Thursday, February 28, 2008
Substance trumps style
Senator Barack Obama just does not get it. Speaking yesterday on the campaign trail he said "if al-Qaida is forming a base in Iraq" he would take action. Guess what Senator, al-Qaida IS IN IRAQ! Senator McCain speaking from Texas today, responded to Obama's Jimmy Carteresque policy: "When you examine that statement, it's pretty remarkable," McCain told a crowd in Tyler, Texas. "I have some news. Al-Qaida is in Iraq. It's called 'al-Qaida in Iraq,'" McCain said, drawing laughter at Obama's expense. Making contrasts with both of his Democrat rivals he continued: "And my friends, if we left, they (al-Qaida) wouldn't be establishing a base," McCain said Wednesday. "They'd be taking a country, and I'm not going to allow that to happen, my friends. I will not surrender. I will not surrender to al-Qaida." As Common Sense has stated many times over the past few months, withdrawing from Iraq is not only immoral at this point, but it is an imprudent policy. Such an act will only embolden al-Qaida and any other terrorist organization to attack the US because we cannot honor our commitments and we do not have the resolve to follow through. Such a policy would be disastarous to the region as a whole, to Iraq in particular, and to US foreign policy abroad. Voters need to wake up from their Obama frenzy and realize that there's not much substance beneath all of that style.
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
The passing of an icon
Modern American conservatism lost a giant today when William F. Buckley, Jr. passed away at his home in New York. He was 82. According to one story by the AP, "conservatives had been outsiders in both mind and spirit, marginalized by a generation of discredited stands — from opposing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to the isolationism that preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Before Buckley, liberals so dominated intellectual thought that critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were “no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.” It was Buckley, however, who ended our years in the wilderness. He penned over fifty books and launched in 1955 the mother of all conservative journals, the "National Review". He helped end the era of "Happy Days are hear again Republicans" of the 1950s who were more liberal than conservative. Buckley helped launch conservatism into the American mainstream by supporting Barry Goldwater in 1964 and advising Ronald Reagan in 1980. I saw Buckley speak as an undergraduate on Reagan and the Cold War. In a word he was "brilliant". Conservatives across the country owe Mr. Buckley a debt of gratitude for standing up for those very core conservative principles that have made this country great in a time when it was very unpopular to be conservative. He was a true American icon and he will be missed.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
No we can't
Senator Barack Obama is fond of saying "Yes, we can" to the nay-sayers who challenge his proposals should he be elected in November. Obama, and Mrs. Clinton, is a liberal who thinks that America is great BECAUSE of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's America's entrepreneurial spirit and sense of rugged individualism that makes us great. Having said that, here are some things Obama wants done and Common Sense's reply.
Withdraw from Iraq immediately. Commone Sense's reply, "No we can't". It would be an immoral act on our part to abandon the Iraqis at this point. Further, it will only embolden our enemies that they can wait us out. Such an act would signal the death knell as the US as a superpower.
Meet with rogue leaders of the world like Chavez, Kim Jung Il, Ahmadinejad, and others. Common Sense's reply, "No we can't". Such diplomacy, at this high level, with these leaders demonstrates Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and vision. If Obama is elected, he will be tested early and often and he needs to meet the challenge head on or our power and position in the world will erode.
Grant universal health care to all citizens. Commons sense say, "No we can't". The idea of insuring all Americans is absurd. The amount of taxes needed to run such a program is astronomical. We already have several entitlement programs, medicare, social security, and RX drugs for seniors, that already makeup a huge portion of the budget. How can we ask government to run yet another program when it can't protect our borders, provide the necessary equipment for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, renew FISA, etc.
The are just a few of the things Obama would want to do as president. The intention to fix a broken Washington, DC is admirable, but the methods are flawed. The government that governs least, is the government that governs bests. The less government has to do, the better. Perhaps then, having fewer things to do, it would do the few things its responsible for well like provide for the common defense, protecting our borders, and securing our liberties from all things, especially government itself.
Withdraw from Iraq immediately. Commone Sense's reply, "No we can't". It would be an immoral act on our part to abandon the Iraqis at this point. Further, it will only embolden our enemies that they can wait us out. Such an act would signal the death knell as the US as a superpower.
Meet with rogue leaders of the world like Chavez, Kim Jung Il, Ahmadinejad, and others. Common Sense's reply, "No we can't". Such diplomacy, at this high level, with these leaders demonstrates Obama's lack of foreign policy experience and vision. If Obama is elected, he will be tested early and often and he needs to meet the challenge head on or our power and position in the world will erode.
Grant universal health care to all citizens. Commons sense say, "No we can't". The idea of insuring all Americans is absurd. The amount of taxes needed to run such a program is astronomical. We already have several entitlement programs, medicare, social security, and RX drugs for seniors, that already makeup a huge portion of the budget. How can we ask government to run yet another program when it can't protect our borders, provide the necessary equipment for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, renew FISA, etc.
The are just a few of the things Obama would want to do as president. The intention to fix a broken Washington, DC is admirable, but the methods are flawed. The government that governs least, is the government that governs bests. The less government has to do, the better. Perhaps then, having fewer things to do, it would do the few things its responsible for well like provide for the common defense, protecting our borders, and securing our liberties from all things, especially government itself.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Why Goldwater was "right"
The year 1960, though, brought a turning point for the conservative movement. That year Barry Goldwater published _The Conscience of a Conservative_. Generally dismissed in the national media, the book stands today as one of the most important political tracts in modern American history.
Goldwater adeptly reconciled the differences between traditionalists and libertarians. The expansion of the welfare state, he wrote, was an unfortunate and dangerous development that undermined individual freedom. Suggesting that New Deal liberalism marked the first step on the road to totalitarianism, Goldwater argued that government should be removed from most areas of American life. Yet he was no strict libertarian. Appealing to those on the right who longed to recapture lost certitudes, he argued that the state had a duty to maintain order and promote virtue. "Politics," Goldwater wrote, is "the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order."
Goldwater also united disparate conservative factions by focusing their attention on the dangers of Soviet communism. He wrote, "And still the awful truth remains: We can establish the domestic conditions for maximizing freedom, along the lines I have indicated, and yet become slaves. We can do this by losing the Cold War to the Soviet Union." Goldwater rejected the containment strategies that had guided U.S. foreign policy since the late 1940s, and called for an aggressive strategy of liberation. Conservatives might disagree about the proper role of government in American life, but surely they could unite to defeat the "Soviet menace."
Goldwater also dispelled the notion that conservatives were a privileged elite out to promote its own economic interests. "Conservatism," he wrote, "is not an economic theory." Rather, it "puts material things in their proper place" and sees man as "a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires." According to one right-wing magazine, Goldwater gave conservatives humanitarian reasons for supporting policies usually "associated with a mere lust for gain."
But perhaps the greatest achievement of Goldwater's book--and the reason for its startling success with the right--was that it gave conservatives, for the first time, a blueprint for translating their ideas into political action. In his introduction Goldwater rejected the idea that conservatism was "out of date." "The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based . . . are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. "
_The Conscience of a Conservative_ altered the American political landscape, galvanizing the right and turning Goldwater into the most popular conservative in the country. By 1964, just four years after its release, the book had gone through more than twenty printings, and it eventually sold 3.5 million copies. "Was there ever such a politician as this?" one Republican asked in disbelief. _The Conscience of a Conservative_ "was our new testament," Pat Buchanan has said. "It contained the core beliefs of our political faith, it told us why we had failed, what we must do. We read it, memorized it, quoted it. . . . For those of us wandering in the arid desert of Eisenhower Republicanism, it hit like a rifle shot." The book was especially popular on college campuses. In the early sixties one could find Goldwater badges and clubs at universities across the country. Expressing the sense of rebellion that Goldwater's book helped inspire, one student conservative explained the phenomenon: "You walk around with your Goldwater button, and you feel that thrill of treason." If only we had men like Goldwater who could inspire us today?
Goldwater adeptly reconciled the differences between traditionalists and libertarians. The expansion of the welfare state, he wrote, was an unfortunate and dangerous development that undermined individual freedom. Suggesting that New Deal liberalism marked the first step on the road to totalitarianism, Goldwater argued that government should be removed from most areas of American life. Yet he was no strict libertarian. Appealing to those on the right who longed to recapture lost certitudes, he argued that the state had a duty to maintain order and promote virtue. "Politics," Goldwater wrote, is "the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order."
Goldwater also united disparate conservative factions by focusing their attention on the dangers of Soviet communism. He wrote, "And still the awful truth remains: We can establish the domestic conditions for maximizing freedom, along the lines I have indicated, and yet become slaves. We can do this by losing the Cold War to the Soviet Union." Goldwater rejected the containment strategies that had guided U.S. foreign policy since the late 1940s, and called for an aggressive strategy of liberation. Conservatives might disagree about the proper role of government in American life, but surely they could unite to defeat the "Soviet menace."
Goldwater also dispelled the notion that conservatives were a privileged elite out to promote its own economic interests. "Conservatism," he wrote, "is not an economic theory." Rather, it "puts material things in their proper place" and sees man as "a spiritual creature with spiritual needs and spiritual desires." According to one right-wing magazine, Goldwater gave conservatives humanitarian reasons for supporting policies usually "associated with a mere lust for gain."
But perhaps the greatest achievement of Goldwater's book--and the reason for its startling success with the right--was that it gave conservatives, for the first time, a blueprint for translating their ideas into political action. In his introduction Goldwater rejected the idea that conservatism was "out of date." "The charge is preposterous and we ought boldly to say so. The laws of God, and of nature, have no dateline. The principles on which the Conservative political position is based . . . are derived from the nature of man, and from the truths that God has revealed about His creation. Circumstances do change. So do the problems that are shaped by circumstances. But the principles that govern the solution of the problems do not. To suggest that the Conservative philosophy is out of date is akin to saying that the Golden Rule, or the Ten Commandments or Aristotle's Politics are out of date. "
_The Conscience of a Conservative_ altered the American political landscape, galvanizing the right and turning Goldwater into the most popular conservative in the country. By 1964, just four years after its release, the book had gone through more than twenty printings, and it eventually sold 3.5 million copies. "Was there ever such a politician as this?" one Republican asked in disbelief. _The Conscience of a Conservative_ "was our new testament," Pat Buchanan has said. "It contained the core beliefs of our political faith, it told us why we had failed, what we must do. We read it, memorized it, quoted it. . . . For those of us wandering in the arid desert of Eisenhower Republicanism, it hit like a rifle shot." The book was especially popular on college campuses. In the early sixties one could find Goldwater badges and clubs at universities across the country. Expressing the sense of rebellion that Goldwater's book helped inspire, one student conservative explained the phenomenon: "You walk around with your Goldwater button, and you feel that thrill of treason." If only we had men like Goldwater who could inspire us today?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Better late than never
Fred Thompson, the one-time Republican presidential candidate, endorsed Sen. John McCain Friday, calling on the party to "close ranks" behind the presumed nominee. "This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republicans should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement reported by the Associated Press.
Thompson's endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain. The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years, is thought of well in the South, a region of the country McCain has lost mostly to Mike Huckabee.
Thompson's endorsement was expected. The two men were colleagues for years in the Senate and shared what associates called a friendship. But while he was in the race, Thompson had bristled at the idea that he was going to drop out and endorse McCain. The endorsement now may help McCain to coalesce the factions of the party around him. Thompson, who represented Tennessee in the Senate for eight years, is thought of well in the South, a region of the country McCain has lost mostly to Mike Huckabee.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Swift boating
It's getting ugly out there which means the "swift boaters" are not too far behind. Apparently presumptive Democrat front-runner, Barrack Obama, is drawing the fire of conservatives for being unpatriotic. Suffice it to say that Obama is part of the "America sucks" wing of the Democrat party, which is bad enough, but now there's concern about his patriotism. Over the course of the campaign Obama failed to hold his hand over his heart during the National Anthem; his wife inserted her foot in her mouth when she said at a rally in Milwaukee that she's really proud of her country for the first time in her adult life; and now Obama won't wear a small American flag on his lapel. Conservative Republican consultant Keith Appell, who worked with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, said Obama's opposition to the war will create a "striking contrast between McCain the war hero and Obama the poster child for the anti-war movement." The Swift Boat vets who bombarded John Kerry with negative ads back in 2004 probably cannot wait to run ads against Obama if he wins the nomination. Buckle up, this is going to get very ugly!
Nader "meets the press"
Ralph Nader will appear on Sunday's "Meet the Press" in all likelihood to announce his third party candidacy for the White House. Moderator Tim Russert would not otherwise extend Nader an invitation unless he had something important to announce. You may remember Ralph Nader from the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections. Though he won 2.7 percent of the national vote as the Green Party candidate in 2000, Nader won just 0.3 percent as an independent in 2004, when he appeared on the ballot in only 34 states. Nader was forced to fight dozens of court battles over ballot access in 2004, as Democrats pressed legal challenges over whether he gained enough legitimate signatures to get his name on the ballot. Democrats to this day blame Nader for Gore's loss to George W. Bush in 2000. Will they blame Nader again if McCain wins the White House in 2008?
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Fold the umbrellas and roll out the canopy
Listening to tonight's debate between Senators Obama and Clinton, it's painfully obvious that both are fixated on the fact that the state can cure all of our problems. In other words, let's everyone individually fold our umbrellas and get ready for the government to roll out a very large, expensive canopy to "cover" us all. Not since Johnson's Great Society has any one candidate believed so much in the state to create a veritable heaven on earth. In other words, both Obama and Clinton believe in statolatry, or "love" of the state and the collective to cure our ills. Just listening to them chastise each other this evening about who's universal health care plan can insure more Americans, or who's plan will "tax" or penalize individuals for not buying into the system, clearly demonstrates a statist's view on how best not only to manage health care, but our lives as well. This "liberalism" without liberty harkens back to the time of Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson who all, in one fashion or another, substituted the "enlightened" judgment of the state while sacrificing the rights of individuals at the altar of the state. To hoodwink the American people into believing that universal health care, much like socal security or medicare, is a right, not a privilege, is simply wrong. Why would anyone want the government to manage health care when it cannot manage its own budget, or the border with Mexico, or prescription drugs, or a myriad of other wasteful programs? Who is going to pay for this entitlement? The idea of a "cooperative" where the government sits down at the table with insurance companies, doctors, and the pharmaceutical companies to "work" out health care may sound attractive on paper, but that's the myth. Inevitably, however, it serves to benefit the people around that table more than the American people. We as Americans have to stop buying into the "myths" that are being sold by Obama and Clinton and return to the classic liberalism our founders envisioned for this country over two hundred years ago.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
What needs to be done
As Obama and Clinton continue to duke it out for the Democrat nomination, John McCain now needs to turn all of his attention to the upcoming general election. Having secured the nomination early allows McCain time to work on a number of critical issues if he is going to win the White House. The first thing McCain need to figure out is what to do with current President George W. Bush. Obviously, you do not want Bush campaigning and making speeches on your behalf since he is so unpopular, but Bush can be instrumental in fund-raising, especially among conservatives, for McCain. Secondly, McCain needs to energize the conservatives in the party which is easier said than done. While he has made in-roads with conservatives these past few weeks, it will take a lot more rhetoric and hand-holding before conservatives buy into McCain. Third, develop a strategy to win the necessary 270 electoral votes to win the White House. As Common Sense reported yesterday, the Republicans have 216 electoral votes if the election was held today. If McCain wins all of the states Bush did in 2004, he obviously wins the White House. Unfortunately, that calculus included Ohio which is now leaning Democrat. If McCain does not win Ohio, he'll need to cobble together 20 electoral votes from some where else, which is a difficult task at the moment. Fourth, McCain needs to begin the search for vice president. Common Sense has blogged several times on this topic. The latest entry is Senator Kay Bailey-Hutchison of Texas who has a better conservative score than McCain does. Perhaps this is the bone that McCain throws conservatives in order to woo their vote. Lastly, McCain needs to fine-tune his general election message to convice conservative Democrats, independents, and conservative Republicans why he should be the next president. Obviously, drawing contrasts with Obama on experience and Clinton on the fundamental role of government.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Electoral math favors Democrats
According to Scott Rasmussen, pollster extraordinaire, if the presidential election were held today, the generic Democrat candidate would be poised to win 284 Electoral Votes. That's 14 more than the minimum needed to capture the White House. The Republican candidate could expect to win 216 Electoral Votes while 38 more would be in the Toss-up category.
According to Rasmussen, "if leaners are not included in the totals, the Democrats lead 248 Electoral Votes to 189. To reach the magic number of 270 and win the election, the Democrat candidate would need to win 22 of the 101 Electoral Votes from states that are Toss-Ups or Lean modestly towards one party or the other". Here's how Rasmussen sees it today:
Balance of Power Calculator - Electoral College
Safe Republican 178
Likely Republican 11
Leans Republican 27
Toss-Up 38
Leans Democrat 36
Likely Democrat 94
Safe Democrat 154
These results are from the Rasmussen Reports 2008 Balance of Power Calculator and will be updated daily until Election Day. Obviously, Common Sense will not blog about the Electoral College daily, but Rasmussen's report gives you a good idea of where we stand today and the work that still needs to be done.
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently projects 154 Electoral Votes as "Safely Democrat," 94 Electoral Votes as "Likely Democrat" and 36 Electoral Votes as "Leans Democrat."
On the other side of the aisle, 178 Electoral Votes are projected as "Safely Republican," 11 are projected as "Likely Republican" and 27 are projected as "Leans Republican."
Safely Democrat: California (55), Connecticut (7), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New York (31), Rhode Island (4), and Vermont (3).
Likely Democrat: Delaware (3), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Washington (11), and Wisconsin (10).
Leans Democrat: Iowa (7), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), and Ohio (20).
Toss-Up: Colorado (9), Missouri (11), Nevada (5), and Virginia (13).
Leans Republican: Florida (27)
Likely Republican: Arkansas (6), West Virginia (5)
Safely Republican: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), and Wyoming (3).
The South remains solidly Republican but the worry here is Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. Unless McCain can pick off Ohio or a combination of states that equals or exceeds 20 electoral votes, the Democrats will capture the White House.
According to Rasmussen, "if leaners are not included in the totals, the Democrats lead 248 Electoral Votes to 189. To reach the magic number of 270 and win the election, the Democrat candidate would need to win 22 of the 101 Electoral Votes from states that are Toss-Ups or Lean modestly towards one party or the other". Here's how Rasmussen sees it today:
Balance of Power Calculator - Electoral College
Safe Republican 178
Likely Republican 11
Leans Republican 27
Toss-Up 38
Leans Democrat 36
Likely Democrat 94
Safe Democrat 154
These results are from the Rasmussen Reports 2008 Balance of Power Calculator and will be updated daily until Election Day. Obviously, Common Sense will not blog about the Electoral College daily, but Rasmussen's report gives you a good idea of where we stand today and the work that still needs to be done.
The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently projects 154 Electoral Votes as "Safely Democrat," 94 Electoral Votes as "Likely Democrat" and 36 Electoral Votes as "Leans Democrat."
On the other side of the aisle, 178 Electoral Votes are projected as "Safely Republican," 11 are projected as "Likely Republican" and 27 are projected as "Leans Republican."
Safely Democrat: California (55), Connecticut (7), District of Columbia (3), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), Maine (4), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), New York (31), Rhode Island (4), and Vermont (3).
Likely Democrat: Delaware (3), Michigan (17), Minnesota (10), New Jersey (15), Oregon (7), Pennsylvania (21), Washington (11), and Wisconsin (10).
Leans Democrat: Iowa (7), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), and Ohio (20).
Toss-Up: Colorado (9), Missouri (11), Nevada (5), and Virginia (13).
Leans Republican: Florida (27)
Likely Republican: Arkansas (6), West Virginia (5)
Safely Republican: Alabama (9), Alaska (3), Arizona (10), Georgia (15), Idaho (4), Indiana (11), Kansas (6), Kentucky (8), Louisiana (9), Mississippi (6), Montana (3), Nebraska (5), North Carolina (15), North Dakota (3), Oklahoma (7), South Carolina (8), South Dakota (3), Tennessee (11), Texas (34), Utah (5), and Wyoming (3).
The South remains solidly Republican but the worry here is Ohio and its 20 electoral votes. Unless McCain can pick off Ohio or a combination of states that equals or exceeds 20 electoral votes, the Democrats will capture the White House.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Obama = McGovern???
You know the Clinton campaign is desperate. First, they accuse Obama of plagiarism for lifting lines from speeches of other prominent figures in our history, i.e., FDR, JFK, etc. and Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts. Second, the Clinton campaign is complaining that Obama won't debate enough, as if 18 previous debates and two future ones aren't enough! Now, they are trying to paint Obama as George McGovern. You know, the former Senator from South Dakota who was the Dems presidential nominee in 1972 and lost every state but Massachusetts to Richard Nixon! Translation: the Clinton campaign is trying to portray Obama as this out of touch far left liberal who is too radical for the country. Hello! Has anyone on the Clinton campaign checked to see where Mrs. Clinton stands on the issues? Common Sense is quite amused by the Clinton campaign's attempt to paint Mrs. Clinton as a representative of mainstream America. Furthermore, Obama, unlike McGovern, is electable. He's won more states, more delegates, and more of the popular vote than Mrs. Clinton. And, he's narrowing the gap in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. These are desperate times for the Clintons and their actions demonstrate this fact.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Presidents Day
Who was the greatest president of the United States? If you take the totality of the question, and what the individual president did for this country, here is Common Sense's top five:
1. George Washington. Hard to argue against the guy who fought for and "fathered" this country. What's even more remarkable is the fact that he could have coronated himself "King George" as president for life, but choose, rather, to limit himself to two terms instead. Fast forward two hundred years and Washington is still relevant. If that doesn't put you at the top of the list, I'm not sure what does.
2. Abraham Lincoln. This is a tuffy considering the way he went about "winning the war of Northern aggression" for all of your southerners, but you cannot argue with the results! What could have been had he lived to complete his second term?
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This one's also a tuffy considering I'm right in the middle of Jonah Goldberg's book, _Liberal Fascism_. There's some very disturbing facts about FDR, Wilson, and TR that come to light in Goldberg's tour fe dorce. However, having successfully prosecuted the second world war has got to count for something!
4. Ronald Reagan. This is an easy one. As Margaret Thatcher eloquently commented back in 1991, "Reagan won the Cold War without ever firing a shot", which is no small task considering both sides were armed with nuclear weapons. It also helped to have the "Iron Lady" as an ally. Right man/woman, right place, right time in history.
5. George W. Bush. I preach to my classes that W. will go down as a near great DESPITE his liberal tendencies. Don't get me started. Writing contemporary history is a mortal sin to pure historians, which I am not. But the more I think about it in the times we live, suffice it to say 10-20 years down the line we'll look back at this President's courage to take on Islamic fascism as the first step in defeating it (much like we do Truman as the first island barrier against communism).
Honorable mention: 6. Harry Truman (two A-bombs saves milions of American lives, including my father's, in the Pacific); 7. Teddy Roosevelt (established US Navy as second best in the world; establishes US as major player on world stage); 8. Andrew Jackson (pick an accomplishment); 9. James Polk (surprised? Go read his history. Democrats did not realize what they had); and 10. Dwight Eisenhower (is only now getting the props he deserves).
Happy President's Day!
1. George Washington. Hard to argue against the guy who fought for and "fathered" this country. What's even more remarkable is the fact that he could have coronated himself "King George" as president for life, but choose, rather, to limit himself to two terms instead. Fast forward two hundred years and Washington is still relevant. If that doesn't put you at the top of the list, I'm not sure what does.
2. Abraham Lincoln. This is a tuffy considering the way he went about "winning the war of Northern aggression" for all of your southerners, but you cannot argue with the results! What could have been had he lived to complete his second term?
3. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This one's also a tuffy considering I'm right in the middle of Jonah Goldberg's book, _Liberal Fascism_. There's some very disturbing facts about FDR, Wilson, and TR that come to light in Goldberg's tour fe dorce. However, having successfully prosecuted the second world war has got to count for something!
4. Ronald Reagan. This is an easy one. As Margaret Thatcher eloquently commented back in 1991, "Reagan won the Cold War without ever firing a shot", which is no small task considering both sides were armed with nuclear weapons. It also helped to have the "Iron Lady" as an ally. Right man/woman, right place, right time in history.
5. George W. Bush. I preach to my classes that W. will go down as a near great DESPITE his liberal tendencies. Don't get me started. Writing contemporary history is a mortal sin to pure historians, which I am not. But the more I think about it in the times we live, suffice it to say 10-20 years down the line we'll look back at this President's courage to take on Islamic fascism as the first step in defeating it (much like we do Truman as the first island barrier against communism).
Honorable mention: 6. Harry Truman (two A-bombs saves milions of American lives, including my father's, in the Pacific); 7. Teddy Roosevelt (established US Navy as second best in the world; establishes US as major player on world stage); 8. Andrew Jackson (pick an accomplishment); 9. James Polk (surprised? Go read his history. Democrats did not realize what they had); and 10. Dwight Eisenhower (is only now getting the props he deserves).
Happy President's Day!
Friday, February 15, 2008
Hodge Podge
Yesterday Common Sense blogged about how Republicans can take back the Congress if they stood on conservative principles. One of the very first items on this new contract for America calls for us to defend the homeland and secure the borders. Well today Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has unilaterally disarmed the United States in the war against terror. The Speaker adjourned the House of Representative before reauthorizing FISA, or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which is set to expire at midnight tonight. FISA is one of the most important resources the US has at its disposal to monitor phone calls and emails from persons outside of the US who mean to do us harm, i.e., foreign powers or their agents. Because the Democrats do not want to give immunity to the major telephone companies that provide the telecommunications link, the US is virtually crippled from monitoring sources outside of the US who would otherwise commit terrorist acts against us or our allies. This could not come at a worse time as Hezbollah is sabre rattling against Israel. At midnight tonight, the US will return to the old 1978 FISA law that has become obsolete. Congressman Tom Price says, "Rather than working together and allowing a vote on the new Protect America Act, which the majority of the House is on record supporting, the Democrat leadership in the House is disregarding their solemn oath to defend the American people and abdicating their constitutional responsibilities". Calling the Speaker's actions irresponsible and reprehensible is an understatement. President Bush should call Congress into a special session until they have a bill in place. Common Sense condemns the Speaker for putting US national security on the backburner while she goes off on vacation in San Francisco.
Common Sense has learned that Governor Sonny Perdue is a possible vice presidential candidate on the McCain ticket. Perdue won reelection in 2006 over Lt. Governor Mark Taylor by a sizeable margin. Perdue's name has recently surfaced as someone who could help McCain with the conservative south. The fiesty, plain-spoken Perdue is a likeable fellow who would help McCain in the south and sure up some of the Senator's "conservative" credentials. Stay tuned!
Al Gore to the rescue? Possibly. If the Dems are unable to resolve who their nominee is going to be, several high ranking Democrats are prepared to draft Al Gore as their Party's nominee. You can read more about this at http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/15/al-gore-to-the-rescue.aspx
Common Sense has learned that Governor Sonny Perdue is a possible vice presidential candidate on the McCain ticket. Perdue won reelection in 2006 over Lt. Governor Mark Taylor by a sizeable margin. Perdue's name has recently surfaced as someone who could help McCain with the conservative south. The fiesty, plain-spoken Perdue is a likeable fellow who would help McCain in the south and sure up some of the Senator's "conservative" credentials. Stay tuned!
Al Gore to the rescue? Possibly. If the Dems are unable to resolve who their nominee is going to be, several high ranking Democrats are prepared to draft Al Gore as their Party's nominee. You can read more about this at http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/02/15/al-gore-to-the-rescue.aspx
Thursday, February 14, 2008
How to fix the Republican Party
I've always admired Newt Gingrich the politician, not necessarily the person, as he engineered the Republican take over of Congress for the first time in forty years in 1995 with the "Contract for America". As Congress' approval ratings are below that of President Bush's (35%-22%), Republicans have a real opportunity to seize control of the Congress if they "renew" and "update" the original contract for the 21st century. Here are some very basic, conservative, common sense principles ALL Republicans should run on in 2008, including John McCain:
1. Defend our homeland and citizens in ways that preserve the US Constitution.
2. Strengthen our armed forces and defeat terrorism.
3. Make taxes lower, simpler, fairer through fundamental reform, and ensure that these funds are only expended on essential government responsibilities.
4. Enact individual tax credits that make health insurance affordable for uninsured or underinsured Americans.
5. Reform the health care system based on free market competition and consumer choice.
6. Develop alternative sources of fuel to promote energy independence based on free market principles.
7. Eliminate "earmarks" and other attempts of wasteful federal spending.
8. Continue the principle of "devolution" started under the Reagan administration to reduce the size, scope, and power of the federal government.
9. Allow parents choice where to send their children to school.
10. Protect US sovereignty from international organizations.
This "21st Century Contract with America" is all about free enterprise, limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong defense. The very ideals that made this country great and the ideals Republicans need to embrace. These are the principles that made the US the most free, fair, prosperous, and secure nation on the world stage. Now is the time to act.
1. Defend our homeland and citizens in ways that preserve the US Constitution.
2. Strengthen our armed forces and defeat terrorism.
3. Make taxes lower, simpler, fairer through fundamental reform, and ensure that these funds are only expended on essential government responsibilities.
4. Enact individual tax credits that make health insurance affordable for uninsured or underinsured Americans.
5. Reform the health care system based on free market competition and consumer choice.
6. Develop alternative sources of fuel to promote energy independence based on free market principles.
7. Eliminate "earmarks" and other attempts of wasteful federal spending.
8. Continue the principle of "devolution" started under the Reagan administration to reduce the size, scope, and power of the federal government.
9. Allow parents choice where to send their children to school.
10. Protect US sovereignty from international organizations.
This "21st Century Contract with America" is all about free enterprise, limited government, individual liberty, traditional American values, and a strong defense. The very ideals that made this country great and the ideals Republicans need to embrace. These are the principles that made the US the most free, fair, prosperous, and secure nation on the world stage. Now is the time to act.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
An "old" truth revisited
"Now, my fellow Americans, the tide has been running against freedom. Our people have followed false prophets. We must, and we shall, return to proven ways -- not because they are old, but because they are true. We must, and we shall, set the tides running again in the cause of freedom. And this party, with its every action, every word, every breath, and every heartbeat, has but a single resolve, and that is freedom -- freedom made orderly for this Nation by our constitutional government; freedom under a government limited by the laws of nature and of nature's God; freedom balanced so that order lacking liberty [sic] will not become the slavery of the prison cell; balanced so that liberty lacking order will not become the license of the mob and of the jungle...
Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it; we have lived for it, and we have died for it. This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes...
Now, we Republicans see all this as more, much more, than the result of mere political differences or mere political mistakes. We see this as the result of a fundamentally and absolutely wrong view of man, his nature, and his destiny. Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom...
Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. They -- and let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions, ladies and gentlemen, of equality. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism...
Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and enlarging freedom at home and of safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is great enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength...
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater uttered these words over 40 years ago at his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. These words, these ideals, are just as relevant today, as they were back when Goldwater articulated them in 1964. These ideals are truly "proven" and must be adopted against our new enemy if we are to be victorious against the jihadists who would tear this country down. You can hear the whole speech at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barrygoldwater1964rnc.htm.
Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it; we have lived for it, and we have died for it. This Nation and its people are freedom's model in a searching world. We can be freedom's missionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first we must renew freedom's mission in our own hearts and in our own homes...
Now, we Republicans see all this as more, much more, than the result of mere political differences or mere political mistakes. We see this as the result of a fundamentally and absolutely wrong view of man, his nature, and his destiny. Those who seek to live your lives for you, to take your liberties in return for relieving you of yours, those who elevate the state and downgrade the citizen must see ultimately a world in which earthly power can be substituted for Divine Will, and this Nation was founded upon the rejection of that notion and upon the acceptance of God as the author of freedom...
Now those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. They -- and let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions, ladies and gentlemen, of equality. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism...
Today, as then, but more urgently and more broadly than then, the task of preserving and enlarging freedom at home and of safeguarding it from the forces of tyranny abroad is great enough to challenge all our resources and to require all our strength...
I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
Barry Goldwater uttered these words over 40 years ago at his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in San Francisco. These words, these ideals, are just as relevant today, as they were back when Goldwater articulated them in 1964. These ideals are truly "proven" and must be adopted against our new enemy if we are to be victorious against the jihadists who would tear this country down. You can hear the whole speech at http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barrygoldwater1964rnc.htm.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Slipping away
Senator Clinton must feel as though the nomination is slipping away. Forget about the fact that Obama has 21 states and DC to Clinton's 10 states; forget about the personnel shakeup on the campaign; and forget about the fact that she had to loan her campaign $5 million. The bigger issues are losing ten primaries/caucuses in a row, losing the Potomac primaries by such large margins, losing, overall, the women's and Latino vote today, and seeing that Obama is already on the ground with grassroots orgaizations in Dallas, San Antonio, Houston, and Arlington with large Hispanic populations. Latinos make up just about 25% of the vote in Texas and it's quite possible that Obama may get a "substantial" portion of that vote. In addition, Senator Clinton, in the remaining primaries, needs to win all of them at a clip of about 60%, in order to keep it close, which is near impossible since Obama is surely going to win some of those primaries. It is now unlikely that Clinton will have enough delegates to be in the lead going into August. Obama will not have enough delegates going into the convention but he certainly will have the momentum going into to August to win away some of the Superdelegates as well as some of Clinton's pledged delegates. He's already pivoted toward November and is concetrating his efforts on McCain, which, of course, is what the front-runner should be doing.
As for McCain, the Senator won all three of the Potomac primaries, including a closely fought battle over Virginia where he bested Huckabee by 8% points. However, the "not conservative enough" question continues to plague the Senator. Exit polls from all three primaries reveal that 49% think McCain is not conservative enough, but as Dick Morris suggests, conservatives have no where else to go in November and the thought of Obama or Clinton in the White House is provocation enough for conservatives to vote. According to Morris, the strategy for McCain should be to continue to woo Democrats and Independents rather than court the right and attract the conservative base. We'll see how well Morris' strategy plays out in November.
Huckabee lost tonight but will probably hang around until Texas. He'll continue to win whatever is left in the south but of course, one wonders why he hangs around. Of course, there's the hope of being the vice president; there's the hope of influencing the platform; and there's the hope that he goes into the convention in September with 1/4 or 1/3 of the delegates demostrating not only the strength to shape the platform but also looking ahead to 2012 as a contender.
As for McCain, the Senator won all three of the Potomac primaries, including a closely fought battle over Virginia where he bested Huckabee by 8% points. However, the "not conservative enough" question continues to plague the Senator. Exit polls from all three primaries reveal that 49% think McCain is not conservative enough, but as Dick Morris suggests, conservatives have no where else to go in November and the thought of Obama or Clinton in the White House is provocation enough for conservatives to vote. According to Morris, the strategy for McCain should be to continue to woo Democrats and Independents rather than court the right and attract the conservative base. We'll see how well Morris' strategy plays out in November.
Huckabee lost tonight but will probably hang around until Texas. He'll continue to win whatever is left in the south but of course, one wonders why he hangs around. Of course, there's the hope of being the vice president; there's the hope of influencing the platform; and there's the hope that he goes into the convention in September with 1/4 or 1/3 of the delegates demostrating not only the strength to shape the platform but also looking ahead to 2012 as a contender.
Progress in Iraq?
This morning, I came across this interesting piece about Iraq from Britain’s The Times. Note the title: “Al-Qaeda leaders admit: 'We are in crisis. There is panic and fear.’” Key excerpts: “Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an ‘extraordinary crisis.’ Last year's mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military ‘created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight.’ The terrorist group's security structure suffered ‘total collapse.’ These are the words not of al-Qaeda's enemies but of one of its own leaders in Anbar province — once the group's stronghold. They were set down last summer in a 39-page letter seized during a US raid on an al-Qaeda base near Samarra in November.”
You should read the whole thing, of course, but the baseline comment I’d make is that it appears that recent Democrat attempts to deem Iraq a “failure,” and to claim that US policy and the troop surge in particular are achieving (and have achieved) nothing of real value look even more off-base, in light of key points like these mentioned in the Times piece. The reconstruction effort in Iraq may not be over, nor may it be a complete success at the present time; but, Al-Qaeda in Iraq facing an “extraordinary crisis,” according to a member of its own leadership, does say something very good indeed about the surge and US policy in Iraq, more generally.
Further to that, I’d add that stories like this raise real questions about the appropriateness of the policies being espoused by both Senator Clinton and Barack Obama where Iraq is concerned: is planning for a swift pull-out of troops, when progress of this type seems to be being made, really the right way to go, right now? I’m personally inclined to think not, and I say that as a realist whose main concerns where Iraq is concerned are making sure we don’t nix progress achieved to date (I’d rather further it), nor create a mess for ourselves down the road as a result of ill-conceived policy—which, incidentally, is what both Clinton and Obama have to offer in this specific area.
You should read the whole thing, of course, but the baseline comment I’d make is that it appears that recent Democrat attempts to deem Iraq a “failure,” and to claim that US policy and the troop surge in particular are achieving (and have achieved) nothing of real value look even more off-base, in light of key points like these mentioned in the Times piece. The reconstruction effort in Iraq may not be over, nor may it be a complete success at the present time; but, Al-Qaeda in Iraq facing an “extraordinary crisis,” according to a member of its own leadership, does say something very good indeed about the surge and US policy in Iraq, more generally.
Further to that, I’d add that stories like this raise real questions about the appropriateness of the policies being espoused by both Senator Clinton and Barack Obama where Iraq is concerned: is planning for a swift pull-out of troops, when progress of this type seems to be being made, really the right way to go, right now? I’m personally inclined to think not, and I say that as a realist whose main concerns where Iraq is concerned are making sure we don’t nix progress achieved to date (I’d rather further it), nor create a mess for ourselves down the road as a result of ill-conceived policy—which, incidentally, is what both Clinton and Obama have to offer in this specific area.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Who would make a good running mate?
Senator John McCain stands a good chance of picking off several blue states in November. Here are some of the states McCain could win in 2008: New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Washington, Connecticut, Michigan, and Oregon. Now a lot will have to do with who McCain is running against, either Clinton or Obama, and it also may have to do with who McCain selects as a running mate. There are several intriguing possibilities but I would caution that McCain needs someone with executive experience rather than legislative to balance him out. Though it should be noted that I have included a couple of legislators in the mix below.
John Fund in his article this weekend in the "Wall Street Journal" mentions several potential choices for VP that could help the ticket. Fund mentions Tim Pawlenty as a VP candidate and notes that Pawlenty would give McCain a chance to win in Minnesota as well as Wisconsin which nearly went for Bush in 2004 (Kerry won by less than a half a percent). Some other candidates include Mitt Romney who would further strengthen the Western states such as New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada which have strong Morman populations as well as possibly bring in Michigan where he is tremendously popular, where the Democrats aren't, and where the Republicans also had a close call in 2004 (Kerry by 3%). Gordon Smith is another choice though there are reasons NOT to bring Smith into the equation. First off, he's considered squishy by a lot of conservatives. Secondly, he'd almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat in the Senate. The main reason to bring him onto the ticket would be to pull Oregon (4% Kerry in 2004) into the fold. Lastly, JC Watts is an intriguing choice. Watts is a likely VP candidate in only one scenario that makes sense. If the Clinton Super Delegates throw the election to her and Obama is not the VP candidate, then I could see adding Watts to the ticket. It is likely that this would have the effect of bringing out the African American vote against Clinton and in favor of Watts. This would probably be enough to swing Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to the GOP. He might have a reverse effect in congress if the African American vote split their votes and voted Democrat. I did not include Huckabee in this scenario since he said on "Meet the Press" yesterday that he did not want to be VP. It's all or nothing. Gee, if I had a dollar every time a candidate said that I'd be rich! Stay tuned.
John Fund in his article this weekend in the "Wall Street Journal" mentions several potential choices for VP that could help the ticket. Fund mentions Tim Pawlenty as a VP candidate and notes that Pawlenty would give McCain a chance to win in Minnesota as well as Wisconsin which nearly went for Bush in 2004 (Kerry won by less than a half a percent). Some other candidates include Mitt Romney who would further strengthen the Western states such as New Mexico, Arizona, and Nevada which have strong Morman populations as well as possibly bring in Michigan where he is tremendously popular, where the Democrats aren't, and where the Republicans also had a close call in 2004 (Kerry by 3%). Gordon Smith is another choice though there are reasons NOT to bring Smith into the equation. First off, he's considered squishy by a lot of conservatives. Secondly, he'd almost certainly be replaced by a Democrat in the Senate. The main reason to bring him onto the ticket would be to pull Oregon (4% Kerry in 2004) into the fold. Lastly, JC Watts is an intriguing choice. Watts is a likely VP candidate in only one scenario that makes sense. If the Clinton Super Delegates throw the election to her and Obama is not the VP candidate, then I could see adding Watts to the ticket. It is likely that this would have the effect of bringing out the African American vote against Clinton and in favor of Watts. This would probably be enough to swing Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to the GOP. He might have a reverse effect in congress if the African American vote split their votes and voted Democrat. I did not include Huckabee in this scenario since he said on "Meet the Press" yesterday that he did not want to be VP. It's all or nothing. Gee, if I had a dollar every time a candidate said that I'd be rich! Stay tuned.
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Troubled
As I sit and watch the primary and caucus returns tonight on MSNBC, FOX, and CNN, there were two things that troubled me. The first concerned depressed turnout for the GOP. Now granted, turnout has been lower this presidential cycle for the GOP than the Democrats, but the "contributors" on CNN went on and on about how low turnout was this evening for Republicans, especially in conservative Kansas. Here's a news flash for you folks at CNN: unlike the Democrats, the GOP race is over! McCain is the nominee. Why would voters come out AFTER the nominee has been determined? It makes sense for the Huckabee supporters who are trying to make a statement for their candidate, but to dismiss, out of hand, how poor turnout has been tonight as a result of McCain being the nominee is a crock. Where does CNN find these "contributors"?
The second thing that troubles me is the concept of the Democrats using the "super delegate". Now I know that John Edwards had to release his delegates and they are in a sense, "free agents". I get that. But the party that promotes "equality" and "proportionality" over "law and order" by employing such a system to save the ass of their front-runner, presumably, Hillary Clinton, offends me! What is a super delegate? A super delegate is a former Democrat President, Vice President, member of the House or Senate, State Party Chairman, etc. who are not pledged to a particular candidate, unlike the delegates that a candidate wins in the state he carries. At this moment, Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, but trails, narrowly, in the super delgate count because they are free agents. Now I don't agree with Democrat lackey Donna Brazille on just about anything, but she did say something tonight on CNN that made a whole lot of sense to me. Instead of allowing super delegates to pledge their support to a candidate to save their own face, presumably Clinton, super delegates should be bound to the winner of the state they live. Brilliant! If you're going to implement a system to "reward" those higher ups, they shouldn't act as "king-makers", but rather reflect the will of the people. Otherwise, what's the point of going through the charade of a primary/caucus system only to screw the winner in the end! Furthermore, Howard Dean should have the balls not to sit the delegates from Michigan and Florida. If the party rules explicitly state that Michigan and Florida will not have their delegates seated at the DNC in August because they leap-frogged the Super Tuesday states in order to be more impactful, then the delegates from those two states should not be seated. Why? We all know who benefits from a complete 180, and it's not Obama. Again, it would offend anyone's sense of fairness to play by the rules and then get "screwed" out of the nomination for respecting the rule of law. But leave it to the Clintons to do whatever it takes to win! Is it any wonder why Senator Obama gains more and more momentum every day among the Democrats!
The second thing that troubles me is the concept of the Democrats using the "super delegate". Now I know that John Edwards had to release his delegates and they are in a sense, "free agents". I get that. But the party that promotes "equality" and "proportionality" over "law and order" by employing such a system to save the ass of their front-runner, presumably, Hillary Clinton, offends me! What is a super delegate? A super delegate is a former Democrat President, Vice President, member of the House or Senate, State Party Chairman, etc. who are not pledged to a particular candidate, unlike the delegates that a candidate wins in the state he carries. At this moment, Obama leads Clinton in pledged delegates, but trails, narrowly, in the super delgate count because they are free agents. Now I don't agree with Democrat lackey Donna Brazille on just about anything, but she did say something tonight on CNN that made a whole lot of sense to me. Instead of allowing super delegates to pledge their support to a candidate to save their own face, presumably Clinton, super delegates should be bound to the winner of the state they live. Brilliant! If you're going to implement a system to "reward" those higher ups, they shouldn't act as "king-makers", but rather reflect the will of the people. Otherwise, what's the point of going through the charade of a primary/caucus system only to screw the winner in the end! Furthermore, Howard Dean should have the balls not to sit the delegates from Michigan and Florida. If the party rules explicitly state that Michigan and Florida will not have their delegates seated at the DNC in August because they leap-frogged the Super Tuesday states in order to be more impactful, then the delegates from those two states should not be seated. Why? We all know who benefits from a complete 180, and it's not Obama. Again, it would offend anyone's sense of fairness to play by the rules and then get "screwed" out of the nomination for respecting the rule of law. But leave it to the Clintons to do whatever it takes to win! Is it any wonder why Senator Obama gains more and more momentum every day among the Democrats!
Friday, February 8, 2008
Conscience of a conservative
I was looking through my library collection today when I stumbled across one of my all time favorite books, "Conscience of a Conservative", by the late Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater. As I read through some of the chapters I wondered where the spirit of conservatism that Goldwater adhered to has gone? Certainly, it does not exist in today's GOP. Goldwater was a fervant defender of states' rights and the principle of federalism, an advocate of fiscal restraint, and a proponent of a strong military. In other words, Goldwater was a conservative's conservative; a conservative with a conscience. And if Goldwater was a conservative, then the current GOP, the current president, and the standard bearer of the party, John McCain, are not. One need only look at the events of the last eight years: fighting two wars without the necessary planning and build-up to properly prosecute those wars and then maintain security in both regions; spending at levels that doubles the debt of the next generation without regard for how they, my children, will pay for it; expanding the size of the federal government at a pace not seen since FDR's presidency; signing into law legislation that negatively impacts our freedom of speech, and the list goes on. Bush, and for that matter John McCain, are not Goldwater. In fact, they, and the party, have just about strangled and killed off what Goldwater started in 1964 and Reagan brought to fruition in 1980. Reading that book today, one remembers what it means to be a conservative. Perhaps I should send a copy to President Bush and Senator McCain?
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Humility
Governor Mitt Romney graciously stepped aside today allowing Senator McCain to carry on as the GOP standard bearer this fall. "I must now stand aside, for our party and our country," Romney told conservatives. "If I fight on in my campaign, all the way to the convention, I would forestall the launch of a national campaign and make it more likely that Senator Clinton or Obama would win. And in this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign, be a part of aiding a surrender to terror," Romney told the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington. Romney was a long shot after being thumped on Super Tuesday even if he won every remaining state. But as I suggested before, he sets himself up nicely for 2012, if necessary. Remember, it took Ronald Reagan three tries to win the White House! If Romney releases his delegates to McCain, it all but guarantees McCain the nomination by the end of February. The GOP will owe Romney down the line for what he did today. I doubt McCain would select Romney as his vice president, but politics makes strange bedfellows. Romney did not endorse McCain and it appears that McCain did not ask for one. I had a lot of trouble with the Governor's conservative credentials, but I deeply respect his willingness to serve. With great humility and grace, Romney now allows McCain the time needed to unite the party behind him.
Speaking of "humility" and "grace", after telling conservatives to "calm down" the night before, John McCain gave a rousing "conservative" speech at CPAC today outlining his conservative credentials, speaking of his differences with conservatives, and giving his word that he will not disappoint conservatives should he win the White House. I'd love to give Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to be persuaded by one speech. McCain has "talked conservative" before, but sadly, the rhetoric does not match his record as a moderate to liberal maverick from Arizona. In his defense, I do trust him on Iraq and the war on terror, standing up for life, appointing strict constructionists to the bench, but I'm still not convinced when it comes to securing the borders or dealing with the illegal immigration problem effectively, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, fixing the environment, energy, and health care debacle by introducing market forces, or cutting some other back room deal with liberal Senators when our backs are turned. The idea that big government can fix any of these problems is absurd. Today's speech at CPAC was a step in the right direction for conservatives. However, we should remain dubious until he outlines, specifically, how he will deal with these other problems over the next few months. Just like the good folks from Missouri would say, "Show Me".
One last note...it appears that Hillary Clinton's campaign is in trouble. Since Tuesday, the Obama campaign has raised over $7 million. Mrs. Clinton had to loan her campiagn $5 million of her own money. She can thank the Bush tax cuts for that! Campaign staff are not being paid, including high level staffers. Folks are "volunteering" at this point. Moreover, Obama, by the slightest of margins, won the delegate count on Tuesday, won more states, and statistically tied Clinton on the number of raw votes each received. If that's not bad enough, the upcoming calendar DOES NOT favor Mrs. Clinton. Clearly, if Mrs. Clinton hopes to win the nomination, she'll need to survive the next two weeks, or this thing could be over by April despite the pledge of the so-called "super delegates". Stay tuned!
Speaking of "humility" and "grace", after telling conservatives to "calm down" the night before, John McCain gave a rousing "conservative" speech at CPAC today outlining his conservative credentials, speaking of his differences with conservatives, and giving his word that he will not disappoint conservatives should he win the White House. I'd love to give Senator McCain the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not going to be persuaded by one speech. McCain has "talked conservative" before, but sadly, the rhetoric does not match his record as a moderate to liberal maverick from Arizona. In his defense, I do trust him on Iraq and the war on terror, standing up for life, appointing strict constructionists to the bench, but I'm still not convinced when it comes to securing the borders or dealing with the illegal immigration problem effectively, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, fixing the environment, energy, and health care debacle by introducing market forces, or cutting some other back room deal with liberal Senators when our backs are turned. The idea that big government can fix any of these problems is absurd. Today's speech at CPAC was a step in the right direction for conservatives. However, we should remain dubious until he outlines, specifically, how he will deal with these other problems over the next few months. Just like the good folks from Missouri would say, "Show Me".
One last note...it appears that Hillary Clinton's campaign is in trouble. Since Tuesday, the Obama campaign has raised over $7 million. Mrs. Clinton had to loan her campiagn $5 million of her own money. She can thank the Bush tax cuts for that! Campaign staff are not being paid, including high level staffers. Folks are "volunteering" at this point. Moreover, Obama, by the slightest of margins, won the delegate count on Tuesday, won more states, and statistically tied Clinton on the number of raw votes each received. If that's not bad enough, the upcoming calendar DOES NOT favor Mrs. Clinton. Clearly, if Mrs. Clinton hopes to win the nomination, she'll need to survive the next two weeks, or this thing could be over by April despite the pledge of the so-called "super delegates". Stay tuned!
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
A little someting for the kids
A little something for my students studying the front-loading problem in the presidential selection process.
Although the Super Tuesday of 2008 was the nearest equivalent to a national primary, the original Super Tuesday of 20 years ago was created with a much more regional focus in mind. In 1988, the Democrat National Committee devised Super Tuesday on the second Tuesday in March as a way of giving Southern States more clout in that party’s nominating process, and thus to combat the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshirein choosing nominees. Thus on March 8, 1988, voters in 12 southern states (joined also by voters in Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Missouri) all went to the voting booth on the same day. This “southern strategy” by DNC officials clearly backfired – instead of bringing clarity to the Democrat race, three candidates (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson) each won five state primaries, essentially splitting the Democrat vote and thus blunting the South’s impact in the process.
Not to be outdone, the Republicans similarly began emphasizing Super Tuesday as a means of bringing earlier closure to their own nomination process. After deemphasizing the importance of Super Tuesday during the 1992 and 1996 election cycles, the DNC recommitted itself to the importance of Super Tuesday when it authorized11 states to hold primaries on March 7, 2000. (By then the Southern focus had been replaced by a primary day of a more national scope; Georgia was the only Southern state to still hold a contest that day). Unlike in 1988, the Super Tuesday contests held in 2000 had the effect of practically ending both party’s nomination contests, as Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore each scored knockout blows to grab a secure hold on their respective party’s nominations. (By sweeping California, New York and Ohio, Bush essentially ended the upstart McCain campaign in its tracks) Super Tuesday 2004 (then featuring contests in 9 states) had a similar impact on the Democrat nomination contest, catapulting Democrat John Kerry to a sizeable lead in the delegate count. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were able to get a similar boost from the 2008 Super Tuesday contests.
Although the Super Tuesday of 2008 was the nearest equivalent to a national primary, the original Super Tuesday of 20 years ago was created with a much more regional focus in mind. In 1988, the Democrat National Committee devised Super Tuesday on the second Tuesday in March as a way of giving Southern States more clout in that party’s nominating process, and thus to combat the disproportionate influence of Iowa and New Hampshirein choosing nominees. Thus on March 8, 1988, voters in 12 southern states (joined also by voters in Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Missouri) all went to the voting booth on the same day. This “southern strategy” by DNC officials clearly backfired – instead of bringing clarity to the Democrat race, three candidates (Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and Jesse Jackson) each won five state primaries, essentially splitting the Democrat vote and thus blunting the South’s impact in the process.
Not to be outdone, the Republicans similarly began emphasizing Super Tuesday as a means of bringing earlier closure to their own nomination process. After deemphasizing the importance of Super Tuesday during the 1992 and 1996 election cycles, the DNC recommitted itself to the importance of Super Tuesday when it authorized11 states to hold primaries on March 7, 2000. (By then the Southern focus had been replaced by a primary day of a more national scope; Georgia was the only Southern state to still hold a contest that day). Unlike in 1988, the Super Tuesday contests held in 2000 had the effect of practically ending both party’s nomination contests, as Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore each scored knockout blows to grab a secure hold on their respective party’s nominations. (By sweeping California, New York and Ohio, Bush essentially ended the upstart McCain campaign in its tracks) Super Tuesday 2004 (then featuring contests in 9 states) had a similar impact on the Democrat nomination contest, catapulting Democrat John Kerry to a sizeable lead in the delegate count. Neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton were able to get a similar boost from the 2008 Super Tuesday contests.
What is to be learned?
There are obvious lessons to be learned from Super Tuesday. The first lesson is that even though Senator Clinton "only won" eight states, her grassroots organization in most states is quite impressive and will be a formidable force to reckon with as the nomination process unfolds. Furthermore, Obama will have a hard time attracting Latinos and the elderly; two blocs firmly in Clinton's corner who love to vote. As for Obama, his 13 victories last night demostrate just how formidable he is winning from coast to coast, in the midwest, the south, and the northeast. He'll be favored as he goes into Washington state, Louisiana, and Nebraska on Saturday, and then the Potomac primaries on Tuesday. Over the next six contests Obama will be able to return to retail politics, as opposed to the "air wars" of Super Tuesday, where he'll fair much better. Obama raised $32 million in January and will match that figure in February. Obama has made inroads with white males but has thus far failed to capture the imagination of Latinos and women. Senator McCain cemented his front-runner status last night winning in all regions of the country, including ultra-conservative Oklahoma. However, he'll need to sure up the conservative vote before the general election in November if he wants to win the White House. Mitt Romney did win seven states last night but it was an obvious disappointment since he could not win any of the major states. Conservative voters just are not comfortable with the kind of "Johnny come lately" conservatism that Romney advocates, much to the chagrin of conservative talk radio. It cost Romney $1.16 million per delegate last night, which is not a wise investment considering the Mike Huckabee won 5 states, all in the south, spending less than $9 million during the process. Obviously, Huckabee's message of family, faith, and freedom resonates better in the south with the so called "Walmart Republicans", than Wall Street Republicans. The trick for Huckabee is how to make himself more than a regional candidate with no appeal outside of the south. The final lesson to be gleaned from the process is that so-called Super Tuesday worked much better for Republicans, who have their presumptive nominee as a result of their winner-take-all systems, as opposed to the proportional system the Democrats use. Technically, Obama won more delegates last night than Clinton but the drive-by media have all made it a point to broadcast that she won the night. Furthermore, all of those states who jumped up to make a difference as "king-maker", i.e., Florida, Michigan, etc., may now rue the day they did, since we're obviously going into March and possibly April to determine the Democrat nominee. Let the games begin!
And the winner is...
Mike Huckabee. The former Governor of Arkansas won five states during Super Tuesday. Obviously, Senator John McCain won the night and is now on his way to the GOP nomination, which he'll need time to heal and bring the party together before the November general election. But Huckabee all but retired former Governor Mitt Romney, who did win five states himself, but failed to win key states in the South and delegate rich California. Word tonight is that the Romney camp will have "frank dscussions" about continuing his quest for the White House. He's now a potenital long-shot candidate this year but may be positioning himself for 2012. As for Huckabee, maybe McCain retires his debt or offers him a Cabinet post, or dare I say, selects him as his running mate? Stay tuned! Obviously, this allows Huckabee to continue to be the alternative to McCain. McCain showed great strength on both coasts, the midwest and even a couple of southern states. Just think, back in December McCain was all but dead and we were talking about Hillary's coronation. Funny how things change.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Arena of ideas?
While Mitt Romney and John McCain battle over who's more conservative on the eve of Super Tuesday, it strikes me that the Republican Party used to be more about the "what", or the ideas, rather than the "who", the McCains, Romneys, Huckabees of the world, all of whom are "soft conservatives". Most Americans believe the country is on the "wrong track". If the Republican Party wants to return to the ideas that once made it great, it obviously needs to remain steadfast on its principles of limited government, strong national defense, personal and economc liberty, etc. However, the ideas that won elections for conservatives in the 1980s have done their job. Republicans can no longer win elections on taxes, guns, and promises to restore traditional values. It’s time now for a new approach, including: the environment, health care, and social issues. All of the major pieces of environmental legislation since the 1970s have been signed into law by Republican presidents. In addition, you do not need further government regulation to be "green", but rather open up the environment to free market ideas especially when it comes to weening ourselves from foreign oil which includes the use of nuclear power. Health care is similar. What we have now are 50 states working independently from each other to provide health care for citizens of their states without any outside competition to help drive down costs. If we "deregulate" the current system and open up the system to allow competition from ALL 50 states, we can allow people to shop for the health care option of their choosing that meets their needs. By allowing market forces to work, we eliminate the need for a large government take over and the creation of another entitlement that, quite honestly, we cannot afford. The last idea, and perhaps the most controversial idea, deals with social issues. The social issues we "conservatives" align ourselves with, except for the right to life, are out of touch. Conservatives need to seriously think about prison reform, dealing with obesity, crafting pro-family policies, etc. A "genuine" compassionate conservatism that goes beyond the rhetoric of the last eight years. These are just some of the ideas conservatives can embrace to get the country back on the "right" track.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The future of the GOP
Many conservatives are quite unhappy with the prospect of John McCain becoming the GOP nominee, me included. The question becomes "Will John McCain destroy the Republican Party"? The short answer is "no". McCain, who is probably more ideologically similar to Eisenhower, Taft, and Nixon than Reagan, has given conservatives something to rally around as we struggle to take back the Republican Party from the moderates and liberals who have dominated this election cycle. As George Shadroui suggests, "should McCain pick, say, Fred Thompson as his running mate, he would solidify many conservatives who have their doubts. And McCain will need a southern anchor to give him national appeal -- Huckabee will drive off the business constituency and Romney, well, he would have trouble exciting social conservatives as well as the south, as his election results have shown. Well spoken, thoughtful and engaging, Romney could be the future star of the party, but it looks like he won't do it this year. And watching the debate the other night, one cannot imagine Romney and McCain on the same ticket". If McCain wants to be president he'll need the Straight Talk Express to turn to "right" as he courts conservative voters. He needs to articulate his vision and drive it home on a daily basis. McCain also needs to realize that the media will turn on him the moment he's nominated. While the media has given McCain a pass during the primaries to focus their energies on tearing down Giuliani, Huckabee, and Romney, they won't be so generous when he faces off againt either Clinton or Obama. The bottom line is that if Senator McCain wants to be president he will need to energize the conservative base.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Shortcomings
You have to remember that when we vote in the primaries and the general election next November, we'll be electing a president, not a saint or someone infallible. Lord knows conservatives have had their problems with George W. Bush over immirgration, managing the war in Iraq, spending, education, etc. But I've even had issues with Ronald Reagan when he was, dare I say it, less than conservative.
First, Reagan's appointments of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy are still haunting us today. While O'Connor has since retired, she turned out to be more liberal than most of us would have liked. I was actually quite glad that Ron Paul had the guts at the last GOP debate at the Reagan Library to say he would not appoint a justice like O'Connor while McCain, Romney, and Huckabee fell all over themselves to sell out. As for Kennedy, your never sure what you'll get in any given case. But what do you expect from a "conservative" from California? Unfortunately for Reagan, he did not learn the lessons of his predecessors, namely Eisenhower (Earl Warren) and Nixon (Warren Burger), when it came to appointing justices to the Supreme Court.
Second, Reagan signed into law back in 1986 what essentially amounted to amnesty for illegal aliens. Suffice it to say he and the Congress were duped into thinking that there were only 300,000 illegals in the US at the time but it amounted to a little more than 3 million. The idea at the time being that we'll deal with this illegal problem once and for all by granting them all amnesty. What a mistake? Fast forward to 2006-2007. Is it any wonder that Senator McCain, a self described foot soldier during the Reagan Revolution, tried to grant amnesty to 12-20 million illegals in McCain-Kennedy? Perhaps if Reagan had dealt with the border problem 20 years ago this wouldn't be the issue it is today.
The biggest mistake of the Reagan administration came back in 1983 when he withdrew the Marines from Beirut, Lebanon after their barracks were blown up by terrorists, paving the way for Hezzbullah. Over 200 brave men lost their lives that day. While Reagan thought he was doing the right thing by sparing US lives, withdrawing the Marines emboldened our enemies around the world thinking that we had no taste for blood and we would pickup and withdraw at the first sign of trouble abandoning our commitments around the world. Having Obama and Clinton talk about withdrawal from Iraq only solidifies the terrorists mindset that they can force us to leave or wait us out. Neither course of action is acceptable.
While Geore W. Bush has disappointed conservatives throughout his two terms, there have been moments that have given us hope, namely the appointments of Roberts and Alito to the US Supreme Court and his refusal to withdraw our troops from Iraq. At least in those instances, Bush was more Reagan than Reagan!
First, Reagan's appointments of Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy are still haunting us today. While O'Connor has since retired, she turned out to be more liberal than most of us would have liked. I was actually quite glad that Ron Paul had the guts at the last GOP debate at the Reagan Library to say he would not appoint a justice like O'Connor while McCain, Romney, and Huckabee fell all over themselves to sell out. As for Kennedy, your never sure what you'll get in any given case. But what do you expect from a "conservative" from California? Unfortunately for Reagan, he did not learn the lessons of his predecessors, namely Eisenhower (Earl Warren) and Nixon (Warren Burger), when it came to appointing justices to the Supreme Court.
Second, Reagan signed into law back in 1986 what essentially amounted to amnesty for illegal aliens. Suffice it to say he and the Congress were duped into thinking that there were only 300,000 illegals in the US at the time but it amounted to a little more than 3 million. The idea at the time being that we'll deal with this illegal problem once and for all by granting them all amnesty. What a mistake? Fast forward to 2006-2007. Is it any wonder that Senator McCain, a self described foot soldier during the Reagan Revolution, tried to grant amnesty to 12-20 million illegals in McCain-Kennedy? Perhaps if Reagan had dealt with the border problem 20 years ago this wouldn't be the issue it is today.
The biggest mistake of the Reagan administration came back in 1983 when he withdrew the Marines from Beirut, Lebanon after their barracks were blown up by terrorists, paving the way for Hezzbullah. Over 200 brave men lost their lives that day. While Reagan thought he was doing the right thing by sparing US lives, withdrawing the Marines emboldened our enemies around the world thinking that we had no taste for blood and we would pickup and withdraw at the first sign of trouble abandoning our commitments around the world. Having Obama and Clinton talk about withdrawal from Iraq only solidifies the terrorists mindset that they can force us to leave or wait us out. Neither course of action is acceptable.
While Geore W. Bush has disappointed conservatives throughout his two terms, there have been moments that have given us hope, namely the appointments of Roberts and Alito to the US Supreme Court and his refusal to withdraw our troops from Iraq. At least in those instances, Bush was more Reagan than Reagan!
Friday, February 1, 2008
What I saw at the revolution
My parents were children of New Dealers as they were called back in the day. My father admired FDR for his strength and resolve during World War II that he was moved to enlist after the Day of Infamy, as did many other young men of his age. Being a Democrat back then was much different than being a Democrat today. The party of FDR, Truman, Scoop Jackson, and John Kennedy was akin to the Republican party today in many ways, i.e., a muscular foreign policy, support of personal and economic liberty, etc. My parents were proud Democrats. They always preached personal responsbility and hard work. This ethos served them well for most of their lives.
As I grew up in the late 1970s I began to see how hard it was for our family to make ends meet. The 1970s were plagued by several energy crises with long gas lines, the weakening of the US dollar, rampant inflation and unemployment, high interest rates, and a weak foreign policy. I'll never forget the look on my father's face the day the Iranians took our citizens hostage in 1979. As I listened to conversation around the dinner table I knew how disappointed my parents were with the Democrats. The once proud party of Roosevelt and Kennedy was being destroyed by McGovern, Carter, Humphrey, Mondale, and other liberals who believed that government would solve our problems.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As the presidential election of 1980 kicked into gear I noticed my parents talking more and more about this "Reagan fellow", as my father called him. Time after time my parents wondered if this "B-list" Hollywood actor could deliver us. At the time, we lived in a basement apartment in a four story building in Jersey City. My father, a proud WW II vet who stormed the beaches of Normandy, was reduced to taking two jobs to support his family. He worked on the railroad during the day and was the building's superintendant at night. We lived in a small apartment; two bedrooms, one bath, a small kitchen, and an even smaller living room. That's all I knew for 18 years, but we somehow managed. I always had enough to eat, a place to sleep, and my parents sacrificed enough for me to go to Catholic school. It was a hard life for all of us.
My father would come home after work late in the afternoon. He'd turn on the TV and I'd get him a beer as we watched the news before he went to work in the building. I learned politics from my father as it unfolded in 1980. I always looked forward to watching the news with my father until one day, the news got so bad that we stopped watching altogether. My parents, particularly my father, felt abandoned and cheated that the service he gave to his country had been "wasted". It was at that point my father decided that the Democrats had left him and our family behind. He went to work for Ronald Reagan in our precinct as a captain; a "Reagan Democrat". He still wasn't sold on Reagan but he knew he could no longer support the Democrats. On the nights he did not work in the building I went with him to meetings or to canvass the neighborhood or to pass out literature. It was a lot of fun and quite educational as I learned about why we needed to cut taxes and reduce spending; how we needed to restore the dignity of the military and rebuild our armed forces to confront the Soviets on the world stage; but most importantly, I learned that we needed to restore America's place as the "shining city on the hill".
On election day that November in 1980, my father promised me he would take me with him to the polls after work. When he got home we rushed over to St. Peter's College on Kennedy Boulevard to cast our vote. My father took me into the polling place with him. He voted on a number of measures and members of the House and the Senate. Then he looked at me and said, "It's your future, why don't you vote for the President". And I did. I voted for both of us. I voted for Ronald Reagan. We went home and watched the returns. As the night wore on it became obvious that Reagan was going to win. When the networks declared Reagan the winner I could see tears in my father's eyes. I could see that all that he and my mother sacrificed over the years would not be in vain.
We finally moved out of the apartment building in June 1982 into a three bedroom home out on nice big piece of land in the suburbs of New Jersey. It was the first home my parents lived in since their childhood. Later that year my father bought a brand new car. It was the first new car he ever owned. Two years later I went off to Drew University to begin my own journey in life. I never looked back. It truly was "morning in America" and I was part of it. We were better off than we were four years ago. I was part of the "conservative revolution" my father helped start on the streets of Jersey City as a "Reagan Democrat". I've never been more proud!
As I grew up in the late 1970s I began to see how hard it was for our family to make ends meet. The 1970s were plagued by several energy crises with long gas lines, the weakening of the US dollar, rampant inflation and unemployment, high interest rates, and a weak foreign policy. I'll never forget the look on my father's face the day the Iranians took our citizens hostage in 1979. As I listened to conversation around the dinner table I knew how disappointed my parents were with the Democrats. The once proud party of Roosevelt and Kennedy was being destroyed by McGovern, Carter, Humphrey, Mondale, and other liberals who believed that government would solve our problems.
Nothing could be further from the truth. As the presidential election of 1980 kicked into gear I noticed my parents talking more and more about this "Reagan fellow", as my father called him. Time after time my parents wondered if this "B-list" Hollywood actor could deliver us. At the time, we lived in a basement apartment in a four story building in Jersey City. My father, a proud WW II vet who stormed the beaches of Normandy, was reduced to taking two jobs to support his family. He worked on the railroad during the day and was the building's superintendant at night. We lived in a small apartment; two bedrooms, one bath, a small kitchen, and an even smaller living room. That's all I knew for 18 years, but we somehow managed. I always had enough to eat, a place to sleep, and my parents sacrificed enough for me to go to Catholic school. It was a hard life for all of us.
My father would come home after work late in the afternoon. He'd turn on the TV and I'd get him a beer as we watched the news before he went to work in the building. I learned politics from my father as it unfolded in 1980. I always looked forward to watching the news with my father until one day, the news got so bad that we stopped watching altogether. My parents, particularly my father, felt abandoned and cheated that the service he gave to his country had been "wasted". It was at that point my father decided that the Democrats had left him and our family behind. He went to work for Ronald Reagan in our precinct as a captain; a "Reagan Democrat". He still wasn't sold on Reagan but he knew he could no longer support the Democrats. On the nights he did not work in the building I went with him to meetings or to canvass the neighborhood or to pass out literature. It was a lot of fun and quite educational as I learned about why we needed to cut taxes and reduce spending; how we needed to restore the dignity of the military and rebuild our armed forces to confront the Soviets on the world stage; but most importantly, I learned that we needed to restore America's place as the "shining city on the hill".
On election day that November in 1980, my father promised me he would take me with him to the polls after work. When he got home we rushed over to St. Peter's College on Kennedy Boulevard to cast our vote. My father took me into the polling place with him. He voted on a number of measures and members of the House and the Senate. Then he looked at me and said, "It's your future, why don't you vote for the President". And I did. I voted for both of us. I voted for Ronald Reagan. We went home and watched the returns. As the night wore on it became obvious that Reagan was going to win. When the networks declared Reagan the winner I could see tears in my father's eyes. I could see that all that he and my mother sacrificed over the years would not be in vain.
We finally moved out of the apartment building in June 1982 into a three bedroom home out on nice big piece of land in the suburbs of New Jersey. It was the first home my parents lived in since their childhood. Later that year my father bought a brand new car. It was the first new car he ever owned. Two years later I went off to Drew University to begin my own journey in life. I never looked back. It truly was "morning in America" and I was part of it. We were better off than we were four years ago. I was part of the "conservative revolution" my father helped start on the streets of Jersey City as a "Reagan Democrat". I've never been more proud!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)