Conservatives have taken huge lumps this week. Ironically, the losers were actually moderates that can't command a conservative base. They can't convince a rudderless center. Apparently, their right-wing friends are scaring off liberals that would vote for them otherwise. Its time for re-organization. 

Article 1:  Every member of the McCain-Palin campaign that refuses to repudiate the gossip and gossips that are attempting to smear Sarah Palin post McCain's collosal defeat is presumed guilty until they take a side. Rick Davis' tepid response on FoxNews yesterday is not sufficient. McCain's silence is indication that he doesn't understand his own culpability. Karl Rove's protoge Steve Schmidt is quiet. Lindsey Graham hasn't weighed in. These people are losers. They want to protect their own career and credibility by ducking responsibility for running such a horrible campaign. Sarah Palin was the only bright spot in a campaign that lacked charisma, conviction, and compelling message. The rejected messenger was John McCain. Sarah Palin has a future, but, that future would not likely include the sniveling weasels spouting the malicious and petty gossip from the back (or front) bench. And it shouldn't. Let's get this battle over with.  Tell us who's side you are on.  Don't trust anyone that's silent again.

 

Article 2: Quick, name Republican Presidential losers since 1976.  Gerald Ford, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain.  Notice any similarities?  They were all somewhere between disagreement and disinterest when it came to advocating sound tax and spend policy.  "VooDoo Economics", "Whip Inflation Now", "The Bush Tax Cuts disproportionately favor the Wealthy".  Ring a bell?  I'm more concerned with the second commonalitiy.  Bush 1 ruined the career of Dan Quayle.  Dole ruined the career of Jack Kemp.  These people pacified us by picking true conservative running mates. They were incapable of defending these valiant warriors because they never understood, let alone believed in the ideology of private enterprise and other conservative agenda issues. Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it. Liberals and Republican moderates would like nothing better than to pin the responsibility for the debacle known as the 2008 Republican Campaign on Ms. Palin. We cannot let it happen.

 

Article 3:  The target year is 2010, not 2012.  It is immediately incumbent on conservative leaders to define a consensus platform to rally Americans in the tradition of the Contract with America.  The infrastructure for this campaign is available via the Newt Gingrich led American Solutions organization.  Many are suggesting Newt Gingrich for 2012.  No problem with that, but, personally, I don't think that is his best potential contribution. Next to the election of Ronald Reagan, the conservative sweep in 1994 via the Contract with America was the most important political event in modern conservative history.  House Republicans governed more effectively during the Clinton years than they did during the Bush (GW) years.  Go Figure.  This is my humble attempt at a bold strategy to earn again the votes of a right leaning nation.

 

Gingrich needs to convince key leaders to unite under the banner of American Solutions. He should promise not to run for President, as an enticement to bring them together.  These leaders would work together to build a bold agenda for 2010.  This agenda would include major policy shifts in Energy, Taxes/Economics, Foreign/Military, Social Concerns, and more.  The agenda should not compromise any person's conviction, but the goal should be policy choices that would garner solid popular majority support, if the American People could listen to a fair debate.  Does anyone disagree that there is a consensus conservative policy prescription available in every one of these issues, if only it were advocated and articulated by someone that understood and believed?  The dangers are over-reaching and lack of conviction.  Once the new agenda is unwrapped, American Solutions would provide a Speaker's Bureau" of sorts to campaign for this agenda in House races across the country. 

 

Who are the key leaders?  Sarah Palin should be front and center on Energy.  Mike Huckabee should be at the forefront on Social Issues. Mitt Romney provides credibility and a compelling defense of free market policy.  Tommy Franks would be an amazing team member.  Rudy Guiliani is a great asset in the area of crime policy and judicial issues. Let Bobby Jindal campaign for major reforms of government operations.  Paul Ryan won a district in Wisconsin with 64% of the vote that was carried handily by Obama.  He must be a part of our new leadership campaign.  Any of these persons (and others) could choose to join the fray to replace Obama in 2012, but not before November of 2010. 

 

We must not be hijacked by policies that will never be implimented, be it immigration, abortion, flat tax, fair tax, etc.  There are many great people and ideas to be considered by leaders of various sub-movements.  But, they must be effective in convincing far more Americans of the worth of their ideas before they should be granted planks in a national platform. This new platform must emphasize deliverables. If elected in a majority, those elected must deliver.  Wouldn't that be something?

We have been here before. My first vote was for Gerald Ford in 1976 after the collective Republican wisdom selected the honorable, but uninspiring Ford over Ronald Reagan. By 1980, the miserable failure of 20 years of moderate to liberal policies entrenched by presidents, congress, and courts allowed Americans to vote for President Reagan. Rational monetary and regulatory policy combined with substantial tax cuts led to 20 years of remarkable economic growth. The Reagan revolution began to roll back, probably in 1986. President Bush (41) never understood conservative ideology and campaigned in 1988 as the moderate he was. "Read my lips, No new taxes" was a cool line, but, in our hearts, we knew he neither believed nor understood the principle he espoused. He was no more Ronald Reagan than Clint Eastwood. Hence his shock at the reaction politically, and economic to his moderate policies and hiked taxes. He was thrown out (with help from Perot) in 1992.  Clinton continued the moderation of the Reagan revolution. Moderate hikes of taxes were passed on the wealthy. Positive reform of trade (NAFTA) and welfare. Most of all, we benefitted from divided government in the 90's. Gridlock may be the best alternative to conservative governance.

 

The GWBush years will mark the end of the Reagan revolution. I believe this to be true no matter the victor on Tuesday. Certainly an Obama administration would place an exclamation mark on its demise. But, there is little chance of revival under a McCain presidency.  I wonder if the Reagan Revolution ended on 9/11.  Bush (41) and Clinton squandered the "Peace Dividend", while dismantling our intelligence and military capacity. A quick victory in Afghanistan led us all to believe that we might destroy the terrorist regimes sequentially, and we might have disposed of  Iran, Syria, and North Korea by now. GWB has been forced to trade everything (including his legacy) to salvage victory in Iraq. We complain about the big spending under his watch, and we should. But, deals were made throughout the last 8 years for votes that prevented the ultimate and tragic defeat of the US in Iraq. These deals cost money. Our money. We funded how many metaphorical bridges to nowhere for a few votes funding our troops. Imagine Bush vetoing the earmark laden funding bills for our troops. Democrats (and Republicans) were not about to allow Bush to have "his" war without them getting their precious programs.

 

We were told that moderates would only support a moderate Republican.  Would that be moderates like Colin Powell or William Weld? Frankly, I think that Powell and Weld would have preferred establishment Republicans like Frank Murkowski or Ted Stevens to be McCain's VP pick.  Conservatives will be in their most marginalized position, perhaps since 1964 after Tuesday. Let's hope that it doesn't take 16 years to produce the leadership necessary to restore the positive freedom agenda. We have an electorate that has now been educated to the notion that they can democratically aggrandize themselves by confiscation of income from those with more. When close to half of Americans only participate on the receiving end of the Federal Treasury, there is little hope for economic freedom.  I don't believe we have 16 years.  Do we have 2?

It is fair to say that 40% of Americans will vote for John McCain no matter how lackluster his campaign or personality. I am one of these. 45% of Americans will vote for Obama no matter how thin the resume, how radical the history, how partisan the record. In fact, this is the rub. They will vote for Obama because of his partisan record.  In fairness, some of us on the right wish that our candidate were half as partisan on our side. He (McCain) was not and is not.

 

This brings us to the inexplicable 15% of voters in the middle. I do not wish to offend them.  But suffice it to say that its difficult to comprehend the difficulty of making a choice between these candidates.  But, we always tend to view choices through our own prisms. We are told that millions of Americans long for a bi-partisan or non-partisan approach to solving American problems. In near desperate attempts, both candidates attempt to sway this fickle 15% with their commitment to the evasive "middle". 

 

Barack Obama would like you to believe that he is a hybrid concoction of JFK, Reagan, and Bill Clinton. His record is much more LBJ (Great Society), George McGovern, and Jesse Jackson.  Rank and file democrats are content with his rightward push prior to the election, because they are comfortable that he will govern in a manner consistent with his left edge record.  Conservatives, on the other hand, have no such illusions with Senator McCain. He would govern in a bi-partisan manner, to the consternation (but not surprise) of conservatives everywhere. 

 

At the end of the day, most conservatives will vote for McCain because we believe compromise with Democrats is superior to domination by socialists.  If a moderate voter ever had a candidate that fit the mold, it has to be John McCain.  Many of us on the conservative side have long believed that moderates were really democrats that thought moderate sounded more intelligent (funny thing, it does).  The 2008 election may prove it once and for all. 

The patrons of Barack Obama's rise to power include Tony Rezco, Jeremiah Wright, and Bill Ayers. Senator Obama is the 2nd leading recipient of campaign contributions from failed Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Corrupt executives from Mae and Mac, Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson, have served as prominent economic advisors to Obama in his campaign.  I'd be willing to listen to any evidence that any element of the 3 previous statements are untrue.  I have only heard that they don't matter. A man I admire once said, "Never ascribe to conspiracy that which can adequately be ascribed to ignorance".  Perhaps we shouldn't ascribe to character, that which can be ascribed to judgment. These revelations have been fully explored by the "mainstream media" and we have been assured they don't matter.  I say, says who and why not?

 

We've been down this path before.  We knew that Clinton had weak character in his personal marital fidelity. We knew that his financial dealings were questionable.  We were told that it didn't matter. A plurality of Americans agreed, and he was elected twice (though never with a majority of votes).  I suspect that people in McCain's campaign are reminding themselves of the historical irrelevance of character.

 

Character does matter.  It matters to conservatives.  Note that I use the word conservative and not Republican.  Our opponents know that it matters to us. They effectively used it to out Jack Ryan in Obama's Senate race.  Personal failures have not destroyed a Democrat politician since 1984 )Gary Hart quit the Presidential race in 1984 due to his philandering). This was before Democrats learned that it didn't matter.  Think of Barney Frank and the male prostitution ring. Mark Foley's transgressions were quite similar to Bill Clinton's. The major difference was that Foley was homosexual (since it turned out that the relationship was with a person of consenting age). When Governor Palin saw corruption (character deficiencies) in her party leadership in Alaska, she did not blindly follow. She challenged them and won. There are 2 issues where John McCain shares broad conservative support. They are commitment to victory in Iraq and commitment to reform in government. 

 

At this point, it appears that many Republicans and Independents are likely to join with the left to support Obama out of disdain for Bush. Obama cannot be elected without their support.  I am deeply saddened that a plurality of Americans accept my first paragraph as fact, yet see these issues as irrelevant. 51% of Americans are likely to say that Jeremiah Wright's screeds didn't influence Barack Obama.  51% of Americans are likely to say that Tony Rezko's corruption really didn't impact Barack Obama's rise to power.  51% of Americans are likely to say that Bill Ayers' blessing of Obama's fledgling political career is meaningless.  We must be arguing a moral framework where no moral framework exists.

 

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Henry Paulson are the sponsors of the solution.  Republicans were able to negotiate some substantial improvements to the bill. They were able to reject some poisonous aspects (like an earmark for ACORN).  But, they are not in charge. Democrats could write a bill that only Democrats would support, and it would be rejected by Paulson (then Bush). The lack of a bill would result in the failure of more local and regional banks, and spiral into the micro-economy.  Town Hall has a survey with 3 options.  Last I looked, 58% said "No Deal, No Way".  That's 58% of the right-leaning following of Town Hall.  Its fair to say that a super-majority in America believes that a poor deal is superior to no deal.  It is not my intent to convince anyone that a deal must be done, or the non-negotiable elements of an acceptable deal. You can only demand non-negotiable elements if you are in power.

 

If you don't like the bill (whether you are for its passage or against it) then its important that you understand why you dislike it.  The left opposes this bill (95 House Democrats and 10 or 12 Democrat Senators) because the bill restricts government too much. The right is unhappy because it restricts capitalism too much. Nuance aside, this bill is passed in the middle and opposed on the right and the left. Does anyone believe that Barack Obama would support this bill (opposed by Russ Feingold, for example) were he not running for President. Does anyone believe that John McCain would not be a member of the "Gang of 14, 10, 12, or whatever" negotiating a "Bi-Partisan" compromise?  This is the first time in Obama's Senate career that he has broken with the Left Wing of his party.  Its disingenuous to suggest that this is not due to his campaign.

 

Ask yourself why you dislike the bill.  Elections have consequences. Vote for Obama if you wish the bill went further in its encroachment on capitalism. Vote for McCain if you wish it did not. We are stuck with a bad bill because we lack the power to pass anything better. You may be angry at your Republican Congressman or Senator for voting for this bill. But be careful that you are not voting for an opponent that only opposes this legislation because it is not socialist enough. 

 

Conservatives can abdicate the government to liberals, and it seems that many are willing to do so, in a bizarre scheme to educate America on the damage of unadulterated liberalism. John McCain is the elected leader of the Center-Right coalition known as the Republican Party that is vying for the responsibility to occupy the office of President. This bill is barely representative of the direction that a left of center tri-fecta (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) would impose if elected.

 

I'm not suggesting that McCain is an ideal choice to lead our coalition.  I'm suggesting that we've had that debate, and we lost. We can pack up our toys and go home.  I am aggressively challenging this mindset whenever I hear it. This is our country too. We will not be marginalized. This is only a choice between whether Obama or McCain is better to lead this country for the next 4 years. Its not a hard question. Obama is the wrong answer. Silence, indifference, indecision, and hand wringing are wrong answers. None of the above is not on the test. Elections have consequences, and McCain is the only right answer.

It appears that we, as a country, may have maxed our credit limit. We have purchased more than we produced for too many years. Trade deficits aren't that dangerous. It makes sense that wealthier entities, be they nations or individuals, purchase more than poor ones. But, our wealth is dependent on our production. We can't buy $14 Trillion in goods, service, government, and bailouts on $13 Trillion in GDP without credit.  And, we may be becoming a credit risk.  All this, while a $25 Trillion dollar asset lays beneath our feet.

 

For those that long for a pure green economy, I submit that it will only occur with a robust, growing economy. A poor brown economy will never achieve the goals of the environmentalist movement. The U.S. is voluntarily refusing approximately $500 Billion in annual GDP in a time of financial market crisis. It is time to quit looking at the drill debate as simply an environmental vs energy independence debate. This is an economic growth issue.  Most of the oil that we place off limits is on public lands (or waters). This means that it doesn't belong to the oil companies or Jed Clampett.  It belongs to tax payers. The state of Alaska processes oil in this manner. The oil companies buy the oil from the state. I ask you, would Jed Clampett refuse to sell his oil, due to environmental concerns?  If you discovered crude, while shooting for some food, would you refuse to sell? 

 

The U.S. normally purchases products and services from other countries that can be produced more efficiently by their economies, while producing products and services in our own economy that create the best jobs and wealth. Information, technology, entertainment, aircraft, etc., are examples of highly competitive products produced profitably in the USA.  Pants, socks, tennis shoes, etc., are examples of products produced more efficiently overseas. Oil is a product that we purchase from foreign govenments in large part, because we refuse to produce it here at home.  We don't refuse to produce it because it is un-profitable to produce it, or because they are better able to produce it over there.  We refuse production in the belief that oil that is not produced will never burn. I would submit that the amount of oil that the world will use, will generally match the amount the world wants. Price shocks will slow its usage temporarily. But, the growing economies in the third world will demand oil for a minimum of 50 years, regardless of energy choices in the USA.

 

Russia is already using oil as a tool of economic blackmail. Iran is protected from serious challenge for fear of losing its oil production. Venezuela is tampering in other nations affairs with impunity. On the other hand, the US is importing 75% of its oil.  Our import requirements deepen poverty in our own country, but, it also strengthens the influence of several governments that clearly wish us ill.

 

Our government should send a clear signal to energy producers that US oil (and Natural Gas) is for sale. The cost of production belongs to the producer. The un-refined oil will be purchased from the U.S. Treasury (read us, as in taxpayers). While I am skeptical regarding Government planning, I'm sure that some of the revenue from this production can be turned toward investment in infrastructure for alternatives.  As the US evolves its energy source distribution, more and more of US oil will be exported.  GDP would eventually be impacted by 5% or more. The trade deficit would vanish. That is until the US was clearly the more wealthy nation again, and we would use our wealth to buy more from our neighbors than they were capable of buying from us.

 

Think of it this way. The US could produce $500 Billion in oil product every year for 50 years. The world (somewhere) will buy it. The fact that we held it so long, may actually be a benefit, because, as other countries run out, we will still be producing.  We are talking about $25Trillion in un-realized GDP.  We are Jed Clampett, but, we would rather live in our country shack than Beverly Hills. You know, that's not a great metaphor. I'd rather live in a country shack than Beverly Hills, but, hopefully, you get my point.

 

50 years from now, the world will be largely weaned from fossil fuels. The oil beneath our feet will be as valueless as a Confederate greenback.  Do we really want to squander this asset?

     After the Democrat National Convention, Obama rose to a highwatermark of +8%.  McCain hit a highwatermark of +5% after the RNC. To attribute this to Sarah Palin probably only accounts for a portion of the reason.  Like many Republican pols, I listen to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. I supported GWB in 2000 and 2004.  I even have a personally autographed copy of "Godless" by Ann Coulter.  I was aggravated by McCain's opposition to Bush's tax cuts. I believe that McCain-Feingold is constitutionally questionable infringement on free speech. McCain, Bush, Obama, and Biden's approach to immigration reform cheapens American citizenship, while raising its cost. Over the last 8 years, McCain has come to my attention far more often for opposing policies I support, or supporting policies I oppose. Hey, I even liked Don Rumsfeld.  I have to admit that I have yet to feel embarrassed by Gitmo or Abu Ghraib.  Once a fractured Republican Party determined McCain to be the standard bearer, I determined that I would vote for McCain in November (if I wasn't inconvenient). There was no way I could vote for Obama or Clinton. It was kind of like a choice between Socialism and socialism.

 

     On most of the above policy positions, we continue to disagree.  I have found some grounds for agreement with Senator McCain.  McCain was right (and I was wrong about Rumsfeld and the Surge).  I support victory in the War on Terror.  (You know, after reading that sentence, I'm asking if that is a fair statement. Perhaps another blog later, but, I just don't believe that Obama's pronouncements during the War demonstrate support for victory.) I support reform of the earmark process in Congress.  I believe tax policy should be based on efficiency (vs fairness, and perhaps a topic for a later rambling).  I am not in favor of increasing progressivity for the purpose of weath re-distribution.  But, the balance of agreements and disagreements compared to the Obama ticket earned a pull of the lever for McCain and little else.

 

     Enter Sarah Palin. I'd heard of her, but, I was hoping he would pick Romney.  The truth is, I was just hoping he wouldn't pick Lieberman.  When I heard her introduction and and premiere, I started to pay attention.  She made me listen to McCain.  Her acceptance speech on Wednesday night of the RNC was viewed by even more people than Obama's.  I was part of that increase, in that I couldn't bring myself to watch the Obama speech, but could not miss the Palin acceptance.  We know now that even more people tuned into McCain's speech on Thursday, than tuned in for Palin or Obama.  McCain's audience was due to Palin.

 

     My opinion is that Palin caused millions of dis-affected Republicans (like myself), Democrats, and Independents to tune in to his speech. What they saw was an authentic American hero.  We heard a political philosophy based on personal responsibility. They heard a candidate whose head was not in the sand regarding economic problems, but wasn't advocating more taxes and spending to solve problems that taxes and spending have never solved. They were drawn to his personal story. On the Republican side, we are fed up with corrupt Republicans. We throw them under the bus as soon as we find them. Consider Mark Foley, Larry Craig, Ted Stevens, Frank Murkowski, etc. We aren't in favor of digging up dirt, but, we never defend the indefensible (a'la William Jefferson, Bill Clinton, Charles Rangel, etc.).  McCain chose Palin to reinforce his image of challenge to the status quo.  I, for one, met a McCain that I had previously ignored, due to policy disagreements. Sarah Palin caused me to tune in.  I like and admire this candidate for President. John McCain earned my enthusiasm. I suspect it is true for millions of others.