Conservatism Today

Why are These People Allowed to Vote in America?

I'm not going to rip Obama supporters as a bunch of ignorant fools, because there are idiots on both sides. That said, I think it is abundantly clear that nobody prior to Barack Obama has ever received so much support from people who know so little about government in general and the candidates in particular. This is both funny and sad, but it's worth seeing:

Hot Air notes a Zogby poll of Obama voters:

 The poll surveyed over 500 self-professed Obama voters and has an MOE of 4.4%, with 55% having a college degree and over 90% having a high-school diploma.  It asked 12 multiple-choice questions; only 2.4% got at least 11 correct. Only .5% got all them correct.

• 57.4 could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)
• 81.8 could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)
• 82.6 could NOT correctly say that Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)
• 88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)
• 56.1 % could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).And yet…..

• Only 13.7% failed to identify Palin as the person their party spent $150,000 in clothes on
• Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter
• And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her “house,” even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Like I said, I'm not going to focus solely on Obama when it comes to getting out the moron vote. Instead, I will focus on the bigger picture. Why do we continue to allow people with no knowledge of the issues or candidates or government to vote? And if setting up a test is such a bad idea, can't we at least stop trying to encourage everyone to vote? Half of these people would never bother making it to the polls if everyone they knew wasn't encouraging them to "do their duty" and vote.

I'm still wondering how a few of these characters managed to find their polling place. Free rides from ACORN, maybe?

From IMAO:

I Need to Join this Church

Hat tip to Hot Air:

Hillary Clinton to Accept Job as Secretary of State?

Hillary Clinton will be Barack Obama's Secretary of State, says The Guardian. That's nice, if true. I've always felt that Hillary would make an awesome secretary. During the campaign she kept noting that if the phone ever rang at 3am she would be there to answer it. That's a fine quality. Hopefully she types well. This is an interesting break from the hiring policy favored by former President Bill Clinton, who would never have hired a secretary like Hillary, for obvious reasons. 

Hillary Clinton plans to accept the job of secretary of state offered by Barack Obama, who is reaching out to former rivals to build a broad coalition administration, the Guardian has learned.

Obama's advisers have begun looking into Bill Clinton's foundation, which distributes millions of dollars to Africa to help with development, to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. But Democrats do not believe that the vetting is likely to be a problem.

Clinton would be well placed to become the country's dominant voice in foreign affairs, replacing Condoleezza Rice. Since being elected senator for New York, she has specialised in foreign affairs and defence. Although she supported the war in Iraq, she and Obama basically agree on a withdrawal of American troops.

Clinton, who still harbours hopes of a future presidential run, had to weigh up whether she would be better placed by staying in the Senate, which offers a platform for life, or making the more uncertain career move to the secretary of state job.

In all seriousness, I believe Clinton would make a pretty solid Secretary of State. I would rather Obama have her imput on foreign policy than to have him go off half-cocked without it. And I'll breath a sigh of relief any time he picks someone who has America's best interest at heart, even if I'm not going to agree with everything the appointee does.

Maverick McCain and Hopenchange Obama Unite, form Non-Partisan (Leftist) Governing Entity that you can Trust

Now for one of the bigger problems with President Elect Obama that was not mentioned much going into the election: The prospect of John McCain leaping lunging across the aisle to do Obama's bidding in the Senate for the next four years.

Drew at Ace of Spades noted today's joint statement from Obama and McCain, and comments:

"At this defining moment in history, we believe that Americans of all parties want and need their leaders to come together and change the bad habits of Washington so that we can solve the common and urgent challenges of our time. It is in this spirit that we had a productive conversation today about the need to launch a new era of reform where we take on government waste and bitter partisanship in Washington in order to restore trust in government, and bring back prosperity and opportunity for every hardworking American family. We hope to work together in the days and months ahead on critical challenges like solving our financial crisis, creating a new energy economy, and protecting our nation’s security."

Here's the thing, 'partisanship' is not a bad thing. In fact, it can be very healthy. When one party wants to do something staggeringly stupid, it's the job of the other party to STOP THEM, not join them in pushing the country over the cliff.

I wish McCain would shut up about 'government waste'. Yeah, that's a problem but a small one compared to government encroachment into areas it doesn't belong in the first place. No amount of efficiency makes me want the government to get involved in regulating the economy to stop 'global warming', 'fix' education or a host of other issues.

Good points, Drew. I would add to it by noting that Obama and McCain promise to restore trust in government. I don't want a government I can trust. Which is a good thing, because you can't trust government, by definition, if it has any power. That's why our Founding Fathers put so many checks and balances in place, to minimize the overuse of government. To restrain government. To leash in the dangers of this necessary evil.

When Americans start trusting their government, we're all screwed. You've all seen the polls that show that trust in government was very high for most of the 20th century until the late 1960s. So people trusted the government while it was enslaving them within the welfare state, while it was wasting their money by implementing the horrific social security theft/boondoggle, while it was creating the largest and most expensive entitlement in medical care, while it was systematically destroying the local public school system, while it promised them more and more while taking more and more? And after they stopped trusting government, we saw a massive reduction in new programs and greater prosperity for the people than ever before? We want to go back to the former? I'm sure Obama New Deal 2.0 does. But the rest of us?

If John McCain follows through with this, and there is no reason to doubt he will, I will do anything I can do to help him lose his senate seat in Arizona. Assuming he runs for re-election.

    

To be Honest, the Fact of the Matter is, the BBC Actually has Rolled out a Pretty Good List, if you can get your Head Around it

I'm not being funny, but going forward, I believe some lessons will be learned by the end of play today - if you all touch base, you know. The reason being, let's face it, 110% of people are actually singing from the same hymn sheet.

I think that's most of them. Where's Barack's favorite, um?

I really hate "to be honest," which is probably because I use it myself, all the time. Feel free to add to the list.  

Things I Miss About Wisconsin

Some See Big Problem in Wisconsin Drinking:

EDGERTON, Wis. — When a 15-year-old comes into Wile-e’s bar looking for a cold beer, the bartender, Mike Whaley, is happy to serve it up — as long as a parent is there to give permission.

“If they’re 15, 16, 17, it’s fine if they want to sit down and have a few beers,” said Mr. Whaley, who owns the tavern in this small town in southern Wisconsin.

While it might raise some eyebrows in most of America, it is perfectly legal in Wisconsin. Minors can drink alcohol in a bar or restaurant in Wisconsin if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian who gives consent. While there is no state law setting a minimum age, bartenders can use their discretion in deciding whom to serve.

When it comes to drinking, it seems, no state keeps pace with Wisconsin. This state, long famous for its breweries, has led the nation in binge drinking in every year since the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention began its surveys on the problem more than a decade ago. Binge drinking is defined as five drinks in a sitting for a man, four for a woman.

I'm no advocate of binge drinking, of course. But the relaxed attitude towards drinking pays some dividends. My family never allowed me to drink, a fact that I am certain resulted in a few years of problem driking after I went to the University of Wisconsin and discovered alcohol. It played a large factor in me eventually dropping out of school as a freshman.

Meanwhile, the kids whose parents had allowed them to occasionally partake growing up were much less succeptible to over-drinking in college. It took me becoming accustomed to drinking in moderation, and realizing that alcohol was not a big deal, before my drinking stopped being a problem for me.

But Wisconsin appears ready to make some big changes.

“Our goal is to dramatically change the laws, culture and behaviors in Wisconsin,” said Dr. Robert N. Golden, the dean of the medical school, calling the state “an island of excessive consumption.” He said state agencies would use a $12.6 million federal grant to step up screening, intervention and referral services at 20 locations around Wisconsin.

The campaign comes after a series in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel titled “Wasted in Wisconsin,” which chronicled the prodigious imbibing among residents of the state, as well as the state’s reluctance to crack down on alcohol abuse.

Drunken drivers in Wisconsin are not charged with a felony until they have been arrested a fifth time. Wisconsin law prohibits sobriety checks by the police, a common practice in other states.

“People are dying,” the newspaper exclaimed in an editorial, “and alcohol is the cause.”

No, people driving drunk is the cause. Scrap the $12.6 million grants, etc., and start prosecuting drunk drivers. Hard. And leave the people to their own decisions otherwise.

Wisconsin has long been famous for making and drinking beer. Going back to the 1800s, almost every town in the state had its own brewery. Milwaukee was the home of Miller, Pabst and Schlitz. Now Miller is the only big brewery in the city.

Most people in Wisconsin say the beer-drinking traditions reflect the customs of German immigrants, passed down generations. More than 40 percent of Wisconsin residents can trace their ancestry to Germany. Some experts, though, are skeptical of the ethnic explanation. It has been a very long time, after all, since German was spoken in the beer halls of Wisconsin.

Whatever the reason, plenty of Wisconsin people say they need to make no apologies for their fondness for drinking.

“I work 70, 80 hours a week, and sometimes I just want to relax,” said Luke Gersich, 31, an engineering technician, who drank a Miller as he watched the Monday Night Football game at Wile-e’s tavern. On a weeknight, he said he might drink seven or eight beers. On a weekend, it might be closer to 12.

In Wisconsin, people often say, there is always a bar around the next corner. But drinking is scarcely limited to taverns. A Friday fish fry at a Wisconsin church will almost surely include beer. The state counts some 5,000 holders of liquor licenses, the most per capita of any state, said Peter Madland, the executive director of the Tavern League of Wisconsin.

“We’re not ashamed of it,” Mr. Madland said. He said anti-alcohol campaigns were efforts to “demonize” people who simply liked to kick back and relax with some drinks.

Drinking is a major part of Wisconsin's culture. So it should come as no shock that tolerant multi-culturalists are ready to step in and blow up that culture. I'm guessing this is another area where Mike Huckabee and I wouldn't see eye-to-eye.

Mike Huckabee Rips Romney, Fiscal Conservatives in New Book

Mike Huckabee tells me what I already knew, that I will never cast a vote for him, in his latest book. But there's a surprise. I thought he at least seemed like a really good guy. But does a really good guy attack as regularly as he seems to like doing? From Hot Air:

Mitt Romney, Huckabee’s principal rival in Iowa, comes in for the roughest treatment. Huckabee writes that the former Massachusetts governor’s record was “anything but conservative until he changed the light bulbs in his chandelier in time to run for president.” He notes that Romney declined to make a phone call of congratulations after Huckabee beat the oddsmakers to win the Iowa caucuses, “which we took as a sign of total disrespect.” He mocks Romney for suggesting, during one debate, more investment in high-yield stocks as a solution to economic woes. “Let them eat stocks!” Huckabee jokes…

He calls out Pat Robertson, the Virginia-based televangelist, and Dr. Bob Jones III, chancellor of Bob Jones University in South Carolina, for endorsing Rudy Giuliani and Romney, respectively. He also has words for the Texas-based Rev. John Hagee, who endorsed the more moderate John McCain in the primaries, as someone who was drawn to the eventual Republican nominee because of the lure of power... In a chapter titled “Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism,” Huckabee identifies what he calls the “real threat” to the Republican Party: “libertarianism masked as conservatism.” He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul’s Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people’s problems.

So, as I stated recently, Huck is unelectable. His right-wing social conservatism, mixed with populism and fueled by no inherent believe in economic conservatism makes him forever a second-fourth place finisher in the primaries. Libertarian's are a big block of right of center voters. Libertarians are fine with me - I disagree with them on a few things, I am one of them on a few issues. But they aren't trying to let government dictate life to the people. If Mike Huckabee really thinks libertarians are worse than liberals, then he is the enemy.

Americans have had enough with government telling people what it can and cannot do in their personal lives. Hopefully, after an Obama administration, they will also be fed up with government telling them what they can do, or must do, or cannot do with their money.

"Let them eat stocks," is a good line though.

Favorite People on the Right

Alright, this is the exact opposite poll as the least favorite people on the right that we had Thursday. This time John Hawkins received responses from 44 conservative blogs, including yours truly. Here is the list, excluding the top five:

23) Michele Bachmann (4)
23) Glenn Beck (4)
23) Pat Buchanan (4)
23) Victor David Hanson (4)
23) Charles Krauthammer (4)
23) Dennis Prager (4)
23) John Roberts (4)
20) Dick Cheney (5)
20) Mark Levin (5)
20) Clarence Thomas (5)
19) Paul Ryan (6)
15) Tom Coburn (7)
15) Laura Ingraham (7)
15) Sean Hannity (7)
15) Mike Pence (7)
12) Jeff Flake (8)
12) Jonah Goldberg (8)
12) Antonin Scalia (8)
11) Jim DeMint (10)
9) Ann Coulter (11)
9) Thomas Sowell (11)
7) Michael Steele (12)
7) Michelle Malkin (12)
6) Mark Steyn (13)

Go to Right Wing News for the top five. I voted for all of the top six, if I remember correctly. Definitely all of the top five. I love that Arizona's Jeff Flake made the list, and very high up for a little-known representative. He's a big time promoter of tax cuts who rails against pork barrrelling, for those that don't know of him. I'm happy with almost everyone on the list.

Most interesting to note is the note Hawkins makes at the bottom of his post. Compare who was voted the favorite with who was voted the least favorite, and draw your own conclusions.

Least Favorite People on the Right

For the fourth year in a row, John Hawkins of Right Wing News asked conservative bloggers to name their least favorite people on the right. For the first time, I was among those polled. Here's a portion of the results:

25) "McCain Staffers" (5)
25) Mitch McConnell (5)
25) Hank Paulson (5)
24) Scott McCellan (6)
21) George Bush (7)
21) Lincoln Chafee (7)
21) Mitt Romney (7)
20) Olympia Snowe (8)
16) Ann Coulter (9)
16) Bill O'Reilly (9)
16) Andrew Sullivan (9)
16) George Will (9)
13) Christopher Buckley (10)
13) Kathleen Parker (10)
13) Michael Savage (10)
11) David Brooks (11)
11) Lindsay Graham (11)
10) Arnold Schwarzenegger (12)

You can read the top nine at Right Wing News. Note he also links to the past three years' results. For those that think that this year's "winner" was based solely on events of the past year, note that this person was in the top two each of the last four years. Also note, Sarah Palin did not make the list.

The top four all made my list.

Things You Can't Do. Or hey, Wasn't this a Popular Political Philosophy not too Long Ago?

From Log Cabin Republicans:

You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative
and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could
and should do for themselves.

William Boetcker, 1873 - 1962

It's all so simple and obvious that you would think that there would be a thriving movement centered around these ideas. Oh wait. There was. Unfortunately it appears a whole new generation will have to learn these truths the hard way.

Bobby Jindal on the Future of the Republican Party: Here's Hoping He's a Big Part of It

Dare I say Reaganesque? But young?

This is Scary: Obamagelicals

What do you get when you combine the fervent "government is God" nature of many Obama supporters with the fervent religious conviction of evangelical Christians? Aside from a massive contradiction in terms? Obamagelicals:

The guys over at Beliefnet are great. Major Kudos to Steven Waldman and Dan Gilgoff for this effort. They have put together a survey that details the views of Evangelical voters for Obama and McCain. “Obamagelicals” is the term they’re using for those who sided with Obama. Read a portion of their findings below:

Among the findings:

Nationally, 25% of white evangelicals voted for Obama. In certain key states, the numbers were higher. He saw a 14% increase in support from white evangelicals in Colorado, 8% in Indiana, 8% in North Carolina and 4% in Ohio. Most important, he won 32% of young evangelicals (up from 16% for McCain).One of the most striking differences relates to their reading of Scriptures. 58.7% Obamagelicals say "the Bible is divinely inspired but not everything in it is the literal word of God," compared to 40% who said "The Bible is the literal word of God." For McCain evangelicals, the percentages were reversed: 74.7% said it was the Bible is the word of God and only 24.6% said the Bible was divinely inspired.

Obamagelicals support gay civil unions, McCain evangelicals don't. Obamagelicals are far more supportive of gay marriage than McCain evangelicals, but on balance they don't support gay marriage either. Only 28.7% said they supported gay marriage. The big difference is that most McCain voters want neither marriage nor civil unions (66.4% of McCain voters wanted neither), whereas a substantial number of Obamagelicals support civil unions or domestic partnerships (53.4%)...

I’m sure conservative Evangelicals are shaking their head wondering how anybody calling themselves an “Evangelical” could support civil unions. Look folks, there is a deeper conversation somewhere here about what constitutes an Evangelical but in the meantime here’s a point to ponder: these “Obamagelicals” may indeed represent a growing movement within Evangelical circles. Collectively, they will be seen as a threat to the traditional values camp. Under an Obama presidency, will we see a power shift to this kind of Evangelical? The “Obamagelicals” could very well be the ones with access to The White House and thus a loud soapbox for their emerging views which place a priority on different compassion issues.

The number of young evangelicals who voted for Obama should be quite distressing to you culture warriors out there. Can these people be won back without a radical change in the principles of social conservatism?

Michelle Obama is not the only one who is Proud of America for the First Time in her Adult Life

Seattle-ites are also proud to be Americans for the first time ever.

The feeling was evident in jubilant partying in the streets, in quiet moments of reflection and in blossoms of red, white and blue.

With newfound patriotism, Seattleites want to wave the flag, hang it from their homes and stick it on their cars.

"The thing that's kind of astounding to me is I never ever would have cared to own a flag," said Rosemary Garner, 42. "This is the first day in my life I actually feel this funny sense of pride about my country. It's a very foreign feeling, but it's a good one."

Garner, a self-described "flag virgin" who lives on Capitol Hill, bought eight flags Wednesday -- some to wave and others to stick on her car to "mix and match with some nice Obama and peace signs. Then I bought a couple of flags for some friends who wanted to hang them from their truck along with their biodiesel stickers."

I'm pretty sure I felt better about America's future when the America-hating Rosemary was actively hating America. I've been proud of my country for all of my adult life. Not quite so much at this moment, but at least we can still be proud of our Constitution.

"I'm finally proud to be an American again, after eight years of being ashamed," 66-year-old Mark Lowney said, ticking off a list of complaints, including the Iraq war.

"It's just a rare feeling to feel that type of, I don't know, national connection," said Noah Kriegsmann, a 33-year-old builder from West Seattle. He feels that Obama's win will help America's standing in the world, and he bought a flag to fly on his truck, though he admitted it felt strange to see the flag in his hand.

"I have just historically felt shame for what the symbol of this country is internationally. Being in someplace like Morocco, and Canadians have their flag on their backpacks -- I would never ever do that," he said.

I like this woman's comments: 

"People around here don't fly flags like they do on the East Coast," said Seattle flag maker Carol Anderson, who hails from Rhode Island but has lived in Seattle for seven years.

The Star-Spangled Banner should transcend political party, said Anderson, who supported Obama.

"I don't care whether it's the Fourth of July or whatever. This country's at war. You'd think that you'd see a few American flags flying. Were they not flying the flag because they don't like George Bush? I mean, give me a break. It should represent more than who's in office. The flag itself to me has always represented an honor."

No. They were not flying flags because they hate America. I mean please, they all but said as much. But not anymore:

Cynthia Cohen, owner of Surplus Too Army Navy, summed it up this way: "You can almost just feel it in the air. I think we have a happy world today."

God help us from these morons.

Must Read - P.J. O'Rourke: We Blew It

From America's funniest conservative. I don't agree with all of it, and I'm not at all pessimistic, as he is in this piece. But every conservative needs to read it and consider what he says. Hat tip to Barking Moonbat Early Warning System.

Let us bend over and kiss our ass goodbye. Our 28-year conservative opportunity to fix the moral and practical boundaries of government is gone--gone with the bear market and the Bear Stearns and the bear that's headed off to do you-know-what in the woods on our philosophy.

An entire generation has been born, grown up, and had families of its own since Ronald Reagan was elected. And where is the world we promised these children of the Conservative Age? Where is this land of freedom and responsibility, knowledge, opportunity, accomplishment, honor, truth, trust, and one boring hour each week spent in itchy clothes at church, synagogue, or mosque? It lies in ruins at our feet, as well it might, since we ourselves kicked the shining city upon a hill into dust and rubble. The progeny of the Reagan Revolution will live instead in the universe that revolves around Hyde Park.

Mind you, they won't live in Hyde Park. Those leafy precincts will be reserved for the micromanagers and macro-apparatchiks of liberalism--for Secretary of the Department of Peace Bill Ayers and Secretary of the Department of Fairness Bernardine Dohrn. The formerly independent citizens of our previously self-governed nation will live, as I said, around Hyde Park. They will make what homes they can in the physical, ethical, and intellectual slums of the South Side of Chicago....

More:

None of this is the fault of the left. After the events of the 20th century--national socialism, international socialism, inter-species socialism from Earth First--anyone who is still on the left is obviously insane and not responsible for his or her actions. No, we on the right did it. The financial crisis that is hoisting us on our own petard is only the latest (if the last) of the petard hoistings that have issued from the hindquarters of our movement. We've had nearly three decades to educate the electorate about freedom, responsibility, and the evils of collectivism, and we responded by creating a big-city-public-school-system of a learning environment.

Liberalism had been running wild in the nation since the Great Depression. At the end of the Carter administration we had it cornered in one of its dreadful low-income housing projects or smelly public parks or some such place, and we held the Taser gun in our hand, pointed it at the beast's swollen gut, and didn't pull the trigger.

We didn't pull the trigger. We fell prey to big government and silly arguments. We didn't teach conservatism. At least not as we should have.

It's not hard to move a voting bloc. And it should be especially easy to

move voters to the right. Sensible adults are conservative in most aspects of their private lives. If this weren't so, imagine driving on I-95: The majority of drivers are drunk, stoned, making out, or watching TV, while the rest are trying to calculate the size of their carbon footprints on the backs of Whole Foods receipts while negotiating lane changes.

People are even more conservative if they have children. Nobody with kids is a liberal, except maybe one pothead in Marin County. Everybody wants his or her children to respect freedom, exercise responsibility, be honest, get educated, have opportunities, and own a bunch of guns. (The last is optional and includes, but is not limited to, me, my friends in New Hampshire, and Sarah Palin.)

Reagan managed to reach out to blue collar whites. But there his reach stopped, leaving many people on our side, but barely knowing it. There are enough yarmulkes among the neocons to show that Jews are not immune to conservatism. Few practicing Catholics vote Democratic anymore except in Massachusetts where they put something in the communion wafers. When it comes to a full-on, hemp-wearing, kelp-eating, mandala-tatted, fool-coifed liberal with socks in sandals, I have never met a Muslim like that or a Chinese and very few Hispanics. No U.S. immigrants from the Indian subcontinent fill that bill (the odd charlatan yogi excepted), nor do immigrants from Africa, Eastern Europe, or East Asia. And Japanese tourists may go so far as socks in sandals, but their liberal nonsense stops at the ankles.

We have all of this going for us, worldwide. And yet we chose to deliver our sermons only to the faithful or the already converted. Of course the trailer park Protestants yell "Amen." If you were handling rattlesnakes and keeping dinosaurs for pets, would you vote for the party that gets money from PETA?

On the economy:

Anyway, a low tax rate is not--never mind the rhetoric of every conservative politician--a bedrock principle of conservatism. The principle is fiscal responsibility.

Conservatives should never say to voters, "We can lower your taxes." Conservatives should say to voters, "You can raise spending. You, the electorate, can, if you choose, have an infinite number of elaborate and expensive government programs. But we, the government, will have to pay for those programs. We have three ways to pay.

"We can inflate the currency, destroying your ability to plan for the future, wrecking the nation's culture of thrift and common sense, and giving free rein to scallywags to borrow money for worthless scams and pay it back 10 cents on the dollar.

"We can raise taxes. If the taxes are levied across the board, money will be taken from everyone's pocket, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and least advantaged will be harmed the most. If the taxes are levied only on the wealthy, money will be taken from wealthy people's pockets, hampering their capacity to make loans and investments, the economy will stagnate, and the poorest and the least advantaged will be harmed the most.

"And we can borrow, building up a massive national debt. This will cause all of the above things to happen plus it will fund Red Chinese nuclear submarines that will be popping up in San Francisco Bay to get some decent Szechwan take-out."

Yes, this would make for longer and less pithy stump speeches. But we'd be showing ourselves to be men and women of principle. It might cost us, short-term. We might get knocked down for not whoring after bioenergy votes in the Iowa caucuses. But at least we wouldn't land on our scruples. And we could get up again with dignity intact, dust ourselves off, and take another punch at the liberal bully-boys who want to snatch the citizenry's freedom and tuck that freedom, like a trophy feather, into the hatbands of their greasy political bowlers.

On the free market:

What will destroy our country and us is not the financial crisis but the fact that liberals think the free market is some kind of sect or cult, which conservatives have asked Americans to take on faith. That's not what the free market is. The free market is just a measurement, a device to tell us what people are willing to pay for any given thing at any given moment. The free market is a bathroom scale. You may hate what you see when you step on the scale. "Jeeze, 230 pounds!" But you can't pass a law making yourself weigh 185. Liberals think you can. And voters--all the voters, right up to the tippy-top corner office of Goldman Sachs--think so too.

We, the conservatives, who do understand the free market, had the responsibility to--as it were--foreclose upon this mess. The market is a measurement, but that measuring does not work to the advantage of a nation or its citizens unless the assessments of volume, circumference, and weight are conducted with transparency and under the rule of law. We've had the rule of law largely in our hands since 1980. Where is the transparency? It's one more job we botched.

Although I must say we're doing good work on our final task--attaching the garden hose to our car's exhaust pipe and running it in through a vent window. Barack and Michelle will be by in a moment with some subsidized ethanol to top up our gas tank. And then we can turn the key.

Read the rest here.

Michael Steele Makes his Case for RNC Chair, Unfortunately for him, his Case Points out why Gingrich Would be Better

Michael Steele makes his case in the Wall Street Journal today, but it leads me to believe he should be supporting Newt Gingrich.

True, the country has changed and our party must adapt. However, it is wrong to believe we must change our principles or become conservative-lite. After all, the voters did not suddenly become liberal; but they have lost any sense of confidence that the Republican Party holds the answers to their problems.

Most Americans today see a Republican Party that defines itself by what it is against rather than what it is for. We can tell you why public schools aren't working, but not articulate a compelling vision for how we'll better educate children. We're well equipped to rail against tax increases; but can't begin to explain how we'll help the poor. We exclude far better than we welcome.

Things were different as recently as 20 years ago. Back then, Ronald Reagan made it cool to be a Republican -- it wasn't just his specific policies, but the timeless truths he so eloquently gave voice to, and upon which his policies were based. That's the Republican Party we must re-establish.

We must articulate a positive vision for America's future that speaks to Americans' hopes, concerns and needs. It's time to stop defining ourselves by what we are not, and tell voters what we believe, how we'll lead, and where we'll go; how we Republicans will make America better; how we'll make their families more prosperous, their children better educated, their parents more secure, and all of us healthier, safer and stronger.

And nobody has done all of this like Newt Gingrich, not only with his Contract With America, but with his work at American Solutions. And also with his books. I have nothing against Michael Steele. He'd be my top choice if Newt Gingrich hadn't put his hat in the ring. But Newt has, and Newt is the only one of the two who has ever done exactly what Steele is suggesting we do.

Newt Gingrich is the Leader the RNC Needs to Take Back Congress

The talk of former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich heading up the Republican National Committee is the best potential news I've heard in ages. He has said he would take the post if asked. I can just see the Clinton supporters now. The Democrat Party may look pretty flush right now, but I'll take Newt's leadership in a heartbeat over Howard Dean's at the DNC.

Newt Gingrich has let it be known that, if Republicans want him, the former U.S House speaker is willing to serve as chairman of the national party and lead it out of the wilderness it’s blundered into.

The question is whether the 168-member Republican National Committee is open to the match.

“If a majority of the RNC thought he was needed, he would accept that appointment,” said Randy Evans’ Gingrich’s close friend and legal counsel. “He fully appreciates the urgency of the moment.”

Although, if we're being totally honest, I'd take Newt as head of the RNC over any living, breathing American politician. For those who don't recall, Newt Gingrich single-handedly took back Congress for the Republican Party in 1994 with his highly successful Contract With America. He then proceeded to run into problems with his abrasive attitude toward those who disagreed with him and his condescending attitude toward those who weren't as smart as him (ie, everyone). So he lost his power and left Congress. He was the most hated enemy of the left.

Since then, the smartest man in the world has rehabilitated his image. Clinton supporters will remember a man who worked together with Bill Clinton to achieve numerous reforms that improved the role of government in the country, that balanced the budget and eliminated our nation's debt. His work with American Solutions, where he reached across the aisle to anyone who had a decent idea for limiting government bureacracy and improving the way government works, has been impressive. He is the most forward-thinking conservative I know of. And he is always working on new proposals like his Contract With America, agendas composed of center-right issues that have overwhelming public approval. Ed Morrissey notes:

Some wanted Gingrich to run for President in 2008, but this role would suit him much better.  Gingrich has operated best as a philosopher for the conservative movement, someone who can both capture the essence of conservatism and put it into action.  Gingrich has the skill to communicate to a national audience and an emeritus status that will have people paying attention when he speaks.  As RNC chair, his political baggage becomes irrelevant, allowing him to focus on party- and agenda-building instead of running for office.

Most importantly, Gingrich understands the technological tools that escaped the GOP in 2008.  American Solutions has established a very impressive grassroots structure for policy, which could easily be adopted and adapted to the RNC.  As Patrick Ruffini has been arguing at Rebuild the Party, the RNC needs to close the technology gap with the DNC in a hurry.  Gingrich could get the GOP to a terrific start in doing just that.

Please let this happen. If so, we will be repopulating Congress with boatloads of true conservatives by 2010.  

Obama Plan Would Destroy U.S. Auto Industry

With U.S. automakers struggling and seeking government aid in the form of another costly federal bailout, Barack Obama has a plan that would likely solve the problem forever. Hell, no more auto industry, no more problem, right?

While Obama said at a news conference last week that his top priority would be to stimulate the economy and create jobs, his advisers say that focus will not delay key shifts in social and regulatory policies, including some -- such as the embrace of new environmental safeguards -- that Obama has said will have long-term, beneficial impacts on the economy.

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

California had sought permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to require that greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles be cut by 30 percent between 2009 and 2016, effectively mandating that cars achieve a fuel economy standard of at least 36 miles per gallon within eight years.

So here's the deal. Obama promises to stimulate the economy and create jobs, apparently by requiring  already failing automobile makers to spend billions of dollars in research and development to comply with new, higher standards for fuel efficiency, all in the name of global warming alarmism. Oh, and screw consumer choice while we're at it.  

If you think I'm being overly negative on the potential impact of one state changing it's fuel economy standards, let me point out that roughly 20% of all America-made automobiles are sold in California. 

But just think of all the new jobs that will be created when 2.5 million auto workers are looking for employment. No doubt we'll be seeing that new car that runs entirely on peace and hope by the year 2012.

I had a conversation yesterday with a friend who comments under the name of "ed wojna." Ed is a moderate lefty, voted for Obama, and has worked in for General Motors at its plant in my hometown of Janesville, WI. We had a good give and take on the problems that have caused the auto industry in America to enter into hasty negotiations with the federal government to avoid a meeting with the Grim Reaper. I told him I would be against a bailout of the industry on principle. I believe the industry must prove it can prosper, or make the changes that will allow it to eventually prosper, or fail on its own.

I do not believe we should be making things harder for the industry than it already is by adding burdensome obstacles to success, however. But Barack Obama seems to be active in his opposition to the industry. It's as if he has chosen to represent the Grim Reaper's interests instead.  

Advice for Conservatives during the Obama Administration

Paul at Powerline has a great piece up regarding how conservatives ought to behave during the Obama administration. I think he's dead-on. We've spent a lot of time talking about the hatred the left has shown towards George W. Bush. This is our chance to show what true political opposition is all about, as patriotic Americans. Here's part of it:

Pray that President Obama achieves greatness in office. Our overriding concern must always be the country we love, not the success of a party or an ideology.

Don't assume that Obama is always wrong. Judge all of his positions on the merits; don't conclude that a position is wrong just because he takes it. Republicans tended to fall into this trap with President Clinton. For example, some opposed our military involvement in Kosovo based not on an analysis of the situation there, but rather on a knee-jerk anti-Clinton response. This approach is irresponsible and unpatriotic.

Conservatives almost certainly will quickly find that, from our perspective, Obama is wrong far more often than he is right. To that extent, it will be our duty to oppose him. But in doing so, we should keep in mind these guidelines:

Be loyal in your opposition. As my blog partner Scott Johnson puts it, paraphrasing Steven Decatur: "May he always be in the right; but our president, right or wrong."

Be patient in your opposition. Don't mimic the left (this is always good advice) and conclude that because the country isn't getting mad about policies that bother you, Obama is therefore a "Teflon president." In fact, you should stop reading the first 10 pundits who call him that. Americans are fair-minded. They will give Obama time to succeed, as they should. The mainstream media will buy him additional time. But eventually the honeymoon will end.

Be persistent in your opposition. The first 100 things that you criticize Obama for may not resonate at all. The 101st may turn public opinion against him. More likely, it may supply the mass that begins to turn the tide.

Be fair in your opposition. None of the 101 things that you criticize Obama for should be illegitimate or trivial. Remember that the president isn't responsible for every adverse development that occurs on his watch. Even sound decisions often produce adverse consequences. Don't judge Obama's decisions in a vacuum; compare them to the alternatives.

That and much more at his site. I especially like his last two points, which you can read by following the link above.

I will make an effort to live up to this standard, although I know I will probably fail at times. I promise you that I will always be praying for his judgments to be wise, at a minimum. We should all do so.

Pravda, Russian Communists Pleased With Barack Obama's Election

I got this from Pravda. Remember Pravda, the propaganda arm of the former Soviet Union? I always link to my sources, but I'm not linking to freaking Pravda. Got that, you commie bastards? I'm taking your piece without attribution. What are you gonna do about it? I'm sure there's a special place saved for me in your gulags.

Anyways, the commies are loving this one. This one even accurately describes Obama in comparison to the Republican Party:

“Obama does not have answers to many vital questions yet, although he stated in many of his speeches that he would change the previous political course, which is highly important. All Republican presidents have always defended national interests, ignoring the interests of other countries of the world. The new US president cannot but understand that it is impossible to seek and find answers to many global issues without the participation of such a great country as Russia,” the leader of Russian communists said.

So the Pravda source admits that Republicans have defended America's national interest, and Obama will not. Plus Obama has no answers. All good things to a Russian communist. Should we be happy with the election of the candidate the Russian communists favored? Just a question.

Stuart Smalley Attempting to Steal the Minnesota Senate Seat

Former SNL cast member and current chronic liar and tax cheat Al Franken is trying his hand at election theft. It seems his campaign just keeps on finding bundles of new ballots from highly Democrat-leaning precincts. From Powerline comes a statement from Ron Coleman's campaign manager:

"Not content to allow the recount process to move forward as prescribed by law, the Franken Campaign and its supporters are attempting a campaign of undue influence. The increasing questions about unexplained and improbable shifts in vote counts, coupled with Franken Campaign antics over the past 24 hours, compelled us to seek legal action to protect the rights of Minnesota voters. We had an election. Senator Coleman won. And we now must have a legal and transparent process conducted in the light of day - and that is our goal and intent.

"Late last night, after another unexplained shift in votes occurred when the Secretary of State's Office closed, new ballots have suddenly appeared from a heavily Democratic precinct. These ballots have been unsecure since the election, yet the Franken Campaign is demanding they be stuffed into the ballot box, attempting to change a vote count that was already finished. Minnesota election laws provide specific rules for reviewing and counting ballots. Today's legal proceeding is an effort to ensure that a transparent and orderly process be in place. The Franken Campaign should be joining us in this action, not seeking to push the process outside the bounds of the law."

And now we have this, also from Powerline.100 ballots found, all for Al Franken:

As improbable and statistically dubious chunks of votes appear and disappear, overwhelmingly benefiting Al Franken, the Coleman for Senate campaign today filed a data practices request with county auditors and the Secretary of State requesting data related to Election Night results, records related to ballot security and information relating to all revisions made to the results since being reported on Election Night.

"Minnesota has a history of fair and clean elections, and we are committed to ensuring that this election is no different. That is why it is so troubling to us that instead of the normal slight changes in vote totals one would expect during this process, we are now seeing huge chunks of votes appearing and disappearing - statistically dubious and improbable shifts that are overwhelmingly accruing to the benefit of Al Franken. And, as many of these unexplained and improbably vote swings are taking place on the Iron Range, we're asking that local and state election officials provide us with the necessary data to reassure the public that the canvassing process has not been tainted," said Cullen Sheehan, campaign manager.

It has been reported that during the night, 100 new ballots were reported to the Secretary of State's office from the Mountain Iron area. These previously unreported ballots contained 100 votes for President-elect Barack Obama and DFL candidate Al Franken.

I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me. And if not, we'll just fill out ballots for them saying that they do. 

Pelosi Blames Gay-Marriage Ban on Stupid Voters

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi explained today why Proposition 8 passed in California, overturning gay marriage. She thinks they didn't understand what they were voting for:

In a wide-ranging interview with The Chronicle, Pelosi said she believes some voters might not have fully understood the initiative, which overturned a state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. The measure was approved 52 to 48 percent.

"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."

Yeah, makes sense. It's not as if there were any advertisements being run on the subjetc.

Obama: I didn't want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing with the Seances

When asked at today's press conference about whether or not he had met with recent Presidents, Obama clarified that he had met with the living ones. And then delivered the above line to laughs from the press corps.

Classy. Good to see Obama is already showing that spirit of bi-partisanship he's so famous for. He takes his first press conference as President Elect to attack the wife of the most widely-loved President of the last half-century? Is this appropriate? Is this a sign of a man who is intent on working with the other side to repair the divide in America? Forgive me if I don't see it that way. 

I wrote the headline before I had the exact wording, here it is:

"I have spoken to all of them who are living," he says. "I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances."

Are we Still Allowed to Fire Public School Teachers? If so, this one Needs a Pink Slip

And a headslap. Totally disgusting indoctrination to follow:

"Here we have an Obama zealot teaching schoolchildren about the election, asking them which candidate they support. The Obama kids get the sweetness and love and affirmation that yes, indeed The Lightworker will cure the world’s ills. When a girl, whose father is deployed in Iraq says she’s for McCain, the teacher says that McCain will make her daddy stay in Iraq for 100 years to fight that “senseless” war. Check out the look on the girl’s face."

Video at the Patriot Room

A Quick Note on What I'm Doing Now

You may have noticed I haven't been posting a lot since the election. In which case you may be wondering what the hell is wrong with me.

I assure you that I am in the process of redoubling my efforts to help expand the reach of conservative thought to another level. I will continue with business as usual here shortly, but I am currently engaged in planning and organizing a new effort which will include a larger forum for my views and for those of you, especially bloggers, who share the core beliefs of conservatism.

And no, that new forum will not impact anything here going forward. At least not in the forseeable future.

News to follow at some point in the near future.

UPDATE: Plans are still in motion and going forward quickly, but I should be back to posting regularly again starting Monday.

On a totally unrelated and totally out of the blue note - for anyone who has seen "Two for the Money," I am now on my way to becoming a John Anthony in my spare time. Must be this 20-4 run I'm on in the NFL against the spread at www.smartplays.net, but somebody thinks I'm a future star. (It certainly isn't my college football results this year.) Maybe this will be the opportunity that will allow me to do this full time someday. (Because it certainly isn't happening because of you guys clicking ads. Ahem.)

It is now Acceptable to Mock Obama Supporters, but What of The One Himself

This is pretty good from the Onion. The question remains open whether or not mainstream humorists will ever find anything amusing about the President Elect himself:

Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are