The defection of Senator Specter has resulted in many heated exchanges between front and second page posters. 

Many of you have been clear, you are either principled or pragmatic, some in the case of policy, others in the case of candidates, most on both.  Unfortunately, others have been less clear. 

Some have argued that we should be pragmatic in our policy and with our congressional candidates, yet they refuse to apply the same policies to our potential 2012 candidates.  For me this is unsettling, so I figured I would take the opportunity to allow the readers to state where they stand and why?

Are you pragmatic or principled?  

Would you support (or encourage the party to support) policies and candidates that you do not believe represent the values of the Republican party/conservative movement, whether they be at the Presidential level (i.e. Palin, Huckabee, Romney, etc) or at the Congressional level (i.e. Specter, Toomey, Ridge, etc)?

______________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

A new poll shows 54% of Americans oppose gay marriage, and that the pro-choice viewpoint is no longer a majority, but instead America is closely divided with the pro-life side showing gains and the Pro-Choice label leading by only 49-45% down from a 53% majority last year.

This all goes to show that Social Conservatism is a loser and it has cost the party elections.  It’ becomes even more tragic when you realize that every pro-choice candidate who loses New England does so directly as the result of a pro-life candidate winning in Texas. The carnage must stop.

If the Republican Party is to reach out and to win the crucial support of Transgendered Lesbian Mimes with which it cannot be a national party, it needs to tell the tens of millions of social conservatives, “You’re not all that important.”

This may seem counter-intuitive but we must be a party of ideas, conflicting differing ideas which have no basis or connection to one another. We must call on Americans to join us in our bold stance for incoherence because incoherence is ultimately tolerance and tolerance is good.

It’s time to get past this idea that political parties should actually stand for something. The Republican Party should be a big tent, like the Barnum and Bailey Brothers, and there’s no litmus to go to that circus, and there shouldn’t be to come into this circus.

I tend to think this debate is getting pretty muddled. For instance, I’ve said that Specter should be ousted because Pennsylvania has the potential to be a center of a new majority, and while we’re in the wilderness having no influence at all, we need to start making a more conservative case to Pennsylvania voters. Under my theory, local and state elections form a sort of incubator for political opinions, and if you aren’t presented an argument for long enough, you become less receptive to it at the national level. Thus, even if Toomey lost, it could benefit us by keeping the conservative case in the minds of Pennsylvania voters. I called it the Goldwater principle, but you need not adopt that name: call it the Buckley principle if you like. In 1965, William F. Buckley challenged liberal Republican John Lindsay for New York City’s mayoralty. It was a 3-way race, which Lindsay easily won (by a funny bit of luck, he became a Democrat soon afterwards too).

Three years later, Richard Nixon lost New York by 5 points. He won nationally by less than a point. He lost Pennsylvania by 4 points. New York has not been as close to the national average since. Two years after Nixon’s feat, and 5 years after WFB’s challenge to Lindsay, James Buckley won a Senatorial election, as a rock-ribbed conservative, in New York. To be sure, he only won a plurality (that was a 3-way race too), but this time the conservative came out ahead. And there’s every indication that Buckley would have won re-election had not the moderate Moynihan jumped in at the last second.

This is not advocacy for principled loss; instead, it’s a belief that sometimes things get so desperately bad that there’s not much to be lost, and potentially quite a lot to be gained, by trying to change the climate. I contend that the Specter situation fits into that mold. How does this square with Alex’s contention that I want to see a candidate “go down in flames” so I can “rest comfortably in my beliefs”? It doesn’t of course. It’s not even a caricature or a straw man; both of those bare a passing resemblance to an actual argument, whereas this is sheer fantasy conjuring.

But, really I want to address Alex’s points about the common man, elitism, etc. He writes:

Of course I see them [voters] as means to an end. As a tactician, exactly what else am I supposed to think of them as? Of course I don’t think that the judgment of the common man should always reign supreme. Of course I trust the party establishment a lot of the time. Don’t you? Or do you think that the common man is always right and that we intellectual elites must serve as a rubber stamp for their decision? That the best-educated, most intellectual, most engaged amongst us possess no superior insight into contentious political situations?

These are all good questions, and they don’t yield bright line rules. Still, I think there are profitable distinctions to be drawn. There’s a qualitative difference between attempting to attract voters, through issue positions, rhetoric, arguments, etc, and what Alex is talking about. In the former situation you’re considering voters as a means to an end, in the rather bland sense that you need their support to accomplish your agenda. But, still it’s something like a partnership; you’re presenting arguments and they’re making an assessment. You may have hoodwinked them- there’s always a problem of imperfect information- but you make a sort of compact that revolves around interests; they’re trying to vote their interests, you’re trying to appeal to their interests. That’s a pretty central component of any democracy, and we couldn’t do without it.

Alex’s scenario, in contrast, is about dictation not persuasion. It doesn’t really matter to him if Specter and his allies have made a compelling case to his constituents. I doubt that Alex thinks its even important that Specter make any case to the interests of these voters. They simply ought to vote a certain way, because someone knows better than they do. You don’t have to think that the common man is always right, or even that these common men were right, to feel that’s a worrying attitude in a Democracy. For someone who thinks the monarchical, aristocratic British conservatism never made it here, Alex has an awfully peculiar take on all of this.

Still, let’s answer Alex’s argument about the common man and the virtues of elitism. Classical liberalism, as best as I can judge it, has generally taken the position that human beings are liable to overstate their capacity to re-order the universe. The Road to Serfdom was largely a story about the inevitable failure of central planning. Why was it doomed to fail? Because, any “planners” had a finite and insufficient level of knowledge, which couldn’t possibly work efficiently on such a huge scale. Why, in contrast, does the market mechanism succeed? Because, people pursuing their own tiny goals can actually allocate resources in a sensible way, and millions of actors pursuing their own goals forms an “organization” and efficiency of sorts. So I think there’s- baked into the bread of both traditional conservatism and classical liberalism- a humility about mankind’s ability to use its knowledge to order the common man. No, he’s not always or even mostly right, but then neither are we. And while we have a duty, especially on those issues that concern us most passionately, to make a judgment about the best course forward, we shouldn’t use that judgment as a cudgel to insult, degrade, and attack people who have the temerity to disagree.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

From time to time there’s a discussion that goes on among Republicans.

The discussion revolves around whether Mitt Romney is a Christian.

This conversation bothers me on many levels.

First why should Republicans be discussing the religion of a candidate?

I think there are a few reasons why we see discussion that should be irrelevant. As we saw in the last election with Barack Obama, someone being considered other than Christian is toxic for a Presidential run even in the Democratic Party.

I think the importance of candidates’ Christianity stems from a very weird thing. In America the term “Christian” often doesn’t have anything to do with religion or a particular faith. The term “Christian” is just used as a shorthand for “a good person” or a “good thing”.

I don’t know if regular people think this consciously but their preferred politician is by default “Christian” because they’re a “good person”. This is a default view in both parties.

This is mostly what Obama was trying to navigate through with his family’s background of atheism and Islam.

For Mitt Romney the task is magnified by having a tiny minority of Republicans who view certain religious beliefs as a prerequisite for office. His status as a Mormon is seen as spooky or scary by a loud few.

This ought not to be the case. While the character of leaders matters, their religious background isn’t a reliable indicator of their competence or their integrity.

A Christian isn’t a default “good person”. No more than a Jew or an Atheist or a Democrat or a Conservative is automatically a “good person”.

Some social conservatives think they’re fighting the good fight on the culture war by bringing up a candidate’s religious affiliation and using that as a cudgel. They are doing great harm.

They are dirtying the waters by making religion the issue when what we care about are family values, decency, and virtue. We social conservatives would get further in our desire for a family-friendly America if we embraced Mormons, Muslims, Atheists, and people of all faiths looking for allies whereever we found them.

Good policies can come from a President of any or no religion. Bad policies can and have come from Presidents who expressed belief in Christianity.

Even though only a tiny minority of Republicans use religion as cudgel, the rest of us have a duty. We’ve been silent too long or worse minimized the damage done by religious bigotry. Whenever someone uses religious bigotry, the rest of us need to stand up and denounce that. We need to loudly denounce those tactics and affirm our opposition to religious bigotry in politics.

Today Mitt wrote an op-ed for Newsweek, laying out some proposals for health care:

1. Get everyone insured. Help low-income households retain or purchase private insurance with a tax credit, voucher or coinsurance. Use the tens of billions we now give hospitals for free care to instead help people buy and keep their own private insurance. For the uninsured who can afford insurance but expect to be given free care at the hospital, require them to either pay for their own care or buy insurance; if they do neither, they would forgo the tax credit or lose a deduction. No more “free riders.”

This is the basic plan I proposed in Massachusetts. It has worked: 360,000 previously uninsured citizens now have private health insurance. The total number of uninsured has been reduced by almost 75 percent. The Massachusetts plan costs the state more than expected, largely because the legislature has been unwilling to further reduce state payments to hospitals for free care. The costs should be brought in line by eliminating these payments, by requiring sustainable copremiums and by removing coverage mandates (for example, every policy is now required to include unlimited in vitro fertilization procedures).

2. Make health insurance affordable and portable. Eliminate the tax discrimination against consumers who purchase insurance on their own. This, plus getting everyone insured, will sharply lower insurance costs (in Massachusetts, the premium for a single male has declined by almost 50 percent). The result: Americans wouldn’t have to worry that their insurance would be unaffordable or canceled if they changed or lost a job.

3. Give people an incentive to care how expensive and how good their health-care treatment will be. Learn from the French and Swiss experience with coinsurance, where the insured pays a given percent of the entire bill, up to some upper limit. Unlike a deductible, where there is no cost to the insured once a threshold has been reached, coinsurance means that the insured continues to care about cost.

4. Provide citizens with information about the cost and quality of providers and the effectiveness of alternative treatments. This transparency, when it’s combined with a meaningful personal financial incentive, will help health care work more like a consumer market.

5.Reform Medicare and Medicaid, likewise applying market principles to lower cost and improve patient care.

6. Center reforms at the state level. Open the door to state plans designed to meet the various needs of their citizens. Before imposing a one-size-fits-all federal program, let the states serve as “the laboratories of democracy.”

As always, Mitt seems to have put a great deal of thought and preparation into his suggestions.  However, if he runs in 2012, he will no doubt face questions about the higher-than-expected costs of RomneyCare.  Still, the governor continues his impressive post-election performance by delivering more respectful, substantive alternatives to the Dems’ policies.

(h/t) Illinoisguy

Op-ed on Fox.com by Governor Huckabee;

I more or less agree with Governor Huckabee.  This threat (and it is a threat) has been over-played and over-hyped by the White House.  The politicization of this issue by the Obama administration has not only preyed on the fears of the American citizenry (and international), but is now threatening international trade wars and has caused damage to some private industry in the United States. 

The example Governor Huckabee highlights (regular winter flu) shows us what is most dysfunctional about our health care system.  Our government spends little effort and resources on prevention (a key component of the McCain 2008 plan), but instead focuses on a reactionary approach.  For all tax dollars we spend on our health care system, you’d think we be able to vaccinate our children from the flu every year?  Certainly not when our government controls the mandates, rhetoric and so much of the delivery system.  

This week, we’re supposed to be scared to death of coming down with the swine flu, but Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said we shouldn’t call it that because it hurts the feeling of the pigs — just like we’re not supposed to use the word “terror” anymore, because it hurts the feelings of the jihadists.

Joe Biden almost single handedly wrecked the airline and mass transit system by telling a national audience none of the public conveyances were safe. Of course, his staff had to issue their daily clarification or apology later. He’s giving a new meaning to the phrase: “Say it ain’t so, Joe. Say it ain’t so!”

I fly on planes about five days a week. I shake lots of hands, lots of hands. I meet lots of people, lots of people. I do wash my hands and use sanitizer frequently, but I’m not in a panic and I’ll tell you why:

Before Joe Biden told us to be afraid of the flu, an average of 100 Americans a day died from the regular old flu. That’s right, without even the attention the media is giving to this strain, flu was serious, especially to babies, old people, or sick people who already had weak immune systems. Other people lived, but they just didn’t feel like they would.

I’ve watched the Obama administration tell us how much they care about protecting lives from the flu. If they really want to help make children safer, let me make a suggestion: Start doing all you can to move this country to being pro-life.

Almost a million unborn children will die in their mother’s womb because of elective abortion this year. These are not sick or unhealthy babies, they’re just inconvenient.

And by ending their lives because they represent an economic disruption or a social interference to the mother, we’ve created a culture in which a human life is expendable because it represents an inconvenience.

It happens a million times a year in the United States. Where’s the press conference by the president, or the warnings of the vice president, or the outline of steps to be taken issued by Homeland Security or the secretary of Health and Human Services?

There isn’t one, because they all support the notion that it’s OK to end the lives of perfectly healthy unborn babies because they are in someone’s way.

If you have a child, it’s OK to be worried about the swine flu, but most healthy kids can survive most flu viruses. They might not survive the policies of our own government that makes it legal to view them as disposable.

______________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

What is the dividing line between the principled and the pragmatic? What makes men of such similar ideological persuasions vary so heavily in their tactics? Although Doug Forrester, Adam Graham, Kristofer Lorelli, Matthew E. Miller and I all agree that Pat Toomey would be a vastly superior senator to Arlen Specter, what makes our attitudes differ so strongly? The difference, which Matthew hinted at in his post below, lies in our conceptions of means and ends. And, moreover, to a certain extent, we’re even looking at different goals.

I am in politics to advance an ideology. I want a particular agenda to pass. I lay all of my options out on the table and look at how best I can help advance a particular policy point. I don’t much care who passes it, so long as it gets done. I don’t much care whether Arlen Specter is a true believer if his nomination will ultimately help me advance my cause more than a Pat Toomey  nomination would.

People like Adam, and, to a certain extent, Matthew (or, if you actually take him seriously, Kristofer) look at particular senators as ends in themselves. They must not only pass the ideology in legislation, but represent the ideology in their actions and statements. Seeing their candidates be right, even if they end up going down in flames, has a certain utility to such people, because they can rest comfortably in their beliefs. Like the religious conservative who shoots himself in the foot with his refusal to compromise in the Northeast or the leftist protester shouting on the street corner, there is a large component of the self represented in his tactics. It’s not all about the ideology — it’s partially about him, living through the agenda he promotes.

For me, it is a dispassionate engagement. I have a vision of how the world should be, and I want to promote it. I don’t care who’s doing the promoting, whether he’s having sex with hookers, or whether he is actually a true believer. I just want the agenda passed in the most efficient way possible. I want to capture Congress for my ideology to the largest extent possible. Is that even the goal of the Adam Grahams of the world? I’m honestly not sure.

I once spoke with a religious conservative who claimed that he could never vote for the pro-choice Rudy Giuliani, lest God judge him negatively at the pearly gates for it. In practice, this aids Barack Obama’s radical pro-choice agenda, which was too much to swallow — even for a moderate pro-choicer like me. This was a revealing moment: it showed me how people engage in politics on vastly different levels. We’re not all seeking the same goals in politics. A lot of religious conservatives are involved in politics as an extension of their worship of Jesus. A lot of hardliners are sort of living vicariously through politics. In other words: not all of us are in politics simply to promote an ideology. A lot of us would actually rather lose a seat rather than give it to someone who we think may be a “traitor” in the midst, even if it harms the prospects for the advancement of the ideology.

This same construct, I would say to Matthew, applies to my sentiments about voters: of course I see them as means to an end. As a tactician, exactly what else am I supposed to think of them as? Of course I don’t think that the judgment of the common man should always reign supreme. Of course I trust the party establishment a lot of the time. Don’t you? Or do you think that the common man is always right and that we intellectual elites must serve as a rubber stamp for their decision? That the best-educated, most intellectual, most engaged amongst us possess no superior insight into contentious political situations?

I have been accused — most frequently by Doug Forrester — of wanting to subjugate the will of the voters. This is not the case. I, like everyone else on this site, would simply like for the voters to agree with me and help me advance what I want out of politics. That’s the political game. If you don’t like it, don’t play it. What I propose is not taking the right of the voters to make decisions for themselves away, but to ask what one should do rather than merely what one can do.

It must be said, though, that there’s a perverse irony in a member of the party of merit — rather than identity — worshiping the ‘common man’ as the ideal and attempting to tear down the influence of the intellectual wing of the party. The Palin-Huckabee wing, in its eternal wisdom, has not merely said that it’s acceptable to be a Joe Six-Pack — which, like the words ‘queer’ and ‘nigger,’ seems to have been “reclaimed” for those it was once used against — but that it is a desirable ideal to be reached. I state, in contrast, that it is acceptable, but nothing worth glorifying.

From time immemorial, intellectual and political elites have utilized voters as means to an end of advancing their ideology. That is not only what is but what should be — unless you support the idea that, regardless of the level of one’s intellectual engagement, it isn’t possible to really say that anyone knows better than anyone else at any given time. That we shouldn’t really exercise our judgment after careful study — in which case, you ought to go head over to the Democratic Party, because they’ve built an entire brand out of that construct: it’s called identity politics. It’s already polluting one party. I don’t want it here.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Alex Knepper can be contacted at apkkib@aol.com

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun. – The Preacher

The statement from Ecclesiastes 1:9 is quite possibly the most conservative sentence ever written. I guess the former Governor of Florida together with the vast majority of elected Republicans over the past 13 years never heeded its wisdom.

Yet, in the wake of our past two election year losses self-identified “fiscal conservatives”, moderates and mavericks inside the beltway have sought to pin those losses Big Spending, Iraq War and Economic bailout/recession-driven losses on their favorite religious right/social conservative bogeymen, including Ronald Reagan.

The latest to join the gratuitous “insult conservatives lecture circuit” now known as the “National Council For A New America” (NCNA) – sounds a lot like President Obama’s “fundamentally change” and “re-make” America, doesn’t it, but I digress – is Jeb Bush:

My reason for being here is that I think ideas have consequences and we that ought to have a thoughtful discussion about those ideas. And from the conservative side, it’s time for us to listen first, to learn a little bit, to upgrade our message a little bit, to not be nostalgic about the past — because, you know, things do ebb and flow, and it’s nice to remember the good old days when the good guys, if you’re a conservative, were in power. If you’re a liberal, you remember nostalgically when they were in power. None of that matters right now. What we need to do is to listen, to learn, and then there will be a new generation of leaders that will lead. Listen, learn, lead.

Ok, so what doesn’t matter are lessons from how conservatives won power? What does matter is that we “listen, learn and lead”? It competes for vagueness with Obama’s “hope and change”, but unfortunately, the concrete result of the NCNA’s three l’s would be a surrender to Obama.

Heck, they can’t stop praising the President in public. Our Minority “Whip” never misses a chance to flog Obama with his feather-made lash every chance he gets, and now his Sunshine State partner in Reagan nostalgia-killing offers his obeisance:

The context that I was talking about the past was really candidates running for office that have kind of a nostalgic view of the world. That’s a perilous thing. And I think to President Obama, candidate Obama’s credit, he waged a 2008 campaign that was relevant for people’s aspirations, whether you agreed with him or not, it was not a look back, it was a look forward, and so our ideas need to be forward looking and relevant. I felt like there was a lot of nostalgia for the good old days in the messaging and, you know, it’s great, but it doesn’t draw people towards your cause.

Obama looked back for two years in full public view as he trashed the framers of the Constitution for not empowering government to re-distribute wealth; President Reagan for “giving” tax cuts to the rich; and Jeb’s brother for every wrong thing under the sun.

Guess Jeb was too busy listening and learning elsewhere so he could lead us to a non-Reagan influenced democratic-lite future as seekers of complimentary Bob Michaelism passes for the congressional tennis courts.

Let’s look at some recent past learning and listenings that didn’t consult Reagan’s conservative principles and policies, shall we?

Bush 41 listened and learned from congressional democrats and led lip readers to higher taxes. Newt Gingrich listened and learned from President Clinton and led JC Watts to the woodshed for daring to call Rev. Jesse Jackson (The First lady’s guest at the State of the Union) a race pimp hustler and shakedown artist.

Bush 43 and Tom DeLay listened and learned from Senator Kennedy and led us to spend like Democrats. Eric Cantor listened and learned to who knows what (Obama and Geithner?) and led scores of Republicans to vote for a 90% tax on AIG employee insurance commission compensation.

Finally, Governor Bush himself listened and learned and opposed drilling for oil off his state’s coast. Yet, Jeb has the audacity to say:

“You can’t beat something with nothing. And the other side has something. I don’t like it, but they have it, and we have to be respectful and mindful of that.”

The “it” the Democrats have that you demand we respect, while seeking new things under the sun, is the oldest evil thing in the history of man. One that Whittaker Chambers (pictured above) noted as a “Witness” against that evil when he thought he was joining the losing side against communism:

It is not new. It is, in fact, man’s second oldest faith. Its promise was whispered in the first days of the Creation under the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil: “Ye shall be as gods.” It is the great alternative faith of mankind. Like all great faiths, its force derives from a simple vision. Other ages have had great visions. They have always been different versions of the same vision: the vision of God and man’s relationship to God. The Communist vision is the vision of Man without God.

Afterwards, then Democrat Ronald Reagan looked back and listened to Whittaker Chambers. Aren’t we glad he didn’t eschew the wisdom of the past like Jeb Bush want’s to?

No Jeb, YOU certainly can’t beat something with nothing. So get out of our way. We have something all right, and it is what Reagan handed down: conservative principles and policies that work and when advocated in an unabashed and unapologetic way, lead to conservative Republican majorities.

There have been some suggestions in some circles that the outrage being expressed by many conservatives at the NCNA approach and statements by Jeb and others is misplaced, that Jeb doesn’t mean the same insults to Reagan’s legacy as the Frums and Brooks did, despite using the same words or that we have been fooled by misleading Drive-by headlines.

Poppycock!

I denounced this beltway concoction on the first day I learned of it and read their mission statement, one of the most gross of which was this adoption of the entitlement language of the left:

Healthcare: Building a 21st Century, Patient-Centered System

No one doubts that our nation’s health care system is in need of reform, but we must strike the right balance that builds on what works and fixes what is broken. All Americans deserve access to high-quality, affordable care.

Yeah, just like we all “deserved” to own homes we couldn’t afford.

No, we aren’t fooled by liberal media and we aren’t pining for some reincarnation of Reagan, Regan and Baker either. What we want is for our center-right nation to be governed by like-minded conservatives like we once were, for too brief of a moment. We want policies that don’t destroy the currency and threaten our prosperity and that of the next generations. We want policies that don’t invite aggression against weakness and we want courts that umpire rather than insist on pitching.

Yes, we need new ideas and policies to address health care and other issues, we don’t get any that will work without listening and learning to the likes of Reagan.

Postscript

I have been writing Minority Reports since 2006 and if we listen to the voices of Jeb and and the NCNA, I will be writing them the rest of my life.

Adam Graham recently said it best when he suggested that the dangerous voices in the GOP are those of the “good ole boys” rather than the grassroots. I just wonder if some recent grass roots have become too chummy inside the beltway. Rush Limbaugh has said that one reason he never considered broadcasting from The District is so that he would not be inhibited in Truth Detection due to friendships with those he covered.

I found it interesting today that Rush, a long-time friend of the Bush family (after they reached out to him after he backed Pat Buchanan soon after Bush 41′s tax hike broken promise) started out the show defending Jeb over the misleading headline, but then went on to refute everything Jeb said.

[Richard "Pilgrim" Lucy contributed to this article.]

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Originally published @ The Minority Report, where all for verification links may be accessed

The ordinary man may not flinch from a dictatorship of the proletariat, if you offer it tactfully; offer him a dictatorship of the prigs, and he gets ready to fight.

So wrote George Orwell in 1937, to illustrate what he saw as the deficiencies in the average socialist: elitism and class consciousness. Legions of European socialists, who dreamt wistfully of the working class in theory, never seemed to like the actual working class. In the comments section, I asked Alex a simple question: “do you propose to make all voters automatons, following the party apparatchik?”

His answer? “Depends on the situation, obviously”. In those 5 words, Alex encapsulates the attitude of the GOP’s Smart and Sensible Republicans. These folks treat citizens, not as individual agents, but rather as a means to an end. Ironically enough, SSR’s are those most likely to champion “freedom”. Those Other Republicans, they insist, don’t love freedom as much: after all, aren’t the OR’s forever trying to enslave women, straight-jacket gays, and ban a bunch of harmless herbs? Yes, SSR’s are quite sure people ought to be free; until, anyway, that freedom interferes with their grand designs for the universe. Automatons wouldn’t make such silly mistakes.

There’s is the anger, not of a man quietly upset at his friend’s error, but of a master whose privileges and plans have been usurped. Kristofer is absolutely wrong to call Alex a liberal or a progressive. He is not. Rather, he is the 21st century, right-wing equivalent of Orwell’s priggish socialist. The socialist loved The Common Man, but despised common men. SSR’s love Freedom, but despise free men.

While I don’t share Orwell’s economic beliefs, I can more than sympathize with his predicament. How do you deal with a group of people who seem to disdain the object of their lofty principles? How do convince those with whom you share a cause, that your common path is righteous only because it influences living, breathing, people?

I wish I knew.

-

Matthew E. Miller can be contacted at Obilisk18@yahoo.com

Toomey and Ridge are already within striking range of Specter:

PEG Political Action Committee Poll, automated poll of 1,019 households of registered voters.

• Specter 42% Toomey 36%,
• Ridge 39% Specter 38%

“What jumps out at me,” said Patti “is that Senator Specter doesn’t get over 50 percent against either candidate. That’s not good for a long-term incumbent no matter what political party he affiliates with.”

More details:

· In the Specter/Toomey match-up, Specter is winning support from Democrats by a 50 percent margin while Toomey is winning support from Republicans by a 46 percent margin.
· In the Specter/Ridge match-up, Specter is winning from Democrats by a 41 percent margin while Ridge is winning support from Republicans by a 50 percent margin.
· In the Philadelphia suburbs of Bucks, Delaware, Chester and Montgomery, in the Specter/Toomey match-up the results are Specter 43 percent to Toomey 38 percent with 21 percent undecided.
· By contrast, Specter loses votes in the suburban southeast counties when faced by Ridge who garners 38 percent to Specter’s 37 percent with 25 percent undecided.

Hat-Tip: Tommy Boy

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

I have noticed that many progressive republicans seem content on continuing their tirade against conservative republicans over the defection of Senator Specter.  They remain convinced that Toomey is incapable of capturing the Senate seat from Specter as they continues to push their defeatist agenda on the blogosphere and within the party.

Eighteen months is a lifetime in politics and anyone who believes that the political climate of today will remain as-is for the next year and a half ,is inexperienced and lacks the knowledge how how political cycles evolve, especially when mid-term elections approach.  President Obama remains popular with American voters, but polling indicates that support for his high tax, big spending, anti-freedom agenda, is dropping.  As history has shown us, a struggling economy and a Congress with low approval ratings has benefited the minority party in mid-term elections.  In many cases, the winds of political change have propelled unknown candidates to election night victories over heavily favored incumbents (remember, George Nethercutt?).

Pat Toomey is an ideal candidate who is well organized and well funded.  Like many other Congressmen, Toomey will rely on the primary and general election campaigns to introduce himself to the state-wide electorate.  To discount Toomey based on a  poll taken a year before the voters become engaged (and while we experience the Obama honeymoon), is discounting the history of our electoral process.

Remember…

From the February 3, 1993 AP Poll;

Americans are twice as inclined to express trust and confidence in President Bill Clinton as in Congress, according to an Associated Press poll.

Clinton was considered trustworthy most or all of the time by 52 percent of Americans, but fewer than one in four said the same about Congress.

To deal with the country’s problems, 55 percent had more confidence in Clinton, compared with 25 percent who put more faith in Congress.

…and a year and a half later?

THE 1994 ELECTIONS: THE OVERVIEW; G.O.P. WINS CONTROL OF SENATE / HOUSE;

The Republican Party seized control of the Senate and moved within a few seats of capturing the House yesterday, winning eight Democratic seats in the Senate and at least 38 in the House. The gains were the Republicans’ strongest in decades and put them in position to thwart President Clinton and his legislative proposals for the next two years.

Coming off a devastating loss to rock-star candidate Bill Clinton, the GOP rebounded in 1994, winning 21 of 35 Senate seats up for election.  Republicans achieved victory by developing a pragmatic agenda, sticking to their principles and by developing a winning election strategy.

______________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

It is probably not a stretch to presume the NRA will be supporting Sarah Palin in 2012.

According to American Rifleman, the National Rifle Association will feature a custom made AR-15 made specifically for Governor Palin at its upcoming annual banquet.  The NRA can raise millions of dollars for a candidate and can place tens of thousands of volunteers on the ground in a campaign.  Their influence on the GOP will be tested in the 2011 Iowa caucus.   

The all-white “Alaskan Hunter” is modeled after an M-4 and its .50 caliber Beowulf chamber leaves one former Special Forces veteran impressed.

“Wow, that’s sweet,” US military weapons specialist Jack Hancock told The Vote. “The fact that they actually got a .50 caliber on an AR-15 frame (for Palin) is remarkable.”

______________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

With a little help from the Gipper and his Laffer friends, of course

We bid farewell this weekend to a man that was instrumental in the Reagan Revolution that produced Reagan Democrats, a 25-year economic recovery, brought down the Evil Empire and eventually led yours truly to a 2000 conservative epiphany.

I had always loved Jack Kemp (while I was still a Democrat) in the 1980s, even before all the evidence of the revenue and recovery producing power of supply side tax cuts was in, because the former Buffalo Bills quarterback was so zealous in his efforts to reach out to blacks and minorities (see pictured at MLK Memorial). Race had been a defining issue in my Southern life due to integration efforts by my parents and later in my own way in hiring practices at my law firm.

But it wasn’t until my 21st century epiphany, after I was finally won over to the GOP due to the proven results of Kemp-advocated conservative policies, that I fully realized the power of Kemp’s reach out efforts. Kemp went into black communities with the same message he brought to all humans of every hue, i.e. that conservative policies are best for all races and income groups as they create more wealth and opportunity for all to achieve the American dream.

I was won over by that message.

One of the main reasons I switched after 18 years a Democratic Party activist and official was that I cared about the poor and lower income families that my old party seemed intent on keeping as victim dependants.

I had seen the Laffer Curve work with more revenue coming in from cutting tax rates, especially at upper income levels where the investor class lives. I saw the investors create the jobs that led to greater prosperity for all. I saw the revenue that funded Reagan’s victory in the Cold War.

I saw a Bill Clinton run barely touch the Reagan tax rates and then saw him later team with Newt to continue the Kemp philosophy on capital gains tax cuts.

DeVine continually perplexed that Democrats opposed tax cuts

But all during this time, I saw something else that was greatly disturbing to me about the Democratic Party. They would never admit that supply side tax cuts actually did increase tax revenues. They insisted they cared about balancing budgets and that to do so they would have to raise “taxes”. I began to see the obvious lie.

Most Democratic Party leaders cared not for balancing budgets. It was obvious that the reason we had deficits in the 80s was due to increased spending, not a lack of revenues. The Democrats claimed to care more for the poor and lower income and for minorities, yet continued to oppose tax cuts that worked and let people keep more of their own money.

I began to see my former party as vile and morally and intellectually bankrupt.

Kemp showed GOP the way to victory

By contrast, there was a smiling and cheerful and optimistic Jack Kemp advocating policies that helped all Americans and especially Black and minorities and lower and middle income families.

Then after my switch to the GOP I came to see some flaws in the spine of the GOP. They would win elections based on Kemp-like economic policies, but then fear the Drive-by media and PC police on the issues they had just won on and fear being called racists if they dared to treat blacks as equals.

They wouldn’t go into the black neighborhoods with the message of truth. No, they either didn’t go to the ‘hoods or they went with race-tailored messages that look like Dem lite.

I have always said that to win over Reagan Dems and blue dawgs we have to be bold leaders. We see that in 2006 and 2008 we lost mainly due to moderating our proven effective conservative policies.

The same goes for race.

Kemp showed the GOP the way on the main reasons for our 2008 losses: the economy and race.

Let us please learn the Kemp lesson now and going forward as we mourn the loss of one of the great Americans of our time.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed

Are we ready to admit yet that Pat Toomey can’t win and that we should draft and nominate Tom Ridge instead?:

Quinnipiac: 2010 Pennsylvania General Election

Arlen Specter (D) – 53%
Pat Toomey (R) – 33%

Arlen Specter (D) – 46%
Tom Ridge (R) – 43%

Notes from Quinnipiac:

“A former Republican Senator running as a Democrat against a popular former Republican governor seeking to make a political comeback would be a battle royal in Pennsylvania,” said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

“Gov. Tom Ridge is probably the only political figure in Pennsylvania who could give Sen. Arlen Specter a run for his money. But even if he gets a strong challenge from a Republican, Specter is still better off for having changed parties because he seemed headed to certain defeat had he stayed a Republican and faced Toomey in a primary.

“Ridge is popular, but Specter is now lined up with the powerful Democratic machine run by Gov. Ed Rendell and can count on a popular President Barack Obama coming to campaign for him if needed. Significantly, Specter leads both Toomey and Ridge by more than 20 points among union households even though the Senator says he will vote against the most important labor legislation in Congress this year,” Richards added.

Pennsylvania voters approve 56 – 36 percent, including 81 – 10 percent among Democrats, of the job Specter is doing. By a 52 – 34 percent margin, voters have a favorable opinion of Specter. Toomey gets a 20 – 13 percent favorability, but 67 percent don’t know enough about him to form an opinion. Ridge gets a 55 – 19 percent favorability.

Voters say 49 – 41 percent that Specter deserves to be reelected and say 60 – 37 percent that he is not too old to serve another six-year U.S. Senate term. Even voters 18 to 34 years old say 67 – 31 percent that Specter is not too old.

“Well, I was sorry to disappoint many people. Frankly, I was disappointed that the Republican Party didn’t want me as their candidate,” Mr. Specter said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” “But as a matter of principle, I’m becoming much more comfortable with the Democrats’ approach. And one of the items that I’m working on, Bob, is funding for medical research.”

Mr. Specter continued: “If we had pursued what President Nixon declared in 1970 as the war on cancer, we would have cured many strains. I think Jack Kemp would be alive today. And that research has saved or prolonged many lives, including mine.”

You stay classy Arlen. Gee, am I upset he’s not going to be our candidate.

Race42012 is pleased to present a guest post by Matt Sanders (aka MWS).

The roller coaster events of the past several months- from the fall of Lehman to the Martyrdom of St. Arlen- have helped crystallize in my mind how the Republican Party has lost its way, and consequently, its road back.  Clearly, the Democratic party, with its media sycophants, has knocked us back on our heels and produced so much self-doubt that many of our would be leaders and advisors have solemnly declared that the only way to compete with Democrats, is to look and act more like Democrats.  Mind you, these were the same people who were prophesying a brighter era under the triumphant banner of New Coke 25 years ago.

Fortunately for us conservatives, this is all a bunch of crap.  What afflicts us as a party afflicts the country, and the solution in our party is the same solution I think much of the country is looking for.  The answer, my dear friends, is unapologetic, full-throated populism.

Now, a point of clarification:

The kind of populism I support isn’t the anti-rich kind, but the kind that opposes those who use their power or access to power to gain unfair advantage (such as sweetheart bailouts). It is not the kind that milks class envy, but the kind that fights those who would use taxpayer money to enrich themselves.  It is not the kind that enflames workers to rise against their bosses.  Rather, it calls on ALL of us to hold our government accountable to the common good- including the good of future generations- instead of just the politically connected.  All good capitalists should support that kind of populism, as well as libertarians. A powerful government can and will pick winners and losers, largely based on who has the money to buy influence. And as conservative economists know, this sort of influence peddling distorts markets and creates inefficiencies. This is a populism that can unite disparate philosophies and walks of life under a common banner.

To get the ball rolling on this new ‘populist manifesto’ I humbly submit the following suggestions:

1. Make sure no business is “too big to fail.”
2. End the revolving door between Goldman Sachs and Treasury.
3. End corporate welfare.
4. Bring complete transparency to TARP. As the dopes footing the bill, we have the right to know which sewers our money is getting flushed into.
5.  Support the nascent efforts of various states, such as Montana, Texas, and Michigan, to assert their rights as states in the Federal Union.
6.  End earmarks.

The point to all of this, of course, is to end the practice of using the enormous power of the federal government to enrich the few at the expense of the many.  Such a populism, I believe, could unite conservatives, libertarians, independents, laissez faire capitalists, federalists, blue collar workers, the parents of future generations of taxpayers, and quite frankly, everyone who is getting screwed by the current method of selling power and favors. The tea parties are evidence that a great many people know they are getting the shaft in all these government programs and bailouts, even if they don’t understand the details of exactly how.  We need not romanticize the lives and wisdom of plumbers, or factory workers, or farmers, but we need to be the party that represents those people, especially when their government is taking advantage of them.

Most Americans celebrate the diversity in our communities and public institutions, but what Americans embrace even more is our commitment to individual excellence and promoting those who have earned their rewards.  This belief in American exceptionalism has made this country the most prosperous, secure and free society in the history of civilization.  Today, the United States remains the land of opportunity, but dark clouds hover over the horizon.

The Obama administration and Senate democrats are laying the groundwork for an unqualified pick for the Supreme Court to replace Justice David Souter. 

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) is calling on President Obama to consult with Senate Democrats and Republicans before picking a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Specifically, Leahy would like to see Obama appoint more women and minorities to the court, giving a boost to Sonia Sotomayor, a Hispanic woman who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit. Sen. Arlen Specter(Pa.), who until last week served as the ranking Republican on Judiciary, echoed Leahy’s call. 
 

Yes, women and minorities are underrepresented in many of our public institutions, but is that enough to push aside thousands of qualified applicants for one of the most important public service positions in our country?  The White House and Congressional leadership already disqualify potential Supreme Court Justices based on political philosophy, now they appear poised to disqualify candidates based on sex, race and faith. 

With the political winds in Washington blowing strongly towards liberal populism, I fear our future will include human rights tribunals, elections based on single transferable votes and diversity quotas at senior levels of our government and judiciary.  An even greater fear is that this new philosophy will trickle down to all levels of public service and private institutions.  As the Europeans have learned, striving for individual greatness can be erased from a societies culture and institutions, when individuals are rewarded based on who they are and not what they have done. 

______________________________________________________________

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Ron Paul’s son Rand, also a doctor, has indicated he may run for Jim Bunning’s Senate seat if Bunning retires:

“I’ve been traveling the state and giving speeches as if there is going to be a race,” he told The Associated Press. “Every bone in my body says there is going to be a race.”

But the Bowling Green physician said he won’t rush into the campaign just because another potential GOP challenger has stepped forward.

…Nonetheless, Grayson said he won’t run for the Senate seat unless Bunning retires. Paul said that holds true for him, too.

“Out of respect for Sen. Bunning, I’m not doing anything formally,” Paul said. “I’m not forming any committees, I’m waiting for him to have a graceful way saying what he’s going to do.”

…Paul, a fan of Bunning’s conservative fiscal philosophy, said it is those mixed signals that have him standing ready to enter the race.

Paul, who shares many of his father’s conservative political views, was an integral part of last year’s presidential campaign. He said his father’s political organization largely remains intact and could be reactivated to raise money for his Senate race.

The title of this post was obviously tongue-in-cheek, as Rand faces a fairly steep uphill climb if he decides to throw his hat in the ring.  If Rand’s positions mirror his dad’s, they may not play as well in less-libertarian Kentucky.  Add to that the fact that he will have a significant disadvantage in name recognition if he squares off against Trey Grayson.  Never say never, though.

Including a lot of headlines that you may have missed!

JC Watts is strongly considering a run for governor.

Tom Ridge is actually considering running for Senate.

John Kasich is in for the Ohio governor’s race.

The Democrats are certainly assuming that Crist is running for Senate.

Analysis: It’s the Republicans’ turn in Tennessee’s governor’s mansion.

Sam Brownback a shoo-in for GOP governor’s nod.

Jim Bunning’s retirement looks imminent.

Is Fiorina running? Boxer sure thinks so.

A word: our line-up of 2010 candidates is actually looking quite impressive. If we can get a recruitment line-up that includes JC Watts, Tom Ridge, Meg Whitman, Charlie Crist, John Kasich, Rob Portman, Sam Brownback, Carly Fiorina, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Michael Williams, and more, then that’s damn good. (I’m thinking that my girl Sarah Steelman might hold off until 2012 in order to run against Claire McCaskill, though.)

For the first time this week, I must look at our party and say: keep it up!

The first political event I ever attended was a Kemp rally during the 1996 campaign. So, Jack, if you have internet access in heaven, please know that tonight I am rembering you not as conservative blogger mourning an economic guru – but as a wide-eyed 10 year-old desperate to get your autograph on a campaign sign (you didn’t sign it, by the way, but I kept it on my bedroom wall for the next four years anyway).

Thanks for the memories.

A great conservative leader, Jack Kemp, passed away tonight. He was 73 years old.

Kemp was a former quarterback, congressman, Housing and Urban Development Secretary, and vice-presidential nominee. He was known for his staunch support of capitalism.

“Democracy without morality is impossible.”

“The supply-side claim is not a claim. It is empirically true and historically convincing.”

“There are no limits to our future if we don’t put limits on our people.”

Reagan quotes, fiery conservative rhetoric, enormous billowing American flag…whatever are you up to Tim?

————————————————

Kristofer Lorelli can be contacted at lorville@rogers.com, on Facebook and twitter/Kris_Lorelli.

Who runs the Republican Party?

Is it men in smoke filled rooms or Republican voters?

Should voters determine the direction of this party or should party officials manipulate everything for their own power?

In Pennsylvania this week we saw a betrayal. I’m not talking about Arlen Specter turning against the Republican officials who have been supporting him and funneling him money. These folks didn’t force Arlen Specter out. Most of these party elites stayed with Specter until he left them.

Arlen Specter decided to leave the Republican Party because he rejected Republican voters in Pennsylvania. He decided he wouldn’t submit to the judgment of the voters of his own party. He’d switch to the Democrat party where he needn’t worry about voters getting uppity and challenging his rule (we’ll see how that goes).

It wasn’t Pat Toomey who forced Arlen Specter’s hand. The Republican voters of Pennsylvania would have preferred almost anyone besides Specter. He wasn’t going to be renominated if the voters were allowed a say. Not after Specter voted for the stimulus bill.

Do we oppose letting the voters have a choice?

We got in the place we are now by having a party where voters meekly accepted the policies of Bush (whether they agreed or not), they meekly accepted the candidates party officials pushed in place.

From 2006-2008 some in the Republican Party have been trying to clean up the mess of corruption and elitism that stifled the grassroots.

I’m not in favor of the strategy of the Club for Growth but I’m also not going to ask Republican voters to shut-up and sit quietly in the corner. Republican voters shouldn’t be scolded like children for opposing the candidates they dislike. We ought to focus on promoting candidates, Republican voters will want to support.

1) Mitt Romney - Gov. Romney remains in the best position to win the GOP nomination in 2012. He continues to do everything right; good interviews, smart policy critiques of Obama without the red meat attacks, joining the he National Council for a New America, etc. Until someone else emerges clicking on all cylinders, he will remain poised as the undisputed front-runner for 2012.

2) Mark Sanford - The fiscally conservative Governor of South Carolina is quickly becoming a favorite for both insiders and the Libertarian Ron Paul supporters. That kind of combination could make Sanford the real dark horse in 2012. With Palin’s stumbles and Huckabee disliked by the business community and fiscal conservatives, Sanford is shaping up to be the top challenger to Romney’s claim on the nomination. Sanford’s stance against both the Iraq War and the bailouts could position him as the major populist candidate, both on domestic and foreign policy. 

3) Mike Huckabee - Huck is a big beneficiary of Palin and Jindal’s stumbles. Unlike Palin, Gov. Huckabee’s organization is working very well, and Huck is making appearances and fundraising without the organizational failures of Palin’s operation.  Palin and Jindal still have more star power, but if they don’t get their acts together, Huckabee will be the big winner. Still, his economic record is still his biggest weakness, and will likely hurt him in a contest against more fiscally conservative candidates.

4)  Sarah Palin - Governor Palin’s fumbles are continuing, as her Alaska team communication struggles with SarahPAC continue to create bad headlines for the former VP nominee. Another month of bad press and trashy tabloid stories continue to ruin the Governor’s image with independents.  If she cannot get a hold on this negative attention, it could knock her out of the race before it even begins. Joining the National Council for a New America would be a good start for Palin to help get her act together.

5)   John Thune - Senator Thune is the most likely member of the Senate to get the GOP nod in 2012.  He has the conservative resume to win over the base, the looks and communication skills to win over the broader electorate, and a chance in the Senate leadership to become the rhetorical counter to Obama the next four years.  His lobbying ties and strong religious values could hurt him some with moderates. It seems more and more, however, that the Senator is making all the subtle moves to run. He has become the strategic point man to defeat Obama on Card-Check, Cap and Trade, and other legislation.  Senator Thune could emerge as a unifying figure in a field with a number of candidates who have difficulty winning over certain parts of the party; Romney with evangelicals, Huckabee with fiscal cons, Palin with moderates.

6) Jon Huntsman Jr. - Very smart, very rich, successful business man, governor, and Mormon. Where have I heard this before??? The governor of Utah will likely have an early problem with the far better known Gov. Romney. However, the Utah Governor seems to be taking early steps to avoid some of Romney’s mistakes and to avoid last-minute flip-flopping. He more than Governor Crist seems to be positioning himself as the McCain-like maverick of the 2012 field, and in a divided primary, could like McCain, be the last man standing. 

7) Tim Pawlenty - Minnesota’s governor has the proven ability to win in the bluest of states (even Reagan never won Minnesota) with his blue-collar Republican message.  I imagine T-Paw’s  Sam’s Club populism could be quite effective in 2012. He is also an evangelical, and could give Palin and Huckabee a run for the support of values voters. Like Senator Thune, Governor Pawlenty could appeal to all sectors of the party in ways that the Big Three from 2008(Romney, Huckabee, Palin) have failed to do. However, while Senator Thune has an increasingly easy reelection bid on his hands in 2010, Pawlenty has a tougher choice to make; run for a third term and risk damaging his brand with a loss, or pass up the Governorship and a major platform with an uncertain 2012 primary ahead.

(more…)

So, Matthew, are you contending that we’re all in agreement, here? That we aren’t really arguing over anything in particular? That I’m not fighting against anyone in particular? We sure have generated a lot of comments over the past week for nothing.

Of course, we are fighting a serious and needed fight. There are some major debates that need to be had — not just at Race, but in the entire conservative blogosphere (Race isn’t the only Republican blog out there, you know) — about the status of moderates in the Republican Party, how far they can go before becoming legitimate targets for primaries, where we should direct our resources, what sort of electoral majority we should try to cobble together (or if being a majority party is even important, if you listen to Secret Club President Jim DeMint).

A party in which Snowe, Collins, and Voinovich are not welcome is not a majority party. Because if they’re not with us, they’re with them.

A party that only wins amongst whites will not be a majority party in the decades to come.

A party that forsakes an entire generation is not a majority party.

A party that uses its resources to attack its own members rather than the opposition while it’s in the minority is not a majority party.

A party that tells a third of its members to “go sit in the corner” (Matthew) is not a majority party.

That’s what we’re arguing about: how best to become a majority party again. There are some profound differences of opinion on that, and it’s a debate that matters. Dismissing people who agree with me as “useful idiots” for the left is a silly evasion. The only useful idiots here are the Club for Shrinkage and its defenders.

Let me illustrate this point by turning our situation around:

Let’s say that the Republican Party controlled fifty-nine seats in the Senate, and Ben Nelson decided to switch to our side. Moreover, let’s contend that it was because he was essentially forced out by a “progressive” organization dedicated to Keynesian economics, who decided to run a Russ Feingold-style candidate against him. The liberal base, in a state of utter madness, doesn’t realize that Ben Nelson is the best that they can get in a state like Nebraska. The far-left assures the defenders of the DINO that if they really, really push their message to Nebraskans, it’s possible that they’ll accept the “progressive” message.

Would we be loving that, or what? Wouldn’t we be laughing at them for shooting themselves in the foot, breathing sighs of relief that they were targeting Ben Nelson rather than, say, Jim DeMint, John Kyl, or John Cornyn? Please realize that that is exactly what just happened. The left is having a field day over this entire fiasco. The Republican Party is in a state of self-inflicted disarray. The sooner we realize that, the sooner we can end this mess and get back to passing conservative legislation.

I think it’s somewhat useful to remind Alex that, while he’s on this jihad against the “hardliners” in the GOP, he’s fighting vapor.  Where are the hardliners at Race?  I’m a supporter of Tim Pawlenty who wants to rebuild the GOP in the Industrial North through blue-collar policies, and soft selling of social conservatism.  I’m such a hardliner that, come June 1st, I’m probably going to vote for the moderate Chris Christie over the pure Steve Lonegan, in New Jersey’s primary.  In the comments section MWS, mac, Doug, etc, etc, etc are FAR from doctrinaire conservatives and have taken some fairly controversial stands on policy. 

Kavon has created a site where probably around half of the most frequent FPP contributors are socially liberal, and another handful are simply moderate or gently right of center.  Every one of these people, wacky hardliners that we are, thinks the Arlen Specter defection was…well, Arlen Specter’s fault.  If you’d visited 90% of the Republican websites on the blogosphere, you’d find variations of “Good!  I hope Snowe, Collins, Voinovich, and Graham follow him out the door!”.  To the best of my knowledge, not a single person on Race, commenter or FPP poster, advocated kicking any of those “moderates” out of the party. 

Many of us, myself included, vocally defended Snowe and Collins though they are inarguably as moderate as Specter.  Yet, Alex would have you believe that we’re lunatics incapable of making subtle distinctions; that we’re out to purge all heretics.  I’ll simply say that, if Alex finds himself alienated from 90% of Republicans at one of the most moderate Republican sites around, his vision of the GOP isn’t likely to find much of a foothold.  So I’ll recommend one of his own talking points: change strategies, find a different message, be more open, or end up screaming in the wildnerness to Democratic talking heads who are intent on making you a useful idiot.  Or maybe he’d rather have 30 brilliant, pragmatic columnists, mumbling to no one, than 60 who can actually change the agenda? 

From his Op-Ed in today’s Wall Street Journal. No comment is necessary. DeMint speaks for me and (I believe) most Conservatives here:

Sen. Arlen Specter’s defection to the Democratic Party this week is no reason for Republicans to cheer. But his reason for leaving — he faced an unwinnable primary election next year — is no cause for soul searching. There is a question Republicans do need to ask: What is it that binds our party together?

In the wake of two successive electoral defeats and the likelihood of a 60-vote Democrat majority in the Senate, what does it even mean to be a Republican today? Moderate Republicans are right to remind conservatives that they cannot build a center-right coalition without the center part. And conservatives are right to remind moderates that Republicans only succeed when we rally around clear principles.

The real mistake is that Republicans became more concerned with staying in D.C. than reforming it.

To win back the trust of the American people, we must be a “big tent” party. But big tents need strong poles, and the strongest pole of our party — the organizing principle and the crucial alternative to the Democrats — must be freedom. The federal government is too big, takes too much of our money, and makes too many of our decisions. If Republicans can’t agree on that, elections are the least of our problems.

If the American people want a European-style social democracy, the Democratic Party will give it to them. We can’t win a bidding war with Democrats.

Freedom will mean different things to different Republicans, but it can tether a diverse coalition to inalienable principles. Republicans can welcome a vigorous debate about legalized abortion or same-sex marriage; but we should be able to agree that social policies should be set through a democratic process, not by unelected judges. Our party benefits from national-security debates; but Republicans can start from the premise that the U.S. is an exceptional nation and force for good in history. We can argue about how to rein in the federal Leviathan; but we should agree that centralized government infringes on individual liberty and that problems are best solved by the people or the government closest to them.

Amen a thousand times Senator. Read the whole piece here.

President failing Biden tests with Russia, Pakistan and Iraq

Candidate Barack Obama suggested last fall that, as President he would not rule out invading Pakistan. He was more hawkish on that issue than both his Democratic nomination rival Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee John McCain.

The Taliban didn’t believe him.

In short order this past week, the Taliban captured Buner (see map), a strategically vital district just 60 miles northwest of the capital, Islamabad. The militants flooded in by the hundreds, startling Pakistani and American officials with the speed of their advance.

The President recently visited the troops in Iraq and assured the Iraqi people that:

“…we are [their] stalwart partner, that we are working alongside them, that we are committed to their success,” he added.

Obama said that in terms of training the Iraqi security forces, the U.S. must make sure “they know that they have a steady partner with us.”

The enemies of freedom in Iraq didn’t believe him.

A series of explosions killed at least 43 people Wednesday, making April the bloodiest month Baghdad has seen in more than a year.

Wednesday’s attacks are the latest sign that Iraq’s security gains are beginning to reverse. Large-scale bombings targeting civilians have been on the rise since March and there is widespread concern among Iraqis that the violence may quickly spread as the United States begins to drawdown.

Why should anyone other than American corporate CEOs fear threats of force from a man that voted twice as a Senator to cut off funds for the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan? And why should anyone trust a man that threw his white grandmother and pastor of 20 years under the bus?

After all, the Commander-in-Chief didn’t say he stood between the pitchforks and our Islamist enemies. The forces he prefers to command seek to satisfy class envy, not homeland security.

In fact, our enemies abroad didn’t even need the further instruction of the President’s recent apology tours to be emboldened. Last year, great progress was being made by the people of Pakistan against the al Qaida and Taliban terrorists.

At first, Buner was a hard place for the Taliban to crack.

When they attacked a police station in the valley district last year, the resistance was fearless. Local people picked up rifles, pistols and daggers, hunted down the militants and killed six of them.

What changed to reverse progress in Iraq and Pakistan?

Americans elected a member of the Democratic weak horse, paper tiger Party, that’s what.

The world has seen this movie before. Whether it was Democrats cutting off South Vietnam in 1975, appeasing the Soviet Union as they opposed President Reagan’s victory in the Cold War until it was won, treating acts of war as felonies to indicted in the 90s, or bush lied lies emboldening Iranian, Baathist and al Qaida to keep heart and soul together, thus lengthening the Iraq War and costing more American and Iraqi lives.

President Bush was able to stay the course given the requirement of 67 votes to override a veto, and so essentially won the Iraq War, which President Obama tacitly admitted while with the troops. And we also learned last year that U.S. forces had made at least 10 incursions into Pakistan in addition to drone attacks.

But unlike 2001, the Muslim extremists are not so ignorant during this transition. Osama bin Laden miscalculated that President George W. Bush would respond to 911 with bombings of empty camps and nightwatchman like his predecessor, so long ago had been the partisan lessons to be learned about American politics.

Our enemies heard all the weak talk and saw all the weak surrender votes of ObamaDems from 2003-2008. They laughed as Obama feigned outrage at nose swabbings of KSM; library card snoopings and the denial of “OJ” trials for man-made disaster causers at Gitmo.

So they began preparations for their offensives soon after Election Day.

Now, post-Inauguration Day, see America in the Age of Obama betraying Poland, Georgia and Ukraine by denying them Reagan’s missile defense that he also deprives his own country of, despite North Korea’s GPS sitings of Honolulu and Anchorage.

They see him bow to a Saudi king and indifferently shrug at Communist Sandinista anti-American harangues.

Evil men see weakness. Evil men act.

Such is the way life has been on Earth since Eve bit the apple and will be till Jesus returns.

__________________________________________________________________________________

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

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

Originally published @ Examiner.com, where all for verification links may be accessed.

Wow, what a week!  From Sen Specter turning to the Dems to save his seat (more from me on this later), to panic being spread from our VP over swine flu, to a far-left Supreme Court Justice timing his hanging up the robe so he could be replaced by another  Supreme Court Justice, there will be fodder for comments for weeks!  No demerits to be issued for going off-topic today, as I went through the entire pad of them last week, and the new batch hasn’t come back from the printer.