inspiration. Not FDR. Not LBJ. No, this plan is so much more Dr. Evil, complete with disaster rhetoric and the demand for ungodly amounts of money. I can see the prensident’s next slogan on his Stimulus Tour:

” We will never recover from this disastrous economy, that is unless of course you pay me one trillion dollars! Muhahahaha! ” – President Obama

Eighty years ago today, Al Capone’s South Side gang executed seven rival gang members in cold blood as part of its Chicago war with Bugs Moran’s rival North Side criminal enterprise. The names of the victims were: Gusenberg, P; Gusenberg, F; Kachellek; Heyer; Schwimmer; May and Weinshank.

The 1929 Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre shocked the conscience of Prohibition Era America and proved to be the beginning of the end the reign of Chicago’s “Scarface” Southsider. Capone was imprisoned for tax evasion two years later due to the efforts of Elliot Ness and his “Untouchable” Treasury Department agents.

Democrats couldn’t wait till the day for lovers.

Another Chicago South Sider came to power 24 days ago to lead mostly northern Democrat Party gangs in Washington. But while in the process of trying co-opt a weakened rival gang, President Barack “Cupid” Obama’s arrow missed the mark of all but three Untouchable Republicans leaving seven fellow gang members dead:

1) The Messiah

2) Hope

3) Change

4) Welfare Reform

5) U.S. military deterrance

6) Most Blue dogs; and

7) Credibility of the Census

Obama came to Washington promising a new politics and millions of new jobs. Like Capone and other messiahs, he promised a “piece of the action” to those that would follow; and offers they couldn’t refuse to those that wouldn’t. But the Un-Scarface invested too much trust to Bugsy Pelosi and Dingy Harry who gave out more pieces of the action than Americans could stomach.

Exposed as unable to walk on water, or even to protect his own (Richardson, Daschel, et al), BHO resorted to The Big Lie that Republicans wanted to do nothing to stimulate the economy; welched on his promise for bills to be on the web for public perusal for 5 days before passage; and overreached for control of the Constitutionally required counting of born persons.

The latter near criminal enterprise for a Con-Census drove formerly co-opted rival gang member Judd Gregg to betray his Don and return to a now re-branded as conservative GOP.

As the smoke clears from the 2009 pre-Valentine’s day massacre, the blurring of the lines between the parties due to GOP spending excesses of the past eight years are blurred no longer. The Democrats are once again the king of expanding government; values anathema to most Americans; weakness on foreign policy; and incompetence.

The Honeymoon was over a week ago, but Valentine’s Day once again proves to be a potent relationship killer.

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report

Reprinted from Newsblaze;

“Senior Muslim clerics have urged Sudanese youngsters to boycott Valentine’s Day, saying it is a Western institution that could lead couples astray.

Members of the Sudan Ulema Authority, an influential body of religious leaders, called on young men and women to ignore the event on February 14 and resist the temptation to mark it by taking romantic strolls in parks.

“Valentine’s Day comes from Western countries. I call on Muslims not to imitate Christians,” said preacher Sheikh Hassan Hamid in a statement released to Reuters on Wednesday.” Reuters

Valentine’s Day isn’t a day of debauchery dedicated to performing fertility rituals. It’s a holiday that celebrates love and romance, and the only ritual performed is when a guy sends flowers or candy to his sweetheart.

In a world full of hate and discord Valentine’s day should be embraced by all cultures. Valentine’s Day should be the ultimate ecumenical observation, what religion or culture could possibly be against love?

The answer is Islam, many Muslim countries including Saudi Arabia ban this holy day celebrated by lovers young and old.

Sudanese Muslim clerics are warning young people to boycott Valentine’s Day, because it might lead them astray. Dear Lord, couples might stroll hand-in-hand in the park or exchange gifts expressing their love and commitment to each other. And we all know that the next step is to have orgies in the park in broad daylight.

Valentine’s Day shouldn’t be the province of Western countries, and lovers all over the world (including Muslims in Sudan and Saudi Arabia) should celebrate this wonderful institution.

Another well known Tennessee Republican to enter the race for governor? It appears that way, as longtime Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey said this morning that he is “very interested” in running for governor.

It appears that the TN GOP, one of the most conservative state parties in the country (according to Ambinder) and one of the most powerful, is going to do everything in it’s power to sabotage itself, in regards to the 2010 race for the governor’s mansion.

One thing this campaign has already done is effectively silence the party’s leaders. With Haslam, Wamp, and Ramsey all running, one can bet the stimulus bill that you’re not going to see the names Thompson, Corker, Frist, or Alexander campaigning for a candidate during the primaries. Only the old timers, Baker and Brock, have chosen allegiences: Baker with Haslam and Brock with Wamp. While Baker holds more name recognition, Wamp has the added bonus of uber-Vol booster Thunder Thornton hosting fundraisers for him.

This infighting could prove to be harmful, as the Democrats have two extremely viable candidates mulling over the decision to run.

The name on most people’s mind is Harold Ford. In 2006, Junior was within 3 percentage points of becoming the first African American to be elected to the United States Senate from the south. He is just as moderate as Phil Bredeson, and a much more engaging personality. Whether or not he runs may depend on his involvement with Merrill Lynch (h/t kleinheider).

With Lincoln Davis withdrawing his name from consideration, one would think that this race is wrapped up. However… As dangerous as Ford is, the Democrats may have an even stronger candidate whose name has started to come up quite a bit: Andy Berke, the state senator from Chattanooga.

Berke, a wealthy businessman, may prove to be the thorn in the republicans side. A popular figure hailing from East Tennessee, one of the most conservative areas in the country, could possibly minimalize the losses within that region, while carrying his support through the rest of the state.

Only weeks ago, I thought that the GOP would pull out the victory in 2010. However, after studying up on the race, if I were a betting man, I would not put a penny on this race because the Democrats may very well be able to pull this one out, especially if the GOP race gets ugly, which is beginning to look inevitable.

Having spent the better part of two years focusing completely on the national campaign, I am still playing catch up on the local scene. I am still not quite up to speed yet. However, I can say that Berke would be a nightmare for the GOP (he has made MSNBC news recently), as would Democratic leader Gary Odom, the “Michael Corleone” of TN Democrats.

Utah Governor and possible 2012 Republican candidate Jon Huntsman has come under fire this week, when he made it known that he favors civil unions, an issue opposed by 70% of Utah’s voters.

While Mitt Romney was criticized by some in the 2007-08 primaries for what they considered to be a later conversion (others would argue that it was an unfair criticism), Marc Ambinder believes it could be much more difficult for Huntsman, were he to run for President (he has already stated that he will not run for a third term):

Huntsman might have it worse: he is choosing to take a position on the issue without being pressured to. “Pro family” groups have accused him of betraying conservatives by embracing civil unions after campaigning against them in 2004 when he ran for governor and said he supported Utah’s constitutional amendment outlawing unions and marriage for gays. Huntsman hasn’t yet explained his mind-change in detail.

It will be interesting to see if he can get out of this with his political capital intact.

Rasmussen finds that Sen. Specter’s support of the stimulus bill may leave him vulnerable to to a primary challenge:

Senator Arlen Specter is one of only three Republicans to support the economic stimulus bill in Congress, and the latest Rasmussen Reports survey in Pennsylvania shows that his position is costing him support back home.

Just 31% of Keystone State voters say are more likely to vote for Specter because of his position on the stimulus package while 40% are less likely to do so.

A look inside the numbers shows the problem for Specter may be even more significant. Fifty-eight percent (58%) of Republican voters in the state are less likely to vote for Specter. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, just 27% are more likely to support the long-time incumbent while 48% are less likely to do so.

In Pennsylvania, 69% of Republicans oppose the package while 73% of Democrats favor it. Those not affiliated with either major party are evenly divided. That partisan divide places Specter in a difficult position. Even though Specter has aligned himself with the president and other Democrats on the stimulus, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has announced that the Pennsylvania Republican is one of their top targets for the 2010 election cycle.

Specter won re-election in 2004 by a 53% to 42% margin. However, he barely survived a conservative primary challenge from then-Congressman Pat Toomey. Even though he had the support of the state’s Republican establishment, Specter was able to defeat Toomey only by two points, 51% to 49%.

Overall, Pennsylvania voters support the stimulus measure by a 47% to 41% margin. Still, 52% say the legislation is at least somewhat likely to make things worse instead of better.

Sen. Specter is a fighter and November 2010 is still a long ways away. Also, it is still an open question as to whether this issue will resonate into the Midterms. The bottom line is that Specter is a survivor, and I would not bet against him lightly.

On another note, has the “Michiganization” of Pennsylvania now begun? The stimulus package enjoys an eight percentage point advantage among Pennsylvania voters even though 52% believe it is likely to make things worse. So have Pennsylvanians joined their neighbors to the east in becoming so estranged from the Republican Party that they will reflexively support Democratic policy even though they realize it will not help improve their plight in the slightest?

This came out in the news a day or so ago, but has not been addressed here. Bobby Jindal has been chosen to give the televised response to President Obama’s State of the Union-type speech.

From the Washington Post:

Jindal vs. Obama: The news that Bobby Jindal will deliver the official Republican response to President Barack Obama’s Feb. 24 address is evidence of two things: Jindal is THE hot thing in the GOP right now and Jindal wants it to stay that way. The choice, announced yesterday by congressional GOP leaders, is evidence, explained Republican Governors Association executive director Nick Ayers, of a new way of thinking within the party. “Republicans in D.C. finally understand our message can’t come from D.C.,” said Ayers. “This signals a change in tone and strategy for the Party, and its the right one.” It also signals that Republicans understand the need to counter Obama’s historic presidency with new faces of their own — from Michael Steele, the first African American chairman of the Republican National Committee, to Jindal, the Indian-American boy wonder governor. And, while Jindal continues to downplay any interest in a 2012 race, gigs like this one (and his keynote at the National Republican Congressional Committee dinner in March) will put him at the front of the line when the next presidential cycle rolls around — if he wants to reconsider.

Alex Knepper sits down with Log Cabin Republican Chairman Terry Hamilton to discuss the 2012 election, what’s moving the country toward supporting gay marriage, the decision by the LCRs not to endorse George W. Bush in 2004, and more…

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

AK: First of all, I’d like to say thank you, both as a gay man and as a pragmatic Republican, for the work that you do, both in party outreach and in combating those who subscribe to the bunker-down mentality. I also have a special affinity toward the LCRs for their 2007 campaign against Mitt Romney, whom my readers know I have a, um, rather contentious relationship with, to say the least. (laughs) So, with that said, onward with the interview:

Well, another intra-party battle, another cycle where the LCRs get demonized in some fashion by the far right. I’m sure you kept track of how the LCRs were portrayed in the race for the RNC chairmanship. Heaven forbid a person work with Christie Todd Whitman, right? But Michael Steele did manage to come out on top! Can you give me (1) sort of background on Steele’s actual relationship with the LCRs through the Republican Leadership Council, and (2) your general thoughts on Steele’s victory?

TH: Well, first of all, let me give you my general thoughts: we’re very pleased that he was selected and we’re also ready to work and roll up our sleeves. It’s time for the Republican Party to get real. We’ve been dabbling with all sorts of separate issues that divide us and now is the time to figure out what unites us and pull us back together — or we may go the way of the Whigs.

AK: Since we’re Race42012, after all, the question must be proposed: the current crop of 2012 candidates seems less than inspiring so far for those working for a Big Tent. The Big Three — Romney, Huckabee, Palin — aren’t exactly known as party builders. What are your thoughts on the line-up of candidates so far, and which of them — not only the Big Three, but others (say, Pawlenty, Sanford, and Crist) strike you as being promising?

TH: Well, I don’t know that I have any specific comments about the ones who are the leaders now or the ones who are projected, the leaders — I really feel that there will be candidates out there who we can support, eventually. And I think that that’s why the election of Michael Steele was important.

AK: Any general thoughts on the 2012 race, though?

TH: Well, I just think that we’re gonna be ready. And our chapters are going through a state of reorganization — some of the weaker ones are being reorganized. Some of the stronger ones are becoming stronger. For example, our Utah chapter just went through some successful conversations with the Governor out there, and he has just come out in favor of civil unions as of yesterday.

AK: Right, that was big.

TH: That’s pretty significant. Especially since Utah was the state that — at least some of the people in Utah — was the state that was the most vocal in keeping marriage equality from being ratified in California.

AK: The LCRs did endorse John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008, where they did not endorse George W. Bush in 2004. Are you content with both decisions, in hindsight, given how both Bush’s presidency and McCain’s campaign progressed?

TH: It was one of the most difficult decisions for us not to endorse a sitting president. We did not make that decision lightly. Looking back on it, it was the right decision. We cannot sit back as an organization and see prominent members of the Republican Party use other members of the GOP as a wedge issue, and that’s exactly what President Bush and his campaign did. So we made the right decision to withhold our endorsement.

We also made the right decision in endorsing John McCain. McCain and his campaign came the furthest any Republican campaign has ever come, historically. And that does not mean that there is not a lot of room for improvement — of course there is. But we’re always willing to listen and work and I think once people get to know us as people, it’s not a problem.

AK: Mainstream Democratic leaders such as Al Gore have now spoken out in favor of gay marriage, and President Obama effectively supported it by opposing Proposition 8. Additionally, a majority of Democrats now support it. Do you think that the tide is turning on the issue in general, especially given that young people support it overwhelmingly? Do you see a slide towards Republicans supporting marriage equality as inevitable?

(more…)

R4’12 is pleased to present the following Op-Ed from longtime reader and frequent commenter, Matt Sanders- aka “MWS.”
____________________________________________________________________________________________

Suze Orman- a personal finance guru for whom I have tremendous respect- says that much of our personal finance troubles come from our willing belief in lies, and that we can only free ourselves from these problems when we start to acknowledge the truth about our money. It is high time that we as Americans, and as Republicans, stop lying to ourselves about the single greatest economic threat to America. It is high time that we faced the truth about the nation’s debt, and our party’s role in creating it. So here are some facts:

When Ronald Reagan took office, the National Debt was $934 billion dollars. That was about 30% of GDP.

When George W. Bush took office, the Debt was $5.7 trillion. That was about 60% of GDP (that figure actually dropped in the Clinton years).

Currently, the debt is fast approaching $11 trillion, close to 70% of GDP. INTEREST on the National Debt in FY08 amounted to $451 billion, around 20% of government expenditures, and $1500 for every man, woman, and child in America.

The deficit for just the first four months of FY09 is $569 billion. Obama’s “stimulus” hasn’t even begun.

Obama has assured us that we will have trillion dollar deficits for years to come. That means that the next Republican President- even if she wins in 2012- will inherit a cumulative debt around $15 trillion. Considering that the economy is currently shrinking, and that the CBO projects that Obama’s “stimulus” will drag the economy in a few years, that means the next Republican President could well inherit a debt that is larger than our entire annual economic output.

The economic boom of the last 25 years was largely artificial. While the federal government spent around $10 trillion we didn’t pay for, the private sector followed suit. According to the Federal Reserve, Americans held around $2.5 trillion in consumer debt at the end of 2008. That’s about $8500 per capita, and THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE MORTGAGES. Estimates vary, but leverage and falling home values probably have 20-30% of homeowners owing more on their homes than they are worth.

While we are not Argentina, it is worth noting that Argentina had a National debt less than 60% of GDP when they defaulted in the 90s. They still haven’t recovered.

It seems clear to me, at least, that we are on a downward spiral that is going to end very badly. China is already closing off the tap of credit, as they are funding their own $600 billion stimulus. I cannot see how the not-too-distant future does not bring high inflation and high interest rates. And all of these problems don’t even begin to address the looming insolvency of Social Security and Medicare.

And so I am proposing the only heresy graver than questioning Israeli policy in the GOP…

It is high time that we acknowledge that we have both a moral and an economic imperative to raise taxes as soon as the economy stabilizes. It is time to forget everything you learned on the radio about economics. We have a moral obligation to pay our bills.

Now I can already hear the objections. “We are already overtaxed!” That may be true, but we still aren’t paying for what we are spending. And for historical perspective, the top marginal rate in Reagan’s 6th year of office was 50%, and that rate kicked in at a lower income than Carter’s top rate (adjusted for inflation). So for most of the “miraculous 80s” the top rate was 50%. In the roaring 90s, the top rate was 40%. Currently, it stand at 35%. Now I know you don’t raise taxes in a recession, but raising them when the economy stabilizes will not be the end of civilization.

Objection #2 brings in the full force of Talk Show Economics. “Cutting taxes INCREASES revenue, and raises taxes DECREASES revenue.” This is only half true, and only to an extent. Generally, lower taxes stimulate growth, so it is fair to say that cutting taxes raises more revenue than would have been raised at the lower rate had the economy not grown. But it is not necessarily true that tax cuts raise more revenue than would have been raised had the rate not been cut. It depends on what part of the Laffer Curve you are on. And this is only common sense. If tax cuts ALWAYS brought in more tax revenue, then let’s cut taxes to 0.0000000000001% and we’ll have the debt paid off in no time!

We also cannot simply cut domestic spending and get out of this. The time for that is WAY past. Simply cutting “fraud, waste, and abuse” will hardly put a dent in it, despite popular fantasies about government bloat. If you really want to cut spending, make people pay for what the government is spending. If you want to shrink the government, make the voters actually pay for their government. Stop the free ride.

So what does this mean for 2012? I don’t expect any Republican to have the guts to propose a tax increase, no matter how high the debt. So I would look to a candidate who showed real leadership when faced with a deficit. Any knucklehead can cut taxes and run up the debt. That’s easy. Shoot, Bush could do it. I want to see a candidate who made tough choices that actually closed the gap, whether in the House, Senate, or Governor’s mansion. I want someone who was willing to do what needed to be done.

Folks, it’s not 1981 any more, and we can’t promote the same policies that made sense in 1981. We can no longer afford the Empire. We cannot afford all of the good things that government can do for people, and we cannot afford tax rates that do not pay for what we spend. It is time to cut spending, and raise taxes. The 25 year bubble has popped. We can’t fake it any longer, and the longer we try the worse it is going to be. It is time we stopped lying to ourselves about money. Let the Era of Austerity begin.

-Matt Sanders

Good news for Sarah Steelman supporters like me: Jim Talent will not be seeking the Senate seat that Kit Bond is vacating in 2010, leaving the primary to be a battle between Representative Roy Blunt and former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman.

Talent said this:

“First,” Talent said, “there are other qualified Republicans who are seriously investigating the race, and it is vital to prevent the kind of dissension that hurt my party’s ticket so greatly in 2008.

“In addition, I have family and public obligations which this unexpected race would disrupt. Chief among the latter is my work as vice chairman of the Commission on WMD Proliferation and Terrorism, which is working to prevent a nuclear or biological attack on the United States.”

Don’t fret too much, though, Talent fans — a rematch with Senator McCaskill might be in the cards:

Elective officer further down the road, though, is not out of the question for Talent, who was displaced by Democrat Claire McCaskill in 2006.

“I am still very interested in serving the people of Missouri in elective office, but the considerations I have recited in this statement are more important than my personal goals.

Charles Darwin is best known for On the Origin of Species and his Voyage on the HMS Beagle in the Galapagos Islands.

Given the day I thought I’d make just a couple comments. First I think Republicans have developed a reputation as anti-science in the last decade. I’d like to see that reversed as science often leads to engineering marvels that improve our lives. Absent that science is still a noble craft that extends our knowledge of this world.

I’d also like to see this strange controversy between some people’s interpretations of religion and some people’s views of scientific theories, not played out in politics. Dragging a controversy between theology and scientific evidence into the political arena doesn’t tend to lift up a dispute or allow both sides to reach a way of getting along.

Happy Darwin Day!

I found a comment by Matthew K in regards to my recent post on Sarah Palin. He writes that for a Republican to defeat Obama, they must:

1) Highlight serious problem during the Obama administration
2) Explain why the policies of Obama are causing these problems
3) Propose serious reforms to solve those problems
4) Convince people that THEY are the candidate to enact thsoe reforms

Palin, who, lets face it, is not a policy expert, and has little serious experience that could even begin to prepare her for the Presidency, is not in a particularly good position to do anything beyond the first step.

I would correct Matthew. Sarah Palin is an energy policy expert. She’s not an expert on all aspects of public policy, but no one is.

I’d challenge everyone to think back through American history. How many Presidents were elected because they were policy experts outside of candidates elected on Foreign Policy.

Nixon and Eisenhower were certainly experts on Foreign policy when the nation found itself in dicey foreign wars, but have we turned to an Economic Policy expert in answer to a failing economy? No. FDR, Reagan, and Obama could not be called experts on the economy.

When America elects a President, it’s not electing a policy wonk. The scope of the presidency is too big for him or her to be an expert at everything. The experts are those who are advising the President. I think Romney supporters on this board have made a great case for Mitt Romney as Secretary of Treasury, but not so much for the presidency.

Americans are looking for two things:

1) An executive to delegate authority, take all the expert opinions, and be the person to make the decision.

2) A leader who will direct the course of our nation.

Sarah Palin is doing that job in Alaska. Now, certainly she needs to have a more solid platform than just “energy” if she runs in 2012. But the idea that she needs to a policy expert on everything is entirely unfounded.

Also, if Republicans really have to inform people of everything that’s wrong with the country in 2012 and blame the administration, the election is already lost.  The more that you have to argue as to why America needs to throw out the incumbent president, the less chance you’ll actually get them to do it.  Think Bob Dole trying to get Americans to throw Clinton out of an office during an expansion and after Clinton signed Welfare Reform and the Defense of Marriage Act. Think of John Kerry telling us we were left safe then we were on September 10th.  I won’t go into the 13 keys–again, but read them. There’s a reason they’re accurate predictors of the popular over the last thirty plus presidential elections.

Next MatthewK expresses another reason not to choose Palin:

Palin is simply too similar to Obama to beat him. Apart from her ideological leanings, she is almost a xerox copy of the President.

Of course, there are numerous cultural and sociological differences, as well as experiential difference. Where Obama and Palin differ is in their ability to project charisma, to inspire people, and to draw a large crowd.

The argument, “She’s just like Obama.” is a silly argument akin to the argument against Mike Huckabee of, “He’s just like Bill Clinton.” In both cases, there’s a kernel of truth to the statement, Huckabee and Palin both share characteristics with Clinton and Obama.

However, Huckabee is not a perjuring adulterer, and Palin is not a socialist with a messiah complex. Huckabee and Palin share are some similar strengths to their Democratic counterparts. I have news for you, our opponents did not win election because they lacked any redeeming values. Both Obama and Clinton have many strengths that made them able to win elections.

To break this down a bit more simply in the parlance of comic books, the argument advanced is akin to saying, “Iron Man is evil, he’s just like Metallo.”  Of course, both Iron Man and Metallo have some similarities in their use of electronics to stay alive as well as in battle, but quite a few differences as well.

The bottom line is that we ultimately should welcome leaders who possess strengths that make them winning candidates.

I’d also suggest that similarity to Obama in style may not be a bad thing in 2012. The only time since 1896 that a party has been turned out of the White House after only four years their was in 1980. Americans elected Jimmy Carter. After the scandal of Watergate, they wanted to feel good about their country again, so they elected the smiling guy from Plains, Georgia who promised to never lie to them. He somehow turned into an overdose of valium. And who did America elect 1980? A guy who made them feel good about America. Voters didn’t change what they wanted in 1980, rather the guy they elected didn’t give them what they expected.

Gregg’s conscience 2, personal ambition 1

The reasons for staunch conservative Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) not to take the job of Commerce Secretary in any President’s administration, much less a liberal Democrat’s, were always legion:

1) Gregg was one of many Republicans that had called for the elimination of the Commerce Department as far back as the 1980s;

2) President Barack Obama had made clear since soon after his election that he favored a massive so-called “stimulus” plan that would greatly expand the welfare state and blow the deficit wide open; and

3) After announcing Gregg’s nomination, President Obama revealed that the White House would be brazenly seizing control of the taking of the constitutionally mandated 2010 census from Gregg’s own Department.

As we said here at the time, it was a selfish personal decision at the time to escape electoral politics and get a cush golden parachute job without having to go the Daschle route first by moving back outside the beltway for a time while lobbying lobbying firms for a cash-in job on K Street.

Then Judd decided to take a census, or a power greater than himself took one, and this time the Conscience was at home:

“However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me.

Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy…”

Bravo for finally getting it right. Must have cut himself shaving while looking in the mirror.

The mirror is now clear and it seems obvious that it was the census issue that cleared it up, not the stimulus.

Gregg decided that he could stomach swallowing basic political principles and abide the stimulus, but that he couldn’t be consiglieri for a criminal regime bent on corrupting the process by which electoral power is determined in the counting of Americans.

Judd, Live Free or Die, eh?

Bravo!

-Originally published by Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report-

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

He’s staying in the Senate, thank God.

Reason takes on the Stimulus bill, hilarity ensues:

Obama pork bypasses dangerous Interstate exit ramps in Charlotte

The non-stimulating $1.2 trillion GovernmentGrowthulus/porkulus Obama-Pelosi-Reid bill will soon become law thanks to 327 Democrat and 3 Republican votes in the House and Senate. Barring a miracle, it is a fait accompli.

What is so sad is that Charlotte can’t even find a silver-lining in this dark cloud of a monstrosity of debt in any of the pork.

[At least FDR's New Deal left us with improved infrastructure if not an end to the Great Depression and thank God we are blessed with the best BBQ in the Carolinas during the Obama depression, if we can afford it, but I digress...]

Regularly deprived of needed state road funds by the rural-Democratic Party dominated State legislature that has left our Interstate highway exchanges in 1960-70s antiquated-style conditions, we now get stiffed by the most generous helping of pork ever passed at any BBQ or by any government in world history.

One of the most striking things I have noticed since I moved to the Queen City two years ago, is how old and dangerous are Interstate highway ramps whose circle circumferences are too tight and so regularly result in tipped over tractor-trailer rigs (pictured on I-85 ramp in Mecklenburg County) that cause death, destruction and traffic delays.

More modern interstate highway exchanges have much wider and safer ramps.

We were told that this so-called stimulus bill would target “shovel-ready” projects that could put people to work immediately.

We were lied to.

Instead, we get funds allocated for more light rail in Charlotte. Nothing is more non-shovel ready than light rail. Nothing is more shovel-ready than interstate highway ramps, as they already have huge right-of-ways surrounding the existing interchanges.

Oh, but the residence hall at Davidson gets money for renovations. Davidson is a private college for the wealthy. It gets public funds while semi’s continue to tip over and kill people on public roads.

Very stimulating President Obama.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer, Examiner.com and Minority Report columns

“One man with courage makes a majority.” – Andrew Jackson

[Originally published by TMR Legal Editor, Mike "gamecock" DeVine as Charlotte Law and Civil Rights Examiner @ Examiner.com where all for verification links may be accessed.]

Sarah Palin’s decision not to address CPAC illustrates that she has a much harder choice ahead of her: Whether to seek re-election as governor in 2010 or to run for President in 2012. 

Ultimately, from all accounts what has Palin back at CPAC is state business back in Alaska, and criticism of her being out of state too much.  If Palin is re-elected in 2010, she’ll almost certainly be unable to announce until April when Alaska’s legislature ends it session. More importantly, the 2012 Legislative Session would fall right in the middle of the Iowa Caucuses.

As I’ve stated before, sitting Governors running for President are not unprecedented (Clinton, Bush, and Bill Richardson all did it) but Former Governors are far more usual and make a lot more sense. The job of Governor is not one that you can just neglect for a year and a half to go through a campaign. Both running for President and being Governor are full-time jobs and one is going to suffer if you try to do both at the same time.   

While some people may feel that getting elected to a 2nd Term would serve Palin well, I think that’s only the case should she hold off a candidacy until 2016. Getting re-elected in 2010 doesn’t really help her in 2011 and 2012. The differnce between seeking re-election and not seeking it would be one 90-day legislative session before the campaign begins in earnest. Does anyone think that a single 90-day session will strengthen her hand enough to outweight the detriment of having to keep flying back and forth between Alaska and the lower 48?

I would say that it’ll be important, though not absolutely crucial to maintain  her Alaska popularity. One thing that hurt Mitt Romney was the perception that if he had chosen to seek re-election in Massachusetts he’d probably would have been defeated. As long as Palin has a reasonable approval rating, I don’t see the downside of her stepping down.

Once her book deal is complete, she certainly won’t need the money from the position and if she wants to continue an Alaska career in case she’s not successful in the Presidential bid, Senator Mark Begitch is up for re-election in 2014, and I would think not having let state business suffer for her political career would enhance her chances of winning that Senate seat.

“All political parties die at last of swallowing their own lies.”
John Arbuthnot

Sometime shortly after Bill Clinton was elected, Republicans seemed to forget what the 1980’s had actually been like and mythologize Ronald Reagan. Many of the “facts” we argue over about Reagan simply aren’t true.

A good example is the myth that Reagan turned around the pitiful economy of Carter by cutting taxes in a supply-side effort. This ignores the fact that federal taxes consume nearly as much GDP at the beginning of Reagan’s Presidency as at the end (19% to 18.4%). Federal taxes actually consumed less of GDP in Bush’s 8 years than in Reagan’s 8 years.

If Bush is a greater supply-sider than Reagan then we’ve got to adjust the Reagan myth a bit. While Bush never signed a single tax increase, Reagan signed several of the largest tax increases as percentages of GDP. Reagan signed tax increases every year of his Presidency except the first and the last.

Even on spending Bush performed better than Reagan. During Reagan’s presidency government spending was ~22.5% of our economy. During Bush’s terms government spending was only ~19.5% of our economy.

Reagan benefited from a get-tough Federal Reserve that finally got inflation under control in 1982. That victory over inflation paved the way for job creation and economic growth not only that decade but also in the 1990′s.

However Reagan did attempt deregulation which ended up being a mixed bag of successes and failures.

Reagan revitalized and rebuilt the pathetic military he inherited in 1981. Reagan faced down the Soviet Union not with meaningless gestures (boycotting Olympics) but instead with might.

Reagan used his charisma and communication skills to re-frame our political arguments in America.

What we need to do is detach from Reagan the myth so we can look forward realistically instead of looking back to a 1980’s that never existed. This also involves facing the Bush era without comparing it to fantasy.

Our party needs to get past its myths about Reagan before it can address the problems of today.