Establishment Politics Takes A Hit

The Republican Party establishment is upset today.  It's all over The Drudge Report and conservative talk radio about how the election of Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware Senate primary.  Why?  O'Donnell was endorsed by the Tea Party, and she roundly trounced her Republican establishment opponent, Rep. Mike Castle.

Now, before digging into this, I should make it clear that I know pretty much nothing about Christine O'Donnell or Mike Castle beyond what I've heard & seen in the media over the last couple of days...

But what this essentially boils down to is that change is hard, particularly in the arena of national politics.  After moving much too far toward socialism for far too long, many people in America are coming to their senses and seeing that conservatism actually does offer real solutions.

Of course the Republican establishment isn't going to enjoy seeing their candidate lose a primary - as a political party, they are in the business of winning elections, even their own primaries, and let's face it: the major parties aren't used to losing their own primaries.  This is a big deal.

But what's happening in Delaware isn't a rejection of the Republican party, it's evidence of a continued reformation among Republicans.  These battles aren't "civil wars" within the party as the media suggests, they are attempts by conservatives to bring the party back to a winning strategy and ideology.  For too long, the strategy among Republicans has been to push voters into voting for the best "electable" candidate.  The problem with that strategy is that the definition of electability is determined either by party elites who are completely out-of-touch with the real world, or by the media.  This strategy is, after all, what got John McCain the Republican nomination in the 2008 election: every time the rank-and-file would start to get behind a candidate, the media would drag them down, because they had their eyes on McCain the entire time...and let's face it: McCain was one of the worst choices in the field of Republican candidates, and putting John "Maverick" McCain up against a tabula rasa candidate like Obama was the worst thing the GOP could have possibly done, especially in the race to replace George W. Bush.  In fact, the only thing that gave McCain a fighting chance in '08 was Sarah Palin, who brought some conservatism to the ticket.

For too long, the political establishment and the media have been telling conservatives that we shouldn't vote our ideals.  According to them, winning is more important than ideology - this is what led to the Republican "big tent" philosophy.  But the political winds have shifted.  We've seen what big tent strategies get us: spineless RINOS and "compassionate" conservatism which only ends up taking us down the same road as the socialist Democrats, just at a slightly slower pace.

The truth is that Republicans aren't the only ones facing a potential split and/or transformation.  The Democrats have had their own in-fighting of late; the only major difference is that the Progressive sect of the Left has thus far successfully smashed down the "Blue Dog" revolt.

The Republican Party's attempts to form a big tent party have only ended up marginalizing the GOP, primarily because the media has convinced the party elites that they have to move to the left in order to remain a viable political movement.  But conservatives aren't buying the party line anymore: we can see how today's Republican Party holds to many of the same ideological roots as the Democrats, and we see no reason to allow this ideological takeover of the GOP to continue.

Playing the "electability" game will only hurt the Republican Party and the nation in the long-run.  As much as the Democrats love to whine and cry about the "party of no," it is extremely important to have an opposition party that actually stands in ideological opposition their political opponents.  They way things have been going for the last decade or so, the message of both parties has essentially been "Our big government is better than their big government."  It's about time that we saw some true small-government conservatives elected under the Republican mantle, and if we keep selling out our values in the name of big tents and the liberal media's definition of electability, it will never happen.

So to all of those Republican elites bashing Christine O'Donnell over her so-called "electability," get over it.  It's time to start backing the conservatives, because America has seen where neocons and RINOs will get us, and we have roundly rejected that philosophy.  Eventually, the party elites will have to accept conservatives will not be silenced, or they will either be driven out of the GOP, or see their party split, which will make any Republicans unelectable for years to come.

Deficit Spending Greater Moral Issue than Abortion?

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has been quoted as saying that deficit spending is a greater moral issue than abortion, because it will leave non-aborted US citizens to pay off their parents' debt.

According to Coburn, "[President Bush] hasn’t been the ideal president when it comes to limited federal spending." Talk about the greatest understatement of the past seven years. President Bush has been absolutely horrible when it comes to limiting government spending...but one reason for this is because he hasn't vetoed the horrific spending bills sent to him by Congress, which continues to indulge in massive pork-barrel spending despite protestations and calls for increased "transparency" by several members.

Personally, I don't think that deficit spending is a greater sin than abortion...murder will always out-weigh financial over-extension in my book, but Coburn does have a good point: our government has more power and spends more money today than it ever has, and this spending has been increasingly irresponsible in light of the threats that our nation faces (and each and every Democrat presidential candidate wants to raise taxes and further increase spending!). We face many external threats: Islam0-fascist terrorism, Chinese and Venezuelan communism, belligerence by Russia, the Iranian nuclear program...the list goes on. But even the combination of these threats cannot defeat America unless we first defeat ourselves.

The US has been in moral decline for decades. The Cold War has moved to an internal conflict as the Democrat party threatens to make the US a socialist state. Political correctness threatens to shut down freedom of speech, and even freedom of thought in the US. The environmentalist movement seeks to send the US back to the days of the caveman. Religion and the moral values that go with it are constantly under attack (unless that religion seeks to denigrate and/or destroy the US, in which case it is celebrated). Our politicians are oblivious to the will of the people, choosing instead to stand up for special interest groups, selling US sovereignty up the river. Even as outside threats align to destroy the US, the threats from within our nation are combining, bringing about the eventual destruction of the freest nation on planet Earth. The people of the United States of America must wake up, or the destruction of this great nation will be on our doorstep before we know it.

Senator Coburn was right about one thing: "If we have only 11 percent support, are we a legitimate government? The 11 percent who have confidence in us, what hole are they in?” Congress has an 11% approval rating for a reason: they are an illegitimate government that refuses to conform to the will of the people. They have ignored the wishes of their constituents, whether Left or Right, and have only sought to advance their own self-interest: their quest for continued power.

The House of Representatives recently announced that it is shortening its work week to 4 days. While on the one hand this bespeaks the laziness of Congress (the Democrats, who have accomplished nothing since their takeover in 2006, ran on the promise to work harder to pass meaningful legislation), I cannot shake the thought that the less time Congress spends making law, the better. The modern Congress has proven to be a disaster, and my personal opinion is that they should meet only long enough to pass that legislation that is absolutely essential...one or two days per year should do it.

Our government is out of control, and it needs to be reigned in. Spending needs to be cut, and Congress needs to be restricted to its Constitutional limitations. The people need to send a clear message to our politicians in 2008 by electing true conservatives to Congress.

They're Conservative Now....But How About After The Election?

Republican presidential candidates held a presidential debate last night. Much of the debate centered around criticizing Hilary Clinton, but before they got to Hilary, they spent some time arguing over who is more conservative.

My problem is this: listening to them in the debate, all of the candidates sound good.

I know that Giuliani is too liberal on too many issues to earn my vote.

Romney, as the former governor of the liberal haven of Massachusetts gives me pause if for no other reason than he was elected in Massachusetts. I've heard many things from Romney that make me think he would be a good president - better than Giuliani, anyway (or anyone the Democrats are running).

Thompson looked good...then he actually entered the race, at which point it became hard to tell just what he stands for. He may make a good conservative candidate, but that has yet to be seen for sure.

I've heard some good things from McCain during the campaign that make me wish he were consistent enough to earn my vote. However, he co-sponsored the McCain Feingold Act, as well as the recently defeated immigration bill. I have a lot of respect for John McCain - it takes a lot of courage to go through what he went through in the Vietnam War...but his record just isn't conservative enough to earn my vote.

Duncan Hunter looks like the best candidate to me...the primary problem is that he's largely an unknown: he doesn't generate the type of press that big names like Giuliani, Thompson, and Romney do. Hunter has been consistently conservative on a range of issues, and I believe that he would make an excellent president.

Personally, I have a problem with what has been going on in the conservative camp. The candidates are trying to out-conservative each other, each trying to pass himself off as the most conservative candidate. Basically, they're trying to out-Reagan Reagan (whose name was mentioned multiple times during the debate).

Ronald Reagan was a man who stood for conservative values in the face of harsh criticism. He stood up for his beliefs, unafraid and unashamed to stand up for his beliefs. This is what America needs in a president.

But this election is not just about having a candidate who knows what he believes and will stand up for it. This election is about America's future, and just what course the nation will take. Will we become yet another bastion of socialism, a nanny state destined for failure, or will we stand up for the true value of the individual, knowing that the feel-good option is not always the right one...or will we opt for the status-quo of straddling the fence, halfway between what we need and what feels right?

I think Duncan Hunter is what America needs. He will stand up for conservative values in the face of criticism; he has shown this in the past. In order to successfully move forward, we need to look at the values and the policies that have made the United States the world's superpower. Socialism didn't get us to where we are today. The United States of America got to where it is today through what is known as the American spirit: the willingness to buckle down and work hard, knowing that through hard work and perseverance you can be successful.

I'm In Love With Ann Coulter

(post title taken from the song by The Right Brothers)

I finished reading Ann Coulter's latest book the other day...needless to say, it was excellent. Not her best work, to be sure (that would be Godless), but still well worth the money.

Coulter is constantly under attack by the left. Nearly every time Coulter's name is mentioned, it's followed by phrases such as "gone too far" or "beyond the pale." She is commonly called a fascist, racist, anti-semite, and any other of various names that leftists can come up with.

The thing that I love about Ann Coulter is that she gets under liberals' skin. She combines facts with conservative ideology and a healthy dose of humor to produce some of the best material the Right has ever seen.

The answer to the question posed by Time Magazine (is she serious or just having fun?) is: both.

This is something many liberals have lost: it's possible to promote your ideology without taking yourself too seriously.
It's possible to engage in political debate and have fun doing it.

The one thing that draws me to conservatism is that it makes sense. Conservative positions require logical reasoning, where liberalism is ruled by emotion.


Just to show that she's not affected by liberal lies, smears, and name calling, her latest book (If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans) is a collection of the quotes that earned her the most ridicule from the Left.

The sad thing is, political correctness has so inundated our society that Coulter draws a lot of criticism from people on the Right, as well. These people need to stop listening to liberal lies about what is and isn't appropriate. They need to grow up and get a sense of humor. They need to turn their backs on the liberal doctrine of wussification and understand that if we listen to the liberal lies every time they say "gone too far" or "beyond the pale," liberalism will win. We cannot let the other side dictate just what is and is not appropriate. Conservatives need to stand up for conservatism, if for no other reason than that it is worth defending.

When it comes to conservative icons, Ronald Reagan is king. He was the President for two terms, and he showed the world just what it means to stand for freedom and true conservative values. The world may never see such a high quality of man come out of Hollywood ever again.

The thing that draws people to Ann Coulter is that she is truly Reaganesque. Many Republicans try to sell themselves as Reaganesque on issues, but issues didn't make Reagan great. The thing that made Ronald Reagan the great man that he was was the fact that he was conservative through and through, and he wasn't afraid to stand up for his beliefs. He had deep faith, and he wasn't ashamed of it. He didn't buy into the liberal lies about "separation of church and state" meaning that religious people somehow shouldn't let their faith values effect how they vote. He wasn't willing to give evil a pass just because America doesn't have a spotless record.

Ann Coulter, like Ronald Reagan, is a not ashamed to be a conservative. She isn't afraid to call evil out for what it is. And she's not afraid to address liberal emotionalism bluntly and with wit.

The liberal doctrine of political correctness makes people tremble when they hear someone like Ann Coulter speak plainly about liberal hypocracy. And liberals truly are hypocrites: we only have one Ann Coulter, whose doses of truth spun with biting wit send liberals into temper tantrums, but liberals have dozens of people who are unafraid to spread hateful lies, smearing conservatives and trying to ruin their lives just because of political disagreements.

Any conservative who denounces Ann Coulter as being too harsh should be ashamed. The conservative movement needs more people like Ann Coulter, unafraid to speak their minds, unashamed of their beliefs, willing to stand up before an onslaught of liberal hate speech and tell it like it is. If we allow liberals, in the guise of political correctness, to dictate what we can and cannot say, we may as well kiss the United States of America, the freest nation on the planet, goodbye. America needs Ann Coulter to remind conservatives that liberal speech isn't the only form of speech protected under the First Amendment.

And any liberal that says that this comment has "gone too far," or that comment was "beyond the pale" should look at their own side of the aisle and see the hate speech emanating from their own party.

Al Gore wins Peace Prize

Al Gore has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his work to raise awareness on the issue of climate change. The argument from conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh, is that with this move, the Nobel committee has lost all credibility. I would agree with Rush, except for one thing: the Nobel committee lost its credibility long ago: between Yasir Arafat and Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize has been a joke for years now. In fact, Al Gore is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for the same reason he was given an Oscar: he's a liberal who is unafraid to bloviate endlessly about global warming.

The primary flaw behind Al Gore's awards are that his film was a sham, full of misrepresentations, half-truths, and outright lies about the nature of global warming. The news that Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize is not as important as the news that an English court recently ruled that teachers showing Gore's movie to school children must give a disclaimer, explaining that the film contains inacuracies and partisan political views.

True conservatives can only hope that this English court's decision will introduce some logic into the global warming debate (which Gore refuses to engage in, citing "scientific consensus"), though that seems unlikely, as the mainstream TV and print media largely ignored the story coming out of England, yet have been praising Gore almost constantly since the Nobel Peace Prize announcement.