God, guns, and gays?

Gerard Baker of the London Times had this to say about John McCain’s resounding victory in Florida…..: “It could be that we are witnessing the end of a political era, the domination of conservatives, at least those who have hewed to a traditional social and religious line, in the Republican party … The irony is that it is exactly the positions that conservatives have felt would make Mr. McCain unacceptable to most Republicans - his support for strong measures to tackle global warming or his opposition to some of the Bush administration’s interrogationtechniques for terrorist suspects, for example - that may have helped him connect with a different type of Republican voter. The Republican party may be badly fractured, but it is changing steadily. It may no longer be the case that solid positions on God, guns and gays will be enough to win the party’s nomination….”

Obviously, Baker's view is quite myopic. I find such a statement odious and offensive. Conservatives are more than just about God, guns, and gays. Conservatism also means being strong on national defense and homeland security; it also means securing our borders first to keep out illegal immigrants and terrorists who attack our way of life; it means being fiscally sound by lowering taxes and reducing spending; it means devolving power back to the states as the laboratories the founders designed under our federalist system that produce real solutions for real problems; it means supporting justices/judges who striclty construe the Constitution, not legislate from the bench; and it means getting big government out our lives and allowing us personal and economic liberty that made America "a shining city on a hill". These are just a few of the things that conservatives believe. To read Baker is to believe conservatives are nothing more than neanderthals, and I'm personally tired of such a stereotype. Republicans are not fractured, as Baker implies, but rather, we have yet to have a candidate emerge who can unite us.

Conservatives still matter and they will make a difference in the upcoming election determining whether we send Clinton/Obama to the Whie House by our apathy, or McCain by our support. I, for one, am not against deconstructing the party and starting over based on the principles our party was founded on. These are the principles that made us a great party in the first place, and for me I'd rather lose an election than sacrifice my principles. Sometimes party does ask too much and in this case I did not leave the Republican party, it left me!

McCain wins Florida; Giuliani bows out

Senator John McCain took a step closer to becoming the nominee of the Republican party by winning the Florida primary with 36% of the vote. It now looks like a two man race between McCain and Romney now that Rudy Giuliani will drop out of the race and endorse McCain tomorrow at the Reagan Library before the GOP debate. Giuliani put all of us eggs in the Florida primary avoiding traditional gatekeeper states like Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. The "Mayor of America" had bad timing and a worse strategy thinking, like Al Gore did back in 1988, that he could insert himself well into the primary season and win the nomination. Unfortunately for Giuliani, he never learned that lesson. Furthermore, Giuliani never gave us a "big reason" why he should be the next president. Of course he ran on his record during 9/11 but that represents the past, not the future. In fact the one issue he ran on, namely strong national security and taking the offensive to Islamist fascists, was coopted by both McCain and Romney. What looked like a sure coronation in 2007 unraveled tonight in Florida.

As for McCain, he now becomes the presumptive front-runner going into Super Tuesday. Giuliani's endorsement and Huckabee's ability to attract conservatives, as long as he stays in the race, spells trouble for Romney. It's now Romney against the Republican field at this point. Romney will need to go back to the war room and figure out how he fends off McCain, Huckabee, and a defacto Giuliani. For McCain, while winning Florida is huge, there are weaknesses, namely, the lack of conservative votes. McCain does well among the elderly, veterans, liberal and moderate Republicans as well as independents. McCain needs to figure out how he woes conservatives on his way to the nomination and the general election. It's a long way from over but John McCain has taken a big step tonight towards the GOP nomination.

The ever shrinking bully pulpit

I woke up this morning to gauge the reaction to President Bush's final State of the Union address only to be disappointed by its lack of coverage and the constant focus of our media on the presidential primaries. The administration certainly had low expectations about the President's speech, and in true Bush form, he delivered on those low expectations. It's hard for me to imagine that just a few years ago the President was rallying the same chamber and the nation after the events of 9/11. It's almost as if the President has become irrelevant these past few years as he lost the Congress to the Democrats, was unable to deal with Social Security effectively, ran up record deficits, failed to deal with illegal immigration, etc. If he's able to get his economic stimulus through Congress, it will be one of his only major victories of the second term. Ah, the realities of a lame duck president? To be fair, if President Bush had given us a litany of things he wanted to do in his final year with this Congress I'd be writing about unrealistic he was. Obviously, the major issues of the day are the economy and Iraq. As Ed Henry puts it "As the president ponders his legacy on these two major issues, think of the irony The Washington Post pointed out earlier this week. The White House spent the past few years talking up a strong economy, but got very little credit because of struggles in Iraq. Now things are getting better in Iraq, but Bush is getting very little credit for that because .... the economy is getting worse." And to think, the Democrats and Republicans are killing themselves to be the next president!

Clinton's change of strategy?

After getting waxed by Senator Barack Obama by a 2-1 margin in South Carolina, Senator Clinton and her top aides are in the midst of a "change in strategy". That change in strategy should include talking more about the issues, though it will become increasingly difficult for the Senator to differentiate herself from Obama, and shelving former President Bill Clinton. Former President Cliton went over the top on a number of occassions leading up to the South Carolina primary causing black Democrats to flock to Obama by almost 90%. In addition, as Obama gains momentum going into Super Tuesday, he picked up the endorsements of two keys Democrats: Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy, and Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts. To be sure, the Clintons had to be disappointed. Mrs. Clinton needs to refocus her efforts today on the economy, much like her husband did back in 1992 with the mantra: "it's the economy, stupid". Unfortunately for the Senator, Obama may gain a foothold on Super Tuesday possibly winning GA, MO, AL, and IL and being very competitive in other key primary states. If Obama can gain 40-50% of the delegates next Tuesday he has a real chance of making it a race and winning the nomination.

Politics of destruction

If Hillary Clinton is the Democrat nominee for president come the general election it will appear that the politics of destruction will return with her. The over the top campaign that the Senator, and her husband, is running against Senator Barack Obama is shameful. The win at all cost mentality by smearing Senator Obama may certainly backfire not only with Democrats, but with the general electorate. Many prominent Democrats have come to question Mrs. Clinton's tactics and have emplored her to cease these attacks for the betterment of the party. Namely, to call off Bill Clinton as an attack dog. How many times over the past two weeks have you seen the former President, red-faced, waving his finger in the air, attacking Obama, or the press, or anyone else who questions his wife's credentials, her campaign, or anything else Hillary! This scorched earth strategy is unwise. A divided Democrat party going into the general election will obviously cost them the election much like it did in 1980 when then President Jimmy Carter and Senator Ted Kennedy fractured the party. These tactics of the Clintons remind me of the politics of destruction of the 1990s. Like me, I think much of the electorate is suffering from Clinton fatigue.

Romney wins hands down

Former Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romeny introduced himself to Florida last night in a big way by winning last night's GOP debate at Florida Atlantic University. Not only did Romney look presidential, he had great command and presence while laying out a vision for the economy, foreign policy, the war in Iraq, and a whole host of other issues. It was by far his best performance in a debate during the primary season and it will serve him well as I predict a strong showing in Florida's primary next Tuesday. Campaigning as an outsider who can fix Washington, Romney continued throughout the night to present his credentials on the economy as someone who actually understands how it works and who has the experience to guide the country through this "perceived" down turn by making the Bush tax cuts permanent, decreasing spending, and reeling in special interests who continue to add pork to every bill signed into law by this administration. Romney was also very good on matters of foreign policy, particularly on the situation in Iraq stating that we cannot withdraw until the job is finished. He also took aim at the Democrats by criticizing them, particularly HRC, on their insistance that the US needs to withdraw from Iraq as soon as possible. Perhaps what excited me the most about Romney's performance last night is that he finally looked liked the front runner and inevitable nominee suggesting that he is the only one who can unite social, economic, and hawkish conservatives along with the libertarian wing of the GOP; Reaganesque to the say the least. In addition, he set his sights on the Clintons drawing first blood: "I can't imagine the Clintons back in the White House. I can't imagine Bill Clinton back in the White House with nothing to do". Neither can I!Romney painted the Clintons as the problem, not the solution to the country's problems, espousing the core values conservatives hold near and dear: small government, low taxes, maximum economic liberty, and a strong military. Even if Romney cannot unite conservatives, we all know who can: HRC. I'm beginning to think we can actually win in November. Stay tuned!

Innovators wanted

I'm hoping that at tonight's GOP debate in Florida the candidates will stop invoking the name of Ronald Reagan ad nauseum. The fact of the matter is Ronald Reagan would not approve. Why? Reagan was an innovator. He cut taxes and reversed the stagflation of the previous decade; he rejected detente and stood up to and defeated the Soviet Union; he understood the value of a strong military and rebuilt it in such a manner that when it was needed in the first Gulf War in 1991, it took ground troops less than 100 hours to remove Saddam Hussein from Kuwait; most of all, he restored our dignity, our hopes, and our optimism; the shining "city on the hill" that John Winthrop christened us back in the 17th century. Instead of being "Reagan Wanna-bes", this year's crop of GOP hopefuls need to be bold and innovative. While there's nothing wrong with wanting to model some of the things Reagan did, these men need to stand on their own and strike a course of their own on handling Iraq, the War on Terror, our current economic woes, health care, etc. Hopefully, we conservatives will begin to see a candidate emerge who will restore our dignity, our hopes, and our optimisn as their own man, the way Reagan did for us in 1980 and 1984.

Do or die for Giuliani

It's become a "three" man race for the GOP nomination after Fred Thomspon withdrew on Tuesday and Mike Huckabee's campaign crippled after not having won South Carolina. I say three man because it could quickly become a two man race if Rudy Giuliani does not win or have a very strong showing in Florida next Tuesday. The former Mayor of New York City has put all of his political eggs in the Florida basket eschewing traditonal caucus and primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, and South Carolina. It's become so bad for America's Mayor that he trails in the delegate count behind Ron Paul and is becoming dangerously low on cash. For Giuliani to remain a viable candidate and make this primary season a three man race he'll need to sell the voters of Florida on his no nonsense approach to homeland security, a national security strategy on steriods, and a bold tax cuts to restart a sputtering economy if he has any aspirations of winning the nomination. Winning Florida and its 57 delegates would put him second in the delegate count behind Mitt Romney and give his campaign a much needed media and economic boost heading into Super Tuesday on 5 February. Otherwise, a poor showing will all but end Giuliani's campaign and narrow the Republican field to McCain and Romney where it's anyone's ballgame.

Thompson "gives up the ghost"

Sadly today, Senator Fred Thomspon gave up the chase to be the Republican presidential nominee. I say sadly because Thompson was the one consistently reliable conservative in the crowded GOP field. However, there were several factors that led to his poor showing in the early primary states. First, Thompson could not match the hype or the expectations that his candidacy generated when it began to surface last March. The expectation became that Thompson was the next Reagan. Unfortunately, no one, not even the talented Senator, could match the hype. Second, Thomspon waited far too long to formally announce his candidacy. At first, he was to announce last July 4th, then it was pushed back to August, then September 11th, and so on. It is any wonder no one took him seriously until he filed the paperwork in November? If there's a lesson to be learned is that if you are serious about running for the highest office in the land you need to make up your mind quickly. Otherwise, you will not generate any excitement or organization or be able to raise enough funds to be competitive. Finally, it never seemed that Thompson had the "fire in the belly" to be president. He has a laid back, relaxed personality that is often mistaken for ambivalence. Thompson's personality never connected with the voters, though he had a great message. Unfortunately, the messenger in this case got in the way of the message. Don't be surprised to see Thompson endorse his old friend John McCain. Be even less surprised if you find Thompson as McCain's vice-presidential running mate.

Clinton is no Reagan

Former President Bill Clinton invaded Georgia today campaigning on behalf of his wife, Hillary. As I sat there and listened to the former President tell us how the current administration has screwed up the economy, I could not help but think how the prosperity of the last three decades are a direct result of the economic policies of Ronald Reagan. In fact, I had to chuckle as I listened to Clinton take credit for the prosperity of the 1990s and how his wife will restore our economic house by raising taxes, mandating a 90 day moratorium on mortgage foreclosures, and creating more entitlement programs we cannot afford. The fact of the matter is that Ronald Reagan's bold economic policies are the reasons why we have enjoyed unprecedented wealth in this country since 1981. It was Reagan who cut the marginal tax rates from near 70% in 1980 to the current rates of 28% and 15% putting more money in our pockets to spend or invest as we see fit. It was Reagan who deregulated the oil industry giving us access to cheap gas prices for over 30 years. It was Reagan who deregulated the airline industry to force competition making it less expensive for the consumer to choose and purchase tickets at affordable prices. It was under the Reagan and Bush administrations where 5% unemployment became synonomous with full employment. Ronald Reagan gave us economic liberty; Bill Clinton's legacy as president is that he benefitted from that liberty. No wonder Senator Barack Obama says that Ronald Reagan helped change the "trajectory of American politics" in a way that Richard Nixon or Bill Clinton did not. Let's face it, no matter how hard he tries, Bill Clinton is no Ronald Reagan.

Where are the conservatives?

As I sat and listened to the conservative "talking heads" this weekend after the Nevada caucus and South Carolina primary, something struck me as quite odd. All of the pundits kept saying how much they liked this year's crop of GOP presidential hopefuls. Furthermore, they all believed all of the Republican candidates were conservatives! Nothing could be further from the truth. Senator John McCain is soft on immigration, terrible on campaign finance, and would rather cut spending than propose common sense tax cuts (though he has stupmed recently that we need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent now that a recession looms on the horizon); Mitt Romney, though likeable, is only new to the conservative movement. Much like Senator John Kerry, Governor Romney has flip-flopped on a number of issues, especially on life and civil unions. He's trying to make himself appear as a conservative, but his record, especially as Governor of Massachusetts, says otherwise. Mike Huckabee, who plays a good bass guitar, is a closet liberal who has social conservative tendencies. He raised taxes as governor of Arkansas a number of times, his record on spending is horrorific, and is positions on illegal immigration as Governor of Arkansas are unacceptable. Besides, he does not play well outisde of the South. Rudy Giulinai, while tough on crime, borders, and terrorism, is really soft when it comes to the social issues, i.e., gay marriage, abortion, etc. One wonders if social conservatives can stomach him. Though he says he would appoint strict constructionists to the bench, you have to wonder. Finally, there's Fred Thompson. Senator Thompson, arguably the most consistent conservative of the bunch, is about to drop out of the race after a number of disappointing showings: Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nevada, and very conservative South Carolina. Thompson's campaign never had "that fire in the belly" one needs to run for the highest office in the land. His positions on most of the issues are solidly conservative, unfortunately, his campaign was quite weak and never caught fire. I look for him to withdraw and support McCain in the next few days. I wouldn't be surprised if Thompson was McCain's running mate if McCain won the nomination. Unfortunately for conservatives, there is not a good, reliable conservative in the race.

McCain is no conservative

Despite winning the South Carolina Republican primary, Senator John McCain is no conservative. A quick look at his record confirms this position. Even though the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that money is free speech, John McCain supports campaign finance reform to limit special interest contributions to political campaigns. This is all well and good, but McCain-Feingold has only increased the number of special interests in the system with the proliferation of 527 groups that can spend endless amounts of money running negative ads against certain candidates without any limits or accountability, i.e., moveon.org and other George Soros sponsored groups that savaged President Bush in 2004. What's ironic is that Senator McCain has a special interest lobbyist managing his presidential campaign. McCain also did not initially support President Bush's tax cuts back in 2001 and 2003. Now, he's calling for them to be made permanent before they expire at the end of 2010. Moreover, Senator McCain is soft on illegal immigration as evidenced by his sponsoring of McCain-Kennedy in 2007 that would have granted amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants had the bill not been defeated, twice, by the outrage of the American people calling their Congressmen and Senators. We tried amnesty back in 1986 and it did not work. Why does Senator McCain think that the American people would want another failed amnesty policy today? Senator McCain also attacks former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld at every turn on the campaign trail by blaming him for the "failed strategy" in Iraq and the fact that we just do not have enough men and women in our armed forces. Fair enough, but I wonder where was Senator McCain back in the 1990s when the Clinton administration was systematically downsizing and dismantling our armed forces to about half the size it was at the beginning of the first Gulf War in 1991? If you want some real "straight talk", we cannot afford John McCain's kind of "conservatism".